RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

Don Bowen -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (2/2/2010 5:55:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: oldman45 That is some amazing work Harald Don, I just got a letter from the War Museum in London, and they sent me to a different museum to get information on the dry docks and floating dry docks used in the Pacific and Indian oceans by the RN. I have my fingers crossed. Excellent. I'll cross my fingers too. In fact, I'll cross everything I got two of! While you're there... Looking into projected movement of ships to the Pacific after VE day. We know that large number of warships were projected to be sent but that this was aborted when Japan surrendered. The British Pacific Fleet was projected to be at full strength by the beginning of Downfall (circa 3/46). Very interested in warships that were intended to go east. Looks like almost all remaining cruisers and carriers, plus a bunch of DD. Apparently the A-I group were stood down, some or all of the J-N group were to be sent, no reference for the O-P flotillas, and virtually everything Q and on. Do you have any data on a projected "Ce" class? 5th flotilla of Ca, Cr, Ch, Co.... Any indication that Vanguard may have been given priority for completion by early 1946? In general, we'd like to include the post 9/45 build up - it will be needed if a Downfall like outcome happens!

oldman45 -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (2/2/2010 9:54:04 PM)
I will send that along with the request for dry dock info. I just realized I have this in wrong forum. Sorry about that.

mikemike -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (2/3/2010 1:15:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen Do you have any data on a projected "Ce" class? 5th flotilla of Ca, Cr, Ch, Co.... I've never heard of that. Maybe that's a misunderstanding as the "Z" class was virtually identical to the "C" class and the five Z/C class flotillas (10th - 14th Emergency flotilla) were all ordered in 1942. After their combat experience in the Med, the RN wanted destroyers with genuine dual-purpose armament, so they stopped buying utility destroyers with the C class and concentrated on acquiring fleet destroyers with longer range for use in the PTO; the first 16 "Battle" class destroyers were also ordered in 1942 and a further 24 of a slightly modified type in 1943. The "Weapon" class which was ordered in 1944 was again a smaller type but it was a completely new design, with the engine spaces arranged on the unit principle. So I think this "CE" class is completely mythical. quote: In general, we'd like to include the post 9/45 build up - it will be needed if a Downfall like outcome happens! As you may know, all the DDs of the Ch, Cr, and Co classes were completed post-WWII, mainly because of late delivery of their Mk VI directors; for the same reason, only "Barfleur" of the "Battle" class was finished early enough to deploy to the PTO before the end of the war (mid-1945, after being commissioned in September 1944). Later units of the "Battle" class apparently switched to the more readily available US Mk 37 director. Now, assuming that the ships would have to be commissioned in September/October 1945 at the latest to be present in the PTO by March 1946 (which is possibly overly generous), if we keep to the RL timetable, this would have meant at least another 7 "C" class and 6 "Battle" class DDs, possibly another "Battle" and 4-5 "C" class units assuming no slowdown after VE-Day. The interesting scenario would be to assume that the RN, recognizing early on that the MK VI would be late in delivery, would have switched to the Mk. 37 instead, thus avoiding delayed completion of the ships. If we now assume that the timespan from launch to combat-readiness in the PTO would be 14 months for the "C" class and 16 months for the "Battle" class, that would mean having maybe 18 "C" class and 12 "Battle" class ships in the PTO for Downfall.

Don Bowen -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (2/3/2010 2:23:32 AM)
A "Ce" flotilla, if it existed, would have been projected in the 1941-42 timeframe. I have seen only two references to such a flotilla, neither with any supporting references. I believe one mentioned the Weapons class of 1944 as a replacement for the Ce. I believe all of the first group of the Battle class were to ship the Mk VI director. The first 9 were completed by Jan, 1946 with this director and the remaining seven duirng the rest of 1946. Considering slowdowns in completions of all (non-cancelled) warships after VJ day, it is possible that some or all could be completed earlier. Looking for data on this. The second group did adopt the Mk 37, along with the 4.5 DP twin turrets. I do not believe any of these could be ready in time, nor any of the third group.

