ship types (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

undercovergeek -> ship types (8/16/2008 9:42:24 PM)

i know its here some where..................

does anyone know where the post describing each and every ship type is, have forgotten all about AG, AS, PC, PG blah blah

thanks for any help



Mistmatz -> RE: ship types (8/16/2008 10:09:58 PM)

Thats one of the cases where the manual should be able to help... [;)]



Minedog -> RE: ship types (8/16/2008 11:27:11 PM)

19.1.2 Appendix A in the manual is the one I consult (over and over.. what is a CS?)



Feinder -> RE: ship types (8/16/2008 11:32:34 PM)

CS is a seaplane cruiser (or something like that).  They basically carry about 20 or so float-planes or float-fighters (only the Japanese have them).

-F-



Mistmatz -> RE: ship types (8/17/2008 12:04:17 AM)

I believe CS stands for scout cruiser.



FeurerKrieg -> RE: ship types (8/17/2008 12:40:57 AM)

So CL makes sense for a light cruiser, but why is a heavy cruiser CA? And why is a carrier CV?




Feinder -> RE: ship types (8/17/2008 12:52:23 AM)

Oh, yeah, that's right.  CS = scout cruiser.

CA actually came from 'Armored' cruiser.  CL then was light cruiser (because it lacked much armor).

CV - stems from the originally envisioned role of the aircraft carrier - as a scout, much as the cruiser role.  Thus they were lumped into the same types as cruisers (with the 'C').  The V comes from meaning "heavier than air", describing the fact it carries aircraft (as opposed to blimps and dirgibles which are -not- heavier than air).

-F-



FeurerKrieg -> RE: ship types (8/17/2008 12:54:39 AM)

Cool, thanks!



thegreatwent -> RE: ship types (8/17/2008 4:50:30 AM)

The designations were also important since they determined the number allowed under the Washington Naval Treaties. The CV and Washington CLs didn't count towards the number of allowed CAs. These distinctions were responsible for all kinds of shipbuilding games [:)].



TOMLABEL -> RE: ship types (8/17/2008 5:58:04 AM)

AE = CVB!!!



Shark7 -> RE: ship types (8/17/2008 6:42:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Oh, yeah, that's right.  CS = scout cruiser.

CA actually came from 'Armored' cruiser.  CL then was light cruiser (because it lacked much armor).

CV - stems from the originally envisioned role of the aircraft carrier - as a scout, much as the cruiser role.  Thus they were lumped into the same types as cruisers (with the 'C').  The V comes from meaning "heavier than air", describing the fact it carries aircraft (as opposed to blimps and dirgibles which are -not- heavier than air).

-F-


The armored cruisers were also referred to as 'protected' cruisers at the turn of the century. Same ship, just a different name for them.

Funny thing about carriers is they typcially were built on BC or BB hulls prior to the war, yet were thrown into the cruiser class of vessels.



undercovergeek -> RE: ship types (8/17/2008 7:43:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mistmatz

Thats one of the cases where the manual should be able to help... [;)]


and indeed it does - but it only informs me about what the letters stand for - the post describes the ideal roles for the lesser known ships - and before i get 'terminused' i know what the BBs and CLs are for - its the PC/PG/AGS etc



Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: ship types (8/17/2008 9:36:23 PM)

Protected cruisers were something completely different than armoured cruisers. Protected cruisers had only deck armour (while armoured ones had also belt armour), and they were ancestors of light cruisers.

In WitP there are 4 CS. All of them are seaplane carriers and have nothing common with pre WWI type of scout cruiser.



