Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Finished with Japan

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: Finished with Japan Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Finished with Japan - 1/22/2005 10:41:13 PM   
Lemurs!


Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline 		Hi all,

Does anyone have any hard data on the Keijo Maru PGs for Japan?

I can find essentially nothing about them except that they don't actually seem to be 1 class. It seems that they are an amalagam of several classes. I have read that one was 1022 tons and another (the Keijo Maru) was 2626 tons.

Mike

_____________________________



(in reply to Philbass)
Post #: 91
RE: Finished with Japan - 1/22/2005 11:15:14 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline 		I’m sure it is a generalized class representing all Merchant-to-Patrol Craft conversions.

I walking through the Japanese Merchant Ship Recognition PDF I found a number of disparate ships whose names matched those of a converted gunboat. Including some from the new AK classes that we put in the new scenario.

(in reply to Lemurs!)
Post #: 92
RE: Finished with Japan - 1/22/2005 11:53:52 PM   
Lemurs!


Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline 		Thus, are any of them diesels, and if so should such small, slow diesel boats deserve such low endurance?

I am not trying to be a fanboy here, it just seems low for the type of ship.

Mike

_____________________________



(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 93
RE: Finished with Japan - 1/23/2005 1:22:35 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Thus, are any of them diesels, and if so should such small, slow diesel boats deserve such low endurance?

I am not trying to be a fanboy here, it just seems low for the type of ship.

Mike


Didn't find any diesels but you're right - the endurance seems awfully low. I'll fix it. Here is the class list for the "Amakasu Maru" class. Some of the PG appear to be from this class and we have also created them as a class of AK in the scenario. Endurance is 4000 miles.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lemurs!)
Post #: 94
Keijo Maru Endurance - 1/23/2005 1:24:17 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline 		Here's another group whose names match up with the PGs. Again, much better endurance.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lemurs!)
Post #: 95
Saratoga Upgrade question - 1/24/2005 7:18:13 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline 		In reviewing data for the USS Saratoga I have found a major error in the 1/44 upgrade. Here is the paragraph from Friedman - US Aircraft Carriers - page 53:

Refitted at Hunters Point from 9 December 1943 through 3 January 1944, the Saratoga received two portside sponsons for twin Bofors abeam the island structure; she also received seven quadruple mounts in the former boat recesses to port, two in the boat recess to starboard, three more outboard of the island at flight deck level, and two more in the bow machine gun galleries, supplementing two guns already there.

This gives an addition of 14 quad and two twin mounts, for a total of 60 additional barrels. This is in addition to the 36 already mounted and gives a grand total of 96 (19 quad mounts and 2 twin). All but 16 of the 20mm guns were landed as weight compensation (no dispostion mentioned for those retained).

This light AA armament is shown in class 1257 - an upgrade dated 1/45. The 1/44 upgrade (class 1256) gives a total of 64 40mm and 84 20mm. I can find no data to support this upgrade. Saratoga was repaired after battle damage received in 2/45. No changes to AA are mentioned during this refit, although the flight deck elevators were re-arranged.

This means that the 1/44 refit massively understates the light AA and the 1/45 refit never took place. This is such a significant change that I would like to ask for additional input before making the change.

Does anyone have any data on this??

(in reply to Lemurs!)
Post #: 96
British Submarines - 1/24/2005 10:14:25 PM   
Philbass


Posts: 34
Joined: 12/30/2004
From: London, UK
Status: offline 		Ok,

Here is my 'vision' for the River class (CLYDE and SEVERN) and Porpoise class (PORPOISE and RORQUAL) RN submarines.

See attachment...

I need to finish working up the T and S class submarines (there were several versions - with different endurances, torpedo configurations and radar and gun load outs), and do the new devices I think are needed (radar and mines).

Max speed is surface speed
Cruise speed is the speed for which the endurance range was given
Durability is the standard diving depth (I have the data for max recorded depth, and theoretical collapse depth if that is more relevent)

Please let me know if this is what is needed (I need to pin point exactly when these boats arrive in theatre)

Sources:
Lenton, HT & Colledge, JJ (1964) Warships of World War 2 (London; Ian Allen)
Brown, DK (2000) Nelson to Vanguard: Warship Development 1923-1945 (London: Chatham Publishing)
Brown, DK (1996) The Design and Development of British Warships 1939-1945 Volume 2: Submarines, Escorts and Coastal Forces (London; Conway)
Rippon, Commander PM (1994) Evolution of Engineering in the Royal Navy Volume 2: 1939-1992 (London; Institute of Marine Engineering)

Regards,

Philip Bass




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Plan followed plan in swift procession,
Commanders went; commanders came,
While telegrams in quick succession
Arrived to douse or fan the flame

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 97
RE: British Submarines - 1/24/2005 10:28:38 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Philbass

Ok,

Here is my 'vision' for the River class (CLYDE and SEVERN) and Porpoise class (PORPOISE and RORQUAL) RN submarines.

