Name This AE...251

Name This AE...251 (Full Version)

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

Message

Brady -> Name This AE...251 (3/9/2009 12:08:22 AM)
??? [img]http://www.oniva.com/upload/2131/AE251.jpg[/img]

Footslogger -> RE: Name This AE...251 (3/9/2009 12:37:20 AM)
Looks like japs? Did Japanese destroyers have 5 inch guns too?[&:]

String -> RE: Name This AE...251 (3/9/2009 1:10:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Footslogger Looks like japs? Did Japanese destroyers have 5 inch guns too?[&:] Yes, most of the newer ones did. Akizuki class had 3.9" guns and some of the older ones had 4.7" ones.

rtrapasso -> RE: Name This AE...251 (3/9/2009 1:14:46 AM)
i was thinking this was maybe the USS Nicholas on the right, getting Japanese pilots to enter Tokyo Bay, but the ship does not look like the DD she met, the Hatsuzakura. However, i looking for pics, i ran across this one which looks strangely familiar (yet disturbingly different) [:D]... unfortunately, the link to the larger photo isn't working... [image]local://upfiles/7543/D97657F5A80F40359C5410CC43417073.jpg[/image] EDIT: it doesn't appear to be the Nicholas on closer examination, either...

Local Yokel -> RE: Name This AE...251 (3/9/2009 1:20:07 AM)
Shiratsuyu class DD's. Just possible they are early configuration Hatsuharus, but Shiratsuyu class (improved Hatsuharu) is, I think, more likely.

Pistachio -> RE: Name This AE...251 (3/9/2009 1:59:21 AM)
A raft party on Lake Norman?

AW1Steve -> RE: Name This AE...251 (3/9/2009 4:59:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso i was thinking this was maybe the USS Nicholas on the right, getting Japanese pilots to enter Tokyo Bay, but the ship does not look like the DD she met, the Hatsuzakura. However, i looking for pics, i ran across this one which looks strangely familiar (yet disturbingly different) [:D]... unfortunately, the link to the larger photo isn't working... [image]local://upfiles/7543/D97657F5A80F40359C5410CC43417073.jpg[/image] EDIT: it doesn't appear to be the Nicholas on closer examination, either... I think not only are both ships Japanese, I think that they are "sisterships". That's a really odd thing to see though, the single turret back to back with the twin turret.

AW1Steve -> RE: Name This AE...251 (3/9/2009 4:59:26 AM)
Local yokel is absolutely right! What a totally weird configuration! [X(]

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Name This AE...251 (3/9/2009 5:06:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve Local yokel is absolutely right! What a totally weird configuration! [X(] What, the single turret in X position? Not any weirder than the Pensacolas with the Triple turrets in B and X and Twin turrets in A and Y. Weird and ungainly.

AW1Steve -> RE: Name This AE...251 (3/9/2009 5:14:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve Local yokel is absolutely right! What a totally weird configuration! [X(] What, the single turret in X position? Not any weirder than the Pensacolas with the Triple turrets in B and X and Twin turrets in A and Y. Weird and ungainly. True...but I was thinking more in terms of the Porters, where a twin single purpose was replaced with a single dual purpose to improve AA and reduce top hamper. That was ugly , but made sense. This arrangement is reminicent of WW1 British pre-dreadnoughts.

wdolson -> RE: Name This AE...251 (3/9/2009 5:18:22 AM)
Could one of those be a light cruiser? The twin turret looks like a CL, but the single behind it doesn't. Bill

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Name This AE...251 (3/9/2009 5:26:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve Local yokel is absolutely right! What a totally weird configuration! [X(] What, the single turret in X position? Not any weirder than the Pensacolas with the Triple turrets in B and X and Twin turrets in A and Y. Weird and ungainly. True...but I was thinking more in terms of the Porters, where a twin single purpose was replaced with a single dual purpose to improve AA and reduce top hamper. That was ugly , but made sense. This arrangement is reminicent of WW1 British pre-dreadnoughts. Most likely done to keep weight down while keeping a five gun broadside. Must have been very tight design wise if one could not raise this mount a deck higher. Hatsuharus had a weight issue because of this and the Shiratsuyus came right after them.