VSWG -> RE: ship types (8/17/2008 9:58:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: undercovergeek


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mistmatz

Thats one of the cases where the manual should be able to help... [;)]


and indeed it does - but it only informs me about what the letters stand for - the post describes the ideal roles for the lesser known ships - and before i get 'terminused' i know what the BBs and CLs are for - its the PC/PG/AGS etc

This should help: http://witp.kodapa.com/index.php?title=Ship_Classes



JWE -> RE: ship types (8/17/2008 10:05:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: undercovergeek
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mistmatz
Thats one of the cases where the manual should be able to help... [;)]

and indeed it does - but it only informs me about what the letters stand for - the post describes the ideal roles for the lesser known ships - and before i get 'terminused' i know what the BBs and CLs are for - its the PC/PG/AGS etc

Darn, I just can’t remember what’s in the WiTP manual, but I “think” there’s a table in there somewhere that lists what “classes” can participate in what kinds of TFs. That’s the real operational differentiation between the ‘dinky’ classes.



Feinder -> RE: ship types (8/18/2008 12:25:46 AM)

Undercover -

Just some generalities -

PC/SC - These guys tend to be shorter range ships (usually under 2000 endurance).  Fair convoy escorts (for ASW), but all but worthless in suface action.  Think of them as bass-boats with a DC rack.  Not the best for long convoy treks (because the convoy will have to keep slowing down to refuel them).  But if you're talking about running between PH and Palmyra (about as far as I'd go), or say Tokyo and Manilla.

PG/DE - There are your ocean-going escorts.  Fair ASW platforms, and can operate well enough in suface combat.  They usually have 3000 - 5000 endurance, so they won't force a refuel every other turn.  Note that, esp in CHS, some of the PGs do not have ASW capabilities.  There are some old dreadnaught-style ones (Soerbaja and Idzumo come to mind), that have no ASW, but their armor is good to put them with an invasion TF to soak up some of the CD fire (unfortunately, they cannot be added to a bombardment TF where their 12" guns would be very useful).

DD - Best escorts (usually) for ASW and surface combat (naturally your convoy wants to -avoid- surface combat, but if push comes to shove).  But you can never have enough DDs (because you're need them for your main fleet units as well).



FeurerKrieg -> RE: ship types (8/18/2008 12:38:13 AM)

Has anyone seen those old Japanese dreadnaughts in a surface combat? I came across those a few months back, and pulled them back to where I can keep track of them (so they don't get stuck on convoy duty). I hadn't realized before then that they do have pretty significant guns and armor.



msieving1 -> RE: ship types (8/18/2008 2:47:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thegreatwent

The designations were also important since they determined the number allowed under the Washington Naval Treaties. The CV and Washington CLs didn't count towards the number of allowed CAs. These distinctions were responsible for all kinds of shipbuilding games [:)].


Mostly, the designations used in the game follow US Navy practice. The exceptions are for battlecruisers (US Navy designated them CC) and CLAA (the CLAA designation wasn't used until 1948; during WWII those cruisers were just CL).

The Washington treaty set limits on aircraft carriers, but didn't make any limitations on cruisers other than defining ships over 10,000 tons or with guns larger than 8" as capital ships, which were limited. The US 8" gun cruisers were originally designated CL, for light cruiser, while the Milwaukee class were CS, for scout cruiser. The London treaty set separate limits on cruisers with guns larger than 155 mm (6.1") and for cruisers with smaller guns, so the US Navy re-designated the 8" gun cruisers as CA and used CL for 6" gun cruisers, including the Milwaukees.

The Brooklyn class CLs were as large as, and better armored than the 8" gun CAs. (They were designed after most of the prewar CAs, and were only built because the US had used up its allowance for 8" gun cruisers.) The difference between the CAs and CLs was strictly in the size of gun. The RN built smaller 6" gun cruisers, since they wanted more ships. The treaty limited total tonnage for cruisers rather than number of ships.



Feinder -> RE: ship types (8/18/2008 3:33:29 AM)

I had the two IJN dreadnaught togethe at the start of the war in one game.  I think they actually did engage some of the old USN China Squadron gunboats around Shanghai.  Not much of a match-up, the USN gunboats are crap compaired to the dreadnauts.  But after that, they're too slow and short range to catch anything, so the accompanied the invasion of Java, and then sat in Manila harbor.