See attachment...

I need to finish working up the T and S class submarines (there were several versions - with different endurances, torpedo configurations and radar and gun load outs), and do the new devices I think are needed (radar and mines).



We have a real problem adding ship devices. These must sit in device slots 1-255, which are nearly full. In addition, this set of slots may actually be several smaller sets - for guns, mines, torpedoes, etc. The Locations are broken up this way - some for HQ, some for TOE, etc.

Devices 1-85: Ships Guns
Device 86: Empty
Devices 87-103: Torpedoes
Device 104: Empty
Devices 105-117: ASW weapons
Device 118: Empty
Devices 119-130: Mines
Devices 131-143: Radars
Devices 144-145: Empty
Devices 146 and up: Aircraft Weapons, Aircraft Engines, Land Unit Types, Land Unit weapons - probably not usable for ship weapons.

I fear we have at the most 5 available ship weapon slots. Assuming like weapons must be grouped together (as they are), we must also figure out what the empties can be used for. Is slot 104 a torpedo? an ASW weapon?? Is it even usable.

Until we figure this out, I don't think we can safely add any ship's weapons. Unfortuantely, the only way I can figure to test this would be to create weapons in these slots, assign them (and only them) to new ships, then run the game until a situation can be forced in which each weapon should be used. It's on my list of things to do but it's quite far down on page 209874378.

(in reply to Philbass)
Post #: 98
RE: British Submarines - 1/24/2005 11:02:43 PM   
Philbass


Posts: 34
Joined: 12/30/2004
From: London, UK
Status: offline 		Okay Don,

Forget creating a new device for the Mk 16 British sub laid mine - use the US Mk10 (although that is about 20% more powerful) to save the slot. I won't say anything about the US sublayers using the Mk 11 which was 10% more powerful than the Mk 10. Alas, the only source I have on mines at the moment is the Data Annexes for Command at Sea the tactical minatures wargame rules (hugely detailed, but full of errors and typos), so not necessarily reliable.

What about radar? Does this matter? How does radar work in this game? I mean the UK listing are really out of wack...There are only the 279 which was a air warning ('search' in USN speak) radar fitted to large warships/auxillaries (not for destroyers and below) and the 271 which was a surface warning fitted to all types of vessels large and small. It wasn't an either or as the database suggests, but a question of having both types (and their follow ups). But does it matter? I don't know, as I can't fathom the impact (beyond having radar is good). I'd like to rework this, but if it is broken in the game, then I won't bother.

If we do have to reserve slots then I suggest we pencil one in for the Squid ahead thrown ASW weapon. This represented a step change in submarine killing capability as it was linked to a depth finding sonar (Type 147Q ASDIC) which automatically set the depth on the fuses of the projectiles. I have the data that analyses the relative success of Squid/Hedgehog/Depth Charges, and Squid is a killer...Of course, I haven't yet looked to see if it was deployed in the Pacific.

Many thanks.

Philip Bass

(back to the 3 volumes on RN radar/electronic warfare at sea)

_____________________________

Plan followed plan in swift procession,
Commanders went; commanders came,
While telegrams in quick succession
Arrived to douse or fan the flame

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 99
RE: Depth Charges on W Class Minesweepers - 1/26/2005 1:08:23 PM   
akdreemer


Posts: 1028
Joined: 10/3/2004
From: Anchorage, Alaska
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Matrix included depth charges in the original (12/41) armament of all of the "W" series minesweepers. However I can find no historical reference for their inclusion until the late-war ASW upgrades.

I am about to remove DC from all original "W" Series Minesweepers! This appears to be the historically correct thing to do but I am a little worried about the reduction in Japanese early-war ASW.

Comments appreciated.

Don


Strange, in Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy the authors state quite clarly, and I quote:
" 1922 Programme (W1-4) and 1927 Programme (W.5 and W.6). Armed with DC's and throwers to enable ships to be used as escorts. W.5 and W.6 were slightly larger and had minor differences in appearences as well as stepping a tripod mast. Alternate coal/oil."

