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: Japanese Army Large Landing Ships

 
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: Japanese Army Large Landing Ships Page: <<   < prev  9 10 11 [12] 13   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Japanese Army Large Landing Ships - 3/4/2005 11:54:36 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: pry

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Why not? Instead of an AP, call it an AK and it can carry planes as well as troops simultaneously


Not a bad idea actually ... What capacity would you recommend?


Wont work guys... Either troops or planes game is not designed and will not allow you to haul both at the same time...


Thanks Paul. I think I will re-class them as AK though, so they can carry aircraft if desired. But Ron still has not answered about recommended capacity.....


I already replied earlier. I'm not up on Japanese merchants and assault ships, but my guess is they should have a higher capacity because Japanese troops are so short and diminutive and are used to living like sardines in a can.

Objective but still Allied Fanboy out.

No really have no idea outside of asking what was it used for historically (what did it normally carry on average) and rate from this.


One just can not get Ron to go out on a limb! I pick AK at 4990, just a little under the size that would allow it to be converted.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 331
RE: Japanese Army Large Landing Ships - 3/5/2005 12:10:23 AM   
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

quote:

ORIGINAL: pry

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Why not? Instead of an AP, call it an AK and it can carry planes as well as troops simultaneously


Not a bad idea actually ... What capacity would you recommend?


Wont work guys... Either troops or planes game is not designed and will not allow you to haul both at the same time...


Thanks Paul. I think I will re-class them as AK though, so they can carry aircraft if desired. But Ron still has not answered about recommended capacity.....


I already replied earlier. I'm not up on Japanese merchants and assault ships, but my guess is they should have a higher capacity because Japanese troops are so short and diminutive and are used to living like sardines in a can.

Objective but still Allied Fanboy out.

No really have no idea outside of asking what was it used for historically (what did it normally carry on average) and rate from this.


One just can not get Ron to go out on a limb! I pick AK at 4990, just a little under the size that would allow it to be converted.


Does anyone know what she carried in specific operations historically? 4990 sounds OK with me though!

_____________________________





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 #: 332
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Ship Data - 3/16/2005 6:53:34 PM   
bstarr


Posts: 881
Joined: 8/1/2004
From: Texas, by God!
Status: offline 		I don't know if this is needed, but here are the ports where the CVs, CLs and DDs were completed during the war. As it stands, they all originate at Tokyo.

note - I didn't list the ships completed at Tokyo since they already arrive there.

CVs
Unyo – Kure
Hiyo – Kure
Amagi – Nagasaki
Ibuki – Sasebo
Chuyo – Kure
Taiyo – Sasebo
Shinyo – Kure
Taiho – Kobe
Ikome – Kobe
Kasagi - Nagasaki
Junyo – Nagasaki

CLs
Oyodo – Kure
Agano – Sasebo
Yahagi – Sasebo
Sakawa – Sasebo

DD Matsu class
Matsu – Miazuru
Momo – Miazuru
Ume – Osaka
Kuwa – Osaka
Maki – Maizuru
Sugi – Osaka
Kashi – Osaka
Kaya – Maizuru
Nara – Osaka
Tsubaki – Miazuru
Yanagi – Osaka
Nire – Maizuru
Shii – Maizuru
Nashi – Kobe
Enoki – Maizuru
Odake – Maizuru
Kaba – Osaka
Hatsuume – Maizuru

DD Akizuki Class
Akizuki – Maizuru
Teruzuki – Nagasaki
Suzutsuki – Nagasaki
Hatsuzuki – Maizuru
Niizuki – Nagasaki
Wakatsuki – Nagasaki
Shimotsuki – Nagasaki
Fuyuzuki – Maizuru
Hanazuki – Maizuru
Haruzuki – Sasebo
Natsuzuki - Sasebo

DD Yugumo Class
Yugumo – Maizuru
Makigumo – Maizuru
Makinami – Maizuru
Naganami – Osaka
Tamanami – Osaka
Onami – Osaka
Fujinami – Osaka
Hayanami – Maizuru
Hayanami – Maizuru
Okinami – Maizuru
Hamanami – Maizuru
Asashimo – Osaka
Hayashimo – Maizuru
Akishimo - Osaka

_____________________________



(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 333
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Ship Data - 3/16/2005 7:05:03 PM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline 		bstarr, the ships would need their shaking out cruise before being able to conduct operations. Do you know if completed ships arrive as soon as their final construction date or is there a delay for their actual commission date?

