Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Alt_Naval IJN Fleet Data

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> Alt_Naval IJN Fleet Data Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Alt_Naval IJN Fleet Data - 10/6/2010 4:17:27 AM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline
I forget who, but there was someone who asked a while back if I had any of the data from the (now lost) Alt_Naval website to share.

At the time I unfortunately did not. HOWEVER, I just received a zip file yesterday from the creator of the site himself with all his data stored in it. I'm currently negotiating with the gentleman to allow me to release this data to others. I'm hoping he will say "yes". If that is the case I will be glad to share data from the original Alt_naval site with anyone who requests it (assuming others out there don't already have it).

Personally I am excited. Alt_Naval was a high quality alternative history site and his Japanese fleet, though built with plenty of hindsight, was well thought out and materially plausible. It wasn't just a hodgepodge of "what-if" dream ships thrown together, rather it was a full building program including auxiliaries and escorts all designed to play their role in a coming Pacific War.

< Message edited by Gary Childress -- 10/6/2010 4:18:34 AM >


_____________________________

Post #: 1
RE: Alt_Naval IJN Fleet Data - 10/6/2010 5:28:34 AM   
PAWMatrix

 

Posts: 114
Joined: 9/1/2008
From: Australia (ex-USA)
Status: offline
Sir,

Count me in if it becomes available.  I am very keen on seeing this kind of work as I am doing an Alternate myself for War Plan Orange.

Thx!

PAW

(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 2
RE: Alt_Naval IJN Fleet Data - 10/7/2010 8:05:41 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
I'm interested in seeing this.

(in reply to PAWMatrix)
Post #: 3
RE: Alt_Naval IJN Fleet Data - 10/7/2010 8:17:33 AM   
Venividivici10044


Posts: 137
Joined: 8/29/2009
Status: offline
Certainly interested - sounds fascinating


_____________________________

I play and post for fun...nothing stated ever carries with it the thought to irritate. If something does...privately PM and I will review.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 4
RE: Alt_Naval IJN Fleet Data - 10/7/2010 8:47:10 AM   
gajdacs zsolt

 

Posts: 113
Joined: 9/16/2009
Status: offline
Count me in :)

(in reply to Venividivici10044)
Post #: 5
RE: Alt_Naval IJN Fleet Data - 10/12/2010 12:56:52 AM   
topeverest


Posts: 3376
Joined: 10/17/2007
From: Houston, TX - USA
Status: offline
Gary,

I'd be interested too.


_____________________________

Andy M

(in reply to gajdacs zsolt)
Post #: 6
RE: Alt_Naval IJN Fleet Data - 10/12/2010 1:14:23 AM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: topeverest

Gary,

I'd be interested too.



Well, I still haven't gotten a reply from the alt_naval site's creator regarding permission to release the stuff to others (it's been a couple weeks now since I emailed him). I'm just going to assume that he doesn't mind if I distribute his work to others. I'm sure he would have said something quicker if he did. I don't see why he would, so long as people give him proper credit in their mods.

If anyone wants his data, PM me with your e-mail address and I'll e-mail it to you. The file is about 2 MBs. A couple rules though. In your mods just acknowledge that the fleet data is from the alt_naval website, give credit where credit is due.

_____________________________


(in reply to topeverest)
Post #: 7
RE: Alt_Naval IJN Fleet Data - 10/14/2010 5:45:54 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Bring it! That was a very useful and well done site when it was operational.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 8
RE: Alt_Naval IJN Fleet Data - 10/14/2010 11:44:29 AM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline
Hi John 3rd, If you'd like a copy of the data just PM me your e-mail.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 9
RE: Alt_Naval IJN Fleet Data - 10/17/2010 3:22:13 AM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline
Here's a single pic representing the building queue for the Alt_Naval fleet as presented on his website. There is some conflicting info here regarding ship building capacity compared to JWE's chart. Not sure which is correct but I'm guessing JWE put a lot of research into his chart so Alt_Naval may be a little overly optimistic.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 10
RE: Alt_Naval IJN Fleet Data - 10/17/2010 4:09:44 AM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
Didn't the Alt_Naval assume the enlargement of the major launching slips and fitting docks though? At least I seem to remember that from browsing the site before it went down.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 11
RE: Alt_Naval IJN Fleet Data - 10/17/2010 7:57:22 AM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Didn't the Alt_Naval assume the enlargement of the major launching slips and fitting docks though? At least I seem to remember that from browsing the site before it went down.


