RE: Alternative Destroyer Design Theory

RE: Alternative Destroyer Design Theory (Full Version)

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

Message

Historiker -> RE: Alternative Destroyer Design Theory (7/30/2012 8:24:05 PM)
Have you thought about simply adding something like the "hull-system" to your mod? This would allow the players to decide what kind of DD they get - a highly attractive idea IMO.

Gridley380 -> RE: Alternative Destroyer Design Theory (7/30/2012 8:36:48 PM)
An idea occurred to me as I was typing up a rather lengthy post on likely US construction. What if you only get rid of the naval limitation treaties, and leave the US affected by the Great Depression? This would require you to create a lot less from whole cloth - build out the existing plans plus a little extra before the depression hits, and use mostly historical production for the late-30's rearmament. This also explains why the US doesn't just massively outbuild everyone else in a naval race. Japan would be unaffected by the depression (historically they didn't have it nearly as bad as the US anyway), allowing them to build the fleet you want. I have some thoughts on what this would do to the USN if you're interested. I think with this scenario and a few tweaks we can actually get a BB for every state then in the US in the water during the war. Now THERE's a scenario that ought to appeal to BB fanboys!

GaryChildress -> RE: Alternative Destroyer Design Theory (7/30/2012 10:47:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Historiker Have you thought about simply adding something like the "hull-system" to your mod? This would allow the players to decide what kind of DD they get - a highly attractive idea IMO. Hmmm. I think you have hit on a really ingenius idea! I like it! Start out reinforcements and some existing ships as useless "hulls" and then allow the player to choose what sort of ship he wants to create from there. Set up conversion times to something reasonable, maybe have the conversion time for turning a hull into a 1st class DD a bit longer than turning it into an escort DD. I really like your idea! That will change a few things but since I'm still in the planning stage for the mod there is no "retooling" involved. Very ingenious! [8D]

GaryChildress -> RE: Alternative Destroyer Design Theory (7/30/2012 10:55:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gridley380 An idea occurred to me as I was typing up a rather lengthy post on likely US construction. What if you only get rid of the naval limitation treaties, and leave the US affected by the Great Depression? This would require you to create a lot less from whole cloth - build out the existing plans plus a little extra before the depression hits, and use mostly historical production for the late-30's rearmament. This also explains why the US doesn't just massively outbuild everyone else in a naval race. Japan would be unaffected by the depression (historically they didn't have it nearly as bad as the US anyway), allowing them to build the fleet you want. I have some thoughts on what this would do to the USN if you're interested. I think with this scenario and a few tweaks we can actually get a BB for every state then in the US in the water during the war. Now THERE's a scenario that ought to appeal to BB fanboys! Hi Gridley380, You may have a valid point. If unhindered by anything the US might have had a BB for every state by 1941 considering the latent shipbuilding capability there. So maybe either a depression or some degree of pacifism would be needed to explain why the US doesn't just quash Japan by mid 1942 I suppose.

Gridley380 -> RE: Alternative Destroyer Design Theory (7/30/2012 11:11:55 PM)
Well, I doubt the US would have had 48 of the line in commission AT ONCE in peacetime with the IJN only having 24 and the RN about the same. I was thinking of 30 in commission (many of them scheduled for retirement as new construction came online) with 18 being built in the 1940's. Still, there's no reason that absent the depression AND the treaties the USN wouldn't have retired all the dreadnaughts and 'standard' BBs by 1941, replacing them with new construction. I want to see those old girls fight, but I'd also like to see the treaty wiped away (I demand a BB USS Montana!). It seems that the best way is to kill the treaty but keep the depression. The "old 30" would be the Delaware, Florida, Wyoming, New York, Nevada, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Tennessee, Colorado, South Dakota, and 'improved South Dakota' classes (the last being three ships built in the late 1920's). These break down pretty well into ten divisions of three ships each (common major caliber and speed in all but one division). The depression halts construction after the improved SD class, which also halts plans to retire the old 12" gunned ships in light of continuing IJN construction.