On my current CHS vs. Bilbow, I've used the Soerbaja on quite a few occasions.  I think she actually did see a single surface action before she made it out of the SRA.  Hit a DD or something (didn't sink it), but took a torp for it.  She made it out, and now I use her in invasion TFs.  She -does- get pounded on pretty often.  She's usually got about 16 - 20 sys dmg, but her guns are still intact.  She's so slow that I haven't bothered to ever send her down to Sydney for repairs.  If I ever hit a lull where I don't need her (and if she doesn't hit a mine first), I'll have to send off for repairs (and much needed rest).

-F-



thegreatwent -> RE: ship types (8/18/2008 3:43:53 AM)

"Mostly, the designations used in the game follow US Navy practice. The exceptions are for battlecruisers (US Navy designated them CC) and CLAA (the CLAA designation wasn't used until 1948; during WWII those cruisers were just CL).

The Washington treaty set limits on aircraft carriers, but didn't make any limitations on cruisers other than defining ships over 10,000 tons or with guns larger than 8" as capital ships, which were limited. The US 8" gun cruisers were originally designated CL, for light cruiser, while the Milwaukee class were CS, for scout cruiser. The London treaty set separate limits on cruisers with guns larger than 155 mm (6.1") and for cruisers with smaller guns, so the US Navy re-designated the 8" gun cruisers as CA and used CL for 6" gun cruisers, including the Milwaukees.

The Brooklyn class CLs were as large as, and better armored than the 8" gun CAs. (They were designed after most of the prewar CAs, and were only built because the US had used up its allowance for 8" gun cruisers.) The difference between the CAs and CLs was strictly in the size of gun. The RN built smaller 6" gun cruisers, since they wanted more ships. The treaty limited total tonnage for cruisers rather than number of ships."


Agreed, my mistake was in referring to CAs. The games I was referring to was the various treaty cruisers that played games with displacement, capacity of turrets in terms of tube size and how nations designated their vessels. Hard to identify if your comparing apples to apples if everyone is hiding their oranges[:)].



Feinder -> RE: ship types (8/18/2008 3:44:37 AM)

And the other Allied dreadnaught (George Averoff), went down (somewhat in vain) trying to defend an invastion TF at Port Blair vs. several IJN heavy cruisers. She wasn't very successful, but she did go down in a surface battle.

-F-





[image]local://upfiles/7554/B48B907DA846413BB231AD1A09F9FC66.jpg[/image]



FeurerKrieg -> RE: ship types (8/18/2008 5:02:46 AM)

Cool. I think a matchup of the Allied DNs versus the Japan DNs would go to the Allies, seeing as they have the 9.2 inch whereas the Japan DNs only have 8".

If I ever get my DN's into action, I'll try to remember to post it in here.



gladiatt -> RE: ship types (8/18/2008 7:54:29 AM)


I thought CV was for Carrier Vessel ....



undercovergeek -> RE: ship types (8/18/2008 10:33:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Undercover -

Just some generalities -

PC/SC - These guys tend to be shorter range ships (usually under 2000 endurance).  Fair convoy escorts (for ASW), but all but worthless in suface action.  Think of them as bass-boats with a DC rack.  Not the best for long convoy treks (because the convoy will have to keep slowing down to refuel them).  But if you're talking about running between PH and Palmyra (about as far as I'd go), or say Tokyo and Manilla.

PG/DE - There are your ocean-going escorts.  Fair ASW platforms, and can operate well enough in suface combat.  They usually have 3000 - 5000 endurance, so they won't force a refuel every other turn.  Note that, esp in CHS, some of the PGs do not have ASW capabilities.  There are some old dreadnaught-style ones (Soerbaja and Idzumo come to mind), that have no ASW, but their armor is good to put them with an invasion TF to soak up some of the CD fire (unfortunately, they cannot be added to a bombardment TF where their 12" guns would be very useful).