This is as built, not the 1944 modifications. I think it would be a mistake to remove the asw capability of these vessels, as they were clearly designed for start with them.

rm

_____________________________


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 100
RE: Depth Charges on W Class Minesweepers - 1/26/2005 3:32:07 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Matrix included depth charges in the original (12/41) armament of all of the "W" series minesweepers. However I can find no historical reference for their inclusion until the late-war ASW upgrades.

I am about to remove DC from all original "W" Series Minesweepers! This appears to be the historically correct thing to do but I am a little worried about the reduction in Japanese early-war ASW.

Comments appreciated.

Don


Strange, in Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy the authors state quite clarly, and I quote:
" 1922 Programme (W1-4) and 1927 Programme (W.5 and W.6). Armed with DC's and throwers to enable ships to be used as escorts. W.5 and W.6 were slightly larger and had minor differences in appearences as well as stepping a tripod mast. Alternate coal/oil."

This is as built, not the 1944 modifications. I think it would be a mistake to remove the asw capability of these vessels, as they were clearly designed for start with them.

rm


Thanks

This makes more sense to me but I note that several other sources indicate that no DC were carried until 1944 or so. Specifically, Japanese Warships of World War II (Watts) states that 36 DC were added in 1943/44 and Conway gives a refitted armament of 36 DC in 1944.

Is any additional information available?? Number of charges would be great.

Don

(in reply to akdreemer)
Post #: 101
RE: Finished with Japan - 1/26/2005 4:55:21 PM   
WhoCares


Posts: 653
Joined: 7/6/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
...
I walking through the Japanese Merchant Ship Recognition PDF I found a number of disparate ships whose names matched those of a converted gunboat. ...

Don't want to hijack the thread but I was lately looking for those Recognition Manuals used to identify enemy ships (both sides). Are they freely available as PDFs on the web? I found some offers of CDs to buy, but other than that
I finally want to add some uneducated guesses in Bradys 'Name this...'

PS: If available, you might PM me to avoid to much off-topic trafic in this thread!

< Message edited by WhoCares -- 1/26/2005 3:58:34 PM >

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 102
RE: Saratoga Upgrade question - 1/27/2005 6:17:29 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

In reviewing data for the USS Saratoga I have found a major error in the 1/44 upgrade. Here is the paragraph from Friedman - US Aircraft Carriers - page 53:

Refitted at Hunters Point from 9 December 1943 through 3 January 1944, the Saratoga received two portside sponsons for twin Bofors abeam the island structure; she also received seven quadruple mounts in the former boat recesses to port, two in the boat recess to starboard, three more outboard of the island at flight deck level, and two more in the bow machine gun galleries, supplementing two guns already there.

This gives an addition of 14 quad and two twin mounts, for a total of 60 additional barrels. This is in addition to the 36 already mounted and gives a grand total of 96 (19 quad mounts and 2 twin). All but 16 of the 20mm guns were landed as weight compensation (no dispostion mentioned for those retained).

This light AA armament is shown in class 1257 - an upgrade dated 1/45. The 1/44 upgrade (class 1256) gives a total of 64 40mm and 84 20mm. I can find no data to support this upgrade. Saratoga was repaired after battle damage received in 2/45. No changes to AA are mentioned during this refit, although the flight deck elevators were re-arranged.

This means that the 1/44 refit massively understates the light AA and the 1/45 refit never took place. This is such a significant change that I would like to ask for additional input before making the change.

Does anyone have any data on this??


I have it somewhere...I used the special book published by BlueJacket Books on CV-2 and 3 so it was quite detailed. I'll look around for it and check the old 12 slot database I was given to see if anything got missplaced or incorrecectly entered during transfer.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 103
RE: Depth Charges on W Class Minesweepers - 1/27/2005 10:19:04 AM   
akdreemer


Posts: 1028
Joined: 10/3/2004
From: Anchorage, Alaska
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Matrix included depth charges in the original (12/41) armament of all of the "W" series minesweepers. However I can find no historical reference for their inclusion until the late-war ASW upgrades.

I am about to remove DC from all original "W" Series Minesweepers! This appears to be the historically correct thing to do but I am a little worried about the reduction in Japanese early-war ASW.

Comments appreciated.

Don


Strange, in Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy the authors state quite clarly, and I quote:
" 1922 Programme (W1-4) and 1927 Programme (W.5 and W.6). Armed with DC's and throwers to enable ships to be used as escorts. W.5 and W.6 were slightly larger and had minor differences in appearences as well as stepping a tripod mast. Alternate coal/oil."