Dutch_slith -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (2/3/2010 6:53:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen quote: ORIGINAL: Harald Velemans ... New ship classes: ... TM 4 'OJR' same as 219 Type: SC (Sub Chaser) 1x1 DC Rack (4 DCs) facing rear replacing the 45mm H1 Torpedo (2x1) ... Have never heard of this. I know that eight PTCs were ordered from the US and given OJR names. Six delivered to Java and lost, the last two to West Indies. But PTC is a problem. They were not successful as a type as the high speed made it impossible to maintain accoustic contact with a target submarine. And, if they slowed down, there was little justification for the expense and maintenance of the high speed engines. Those in the US Navy were converted to PT or MGBs, or else lend leased to the Royal Navy - which did the same. All the dutch sources give the same information about the three TM-Boats. The fact that only one commander of these boats is known, is an indication of their failure. The PTCs you speak of, were OJR-1 to OJR-8. These were also known as Higgins-boats. They were absolutely useless and never became operational. OJR means onderzeebootjager (= Sub Chaser).

Don Bowen -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (2/3/2010 9:08:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Harald Velemans All the dutch sources give the same information about the three TM-Boats. The fact that only one commander of these boats is known, is an indication of their failure. The PTCs you speak of, were OJR-1 to OJR-8. These were also known as Higgins-boats. They were absolutely useless and never became operational. OJR means onderzeebootjager (= Sub Chaser). Thanks for you data. One learns something new everyday.

latosusi -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (2/5/2010 11:42:05 AM)
Sub TF has just turned red (enemy color)![:(]