Not sure, I'll have to go back over his site.

Meanwhile I've set up my own building queue for the major IJN shipyards which I think should be able to produce the Alt_Naval fleet in ample time. Basically, using JWEs chart of shipbuilding capacity, I've come up with the following building plan:

Up until the Japanese withdraw from all the naval treaties, we have most of the major shipyards pumping out "shadow carriers". These are large tenders and auxiliaries (AVs, ARs, and ASs) designed optimally to be easily converted into CVLs. They basically side step treaty limitations of the early 30s so that the slips are still being utilized. Then around 1936 the dam breaks loose and the big boys start to get cranked, CVs and BBs. The larger shipyards are producing CVs and BBs by 1936 while the smaller ship yards continue with the shadow carriers and CAs. I'm going to assume that Kairyu class CVs and Harima class BBs are not going to be able to be built in the #2 slips.

I've taken the liberty of forgoing the building of APDs for the IJN which are part of the Alt_Naval building plan. I don't think they really need them so most of the later auxiliaries in the building queue are going to be build form the keel up as CVLs from the get go.

Pretty much any ship which hasn't been completed by the later stages of 1940 can be considered as not being available on December 7, 1941. So, I'm drawing the line at CV Koryu. Any ship completed after her is going to miss Pearl Harbor. Also ships being laid down in 1943 probably won't make it into the fleet before the war ends. So effectively the last two ships to be deployed will probably be CV Tairyu and AR Shijiki. Both are completed in the first month of 1944. But if Japan does linger, there will be a couple more ships in the making for deployment in 1946 or beyond.

Grand total the building queues of the major yards from 1932 forward hold the following new builds:

22 "Shadow" CVLs
17 CVs
2 BBs
8 CAs

Also one more note. Yokosuka NSY #2, according to JWEs research, was expanded from 175m to 275m between 1936 and May 1942. During this time no ships appear to have been laid down historically. In my alternative universe conversion of the slip will take place in 1932 and extend only 3 and 1/2 years, in which time the slip will be increased from 175m to a more modest 210m. The yard begins construction again in 1935. This will make the slip large enough to accomodate my shadow carriers and a Kurama class CA in late 1938. Since 175m is not much bigger than a light cruiser slip I'll assume that it won't hurt production much to remove the slip from operation for a few years, especially since the majority of those years will be during the freeze on new warships brough about by the London treaty.

Below is a chart depicting the Japanese building program of Admiral Gary.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Gary Childress -- 10/17/2010 8:08:44 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 12
RE: Alt_Naval IJN Fleet Data - 10/17/2010 8:19:50 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
An aspect of Alt_Naval's building program that I enjoy is the "Shadow Destroyer" scheme. The idea that the IJN, instead of building the useless 600-ton torpedo boats that the London treaty allows, builds 2000-ton gunboats that are designed to be uprated to fleet destroyers is a very good one, and far more useful than the "Shadow Carrier" program, which the country lacks the infrastructure to support.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 13
RE: Alt_Naval IJN Fleet Data - 10/17/2010 10:37:49 AM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline
There isn't much detail on the building program for the escorts and light cruisers. This is the best I could come up with. It's full of holes though. It looks to me like the Alt_naval DD and CL plans under-estimate the potential of the building yards according to JWE's findings.

Basically I have the CLs utilizing 150m slips and the DDs utilizing the 125m slips. Alt_Naval puts a hold on destroyer and CL production until 1936, however, even after the break the slips appear under-utilized. I would go ahead and fill the building queues up with as much as I could fit but I don't want to presume too much. The Matsu and Tachibana classes are not mentioned as far as I can tell on Alt_Naval but it seems logical that they should start up around close to their historical building dates. They were decent anti-sub ships and the Japanese need plenty of those in '44.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 14
RE: Alt_Naval IJN Fleet Data - 10/17/2010 3:35:42 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
Thought you might like a list of construction yards that provided ships to the IJN during the war period. No warranty about the pre-war period. Only the NSYs and civilian yards in bold built warships from DDs on up (assumes Matsu was a DD). The rest built the little things (Es, SCs, auxPBs, etc ..). Civilian yards also had to build large numbers of replacement cargo and tanker vessels.