This is as built, not the 1944 modifications. I think it would be a mistake to remove the asw capability of these vessels, as they were clearly designed for start with them.

rm


Thanks

This makes more sense to me but I note that several other sources indicate that no DC were carried until 1944 or so. Specifically, Japanese Warships of World War II (Watts) states that 36 DC were added in 1943/44 and Conway gives a refitted armament of 36 DC in 1944.

Is any additional information available?? Number of charges would be great.

Don


Don

The frustrating thing is that there is no info on charges being actually carried, just that the vessels were equipped with DC throwers from the get go. The first four, W.1 - W.4, were top heavy when built, and had to be reconstructed with shorter stacks and ballast. If I had to guess I would say that untill 1944 refits these vessels were probably more of an oppertunistic ASW than dedicated, thus probably had at most a couple of DC's per thrower. Maybe 2 per would be a good number??

Unfortunately, living at the end of a long supply line (Anchorage, AK) my resources for much of what I need has to be ILL, thus takes up to a couple of weeks to get in the item if it is available at all, or purchased which is a bit on the expensive side for a lot of the material out there.

Richard

_____________________________


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 104
RE: Depth Charges on W Class Minesweepers - 1/27/2005 5:15:18 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior
Don

The frustrating thing is that there is no info on charges being actually carried, just that the vessels were equipped with DC throwers from the get go. The first four, W.1 - W.4, were top heavy when built, and had to be reconstructed with shorter stacks and ballast. If I had to guess I would say that untill 1944 refits these vessels were probably more of an oppertunistic ASW than dedicated, thus probably had at most a couple of DC's per thrower. Maybe 2 per would be a good number??

Unfortunately, living at the end of a long supply line (Anchorage, AK) my resources for much of what I need has to be ILL, thus takes up to a couple of weeks to get in the item if it is available at all, or purchased which is a bit on the expensive side for a lot of the material out there.

Richard


I've already removed the DC from all the Ws so inertia is now on the other side. I'd like to find a reason to put them back but just can't justify it until more definite data comes to light.

Don

(in reply to akdreemer)
Post #: 105
What to do with the Long Island?? - 1/27/2005 5:25:40 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline 		I'm working through U.S. carriers and have reached the controversial old Long Island.

She was primarily used as an aircraft transport or training carrier in the Pacific and was eventually converted to an aircraft transport (landing wires removed, flight deck supports reduced to save weight, etc. However, she did have an airgroup attached during 1942 and 1943 and for a brief period around the Midway campaign she operated with the slow battleships. At that time she carried "only 20 aircraft" (according to Morison).

We Can:
1. Go the Matrix way and give her a 16 capacity, 90 Aircraft Ordnance, and no air group.
2. Fit her as an aircraft transport with a larger capacity (have to look it up), NO aircraft ordnance, and no air group.
3. Fit her as a CVE with a capacity of 20 and her historic airgroup (VGS-1) - then upgrade in 1944 to an aircraft transport as #2. I like this historically but the problem is what happens to her air group when she upgrades. A human player could transfer it ashore but I have no idea what the AI would do.

Comments appreciated.

Don

(in reply to Lemurs!)
Post #: 106
US Carrier Changes - 1/27/2005 8:12:58 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline 		Here is the current list of changes for U.S. Carriers. Waiting a bit on Long Island to see if anyone gets emotional over Long Island.


Lexington
ALL: Capacity changed to 91 to account for CAG aircraft
(237) No other changes.
(1253) No other changes - an excellent representation of Lexington at Coral Sea.
(1254) Flight deck edge 5/38 were in single mounts. Added secondary air search radar. Added quadruple 40mm that replaced 3rd 5/25 in each gallery. Equates to Saratoga Refit after 1/42 torpedoing.
(1255) Flight deck edge 5/38 were in single mounts. Added secondary search radar. Equates to Saratoga after second torpedoing.
(1256) Flight deck edge 5/38 were in single mounts. 40mm substantially increased - the outfit given for 1/45 (class 1257) was really fitted 12/43 - 1/44 at Hunters Point. Adjust this refit to the values given in 1257 and remove 1257.
(1257) Upgrade deleted.