I don't think it would be fair to have any ships arrive on their constructed date. It should be thier commission date (or whatever the date is called when a ship is ready for operations)

If the ship arrives on its commission date, then I think Tokyo is appropriate. After all, a cruiser created at Kure might end up at Tokyo after it's trials.

bc

(in reply to bstarr)
Post #: 334
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Ship Data - 3/16/2005 9:37:03 PM   
bstarr


Posts: 881
Joined: 8/1/2004
From: Texas, by God!
Status: offline 		This is from Sakawa's operational history (italics are mine)-

"30 November 1944:
Sasebo. The SAKAWA is completed and commissioned in the IJN. She is assigned directly to the Combined Fleet and registered at the Yokosuka Naval Station. Captain Ohara becomes the Commanding Officer.

7 December 1944:
Departs Sasebo. Arrives at Kure later that day."

Maybe the confusion comes from the fact that many ships are "Registered" at Yokosuka while being physically located somewhere else. In the game she's available on her registered date of 11/30/44, but it seems to me she's not historically in Tokyo; she's in Sasebo.

I checked a couple other CLs and came up with this -
Oyodo - this one is in Tokyo for trials, my bad
Agano - change my suggestion to Kure; she departs from this harbor
Yahagi - probably stays Sasebo. She was at Sasebo on her WITP date; departs Kure 2/4/44 a month and a half after she is available to the player.


This info is from
http://www.combinedfleet.com/kaigun.htm
I normally prefer written sources, but until we start on a Trafalgar mod my little library isn't going to be much help.

_____________________________



(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 335
RE: Japanese Army Large Landing Ships - 3/18/2005 7:07:56 PM   
bstarr


Posts: 881
Joined: 8/1/2004
From: Texas, by God!
Status: offline 		Okay, I thought the info would useful. Guess not.

_____________________________



(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 336
RE: Japanese Army Large Landing Ships - 3/18/2005 8:36:44 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
Most ships are not assigned arrival points - just defaulted to the location for their HQ. I didn't see a strong response to exact-location arrivals - so I did nothing. Comments?

(in reply to bstarr)
Post #: 337
RE: Japanese Army Large Landing Ships - 3/18/2005 9:53:32 PM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline 		Hi Don,

I wish all ship, LCU and airgroup reinforcements arrive in the main base for that country. I get airgroups arriving all over India (Madras, Lucknow, Columbo, etc etc). I don't think those airgroups are created and trained in those bases, historically. Just because some Spitfire squadron operated out of Columbo in WWII doesn't mean that's where I want it deployed in my game. Have it arrive in Karachi/Aden and let me decide on it's tactical deployment. Same thing with all those Australian MSW's. Why do they show up in Darwin, Cooktown and Hobart???? I think they should all start at Sydney. Let me deploy them to Darwin if I want.

I think there should be very few exceptions to this rule. Ships undergoing refits at the start of the war should arrive in the base where the refit is happening. LCU's with restricted commands should arrive in the region where they would be deployed (so you don't pay PP's to be able to move them).

I've seen some Japanese LCU's arriving in Georgetown and other Maylay peninsula bases. What if the Japanese player doesn't capture Georgetown? That LCU will then arrive in Tokyo. It should arrive in Saigon and have the player move it to where it should go.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 338
RE: Japanese Army Large Landing Ships - 3/18/2005 10:31:42 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Hi Don,

I wish all ship, LCU and airgroup reinforcements arrive in the main base for that country. I get airgroups arriving all over India (Madras, Lucknow, Columbo, etc etc). I don't think those airgroups are created and trained in those bases, historically. Just because some Spitfire squadron operated out of Columbo in WWII doesn't mean that's where I want it deployed in my game. Have it arrive in Karachi/Aden and let me decide on it's tactical deployment. Same thing with all those Australian MSW's. Why do they show up in Darwin, Cooktown and Hobart???? I think they should all start at Sydney. Let me deploy them to Darwin if I want.

I think there should be very few exceptions to this rule. Ships undergoing refits at the start of the war should arrive in the base where the refit is happening. LCU's with restricted commands should arrive in the region where they would be deployed (so you don't pay PP's to be able to move them).

I've seen some Japanese LCU's arriving in Georgetown and other Maylay peninsula bases. What if the Japanese player doesn't capture Georgetown? That LCU will then arrive in Tokyo. It should arrive in Saigon and have the player move it to where it should go.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.


This is a pretty good point. A quick check shows a large number of Japanese land units "formed" in conquered territories - Malaya, the Philippines, NEI. Should these have their arrival "cleared" to they arrive at their HQ designated locations??
What say you all?

