Dutch DD Weapons

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Dutch DD Weapons

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 >> Dutch DD Weapons

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Dutch DD Weapons - 2/9/2020 7:26:27 PM

afspret

Posts: 851
Joined: 2/19/2004
From: Hanahan, SC
Status: offline

Been playing this game since it came out and only noticed last month that the main weapons layout of the Dutch Admiralen I/II DDs is wrong. In all scenarios both classes (227 & 229), and their upgrades, indicate the ships are each equipped with a single twin 120mm gun turret fore and aft when in fact they were equipped with two single 120mm gun fore and aft. Just thought I'd mention this in case no one else noticed it.

Post #: 1

RE: Dutch DD Weapons - 2/10/2020 7:02:29 AM

Ian R

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline

I'll have a look in the editor later and see what is going on with that. AB/XY placement?

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to afspret)

Post #: 2

RE: Dutch DD Weapons - 2/10/2020 9:52:54 AM

Ian R

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline

The 4 entries in the ship class data (227-229) do indeed have the main armament entered as Num 02/ turrets 02. This should be turrets 01.

There are further problems.

Both classes differed from Yarrow's "pattern" ship (the Ambuscade) in having open gun mounts in B & X spots. They had shields only in A & Y. The game treats splinter shields as zero armour, so the current armour rating of '5' for turrets should be deleted.

The batch I ships were fitted as minelayers, and the batch II as mine sweepers. So they should be classed as DM, and DMS, respectively, not DDs. That would raise a problem as to their later use as ASW escorts, so their 1943 upgrades might re-classify them as DEs (like the Admiralty A/Bs).

7 of the 8 were lost by 430302 latest, and only Banckert survived. That was because it was 'scuttled' in a dry dock that was blown up on 430302; salvaged by the IJN it was renamed No 106, but never repaired. Therefore my hypothesis that they might have served on in a DE role like their RN half-sisters, possibly with removal of a boiler to increase bunkerage, remains speculative.

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to Ian R)

Post #: 3

RE: Dutch DD Weapons - 2/10/2020 2:27:34 PM

Kull

Posts: 2625
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline

Cardas got here first, and spotted more problems with those DDs than just the guns. ;-) In fact, that whole thread is FULL of issues that - from what I can see - were never fixed in either DaBabes or "vanilla" AE. Not all of his criticisms may have been accurate, but there did appear to be agreement on many of them.

_____________________________

AE-Japan Setup

AE-Allied Setup

Japan Air-Engine Plan

(in reply to Ian R)

Post #: 4

RE: Dutch DD Weapons - 2/12/2020 3:01:35 AM

Ian R

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline

That thread points to an interesting web-site; but still, it's a website.

I can tell you that Conway's agrees that the batch II's had a little more bunkerage (30t, being 10%) but the increase to 2750 looks generous- Conways gives ranges of 3200nm for batch I, and 3300nm for the batch II at cruising speed 15knts.

On the other hand, Conway's does not put mine rails on the batch II's - they had sweeping gear attachment points. The mine load on the batch I's is 24 mines.

Also Conway's list both batches as having zero DC as built, but, does credit the batch II's with an improved AAA suite of 1 x 75mm AA, and 2 x 40mm in two twin mountings.

Jane's mentioned that the intended armament of these ships included "bomb throwers", which I take it is a period description of depth charge projectors. So you could add a couple of K-gun projectors with limited re-loads, on the basis they were probably installed at some point between 1930 and 41.

Edit: So I agree that "Technically both Admiralen batches were designed with four DCTs (2 right, 2 left)".

Interestingly the batch I's as built, had a seaplane stowage point above the aft torpedo tubes. As did the later Tjerk Hiddes class* built in the late 1930s. No catapault, though.

[*The Tjerk Hiddes launched in 1939 was scuttled in 1940. The one in AE is the ex RN "N" class, formerly the Nonpareil. The Van Galen in AE is the ex RN DD Noble. The Admiralen batch II DD of that name was sunk in May 1940.]

So agree with some of Cardas' points.

< Message edited by Ian R -- 2/12/2020 3:08:57 AM >

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to Kull)

Post #: 5