Dutch_slith -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (2/5/2010 3:41:33 PM)
Ex-Gouvernementsmarine These vessels belonged to the Gouvernementsmarine but were requested by the Kon. Marine. Commanders were a mix of Gouvernementsmarine and Kon. Marine. Sources: Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1922-1946 L.L. von Münching Schepen van de Kon. Marine in de tweede Wereldoorlog Ph.M. Bosscher De Koninklijke Marine in de Tweede Wereloorlog (3 volumes) P.S. van't Haaff/M.J.C. Klaassen Gedenkboek Adelborsten-Opleiding te Willemsoord 1854-1954 Chris Mark Schepen van de Koninklijke Marine in W.O. II New Ship Classes: Bangkalan Type: CMc Month/Year: 2/42 Max Spd: 10 Tonnage: 397 Armament: 2x12.7mmAA 30 Mines Ciska Type: AMc Max Spd: 9 Tonnage: 133 Armament: 1x37mm 2x12.7mmAA Holland Type: AMc Tonnage: 120 Armament: 2x12.7mmAA Ship Class changes: 257- Name: Kawi Month: 12 Max Spd: 10 Tonnage: 51 Armament: 2x7.7mmAA 254- Name: Aroe Month: 12 Tonnage: 145 Armament: 2x37mm, 2x7.7mmAA 253- Name: Merbaboe Month: 12 Tonnage: 60 Armament: 2x7.7mmAA 256- Name: Endeh Month: 12 Armanent: 2x7.7mmAA 255- should be deleted, no ships of this class were ever launched New Leaders: Sax, H.N. Rank: LT Type: Ship Delay: 420216 ** van den Berg, W.T.L. Rank: LCDR Type: Task Force Delay: 411201 Hokke, P. Rank: ENS Type: Ship Delay: 411201 * Bik, W.F.K. Rank: ENS Type: Ship Delay: 411201 * Wasch, J.A. Rank: ENS Type: Ship Delay: 411201 * Mooij, M.A. Rank: ENS Type: Ship Delay: 411201 Jonkers Both, E.J.W. Rank: ENS Type: Ship Delay: 411201 Vermeulen, J.P.C.K. Rank: ENS Type: Ship Delay: 411201 * Korthals Altes, J. Rank: LCDR Type: Task Force Delay: 411201 Diekerhoff, F.L. Rank: ENS Type: Ship Delay: 411201 Vegter, E.J.P. Rank: ENS Type: Ship Delay: 411201 Monteiro, J. Rank: ENS Type: Ship Delay: 411201 Jedeloo, H. Rank: ENS Type: Ship Delay: 411201 Kuiper, L. Rank: ENS Type: Ship Delay: 411201 Roozen, P.A.H. Rank: ENS Type: Ship Delay: 411201 Masselink, J. Rank: ENS Type: Ship Delay: 411201 de Wolff, J.J. Rank: LCDR Type: Task Force Delay: 411201 van Gulpen, H. Rank: ENS Type: Ship Delay: 411201 * van Loopik, G.J. Rank: ENS Type: Ship Delay: 411201 * Geelhoed, P.T. Rank: ENS Type: Ship Delay: 411201 * van der Roest, H.J. Rank: ENS Type: Ship Delay: 411201 * Kraal, H.L.W. Rank: ENS Type: Ship Delay: 411201 * * = Gouvernementsmarine ** = Gouvernementsmarine and Koninklijke Marine Reserve Gouvernementsmarine Ranks: gezaghebber (roughly equivalent to LCDR) 1e officier (roughly equivalent to LT) 2e officier/3e officier (roughly equivalent to ENS) New Ships: Bangkalan HQ: 107 Captain: Sax, H.N. Loc: Soerabaja Delay: 420216 Sunk: 420302 Ciska HQ: 107 Loc: Soerabaja Delay: 411206 Sunk: 420302 Holland HQ: 107 Loc: Soerabaja Delay: 411206 Sunk: 420302 Ship changes: 9637- Loc: Soerabaja Sunk: 420302 9639- Sunk: 420302 10006- HQ: 107 Captain: Bik, W.F.K. Loc: Batavia Sunk: 420302 10007- HQ: 107 Captain: Hokke, P. Loc: Batavia Sunk: 420302 10008- HQ: 107 Captain: Wasch, J.A. Loc: Batavia Sunk: 420302 10009- HQ: 107 Captain: Vermeulen, J.P.C.K. Loc: Batavia Sunk: 420302 10010- HQ: 107 Captain: Mooij, M.A. Loc: Batavia Sunk: 420302 10011- HQ: 107 Captain: Jonkers Both, E.J. Loc: Batavia Sunk: 420302 9636- Captain: Diekerhoff, F.L. Sunk: 420303 9638- Captain: Vegter, E.J.P. Loc: Soerabaja Sunk: 420303 9635- Captain: Monteiro, J. Sunk: 420303 9632- Captain: Jedeloo, H. 9631- Name: Merbaboe Captain: Roozen, P.A.H. 9633- Captain: Masselink, 10019- Captain: van Gulpen, H. Loc: Batavia Sunk: 420301 10020- Captain: van Loopik, G.J. Loc: Batavia Sunk: 420301 10021- Sunk: 420302 10022- Captain: Geelhoed, P.T. Sunk: 420301 10023- Captain: Kraal, H.L.W. Loc: Batavia Sunk: 420301 10024- Captain: van der Roest, H.J. Sunk: 420302 9634- Ship never launched, should be deleted 9652- Ship never launched, should be deleted 9653- Ship never launched, should be deleted next to come: Gouvernementsmarine

Don Bowen -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (2/5/2010 6:01:38 PM)
Love these posts and the data. Keep it coming!

Buck Beach -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (2/5/2010 6:40:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: latosusi Sub TF has just turned red (enemy color)![:(] I am color blind and the different colored ally TF are driving me crazy. Didn't have a problem when they were all the color of the U.S..

Bradley7735 -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (2/6/2010 5:56:14 AM)
Duplicate ship 7374 C Francis Jenkins - Arrives Jan 45 at Balboa 8243 C. Francis Jenkins - Arrives Nov 44 at Portland. I'm guessing the first is the duplicate? Same class 2506.