Yorktown
ALL: Capacity changed to 91 to account for CAG aircraft
(238) - no other changes.
(1258) - no other changes.
(1259) New (5th) Quad 1.1in was in the bows, not on Port Side.
(1260) Quad 40mm properly distributed (they directly replaced the 4 flight deck quad 1.1)
(1261) Upgrade date changed to 7/43 (beginning of refit, 10/43 was end). 40mm Locations adjusted and 20mm number reduced to 50 (twin and triple mounts were temporary).
(1550) New Upgrade added for 6/45. Increased AA to 54 40mm (11 quad and 5 twin) and adjusted 20mm to 16 twin.


Wasp
ALL: Speed increased to 30 knots. Her trials gave 30.73 average on three runs with an estimated 29.8 after an allowance for sea conditions and fouling. Aircraft complement increased to 80 (what she carried at Eastern Solomons).
(239) Unused - Wasp was refitted past this point prior to deployment to the Pacific. Removed CXAM, which was not fitted until 1/42.
(1262) Changed upgrade date to 7/42 to coincide with Deployment to Pacific. Weapons in slots 8 and 9 should be 50Cal MG, not 20mm. Added one Quad 40mm on port quarter.
(1263) and (1264) Hypothetical as Wasp was lost in September, 1942. No additional changes made.


Essex
ALL: Added second air warning set and a surface radar (SG). Increased aircraft complement to 92 as carried by Intrepid in the Marshall Islands (the largest complement I can find). The Essex class had a large variety of AA outfits and I think Matrix did an excellent job representing them so I made no other changes.


Independence
ALL: Aircraft complements varied during the war. Original design of 45 (24 Wildcat, 12 Dauntless, 9 Avenger) proved too large and was reduced to 36 in service. When the larger Hellcat replaced the Wildcat the complement was set at 30 (12 Hellcat, 9 Dauntless, 9 Avenger) but the mixed VB/VT attack group was difficult to coordinate. Also the non-folding wing Dauntless were difficult to accommodate. The airgroup was changed to 33 (24 Hellcat and 9 Avenger) in autumn of 1943. Since none of these ships went into action with Wildcats aboard, I've simplified the airgroups to a standard 33.
(243) Adjusted aircraft complement to 33, added second air warning set.
(1267) Adjusted aircraft complement to 33, added second air warning set (really removed and replaced with a height finding radar but no way to reflect this).


Long Island
Still thinking.


Bogue
ALL: increased speed to 17 knots. Trials were just over and service speeds just under 17. Considerable confusion on the original armament of these ships and, other than the 5in guns, I can find insufficient justification to change the original Matrix armament. refitted in early 1943 anyway.
(246) 12/42 version. 5in/51 were originally fitted, not 5in/38 and they were sponsoned port and starboard.
(1269) 4/43 Upgrade. 5in/38 were fitted but still sponsoned port/starboard. AA re-arranged based on detailed description of Crotan as of 5/43. Radar upgraded.


Sangamon
These were converted oilers that retained a large part of their oil carrying capacity and were able to refuel their escorts underway. To reflect this I have increased their oil capacity to 5880. And, since they could use this oil cargo as their own fuel, I have increased their endurance to the maximum (32767).
(247) 11/42 Version. No additional Changes.
(1270) 6/44 Version 5in Guns were 38 Cal, not 51.


Casablanca
ALL: Increased capacity to 28 - the originally planned air group of 9 fighters, 9 dive bombers, 9 torpedo planes was replaced with a standard group of 16 fighters and 12 torpedo planes (as in Bogues). No other changes.


Commencement Bay
(249) re-arranged 40mm (quads in bow and stern) and upgraded radar.

(in reply to Lemurs!)
Post #: 107
RE: US Carrier Changes - 1/27/2005 8:20:06 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Here is the current list of changes for U.S. Carriers. Waiting a bit on Long Island to see if anyone gets emotional over Long Island.


Lexington
ALL: Capacity changed to 91 to account for CAG aircraft
(237) No other changes.
(1253) No other changes - an excellent representation of Lexington at Coral Sea.
(1254) Flight deck edge 5/38 were in single mounts. Added secondary air search radar. Added quadruple 40mm that replaced 3rd 5/25 in each gallery. Equates to Saratoga Refit after 1/42 torpedoing.
(1255) Flight deck edge 5/38 were in single mounts. Added secondary search radar. Equates to Saratoga after second torpedoing.
(1256) Flight deck edge 5/38 were in single mounts. 40mm substantially increased - the outfit given for 1/45 (class 1257) was really fitted 12/43 - 1/44 at Hunters Point. Adjust this refit to the values given in 1257 and remove 1257.
(1257) Upgrade deleted.