Naval Shipyards
Kure Naval Yard: Kure: Ways - 1 @ 300m, 1 @ 225m, [1 @ 175m, 2 @ 150m]; alt 5 @ 125m, longitudinal construction.
Yokosuka Naval Yard: Yokosuka : Ways – 1 @ 300m, 1 @ 200m, 2 @ 175m, 2 @ 150m.
Sasebo Naval Yard: Sasebo: Ways – 1 @ 200m, 1 @ 175m, 3 @ 150m.
Maizuru Naval Yard: Maizuru: Ways – 1 @ 150m, 4 @ 125m.

Civilian Shipyards
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries: Nagasaki: Ways - 1 @ 275*m, 1 @ 225m, 2 @ 150m, 4 @ 125m.
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries: Kobe: Ways - 1 @ 150m, 2 @ 125m, 3 @ 100m.
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries: Yokohama: Ways - 1 @ 200m, 1 @ 150m, 2 @ 100m.
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries: Shimonoseki: Ways - 1 @ 150m, 2 @ 100m

Kawasaki Shipbuilding: Kobe: Ways - 1 @ 250m, 2 @ 150m, 3 @ 100m.
Kawasaki Shipbuilding: Tanagawa: Ways - 3 @ 100m
Kawasaki Shipbuilding: Senshu: Ways - 3 @ 125m

Hitachi Shipbuilding: Sakurajima: Ways – 2 @ 125m
Hitachi Shipbuilding: Mukojima: Ways – 2 @ 100m.
Hitachi Shipbuilding: Innoshima: Ways – 1 @ 100m, 2 @ 75m.
Hitachi Shipbuilding: Hikoshima: Ways – 1 @ 100m, 2 @ 75m.

Kawaminami HI: Koyagi: Ways – 1 @ 125m. 1 @ 100m, 2 @ 75m
Kawaminami HI: Urasaki: Ways – 1 @ 125m. 1 @ 100m.

Uraga Dockyards: Uraga/Tokyo: Ways - 1 @ 150m, 2 @ 125m, 2 @ 100m.
Fujinagata Shipbuilding: Sakai/Osaka: Ways – 3 @ 125m
.

Tokyo Shipbuilding: Ishikawa: Ways - 3 @ 125m.
Mitsui Shipbuilding: Tamano: Ways – 3 @ 125m.
Harima Shipbuilding: Harima: Ways – 1 @ 125m, 1 @ 100m, 1 @ 75m.
Nippon Koukan: Tsurumi: Ways – 1 @ 125m. 2 @ 75m
Osaka Shipbuilding: Osaka: Ways – 1 @ 125m, 1 @ 75m
Niigata Iron Factory: Niigata: Ways – 1 @ 125m, 2 @ 75m
Naniwa Dock: Osaka: Ways – 1 @ 100m, 1 @ 75m
Hakodate Dock: Hakodate: Ways – 1 @ 100m, 1 @ 75m


_____________________________


(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 15
RE: Alt_Naval IJN Fleet Data - 10/17/2010 3:42:35 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
The Japanese also had access to facilities at Port Arthur/Dairen and on Formosa that could be utilized for small combatant construction.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 16
RE: Alt_Naval IJN Fleet Data - 10/17/2010 5:22:44 PM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Thought you might like a list of construction yards that provided ships to the IJN during the war period. No warranty about the pre-war period. Only the NSYs and civilian yards in bold built warships from DDs on up (assumes Matsu was a DD). The rest built the little things (Es, SCs, auxPBs, etc ..). Civilian yards also had to build large numbers of replacement cargo and tanker vessels.

Naval Shipyards
Kure Naval Yard: Kure: Ways - 1 @ 300m, 1 @ 225m, [1 @ 175m, 2 @ 150m]; alt 5 @ 125m, longitudinal construction.
Yokosuka Naval Yard: Yokosuka : Ways – 1 @ 300m, 1 @ 200m, 2 @ 175m, 2 @ 150m.
Sasebo Naval Yard: Sasebo: Ways – 1 @ 200m, 1 @ 175m, 3 @ 150m.
Maizuru Naval Yard: Maizuru: Ways – 1 @ 150m, 4 @ 125m.