GaryChildress -> RE: Alternative Merchant Marine (8/1/2012 12:22:45 AM)
Here's an idea for the merchies (thank you Historiker). Most new construction ships will arrive as "hulls". The hulls can then be converted into different types of ship. Looking up the total merchant tonnage for the Japanese on Dec 7, 1941 the Japanese had very close to 6,000,000 tons of merchant shipping. My intention is to keep the same tonnage only do it with different ship types than stock AE. There will be a bit more standardization so things will be a little easier to manage with the standardized types as opposed to having 100 different ship classes all converting into all sorts of different ship types. [image]local://upfiles/17421/9B91EE8815224C349102B19E99D2B5D6.jpg[/image]

Gridley380 -> RE: Alternative Merchant Marine (8/1/2012 1:17:38 PM)
My more wordy thoughts: A thought: instead of getting rid of both the naval treaties and the depression, how about just getting rid of the treaties? The US would then continue building through the end of the 1920’s, basically completing the existing plans plus a few extras, then drop to near-nothing in the early 1930’s (keeping the increased fleet in service using up the limited funds historically available for new construction). Japan was only somewhat effected by the depression anyway – eliminate the impact to them, and you have your battleship-heavy lineup without needing to figure out what a naval arms race would result in. Basically, you’d scope out a USN circa 1932, then add on historical construction from 1934 or so onwards with a few exceptions. So, circa 1932, absent the treaties, I see a USN like this: 1 aircraft carrier: USS Langley (one more large CV under construction) 30 battleships: three ‘improved South Dakota’ class ships, 6 South Dakota, 4 Colorado, 2 Tennessee, 3 New Mexico, 2 Pennsylvania, 2 Nevada, 2 New York, 2 Wyoming, 2 Florida, 2 Delaware. These are organized into ten divisions of three ships each, all but one of which has only one main gun caliber. 6 battle cruisers: Lexington class 8 armored cruisers: 5 Pittsburgh (ex-Pennsylvania), 3 Memphis (ex-Tennessee) 3 protected cruisers: St. Louis class 10 light cruisers: Omaha class 270 destroyers: 54 ‘improved flush-deckers’, 203 flush-deckers, 13 ‘1000-tonner’ classes ?? SS: sorry, this one is outside my knowledgebase. Suspect you wouldn’t go far wrong with a copy of the historical sub force. Notes: the ‘improved SD class’ BB might be either a 4x2 18” gun ship or a 4x3 16” gun ship, either way it should be ~45,000 tons (just barely Panama-capable) The ‘improved flush-decker’ DD is still pre-Farragut in tech; main gun battery is still 4x1 4”/50. Between this intermediate fleet and the start of the war the old armored and protected cruisers will be retired, being replaced by a series of new 8” gun cruiser classes (~8 ships total, probably much like the historical CAs for the most part though with only half as many built), and four of a 12” cruiser class similar to the Alaska class CB. The flush-deckers and 1000-tonners will mostly be scrapped, sold, or converted, though a few individual divisions will remain assigned to naval districts. Figure about 60-70 will be active as conversion (DM, DMS, APD, AVD) and about 30 assigned to districts (including a full squadron at Panama). USS Langley will remain a carrier, one of about four in the fleet (figure one similar to USS Ranger, one test ‘big’ carrier, and then one like USS Yorktown, with planned successors to be similar to USS Yorktown). So as of December, 1941 the USN would be: 4 CV (2 CarDiv, 1 Atl, 1 Pac) 30 BB (10 Bat Div, 4 Atl, 6 Pac) 6 BC (2 Cru Div, 1 Atl, 1 Pac) 4 CB (1 Cru Div, Pac) 8 CA (2 Cru Div, 1 Atl, 1 Pac) 10 CL (1 Cru Div, Pac, 6 DesFlot flagships) 210 DD (126 new construction with 5”/38, with fewer Benson/Gleaves classes and the first of the Fletchers already in commission) 14 DesRon new construction, 6 DesRon improved flush-deckers Under construction/on order/planned by end of 1946: Carriers: 10 Essex-equivalent, to replace USS Langley and the USS Ranger-equivalent Battleships: 18 fast battleships (equivalent to North Carolina/1940 South Dakota/Iowa classes) to replace all pre 1920 South Dakota BB and Lexington class BC Cruisers: 4 additional Alaska-class and 4 Baltimore-equivalent CA, Omaha class to be retired without replacement Destroyers: 144 additional new construction, mix of Fletcher/Sumner/Gearing designs, all pre-5”/38 to be replaced Planned: 12 CV 27 BB 8 CB 12 CA 270 DD Wartime additions will include more of everything except BB and CB, plus CVE, CL(AA), DE types.