Don Bowen -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (2/6/2010 4:56:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bradley7735 Duplicate ship 7374 C Francis Jenkins - Arrives Jan 45 at Balboa 8243 C. Francis Jenkins - Arrives Nov 44 at Portland. I'm guessing the first is the duplicate? Same class 2506. Thx!

latosusi -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (2/7/2010 4:40:23 PM)
Why can't tanker TF replenish themselves. Running out of fuel seems stupid when you have loads on. And fuel supply seems to very poor. Looks like you get a tanker TF to unload in port only to replenish itself...

Don Bowen -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (2/7/2010 4:45:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: latosusi Why can't tanker TF replenish themselves. Running out of fuel seems stupid when you have loads on. And fuel supply seems to very poor. Looks like you get a tanker TF to unload in port only to replenish itself... I do not recall why but the issue was considered and the decision was made not to include it. A real-world technical limitation perhaps??

witpqs -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (2/7/2010 5:46:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen quote: ORIGINAL: latosusi Why can't tanker TF replenish themselves. Running out of fuel seems stupid when you have loads on. And fuel supply seems to very poor. Looks like you get a tanker TF to unload in port only to replenish itself... I do not recall why but the issue was considered and the decision was made not to include it. A real-world technical limitation perhaps?? I vaguely remember that being stated.

witpqs -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (2/8/2010 12:45:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Osterhaut quote: ORIGINAL: latosusi Why can't tanker TF replenish themselves. Running out of fuel seems stupid when you have loads on. And fuel supply seems to very poor. Looks like you get a tanker TF to unload in port only to replenish itself... No that is silly. many ships can transfer there bunker fuel and that is in the game but tankers cannot transfer cargo to other ships for fuel. They did not have the right pumps and did not have the right cargo. So what if the tanker has crude oil or naptha or airplane gasoline, or something else? So no a tanker will not refeul from a cargo and it did not but if it has fuel it can share that and that is all it can do. In my game I see them working as you describe - they refuel escorts, but not from cargo.

Fishbed -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (2/8/2010 3:47:27 AM)
People, sorry about the bother, but I've been seeing this a lot in many AARs so far: may we make sure that, in the next patch, Miss "La" Triomphant becomes Mr. "Le" Triomphant as he ought to be? [;)] thanks in advance!

Fishbed -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (2/9/2010 8:14:05 AM)
Good man! [8D]

mikemike -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (2/10/2010 8:44:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen I believe all of the first group of the Battle class were to ship the Mk VI director. The first 9 were completed by Jan, 1946 with this director and the remaining seven duirng the rest of 1946. Considering slowdowns in completions of all (non-cancelled) warships after VJ day, it is possible that some or all could be completed earlier. Looking for data on this. The second group did adopt the Mk 37, along with the 4.5 DP twin turrets. I do not believe any of these could be ready in time, nor any of the third group. I refer to Whitley, Destroyers of WWII. You are correct in regard to the commissioning dates. However, commissioning doesn't mean the ships mounted the director. Barfleur was commissioned in November 1944 to do its trials, but was then laid up awaiting delivery of the director and only just managed to reach the PTO before VJ-Day. What's more, the ship is said to have been essentially complete in March 1944. Just as interesting is the case of "Chevron". Launched in February 1944, the ship was expected to be complete in June, 1944. It was eventually commissioned in August 1945 - 14 months late, probably largely due to late delivery of the director. It seems that under normal conditions, one should expect British DDs to go into service about 5-6 months after their launch. How much time to get them worked up and into the PTO? Maybe 3-4 months? If one is generous, that would mean that all ships launched until May/June 1945 could be in the PTO in march 1946 - excluding only "Vigo" of the first "Battle" group and "Creole", "Cromwell" and "Crown" of the second "C" group - assuming timely delivery of the directors. You're largely right about the later Battles - only two of them were even launched before VE-Day; and several were not even laid down. But five were laid down in 1943 - these five might make it to the PTO before 3/1946.