DD - Best escorts (usually) for ASW and surface combat (naturally your convoy wants to -avoid- surface combat, but if push comes to shove).  But you can never have enough DDs (because you're need them for your main fleet units as well).


fantastic - thanks very much indeed.

Have been playing 2 years now and i cant believe this hasnt occured to me before - when you 'escort' the convoys do you actually put DDs in the same TF or have them seperate following the convoy TF - and i think i read here somewhere that the 'escort' mission doesnt work - is this right?



Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: ship types (8/18/2008 12:58:50 PM)

Oh come on guys - those Idzumos and Georgios Averoff are armoured cruisers, not dreadnoughts.

And you can actually put PGs in bombardment TF, they just don't bombard at all.



saj42 -> RE: ship types (8/18/2008 1:30:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: undercovergeek

fantastic - thanks very much indeed.

Have been playing 2 years now and i cant believe this hasnt occured to me before - when you 'escort' the convoys do you actually put DDs in the same TF or have them seperate following the convoy TF - and i think i read here somewhere that the 'escort' mission doesnt work - is this right?



When a capital ship gets severely damaged the game code puts it into a separate TF with one DD as escort. To allow you to add more escorts so you can at least protect it while trying to reach a safe port the ESCORT TF was added in an earlier patch. ESCORT TFs DO NOT escort other TFs - they only allow you to 'escort' crippled ships.
To provide additional ASW ships to 'escort' a vital transport TF, use the ASW TF for your extra DDs etc and have it follow the transport TF. This gives you a chance that the ASW TF will detect and intercept an attacking sub before it engages the Transport TF. Escorts organic to the transport TF will usually (in my experience) engage a sub after it attacks the AP/AK/TKs etc.



Dili -> RE: ship types (8/18/2008 2:02:54 PM)

quote:

And the other Allied dreadnaught George Averoff


Averoff was an Italian armored cruiser sold to Greece.
I hope that PG get bombardment capability in AE without that we have to classify Monitors as cruisers.



undercovergeek -> RE: ship types (8/18/2008 2:05:25 PM)

thanks for help - see me rush round my jap first turn and change all ESCORT tfs to ASW tfs!!!

And finally (!) - i have seen invasion TFs with PCs in - is this just to provide the CDs with more cannon fodder and hopefully miss the APs? or do they support the invasion at all?



Feinder -> RE: ship types (8/18/2008 3:01:24 PM)

My apologies for calling the Averoff and Idzumo "dreadnaughts".  I suppose I should have called them "really old barges with some armor and guns" because that's pretty much what they amount to.  [;)]

While a do recommend a separate (covering) ASW and SC TF to accompany an invasion TF, I usually also put some escorts (PCs/SCs/PGs/DDs) in the invasion TF; in case the covering forces get by-passed (maybe the ASW TF doesn't find the sub and it gets a shot at the invasion TF), at least you have another shot at shooting back. 

But yes, the escorts in an invasion TF will draw fire from the CDs.  This is a two edged sword.  Unarmored ships like PC/SC/(most)PG/DD/MSW will have a really bad day when getting shot up by a bunch of CDs during the invasion.  But the escorts do (supposedly) shoot back and suppress the CDs (a little), altho I'm not sure you'd be happy with the results.  That leads to the reason for putting the armored PGs, and CLs and CAs in -with- your invasion TFs.  The armored ships will soak up fire from the CDs (and with their armor, depending on the size of the CD, it probably won't pentetrate), and return fire to supporess the CDs.

-F-



undercovergeek -> RE: ship types (8/18/2008 3:15:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

That leads to the reason for putting the armored PGs, and CLs and CAs in -with- your invasion TFs.  The armored ships will soak up fire from the CDs (and with their armor, depending on the size of the CD, it probably won't pentetrate), and return fire to supporess the CDs.

-F-


so you actually mix some big fellas (CAs, CLs) in with the invasion force? would BBs help too?



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.5