Yorktown
ALL: Capacity changed to 91 to account for CAG aircraft
(238) - no other changes.
(1258) - no other changes.
(1259) New (5th) Quad 1.1in was in the bows, not on Port Side.
(1260) Quad 40mm properly distributed (they directly replaced the 4 flight deck quad 1.1)
(1261) Upgrade date changed to 7/43 (beginning of refit, 10/43 was end). 40mm Locations adjusted and 20mm number reduced to 50 (twin and triple mounts were temporary).
(1550) New Upgrade added for 6/45. Increased AA to 54 40mm (11 quad and 5 twin) and adjusted 20mm to 16 twin.


Wasp
ALL: Speed increased to 30 knots. Her trials gave 30.73 average on three runs with an estimated 29.8 after an allowance for sea conditions and fouling. Aircraft complement increased to 80 (what she carried at Eastern Solomons).
(239) Unused - Wasp was refitted past this point prior to deployment to the Pacific. Removed CXAM, which was not fitted until 1/42.
(1262) Changed upgrade date to 7/42 to coincide with Deployment to Pacific. Weapons in slots 8 and 9 should be 50Cal MG, not 20mm. Added one Quad 40mm on port quarter.
(1263) and (1264) Hypothetical as Wasp was lost in September, 1942. No additional changes made.


Essex
ALL: Added second air warning set and a surface radar (SG). Increased aircraft complement to 92 as carried by Intrepid in the Marshall Islands (the largest complement I can find). The Essex class had a large variety of AA outfits and I think Matrix did an excellent job representing them so I made no other changes.


Independence
ALL: Aircraft complements varied during the war. Original design of 45 (24 Wildcat, 12 Dauntless, 9 Avenger) proved too large and was reduced to 36 in service. When the larger Hellcat replaced the Wildcat the complement was set at 30 (12 Hellcat, 9 Dauntless, 9 Avenger) but the mixed VB/VT attack group was difficult to coordinate. Also the non-folding wing Dauntless were difficult to accommodate. The airgroup was changed to 33 (24 Hellcat and 9 Avenger) in autumn of 1943. Since none of these ships went into action with Wildcats aboard, I've simplified the airgroups to a standard 33.
(243) Adjusted aircraft complement to 33, added second air warning set.
(1267) Adjusted aircraft complement to 33, added second air warning set (really removed and replaced with a height finding radar but no way to reflect this).


Long Island
Still thinking.


Bogue
ALL: increased speed to 17 knots. Trials were just over and service speeds just under 17. Considerable confusion on the original armament of these ships and, other than the 5in guns, I can find insufficient justification to change the original Matrix armament. refitted in early 1943 anyway.
(246) 12/42 version. 5in/51 were originally fitted, not 5in/38 and they were sponsoned port and starboard.
(1269) 4/43 Upgrade. 5in/38 were fitted but still sponsoned port/starboard. AA re-arranged based on detailed description of Crotan as of 5/43. Radar upgraded.


Sangamon
These were converted oilers that retained a large part of their oil carrying capacity and were able to refuel their escorts underway. To reflect this I have increased their oil capacity to 5880. And, since they could use this oil cargo as their own fuel, I have increased their endurance to the maximum (32767).
(247) 11/42 Version. No additional Changes.
(1270) 6/44 Version 5in Guns were 38 Cal, not 51.


Casablanca
ALL: Increased capacity to 28 - the originally planned air group of 9 fighters, 9 dive bombers, 9 torpedo planes was replaced with a standard group of 16 fighters and 12 torpedo planes (as in Bogues). No other changes.


Commencement Bay
(249) re-arranged 40mm (quads in bow and stern) and upgraded radar.


Endurance is also a reflection of stores etc which sustain the crew. Don't over compensate for Sangamons oil cap this way.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 108
RE: US Carrier Changes - 1/27/2005 8:29:01 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
Sangamon
These were converted oilers that retained a large part of their oil carrying capacity and were able to refuel their escorts underway. To reflect this I have increased their oil capacity to 5880. And, since they could use this oil cargo as their own fuel, I have increased their endurance to the maximum (32767).


Endurance is also a reflection of stores etc which sustain the crew. Don't over compensate for Sangamons oil cap this way.


Yeah, but if I leave it at 24000 and raise the oil to 5880 they become "fuel hogs". Where's the best trade off??