Civilian Shipyards
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries: Nagasaki: Ways - 1 @ 275*m, 1 @ 225m, 2 @ 150m, 4 @ 125m.
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries: Kobe: Ways - 1 @ 150m, 2 @ 125m, 3 @ 100m.
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries: Yokohama: Ways - 1 @ 200m, 1 @ 150m, 2 @ 100m.
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries: Shimonoseki: Ways - 1 @ 150m, 2 @ 100m

Kawasaki Shipbuilding: Kobe: Ways - 1 @ 250m, 2 @ 150m, 3 @ 100m.
Kawasaki Shipbuilding: Tanagawa: Ways - 3 @ 100m
Kawasaki Shipbuilding: Senshu: Ways - 3 @ 125m

Hitachi Shipbuilding: Sakurajima: Ways – 2 @ 125m
Hitachi Shipbuilding: Mukojima: Ways – 2 @ 100m.
Hitachi Shipbuilding: Innoshima: Ways – 1 @ 100m, 2 @ 75m.
Hitachi Shipbuilding: Hikoshima: Ways – 1 @ 100m, 2 @ 75m.

Kawaminami HI: Koyagi: Ways – 1 @ 125m. 1 @ 100m, 2 @ 75m
Kawaminami HI: Urasaki: Ways – 1 @ 125m. 1 @ 100m.

Uraga Dockyards: Uraga/Tokyo: Ways - 1 @ 150m, 2 @ 125m, 2 @ 100m.
Fujinagata Shipbuilding: Sakai/Osaka: Ways – 3 @ 125m
.

Tokyo Shipbuilding: Ishikawa: Ways - 3 @ 125m.
Mitsui Shipbuilding: Tamano: Ways – 3 @ 125m.
Harima Shipbuilding: Harima: Ways – 1 @ 125m, 1 @ 100m, 1 @ 75m.
Nippon Koukan: Tsurumi: Ways – 1 @ 125m. 2 @ 75m
Osaka Shipbuilding: Osaka: Ways – 1 @ 125m, 1 @ 75m
Niigata Iron Factory: Niigata: Ways – 1 @ 125m, 2 @ 75m
Naniwa Dock: Osaka: Ways – 1 @ 100m, 1 @ 75m
Hakodate Dock: Hakodate: Ways – 1 @ 100m, 1 @ 75m



Many thanks Shark7! Where is everyone getting all this shipbuilding data from? I'd like to have a peek at the source too. Especially I'd love to see a graphical rundown of the historical building program of the IJN, what ships were built in what slips when... Is there anything out there like that?

EDIT: Sorry JWE, I just realized I was thinking Shark7 had presented the data. Thank you for all your help!

< Message edited by Gary Childress -- 10/19/2010 2:09:06 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 17
RE: Alt_Naval IJN Fleet Data - 10/17/2010 5:31:58 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
I seem to remember that JWE got this data directly from an academic source in Japan.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 18
RE: Alt_Naval IJN Fleet Data - 10/17/2010 5:35:21 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
http://astilleros1939.blogspot.com/search/label/Construccion%20Naval%20y%20Reparacion

Site is in Spanish, but running it through Yahoo Babelfish or Bing Translate will put it in English fairly accurately. It has quite a bit of info on the slips, drydocks, and facilities for all the Major and most of the Minor countries for 1939.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 19
RE: Alt_Naval IJN Fleet Data - 10/17/2010 7:35:44 PM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

http://astilleros1939.blogspot.com/search/label/Construccion%20Naval%20y%20Reparacion

Site is in Spanish, but running it through Yahoo Babelfish or Bing Translate will put it in English fairly accurately. It has quite a bit of info on the slips, drydocks, and facilities for all the Major and most of the Minor countries for 1939.


Many thanks Shark7. I ran it through Babelfish but I don't see where it gives any detail of how long a ship was under construction or how many slips a particular construction yard had nor what lengths the slips are. It just seems to give a list of yards and then a list of ships that were constructed by the yard and then a few minor details on each ship produced there. Am I missing something?

_____________________________


(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 20
RE: Alt_Naval IJN Fleet Data - 10/17/2010 9:24:25 PM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline
I'm spaniard, what do you need to translate ?

(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 21
RE: Alt_Naval IJN Fleet Data - 10/17/2010 10:25:41 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

http://astilleros1939.blogspot.com/search/label/Construccion%20Naval%20y%20Reparacion

Site is in Spanish, but running it through Yahoo Babelfish or Bing Translate will put it in English fairly accurately. It has quite a bit of info on the slips, drydocks, and facilities for all the Major and most of the Minor countries for 1939.