Don Bowen -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (2/10/2010 9:52:00 PM)
This is good data. For British DDs, I usually use Lenton. I was a little disappointed in the new Friedman series on British DDs as it was heavily on deisgn issues and little on completion and modifications.

Oliver Heindorf -> AE Naval and OOB Issues (2/11/2010 5:41:19 PM)
Hi, I found some strange behaveiour of AE whrn creating an ASW TF out of Victoria. Pic 1 shows the newly created TF 563. It has LCDR Bowers as TF Boss. The # at DD Rathburne indicates the Flagship of this TF. In Vanilla WITP and its Mods the TF Commander was this way always the commander of the Boat with the # nearby. If you select Rathburne : Pic 2 shows the selected DD Rathburne. Surprise : Rathburne commander is Mc Neal. DD Sands, which is also in the TF has Bowers as ship captain and as TF commander. But the # indicates still Rathburne as carrying the fleet boss. errrm ? [&:]

Oliver Heindorf -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (2/11/2010 5:43:43 PM)
pic 2 [image]local://upfiles/6315/7492C768F6884A5488CCEADC2511D3EA.jpg[/image]

Oliver Heindorf -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (2/11/2010 5:44:11 PM)
pic 3 [image]local://upfiles/6315/7BFF01E8D79A4CFD8A4990C5AE0415F9.jpg[/image]

Local Yokel -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (2/12/2010 2:25:01 AM)
Looking at the Chidoris and the follow-on class of Otoris in the database, I was surprised to note that they start the war with no ASW weaponry whatsoever. My sources aren't particularly comprehensive, but they suggest that both these classes were, in fact, equipped with depth charge throwers before the war's outbreak. Looking at the Chidori drawings in Jentschura et al, I'm confident I can discern a thrower and associated ready-use ammunition rack abaft the monstrous twin 5" mount of the pre-Tomozuru Incident configuration, suggesting that a thrower was carried from the outset. So I just wondered, are these ships sold a bit short on equipment at the war's outbreak, or do you have data suggesting that depth charge gear was actually not fitted until 1942?

Gilbert -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (2/12/2010 10:34:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Local Yokel Looking at the Chidoris and the follow-on class of Otoris in the database, I was surprised to note that they start the war with no ASW weaponry whatsoever. My sources aren't particularly comprehensive, but they suggest that both these classes were, in fact, equipped with depth charge throwers before the war's outbreak. Looking at the Chidori drawings in Jentschura et al, I'm confident I can discern a thrower and associated ready-use ammunition rack abaft the monstrous twin 5" mount of the pre-Tomozuru Incident configuration, suggesting that a thrower was carried from the outset. So I just wondered, are these ships sold a bit short on equipment at the war's outbreak, or do you have data suggesting that depth charge gear was actually not fitted until 1942? Both Class ships were indeed fitted with 2 depth charge throwers (1Starboard, 1Port) from their completion date. During the war (in 1943-ish), this gear was increased to two or three DC throwers and the addition of 2 stern DC racks for a total of 48DC. As you have stated, this can be clearly noticed in Jentschura's book and similar drawings can be found in the Japanese publication "Kojinsha's, warships of the IJN" #21. Regards Gilbert

Local Yokel -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (2/14/2010 1:34:41 PM)
Gilbert, many thanks for confirming my suspicions. I hesitated to suggest that the depth charge gear had been overlooked, since the accuracy of the ship data in AE has generally been so good. Mike, good to hear that the omission could be made good in Da Babes! I've just noticed larger scale drawings than Jentschura's of the Chidoris' pre- and post-Tomozuru Incident configurations in 'Kaigun', in which the throwers and ready-use rack are more clearly shown. 'Kaigun' says that another 16 of the class were projected but cancelled in the wake of the Incident, so it appears that it also cost the IJN a good opportunity to enlarge their meagre inventory of ASW-capable vessels.

Page: << < prev 29 30 [31] 32 33 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.515625