(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 339
RE: Japanese Army Large Landing Ships - 3/19/2005 12:27:57 AM   
bstarr


Posts: 881
Joined: 8/1/2004
From: Texas, by God!
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Most ships are not assigned arrival points - just defaulted to the location for their HQ. I didn't see a strong response to exact-location arrivals - so I did nothing. Comments?


In my opinion it's not that big of an issue, but, with all the realism we've gone into on other details, it wouldn't hurt to have the ship's arrive at the actual port. It's added realism that doesn't negatively affect anything.

edit - added:
it's different than allied LCUs and airgroups in that the Jap ships were actually located at locations other than Tokyo when they "became availible". If the goal is maximum possible realism, then these units should come into play where they historically started their careers.

_____________________________



(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 340
RE: Japanese Army Large Landing Ships - 3/19/2005 12:29:29 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
A quick check shows a large number of Japanese land units "formed" in conquered territories - Malaya, the Philippines, NEI. Should these have their arrival "cleared" to they arrive at their HQ designated locations??
What say you all?



I agree with all of what Bradley7735 says.


_____________________________

Information about my WitP map, and CHS, can be found on my WitP website


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 341
RE: Japanese Army Large Landing Ships - 3/19/2005 12:33:15 AM   
bstarr


Posts: 881
Joined: 8/1/2004
From: Texas, by God!
Status: offline 		Land units, yes; I also agree. However, my post was about jap ships.

_____________________________



(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 342
RE: Japanese Army Large Landing Ships - 3/19/2005 12:39:17 AM   
bstarr


Posts: 881
Joined: 8/1/2004
From: Texas, by God!
Status: offline 		Rephrase:

I think I agree with the LCU unless specific data can be found that they were formed at a certain location.

I still think ships should come in at their historic ports. Their redeployment is part of the game. It's oddly enough the same argument at a different angle. LCUs shouldn't be deployed to some random port because we want the same freedom to deploy them that the historic leaders had. The ships should appear at their historic ports because I want the same freedom of deployment that their historic leaders had . . . I may not need them at Tokyo.

_____________________________



(in reply to bstarr)
Post #: 343
RE: Japanese Army Large Landing Ships - 3/19/2005 1:14:03 AM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline
quote:

I agree with all of what Bradley7735 says.


Wow. That doesn't happen very often. Especially from someone who has a good brain on their shoulders.

However, I agree with bstarr as well. I think that if the ship/LCU/airgroup became operational (combat ready) at a specific base on the map, then that is where it should come in as a reinforcement. However, if the ship/LCU/airgroup became operational somewhere off the map, then it's starting location should be the countries main port (probably Panama Canal for US ships, SF for US LCU's and airgroups, etc etc).

However #2, since I don't do any of the hard research stuff you guys are using to create the mod, I'd be perfectly happy to see all LCU/Ship/Airgroup reinforcements arrive in the countries main base. It is a little less historic, but it does help those of us who can't read fast enough to know where reinforcements are showing up. I'd only have to check a few bases to know if I had new ships/LCU's or airgroups on map.

Anyway, I'll be happy with whatever you guys decide to do. If I don't like it, I can edit.

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to bstarr)
Post #: 344
RE: Japanese Army Large Landing Ships - 3/19/2005 1:37:51 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
OK - I am getting a little confused.

Allied reinforcements have already been moved to historic arrival points (with a few exceptions):

US ships arrive on the West Coast or at Panama
British Ships arrive at Aden/Middle East
Australian/New Zealand/Canada/India Ships arrive primarily in their own countries unless known to arrive somewhere else (Australian "N" class at Middle East, for example).
Commonwealth and Dutch ships arrive at either British (Aden/Middle East) or US (West Coast/Panama) arrival points
Exceptions for ships: those units known to be at sea on or about 12/7/41 will arrive at their destination ports at the approximate arrival times.

US Airgroups arrive at the United States Base (330) except those transferred via Atlantic/Med or formed in India/China, which arrive at Middle East
British Airgroups arrive at Middle East
Australian/New Zealand/Indian/Canadian/Chinese/Soviet airgroups arrive in their own countries except those known to arrive at some other location (some transfers from the Atlantic)
Commonwealth Air Units arrive at Middle East
Dutch Airgroups arrive in Australia (two squadrons formed with the RAAF)
Exceptions for AirGroups: two US squadrons arrive at Brisbane in late December, 1941 to simulate transport via the Pensacola Convoy.

US Land units arrive on the West Coast or Panama
British Land Units arrive at Middle East
All others arrive in their home countries
Exception for Land Units: British Chindit units are formed in India.