Many thanks Shark7. I ran it through Babelfish but I don't see where it gives any detail of how long a ship was under construction or how many slips a particular construction yard had nor what lengths the slips are. It just seems to give a list of yards and then a list of ships that were constructed by the yard and then a few minor details on each ship produced there. Am I missing something?


Doesn't give build times, just where slips and docks were available and (by seeing the size of ships built there) the general capabilities of the slips/docks.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 22
RE: Alt_Naval IJN Fleet Data - 10/17/2010 10:31:04 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Didn't the Alt_Naval assume the enlargement of the major launching slips and fitting docks though? At least I seem to remember that from browsing the site before it went down.


Not sure, I'll have to go back over his site.

Meanwhile I've set up my own building queue for the major IJN shipyards which I think should be able to produce the Alt_Naval fleet in ample time. Basically, using JWEs chart of shipbuilding capacity, I've come up with the following building plan:

Up until the Japanese withdraw from all the naval treaties, we have most of the major shipyards pumping out "shadow carriers". These are large tenders and auxiliaries (AVs, ARs, and ASs) designed optimally to be easily converted into CVLs. They basically side step treaty limitations of the early 30s so that the slips are still being utilized. Then around 1936 the dam breaks loose and the big boys start to get cranked, CVs and BBs. The larger shipyards are producing CVs and BBs by 1936 while the smaller ship yards continue with the shadow carriers and CAs. I'm going to assume that Kairyu class CVs and Harima class BBs are not going to be able to be built in the #2 slips.

I've taken the liberty of forgoing the building of APDs for the IJN which are part of the Alt_Naval building plan. I don't think they really need them so most of the later auxiliaries in the building queue are going to be build form the keel up as CVLs from the get go.

Pretty much any ship which hasn't been completed by the later stages of 1940 can be considered as not being available on December 7, 1941. So, I'm drawing the line at CV Koryu. Any ship completed after her is going to miss Pearl Harbor. Also ships being laid down in 1943 probably won't make it into the fleet before the war ends. So effectively the last two ships to be deployed will probably be CV Tairyu and AR Shijiki. Both are completed in the first month of 1944. But if Japan does linger, there will be a couple more ships in the making for deployment in 1946 or beyond.

Grand total the building queues of the major yards from 1932 forward hold the following new builds:

22 "Shadow" CVLs
17 CVs
2 BBs
8 CAs

Also one more note. Yokosuka NSY #2, according to JWEs research, was expanded from 175m to 275m between 1936 and May 1942. During this time no ships appear to have been laid down historically. In my alternative universe conversion of the slip will take place in 1932 and extend only 3 and 1/2 years, in which time the slip will be increased from 175m to a more modest 210m. The yard begins construction again in 1935. This will make the slip large enough to accomodate my shadow carriers and a Kurama class CA in late 1938. Since 175m is not much bigger than a light cruiser slip I'll assume that it won't hurt production much to remove the slip from operation for a few years, especially since the majority of those years will be during the freeze on new warships brough about by the London treaty.

Below is a chart depicting the Japanese building program of Admiral Gary.





Only two years to build a battleship or an aircraft carrier, and the same for a heavy cruiser? I know the Harima and Inaba get their gun turrets "for free", but still?

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 23
RE: Alt_Naval IJN Fleet Data - 10/17/2010 10:41:55 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Speaking of which, where is the yard time for the reconstruction of the Ise, Hyuga, Fuso and Yamashiro? They all lose gun turrets and gain better machinery; not work you do tied up at a pier.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 24
RE: Alt_Naval IJN Fleet Data - 10/17/2010 10:49:05 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
As to the auxiliaries, Japan needs them very much. It sets out to adopt a forward defence strategy, along its national perimeter, the outer edges of which are hundreds and hundreds of miles away from any developed bases. Where is the fuel, ammunition and repair services for all those warships going to come from?

The "shadow carrier" program is a very bad idea.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 25
RE: Alt_Naval IJN Fleet Data - 10/18/2010 12:34:54 AM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Didn't the Alt_Naval assume the enlargement of the major launching slips and fitting docks though? At least I seem to remember that from browsing the site before it went down.


Not sure, I'll have to go back over his site.