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 109
RE: US Carrier Changes - 1/27/2005 8:35:46 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
Sangamon
These were converted oilers that retained a large part of their oil carrying capacity and were able to refuel their escorts underway. To reflect this I have increased their oil capacity to 5880. And, since they could use this oil cargo as their own fuel, I have increased their endurance to the maximum (32767).


Endurance is also a reflection of stores etc which sustain the crew. Don't over compensate for Sangamons oil cap this way.


Yeah, but if I leave it at 24000 and raise the oil to 5880 they become "fuel hogs". Where's the best trade off??


Why any more than now? They simply have more fuel, not more frozen chicken and powdered eggs. Leave it at stock endurance but increase oil is my guess as best way.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 110
RE: US Carrier Changes - 1/28/2005 12:53:23 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline 		Not too sure about this one. Some quick calculations:

Matrix Sangamon: 24000 Endurance and 3200 Fuel. 24000/3200 = 7.5 "mpg"
Upgrade Fuel Only: 24000 Endurance and 5880 Fuel. 24000/5880 = 4.08 "mpg"
Also extend Radius: 32767 Endurance and 5880 Fuel. 32767/5880 = 5.57 "mpg"

If we increase fuel but not endurance, refueling these ships could suck a forward base dry. Even with endurance at max the calculated fuel efficiency drops almost 1/3. Besides, Fleet AOs carry additional foodstuffs for issue to the ships they refuel (I know, I spend 5 weeks on the USS Cacapon enroute to my new ship on station). We could assume some of this food storage capacity was retained in addition to oil capacity. The additional oil and value of ability of these ships to refuel their escorts is specifically mentioned as a benefit by Friedman.

I think we should either ignore the additional fuel (use 24000/3200) or increase the endurance (32767/5880).

Comments anyone??

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 111
RE: US Carrier Changes - 1/28/2005 1:56:51 AM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline 		Regarding Long Island. I think your option 3 is good. It's the most historical option. I don't think it'll be a major issue with the AI. By 44, the Jap player will have sunk her anyway. If not, the Allied AI will have dozens of CVE's to use as well.

Regarding the Sangamon fuel thing. If you increase the fuel capacity, you have to increase the endurance. I think your comment on the ship draining a base of oil is more impacting than whether the ship's food stores could endure 33k miles. USS Dace made it back to Australia after a long patrol with twice the men on board. I think the Sangamon crew could eat a little less as well. I realize that this isn't 100% correct. But, if these ships could refuel their escorts, that should be represented as best you can. That's a pretty significant game issue.

This is all my opinion and if any of you experts feel I'm wrong, I won't be offended. I'm definitely not an expert.

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 112
RE: US Carrier Changes - 1/28/2005 2:24:41 AM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline 		Ticky tack little things:

Yorktown Class to 33kts
Essex Class to 33 kts
Wasp 7/42 upgrade should be available 6/42, so that if she arrives early on variable shipping setting, she can repair her sys down to 0

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 113
RE: US Carrier Changes - 1/28/2005 2:56:43 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

Ticky tack little things:

Yorktown Class to 33kts

Agreed. Although designed for 32.5 knots, both Yorktown and Enterprise exceeded 33.5 on trials (I don't have data for Hornet handy).

quote:

Essex Class to 33 kts

Agreed - with reservations. Design speed was 33 but Essex only made 32.9 on trials and the displacement of these ships grew quickly. Conway gives 32.7 for the class - could go either way.

quote:

Wasp 7/42 upgrade should be available 6/42, so that if she arrives early on variable shipping setting, she can repair her sys down to 0

Sounds good to me. Never use the variable setting but I'll go with your recommendation.

(in reply to Admiral DadMan)
Post #: 114
Upgrades for Nevada Class - 1/28/2005 5:00:31 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline 		I am currently working on U.S. Battleships and have come to the Nevada Class.

The Matrix upgrade path is somewhat hypothetical. With Oklahoma sunk and Nevada badly damaged, initial upgrade really consisted of emergency repairs followed by a major refit - taking all of 1942. The Matrix upgrade path provides for possible upgrades that were considered pre-war or might have occurred if one or both ships were not badly damaged at Pearl Harbor. The 4/43 upgrade (1209) reflects the refit actually completed in December, 1942. Since Nevada was historically the first battleship to be reconstructed (beginning 4/42), I adjusted refit dates so that she began her reconstruction before Pennsylvania's 11/42-2/43 reconstruction (see class 1212 on 1/43 which I will adjust to 11/42). Effectively the 10/42 upgrade (1208) is eliminated and 1209 moved to 10/42.
(177) No changes
(1207) No Changes
(1208) Upgrade deleted
(1209) Upgrade date changed to 10/42. Fuel reduced to 4080, Endurance reduced to 9000, main gun ammo reduced to 7.
(1210) Fuel reduced to 4080, Endurance reduced to 9000, main gun ammo reduced to 7. Second Radar added.