I have done no such work with Japanese forces - they're just targets to me and I have neither interest nor research material for them. From the posts above it is not clear what you-all think should be done:
Japanese Ships listed in BStar's original post can be moved to those locations - the rest will continue to default.
A few Japanese Airgroups arrive in China - these can easily be moved back to Japan.
Japanese Land Units arrive all over the bloody place - many in locations that are not under Japanese control at the start of the scenario: Malaya, Philippines, NEI, others. I can either clear their arrival points and allow them to default to HQ location or I can leave them like they are and go get a beer. I would like advice from a Japanese Fanboy on this.

Don



(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 345
RE: Japanese Army Large Landing Ships - 3/19/2005 1:45:59 AM   
Tanaka


Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


OK - I am getting a little confused.

Allied reinforcements have already been moved to historic arrival points (with a few exceptions):

US ships arrive on the West Coast or at Panama
British Ships arrive at Aden/Middle East
Australian/New Zealand/Canada/India Ships arrive primarily in their own countries unless known to arrive somewhere else (Australian "N" class at Middle East, for example).
Commonwealth and Dutch ships arrive at either British (Aden/Middle East) or US (West Coast/Panama) arrival points
Exceptions for ships: those units known to be at sea on or about 12/7/41 will arrive at their destination ports at the approximate arrival times.

US Airgroups arrive at the United States Base (330) except those transferred via Atlantic/Med or formed in India/China, which arrive at Middle East
British Airgroups arrive at Middle East
Australian/New Zealand/Indian/Canadian/Chinese/Soviet airgroups arrive in their own countries except those known to arrive at some other location (some transfers from the Atlantic)
Commonwealth Air Units arrive at Middle East
Dutch Airgroups arrive in Australia (two squadrons formed with the RAAF)
Exceptions for AirGroups: two US squadrons arrive at Brisbane in late December, 1941 to simulate transport via the Pensacola Convoy.

US Land units arrive on the West Coast or Panama
British Land Units arrive at Middle East
All others arrive in their home countries
Exception for Land Units: British Chindit units are formed in India.

I have done no such work with Japanese forces - they're just targets to me and I have neither interest nor research material for them. From the posts above it is not clear what you-all think should be done:
Japanese Ships listed in BStar's original post can be moved to those locations - the rest will continue to default.
A few Japanese Airgroups arrive in China - these can easily be moved back to Japan.
Japanese Land Units arrive all over the bloody place - many in locations that are not under Japanese control at the start of the scenario: Malaya, Philippines, NEI, others. I can either clear their arrival points and allow them to default to HQ location or I can leave them like they are and go get a beer. I would like advice from a Japanese Fanboy on this.

Don





have u guys talked to pry about this? i wonder if maybe they did this for a reason? maybe for the AI or something...

just a thought...

but yes it would seem to make sense that the units would form in their home countries or hq locaton...


_____________________________


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 346
RE: Japanese Army Large Landing Ships - 3/19/2005 1:54:01 AM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline 		Hi Don,

Your list of arrivals for the allies looks exactly like what I wanted to see. You have all arrivals coming into one main base for that country, with some known exceptions. That's exactly what I was trying to say in my emails.

However, I'm not a Japanense fanboy, so I don't know what to say on the Japanese LCU thing. If it breaks the AI, then you should leave it alone. In fact, I say you should probably just be safe and not worry about the Japanese side and go get that beer.

bc

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 347
RE: Japanese Army Large Landing Ships - 3/19/2005 2:20:23 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		As I've mentioned a number of times last few years, I'd like to see the majority of units be tied to restricted commands at start of game and when arriving as reinforcements. US to West Coast, SE Asia as ABDA initially (command structure was pretty screwy until ABDA collapsed and since SE Asia is unrestricted and probably should be restricted, ABDA is best option), I'm not sure which japanese HQs are restricted but I think the more we restrict them, the less BS we will see intially. Same goes for mass exodus of DEI and Malaya forces.

_____________________________





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

(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 348
RE: Japanese Army Large Landing Ships - 3/19/2005 4:28:53 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

I still think ships should come in at their historic ports. Their redeployment is part of the game.


bstarr - I also see your point and, if someone is willing and able to move the starting points of some of the IJN ships then that is fine by me. I can't do it though as I am too busy for now (and IF I get some spare time later I might even tackle some of the most dreaded of tasks - "documentation").

As for the Japanese LCU appearing in "conquered" areas - I also don't know why that was done. Its a question for Pry or others.

As Don says I am sure that all of the Allied forces are correct.