Meanwhile I've set up my own building queue for the major IJN shipyards which I think should be able to produce the Alt_Naval fleet in ample time. Basically, using JWEs chart of shipbuilding capacity, I've come up with the following building plan:

Up until the Japanese withdraw from all the naval treaties, we have most of the major shipyards pumping out "shadow carriers". These are large tenders and auxiliaries (AVs, ARs, and ASs) designed optimally to be easily converted into CVLs. They basically side step treaty limitations of the early 30s so that the slips are still being utilized. Then around 1936 the dam breaks loose and the big boys start to get cranked, CVs and BBs. The larger shipyards are producing CVs and BBs by 1936 while the smaller ship yards continue with the shadow carriers and CAs. I'm going to assume that Kairyu class CVs and Harima class BBs are not going to be able to be built in the #2 slips.

I've taken the liberty of forgoing the building of APDs for the IJN which are part of the Alt_Naval building plan. I don't think they really need them so most of the later auxiliaries in the building queue are going to be build form the keel up as CVLs from the get go.

Pretty much any ship which hasn't been completed by the later stages of 1940 can be considered as not being available on December 7, 1941. So, I'm drawing the line at CV Koryu. Any ship completed after her is going to miss Pearl Harbor. Also ships being laid down in 1943 probably won't make it into the fleet before the war ends. So effectively the last two ships to be deployed will probably be CV Tairyu and AR Shijiki. Both are completed in the first month of 1944. But if Japan does linger, there will be a couple more ships in the making for deployment in 1946 or beyond.

Grand total the building queues of the major yards from 1932 forward hold the following new builds:

22 "Shadow" CVLs
17 CVs
2 BBs
8 CAs

Also one more note. Yokosuka NSY #2, according to JWEs research, was expanded from 175m to 275m between 1936 and May 1942. During this time no ships appear to have been laid down historically. In my alternative universe conversion of the slip will take place in 1932 and extend only 3 and 1/2 years, in which time the slip will be increased from 175m to a more modest 210m. The yard begins construction again in 1935. This will make the slip large enough to accomodate my shadow carriers and a Kurama class CA in late 1938. Since 175m is not much bigger than a light cruiser slip I'll assume that it won't hurt production much to remove the slip from operation for a few years, especially since the majority of those years will be during the freeze on new warships brough about by the London treaty.

Below is a chart depicting the Japanese building program of Admiral Gary.





Only two years to build a battleship or an aircraft carrier, and the same for a heavy cruiser? I know the Harima and Inaba get their gun turrets "for free", but still?


Basically I'm going off the Alt_Naval website's own time estimations. Also looking at JWE's chart it appears the Unryus, which might be somewhat similar to the Kairyus, took under two years in their slips historically and the big complex Yamatos took a bit over 2 and 1/2. Zuikaku was under 2 years in her slip. The time between being laid down and launch of each of the Kongos was less than 2 years and that was pre-WWI. The Harima is not exactly the most cutting edge warship as far as consumption of materials. These are slip times, not commission times.

_____________________________


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 26
RE: Alt_Naval IJN Fleet Data - 10/18/2010 12:45:37 AM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

As to the auxiliaries, Japan needs them very much. It sets out to adopt a forward defence strategy, along its national perimeter, the outer edges of which are hundreds and hundreds of miles away from any developed bases. Where is the fuel, ammunition and repair services for all those warships going to come from?

The "shadow carrier" program is a very bad idea.


Most of the auxiliaries which I have slotted as CVLs in the later part of the war are APDs. Japan isn't going to be carrying out much in the way of invasions later on so they aren't loosing much of anything precious. As far as pilots and aircraft, I'll probably consider doing away with a lot of land based naval pilots and put them on ships. Also nerfing the experience levels a bit, turning out less "perfect" pilots may yield better numbers per month.

As far as auxiliaries I would keep the AS, and ARs and not worry so much about the AVs or scout cruisers. There are plenty of AVs and APDs to turn into CVLs.



_____________________________


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 27
RE: Alt_Naval IJN Fleet Data - 10/18/2010 12:52:34 AM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Speaking of which, where is the yard time for the reconstruction of the Ise, Hyuga, Fuso and Yamashiro? They all lose gun turrets and gain better machinery; not work you do tied up at a pier.


I was operating on the assumption that the ships could be reconstructed using other facilities than the construction slips.