Historiker -> RE: Alternative Destroyer Design Theory (8/1/2012 3:02:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gary Childress quote: ORIGINAL: Historiker Have you thought about simply adding something like the "hull-system" to your mod? This would allow the players to decide what kind of DD they get - a highly attractive idea IMO. Hmmm. I think you have hit on a really ingenius idea! I like it! Start out reinforcements and some existing ships as useless "hulls" and then allow the player to choose what sort of ship he wants to create from there. Set up conversion times to something reasonable, maybe have the conversion time for turning a hull into a 1st class DD a bit longer than turning it into an escort DD. I really like your idea! That will change a few things but since I'm still in the planning stage for the mod there is no "retooling" involved. Very ingenious! [8D] The same is usable for every other hull size. Just imagine the freedom of choice whether to build a cruiser hull into some kind of "Japanese Boise", a normal CA, a CA with high FP capacity or a heavy CLAA... You might also add high numbers of hulls, much more than can actually be built. This means Japan can decide: more DDs or more big guns? Or maybe increase ship building capacity? Regarding Kaigun, you'll know how inefficiant Japanese shipbuilding was as they missed concentrating on smaller number of classes and let some shipyards concentrate on a ship class allone. So some shipyards might get faster and faster producing ships throughout the war. One more thing: I don't know how much you are interested into a "balanced" game, but there are loads of merchand shipsyards that would be happy to produce 60m long fish trawlers for small transport duties and ASW...

GaryChildress -> RE: Alternative Destroyer Design Theory (8/1/2012 3:55:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Historiker One more thing: I don't know how much you are interested into a "balanced" game, but there are loads of merchand shipsyards that would be happy to produce 60m long fish trawlers for small transport duties and ASW... As far as a balanced game, The Japanese are going to start this game out much further away from the Southern Resource area than normal. French Indochina will be in Free French hands and the Japanese will need to take it before progressing to the DEI. So the Japanese player is going to need to have some superiority early on in order to take what he needs to fuel his economy. So I think a traditional game of Japanese superiority to start, followed by parity and then eventually Allied superiority might be best.

red admiral -> RE: Alternative Destroyer Design Theory (9/13/2012 7:45:44 PM)
Hi Gary. Going back to the battleship thing, [I am a Royal Navy fan and have read many books on the subject] the names used for the N3 class would never have been used for reasons too long to explain here. Instead more traditional names like Devastation, Vengeance etc would have been used. The 28 knot speed for the modified Renown and Admiralty class is incorrect. 29 knots for both is the correct speed.[ In fact there are many wrong specs to the Brit heavy units in the actual game, Nelsons maximum deck armour thickness was 159mm NOT 108mm and a durability figure of 133 is completely laughable for this powerful battleship]. Your Royalty class battleships have the Vanguard look which would be incorrect since the earliest this designed look would be available would be around 1944. The original KGV or Lion look would be more appropriate. Perhaps the last two could be built to a modified design with the Vanguard look. Also highly unlikely is the name Prince George when there is already a George name used in this class. May I suggest Princess Royal as a better alternative. Sorry if I seem to be nit picking but I am just trying to help. I have done a similar what if, modified scenario to yours but with a few more heavy units including the mighty Incomparable battlecruiser, the Montana's and the Malta class carriers.If you need help or advice with Royal Navy stuff please just ask.

derhexer -> RE: Alternative Destroyer Design Theory (9/25/2012 4:01:46 AM)
I played a few rounds of the 8-8-8 scenario. It was interesting with all the new ships available to all sides. The Dutch CBs were a lot of fun to play with, and both Australia and Canada had battleships. What was disappointing, tho, was there was not a concomitant increase in both land and air forces. I expected at least 3 or 4 more infantry divisions for the Dutch, British, Australians, and Americans and Canadians,[X(] along with more artillery, armor and engineer support. I also expected to have more long range bombers and fighters. Right now it seems unbalanced.