_____________________________

Information about my WitP map, and CHS, can be found on my WitP website


(in reply to bstarr)
Post #: 349
RE: Japanese Army Large Landing Ships - 3/19/2005 4:41:29 AM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
As for the Japanese LCU appearing in "conquered" areas - I also don't know why that was done. Its a question for Pry or others.


I've updated the Japanese ship arrivals as suggested and verified all the allied units. Remaining questions are Japanese Airgroups and Land Units.

I ASSUME the units in question were actually formed in the locations given. Since men and equipment had to be shipped "there" in order to form the unit, I feel it is more appropriate to have the units appear in the Home Islands. That is what has been done for allied units that formed in "the field" - they have been moved back to their respective homelands.

Probably the best thing is to clear the arrival points for all units that appear as reinforcements outside of Japan and let them arrive at the normal arrival point for their HQ. However, as suggested, there may be some valid reason for forming the units "in the field". I am waiting for more input before tackling this item.

Don

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 350
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Ship Data - 3/19/2005 11:57:12 PM   
Herrbear


Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline 		I notice in the mod that class 413 Old "S" class is listed as a type 18-DMS. Shouldn't these be a type 17-DM?

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 351
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Ship Data - 3/20/2005 12:16:25 AM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

I notice in the mod that class 413 Old "S" class is listed as a type 18-DMS. Shouldn't these be a type 17-DM?


You are correct - Fixed!

(in reply to Herrbear)
Post #: 352
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Ship Data - 3/20/2005 12:39:19 AM   
Herrbear


Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline 		It seems that the Japanese sub classes all have their torpedoes facing Forward and none Rearward. Does it matter for game purposes?

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 353
RE: Japanese Army Large Landing Ships - 3/20/2005 9:26:59 PM   
bstarr


Posts: 881
Joined: 8/1/2004
From: Texas, by God!
Status: offline
quote:

Japanese Land Units arrive all over the bloody place - many in locations that are not under Japanese control at the start of the scenario: Malaya, Philippines, NEI, others. I can either clear their arrival points and allow them to default to HQ location or I can leave them like they are and go get a beer. I would like advice from a Japanese Fanboy on this.


Might want to consider leaving these forming where they already do. It may or may not be historic, but it would beat the hell out of having half of them sunk in the late-war allied sub blitz. You could end up with half of your jap army lost to Davy Jones' locker and the other half stranded at Tokyo, while you what helpless as the allies roll right through the dutch east indies.
bs

_____________________________



(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 354
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Ship Data - 3/20/2005 9:39:51 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

It seems that the Japanese sub classes all have their torpedoes facing Forward and none Rearward. Does it matter for game purposes?


The Japanese generally did not use stern torpedo tubes for their submarines. So all tubes facing foward is correct.

(in reply to Herrbear)
Post #: 355
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Ship Data - 3/20/2005 10:25:17 PM   
Herrbear


Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline 		The Tutuila ship # 4688 is showing based in Hong Kong. Did the US have ships in HK?

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 356
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Ship Data - 3/20/2005 10:27:01 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

The Tutuila ship # 4688 is showing based in Hong Kong. Did the US have ships in HK?


She was actually upriver on the Yangtse - Hong Kong is a close as we can come.

< Message edited by Don Bowen -- 3/20/2005 10:31:00 PM >

(in reply to Herrbear)
Post #: 357
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Ship Data - 3/23/2005 1:22:58 AM   
CobraAus


Posts: 2322
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Geelong Australia
Status: offline 		Don I am finding several destroyers fitted with sea plane rails mainly over rear turrets when looking for art, I have not looked yet but have any of the destroyers been given this capabilty to use scout planes
if historic would be very usefull

Cobra Aus

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 358
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Ship Data - 3/23/2005 1:48:46 AM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: CobraAus

Don I am finding several destroyers fitted with sea plane rails mainly over rear turrets when looking for art, I have not looked yet but have any of the destroyers been given this capabilty to use scout planes
if historic would be very usefull

Cobra Aus


As far as I know this capability was never used in action. The U.S. abandoned it's test program and converted/re-ordered all units as regular Destroyers. I've seen conflicting reports as to the Dutch destroyers in the NEI - they have have retained the capability but I can find no record of it ever being used. Anyway- I don't think WITP can handle it.

Don

(in reply to CobraAus)
Post #: 359
Check this out... - 3/23/2005 2:59:30 AM   
Ron Saueracker


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

http://www.friesian.com/destroy.htm

_____________________________





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 #: 360
Page:   <<   < prev  9 10 11 [12] 13   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: Japanese Army Large Landing Ships Page: <<   < prev  9 10 11 [12] 13   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

0.859