I think this is a good blend of history and might-have-been but would welcome comments.

Also, I am having trouble finding the amount of main gun ammo carried prior to the 10/42 refit (when it was reduced to 90 rounds/gun). Does anyone have this data? My reduction to 7 is a guess based on a comment that removing 30 rounds/gun would save 300 tons and a deduction that ammo might have been 120 rounds/gun before reconstruction.

Also, I am changing upgrade dates for major refits to the beginning date of the refit, instead of the end, to compensate for the resultant sys damage.

(in reply to Lemurs!)
Post #: 115
RE: Upgrades for Nevada Class - 1/28/2005 5:10:06 AM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline 		Hey Don, when you get done with the US ship upgrade (Battleship, cruiser, and destroyer) shoot me the list and I'll tweak my graphics accordingly.

_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 116
RE: US Carrier Changes - 1/28/2005 10:48:07 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Not too sure about this one. Some quick calculations:

Matrix Sangamon: 24000 Endurance and 3200 Fuel. 24000/3200 = 7.5 "mpg"
Upgrade Fuel Only: 24000 Endurance and 5880 Fuel. 24000/5880 = 4.08 "mpg"
Also extend Radius: 32767 Endurance and 5880 Fuel. 32767/5880 = 5.57 "mpg"

If we increase fuel but not endurance, refueling these ships could suck a forward base dry. Even with endurance at max the calculated fuel efficiency drops almost 1/3. Besides, Fleet AOs carry additional foodstuffs for issue to the ships they refuel (I know, I spend 5 weeks on the USS Cacapon enroute to my new ship on station). We could assume some of this food storage capacity was retained in addition to oil capacity. The additional oil and value of ability of these ships to refuel their escorts is specifically mentioned as a benefit by Friedman.

I think we should either ignore the additional fuel (use 24000/3200) or increase the endurance (32767/5880).

Comments anyone??


But...Sangamons were combatants with extra fuel bunkers due to their pedigree, nothing else, right? They are simply CVEs with extra fuel, not extra stores. ??? I'd assume much of the "stores" capacity was taken up by their new role as CVE. Something had to give.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 117
RE: US Carrier Changes - 1/28/2005 10:53:47 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

Also, I am changing upgrade dates for major refits to the beginning date of the refit, instead of the end, to compensate for the resultant sys damage.


I was reluctant with this when I did the Matrix refit dates due to the "generous" refit times the auto weapons upgrade nature of the refit model. Bang...instant new weapons AND ability to operate within 24 hrs. Hence my choice of later refit start dates overall.

Don...do you find my refit loadouts overly inaccurate or are most acceptable?

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 118
RE: US Carrier Changes - 1/28/2005 1:19:02 PM   
Hipper

 

Posts: 254
Joined: 6/15/2004
Status: offline 		Hi Don

quote:

Essex
ALL: Added second air warning set and a surface radar (SG). Increased aircraft complement to 92 as carried by Intrepid in the Marshall Islands (the largest complement I can find). The Essex class had a large variety of AA outfits and I think Matrix did an excellent job representing them so I made no other changes.


I'm probably telling you how to suck eggs but when it comes to aircraft capacities remember that there is a 10 to 15 percent overstacking capacity on carriers so when you set capacity to 92 it ac tually comes out as 101 to 105

mind you Ive no Idea how many a/c the essex et al could carry

cheers

_____________________________

"Gefechtwendung nach Steuerbord"

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 119
RE: US Carrier Changes - 1/28/2005 3:28:44 PM   
Lemurs!


Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline 		Don,
I like #1 on the Long Island.

Geez, Ron, do you want us to include Mutton & Spam and if you can't get enough of it to your forward bases your troops get a -10 to their morale? Do you want this game to be complicated?

Hipper,
I think the 92 or so for the Essex is perfect, their main groups will be the right size, but they can still carry a few extra.


Mike

_____________________________



(in reply to Hipper)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: Finished with Japan Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   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

1.844