Local Yokel -> RE: Name This AE...251 (3/9/2009 12:28:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve Local yokel is absolutely right! What a totally weird configuration! [X(] What, the single turret in X position? Not any weirder than the Pensacolas with the Triple turrets in B and X and Twin turrets in A and Y. Weird and ungainly. True...but I was thinking more in terms of the Porters, where a twin single purpose was replaced with a single dual purpose to improve AA and reduce top hamper. That was ugly , but made sense. This arrangement is reminicent of WW1 British pre-dreadnoughts. Most likely done to keep weight down while keeping a five gun broadside. Must have been very tight design wise if one could not raise this mount a deck higher. Hatsuharus had a weight issue because of this and the Shiratsuyus came right after them. The problem was not so much weight as weight distribution. The hull weight of the Hatsuharu's was actually less than that of the Fubuki's that had preceded them, but more and more weight was being put higher and higher as the designers sought to cram ever more fighting power into the special destroyer platform. This led to an excessively high centre of gravity such that, when Hatsuharu ran her high-speed torpedo firing trial at Tachibana Bay in August 1933, the application of 10 degrees of helm induced a heel angle of no less than 38 degrees - to the considerable alarm of the crew! At that time the single 127mm mount of the kind visible here was mounted in a superfiring position abaft the twin 127mm 'A' turret, giving you some idea of how much top weight the design was carrying. Following the Tomozuru Incident the Japanese comprehensively reviewed the topweight issue, and Hatsuharu and Nenohi, the only two of the class built to the original configuration, were re-designed so as to resemble the layout shown here, with a single 127mm mount in what had effectively become 'X' turret position. The Shiratsuyu's, as improved Hatsuharu's, adopted substantially the same layout, with the difference that they carried two quad TT mounts, as compared with the Hatsuharus' two triple mounts (the original Hatsuharu design carried a third triple TT mount, at higher level than the intermediate mount [X(]) That led to a different arrangement for the torpedo reload storage which I think is clearly apparent in this photograph, and re-inforces my conviction that these are Shiratsuyu's rather than Hatsuharu's.

Shark7 -> RE: Name This AE...251 (3/9/2009 3:37:25 PM)
Both are definately Shiratsuyu's. Only Japanese DD with that arrangement of the aft turrets. Identical ships, compare the gun directors and torpedo reload gantries just fore of the aft mast. As to which exact two, I couldn't say.

Cap Mandrake -> RE: Name This AE...251 (3/9/2009 5:24:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Local Yokel The problem was not so much weight as weight distribution. The hull weight of the Hatsuharu's was actually less than that of the Fubuki's that had preceded them, but more and more weight was being put higher and higher as the designers sought to cram ever more fighting power into the special destroyer platform. This led to an excessively high centre of gravity such that, when Hatsuharu ran her high-speed torpedo firing trial at Tachibana Bay in August 1933, the application of 10 degrees of helm induced a heel angle of no less than 38 degrees - to the considerable alarm of the crew! At that time the single 127mm mount of the kind visible here was mounted in a superfiring position abaft the twin 127mm 'A' turret, giving you some idea of how much top weight the design was carrying. Following the Tomozuru Incident the Japanese comprehensively reviewed the topweight issue, and Hatsuharu and Nenohi, the only two of the class built to the original configuration, were re-designed so as to resemble the layout shown here, with a single 127mm mount in what had effectively become 'X' turret position. The Shiratsuyu's, as improved Hatsuharu's, adopted substantially the same layout, with the difference that they carried two quad TT mounts, as compared with the Hatsuharus' two triple mounts (the original Hatsuharu design carried a third triple TT mount, at higher level than the intermediate mount [X(]) That led to a different arrangement for the torpedo reload storage which I think is clearly apparent in this photograph, and re-inforces my conviction that these are Shiratsuyu's rather than Hatsuharu's. Interesting story. My question is this. Were they trying to save money by not hiring a naval architect? Surely the math for such a calcualtion (center of gravity) was well known and there must have been some standards to predict that kind of behavior. Maybe they hired the same firm that did the Vasa design

witpqs -> RE: Name This AE...251 (3/9/2009 6:20:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake Interesting story. My question is this. Were they trying to save money by not hiring a naval architect? Surely the math for such a calcualtion (center of gravity) was well known and there must have been some standards to predict that kind of behavior. Maybe they hired the same firm that did the Vasa design Remember, Mandrake, at the time they made their slide rules from bamboo. Perhaps there was a humidity problem at the design bureau.