To quote JWE:

quote:

Back then, there was a difference between a construction slipway, drydock and graving or fitting dock. You built capital ships on a slipway (the keel-to-launch part) then moved them to a fitting facility (sometimes graving dock, sometimes fitting slip, sometimes g-dock then f-slip, depending). Conversions were done first in a drydock (or g-dock) then in a fitting slip, since most of the work was topsides/interior. Wet dock work was for stuff like hull mods (bulges, armor work, engine/prop mods, etc..).

Conversions didn’t impact construction slipways, except … some ships took longer to fit than they did to launch. If you had a limited number of fitting facilities of the proper size (like Japanese yards) you could build another ship to launch in the empty slipway, but the launched hull would just have to sit there until the first guy finished fitting and moved out to give the second guy room at the bar. So it’s not really just construction space, it’s number and availability of facilities at each step of the process. If fitting space is choked with conversions, it don’t matter how many empty construction slips there are … ya can’t build nothing ‘cause there ain’t nowhere to put them to finish them off.


_____________________________


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 28
RE: Alt_Naval IJN Fleet Data - 10/18/2010 1:19:52 AM   
Mac Linehan

 

Posts: 1484
Joined: 12/19/2004
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
Gary -

Thanks for all your hard work, I also am interested!

_____________________________

LAV-25 2147

(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 29
RE: Alt_Naval IJN Fleet Data - 10/18/2010 3:37:48 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
I was operating on the assumption that the ships could be reconstructed using other facilities than the construction slips.

Ok, don’t want to get too deep into this, but here’s a quickie on ship construction/conversion.

Ships can be built in a dry slipway or a wet slip or a wet dock. In a dry slip, can be oriented two ways, lateral launch or longitudinal launch, depends on shipyard terrain. If a dry slip (pics 1, 2, and 5), it is built, primarily to main deck level (see Missouri, pic 5), with darn little superstructure, no guns, no fittings, i.e., as little weight as possible to avoid damage during launch (or to avoid it being so heavy it doesn’t move at all).

Pic 3 is Mount Vernon in what I call a graving dock (shallow with little in the way of heavy equipment – good for hull work). Ships can be constructed in wet slips like this. One may complete more of a ship constructed in this manner, prior to launch, but as one can see, they might be draft limited so, again, launch weight becomes a factor, depending on the depth of the slip.

Pic 4 is Texas in a full-boogie drydock (deep, wide, stuff for heavy lifting). A modern one, yes, but one gets the idea. Ships can be constructed in wet slips like this (a construction drydock) in which case they can complete through topsides prior to launch. The Yamato-type construction ways looked like a cross between pics 3 and 4, with construction girders like pic 5 (good also for hanging tarps to hide the things).

If built in a dry slip, a ship “may” be moved to a graving-type fitting dock, and/or a fitting drydock (maybe one, maybe the other, maybe both, maybe neither – depends). Then ship goes to a fitting pier like in pic 6. Fitting pier (or fitting dock) has heavy lifting gear alongside, and might be one sided (port side to, in pic 6) or two sided. So one must have a sufficient sized (and facilitated) construction slip, and a sufficient sized (and facilitated) graving and/or drydock, and a sufficient sized (and facilitated) fitting dock/pier/slip/whatever.

Conversions don’t require construction dry slips, but do require some time in a graving/dry dock. If the drydock is also a construction dock one is borked. If the drydock is also a fitting drydock (almost always the case), one is equally borked. Conversions next require substantial time at the fitting dock/pier/slip. Depending on how many (or few) of these there are, and of what size and facility scale, one may well be equally borked.

As one may imagine, full-boogie capital-ship construction drydocks were a horridly inefficient use of resources in the ‘30s and ‘40s. They were populated for years by each ship, during which time they were unavailable for fitting or hull upgrades (bulges, armor/girder mod, reboilering/reproping) and wartime damage repair, to other ships of consequent size. One must have yet another large drydock with yet more duplicate facilities, and yet another fitting pier with yet more duplicate facilities.

It’s not rocket science, but ship construction planning is a professional endeavor because of things like this. Every ship class is different, every yard is different, every constructor (the one who makes it happen) is different. But that’s construction/conversion in a nutshell; the actuality (in the 30s and 40s) was much more complex, particularly for Japan.





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by JWE -- 10/18/2010 3:42:09 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> Alt_Naval IJN Fleet Data Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.441