|
FatR -> RE: 1st Class DDs (3/19/2011 10:04:26 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bklooste
Yubari full load is 4075 vs 3700 for the Akuzuki.
Over 4400 actually, at least after installing AAA armament during the war. Also, take note, that Akizuki had much bigger fuel load.
quote:
ORIGINAL: bklooste
A Akuzuki widened to a cruiser style hull would probably be 4500 or so full load. And yes it couldn't carry more than 6 * 6" tubes. Also I don't think its relevant that tubes were removed for AA on a pre war design this was the case even for Japanese DD.
It is relevant. Not only Akizuki was an AAA design to begin with, Japanese never even seriously contemplated a cruiser without medium-calibre AAA armament after mid-20s, so any such project will go right to recycle bin.
quote:
ORIGINAL: bklooste
But my question here is on roll , an Agano built prewar isabout the same time the Akuzuki are laid down in RA ~39 . If its a raider/ destroyer leader , then a slightly widened Akuzuki with the historical Agano/Tromp armament's + float plane would be appropriate and much cheaper .
However it also will be a severely inadequate ship.
quote:
ORIGINAL: bklooste
Also the rest of the ships provide plenty of AA
The very reason for Akizuki projects was that they didn't.
In short, this proposition is practically insane. I rather see them researching an AP shell for 100/65 gun (although I'm not sure if this would have been really worthwhile, as main targets for DD guns were other DDs, but still probably more effective overall than much heavier 6x152mm hybrid with no AAA capability to speak of).
quote:
ORIGINAL: bklooste
The current earlier Agano in Reluctant Admiral makes no sense for the early ships , compared to existing designs , they cant tackle US cruisers ,
This is incorrect. Maybe it's would be case in RL, but in AE new Aganos sink Allied heavy cruisers just fine.
quote:
ORIGINAL: bklooste
are more expensive as raiders and would be the same cost as a full 5*3 *6.1" using borrowed turrets. Remember for the last Takaos slip time was 3 months less than the historical Agano. I can understand the historical Aganos as these were built with War time constraints on steel etc .
??? The class started building in the summer of 1940.
Anyway, the RL problem with Aganos was that they fell between tactical niches of destroyer leaders (too oversized for this role, so limited in numbers) and full-blown modern light cruisers (armament insufficient). The proposed RL evolution of the class took them in the second direction. And in RA Japanese just decide to go with it right away. Improved Aganos certainly are useful ships, as a cheaper alternative to CAs for night engagements and they aren't complete pushovers, like the original version, in day combat too (as several historians believe that Japanese should have left 155mm guns on their CAs due to their higher rate of fire making them more useful in night combat, I do believe, that this project would have been worthwhile in the real life as well). And I easily see how they could be (and probably how the project like this was justified) - an attempt to create a ship that can take on modern Allied cruisers with its superior torpedo armament and fast-firing guns in night combat, despite being much smaller and cheaper.
EDIT: Another huge problem with Akizuki-related side of your proposal is that it does not take into account the main point of divergence for destroyers being second half of 1942. Before that decisions are similar to RL, except with greater focus on AA ships at the expense of other areas. With our hindsight, I can easily imagine likely better alternatives with earlier points of divergence. 6x100/65 ship of Yugumo's size as the standard fleet DD, if it is late 30s, for example, or complete dedication to night combat capabilities. i.e. ROF at the expense of range, using 127/40 - and hopefully its evolution with better ballistics, by the war's beginning - as the main calibre for DDs, instead of developing 127/50. But in 1942 it is too late for any of that.
|
|
|
|