JWE -> RE: Name This AE...251 (3/9/2009 7:38:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake Interesting story. My question is this. Were they trying to save money by not hiring a naval architect? Surely the math for such a calcualtion (center of gravity) was well known and there must have been some standards to predict that kind of behavior. Maybe they hired the same firm that did the Vasa design It's not a story. Japan had excellent Naval Architects. There�s nothing magic about calculating a height of metacentric. Thing is that the NAs did that, but after they laid out the box rule, IJNHQ came along and demanded double the weapons, double this, double that, all on the same hull. The NAs screamed bloody murder and told IJNHQ exactly what would happen. What did IJNHQ do? It fired the NAs and promoted a lickspittle. Evans & Peatie have a whole chapter about this in Kaigun. It�s really pathetic. A lot like that idiot Hitler and his super maus weapons; more and bigger is better, except, of course, when it's not. But the Japanese woke up after the Tomozuru and 5th fleet �incidents� � oh ! nan desu ka ! [edit] actually the Shiratsuyu was a pretty good design; she wasn't all that tender to begin with, and had a bit of roll recovery in reserve to accommodate some extra AA topside. Like the US DDs, doctrine was to engage broadside, so it didn't matter where her aft gun was trained at rest; she would have trained outboard in an engagement.

Hornblower -> RE: Name This AE...251 (3/9/2009 7:48:47 PM)
Cutlasses and Pikes men! Boarders Away!!!

Brady -> RE: Name This AE...251 (3/9/2009 10:50:56 PM)
Shiratsuyu class DD's, it is[:)]

Local Yokel -> RE: Name This AE...251 (3/9/2009 11:53:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JWE quote: ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake Interesting story. My question is this. Were they trying to save money by not hiring a naval architect? Surely the math for such a calcualtion (center of gravity) was well known and there must have been some standards to predict that kind of behavior. Maybe they hired the same firm that did the Vasa design It's not a story. Japan had excellent Naval Architects. There�s nothing magic about calculating a height of metacentric. Thing is that the NAs did that, but after they laid out the box rule, IJNHQ came along and demanded double the weapons, double this, double that, all on the same hull. The NAs screamed bloody murder and told IJNHQ exactly what would happen. What did IJNHQ do? It fired the NAs and promoted a lickspittle. Evans & Peatie have a whole chapter about this in Kaigun. It�s really pathetic. A lot like that idiot Hitler and his super maus weapons; more and bigger is better, except, of course, when it's not. But the Japanese woke up after the Tomozuru and 5th fleet �incidents� � oh ! nan desu ka ! [edit] actually the Shiratsuyu was a pretty good design; she wasn't all that tender to begin with, and had a bit of roll recovery in reserve to accommodate some extra AA topside. Like the US DDs, doctrine was to engage broadside, so it didn't matter where her aft gun was trained at rest; she would have trained outboard in an engagement. I assume JWE has in mind R Adm Fujimoto Kikuo in mind as the lickspittle in question! Evans and Peattie certainly say that he was a good deal more suggestible than his illustrious predecessor Hiraga Yuzuru. A look at Fujimoto's career path shows what seems to be a pretty meteoric rise from the rank of Constructor Commander (attained in December 1923) to his elevation at the age of 44 to Constructor Rear Admiral in the space of almost exactly 10 years, so maybe such suggestibility was the product of promotional inducements. He certainly paid a heavy price for his advancement, receiving much blame for the fallout resulting from the Tomozuru Incident. This probably played a large part in his early death on 9 Jan 1935, three days shy of his 47th birthday. However, from what I've read the blame for the Hatsuharus' shortcomings should not be attributed to Fujimoto, unless he was responsible for determining the initial design response to the NGS' specification of its requirements for the new destroyer class. That specification called for only two triple TT mounts, yet the initial Hatsuharu design inexplicably included the third, elevated mount. Also, it was the designers' decision to incorporate a pair of heavy 40mm pom-poms when the NGS would apparently have settled for a much lighter AA weapon. Given that all this extra weight had to be accomodated within a standard displacement that was little more than four-fifths of the earlier Special Type destroyers, whoever cranked out the initial design for the new class seems to have suffered from a severe rush of blood to the head.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.9853516