traskott -> RE: Alternative Destroyer Design Theory (9/25/2012 1:09:55 PM)
So many BBs have a negative effect on the AI. Too much fuel, and not so much ports capable of supply ammo make they deployment very difficult... I know it because I take the Ultimate Battleships mod of JuanG and added more BBs, BCs and such. It was a truly orgy of steel...til I had to go back to USA to refuel cause even PH was dry xDDD

GaryChildress -> RE: Alternative Destroyer Design Theory (1/11/2013 6:38:17 AM)
Please check out the OP for the latest on Plan 8-8-8 and for a little bit of alternative historical fantasy! [8D]

GaryChildress -> Plan 8-8-8 Deluxe (1/11/2013 6:42:32 AM)
Back at work on Plan 8-8-8 from outerspace (The Deluxe Version) I've been working on art for the French fleet. This is the entire French fleet (minus subs, escorts, auxiliaries and merchies which I'm still working on). Not all of these ships will be in the Pacific. Basically the French will have an Indochina Squadron and a French Polynesia Squadron. These will be Free French. Germany conquers France again in this scenario however, a good part of the French fleet joins the glorious Free French. So without further ado, here is the lion's share of the Free French Fleet. [image]local://upfiles/17421/C9634B22179044178DEF0BD94ECE007F.jpg[/image]

GaryChildress -> RE: Plan 8-8-8 Deluxe (1/11/2013 6:52:38 AM)
Here's the Strategic Map. Note most of continental Asia is cut out. Port Stanley and Panama Canal will be key Allied entry points for the Pacific and the Germans and Italians will be building up massive forces in and around Ceylon. The USSR is completely out of the picture. Most of China will be static units so there won't be a great deal to do in China (never was one of my favorite theaters of war). Probably will only have a few limited base forces available in China to host Allied aircraft. [image]local://upfiles/17421/391A3104E506447EAB6CE7CCAD30B62A.gif[/image]

MateDow -> RE: Plan 8-8-8 Deluxe (1/11/2013 12:55:05 PM)
I noticed that the Courbet is missing two of her turrets. Is it safe to assume that you added AA guns where the waist turrets were? Also, was Ocean salvaged after running aground in your history? I love the sides, and might use some of them for my personal mod. Keep up the good work.

GaryChildress -> RE: Plan 8-8-8 Deluxe (1/11/2013 3:12:31 PM)
According to my information it was the Battleship France that foundered in 1922, not Ocean. Ocean was actually formerly named Jean Bart. And yes, AA armament will be increased in place of the missing guns. Presumably the missing turrets were used in a shore battery somewhere.

MateDow -> RE: Plan 8-8-8 Deluxe (1/11/2013 3:20:44 PM)
You are correct. My mistake. [:o]

GaryChildress -> RE: Plan 8-8-8 Deluxe (1/11/2013 3:32:12 PM)
No worries, thanks for taking the time to look things over and offer feedback. :)

MateDow -> RE: Plan 8-8-8 Deluxe (1/21/2013 10:18:23 PM)
How was the Japanese AI able to handle a French Indochina? It is an interesting idea, but wasn't sure whether it would work or not.

GaryChildress -> RE: Plan 8-8-8 Deluxe (1/22/2013 1:30:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MateDow How was the Japanese AI able to handle a French Indochina? It is an interesting idea, but wasn't sure whether it would work or not. I'm not sure how the AI will handle a French Indochina. Once I get a beta version I'll test it out. Right now I've halted work while I wait for some booklets to arrive from GHQ. I think I may take a look at their rule books for micro-armor and see if there is anything in the way of weapon stats I could use for WITP in them. Also I'm not yet sure if I want Kamikazes in the game or not. With a French Indochina I assume that would activate Kamikazes but I may simply not assign any Jap airgroups the Kamikaze ability.

MateDow -> RE: Plan 8-8-8 Deluxe (1/22/2013 1:38:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gary Childress Also I'm not yet sure if I want Kamikazes in the game or not. With a French Indochina I assume that would activate Kamikazes but I may simply not assign any Jap airgroups the Kamikaze ability. I don't think that Kamikazes will activate before 1/44, so there shouldn't be any problem if the Japanese crush the French quickly enough.

dwg -> RE: Plan 8-8-8 Deluxe (1/23/2013 3:51:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gary Childress I'm not sure how the AI will handle a French Indochina. Once I get a beta version I'll test it out. I'm building a mod with a French Indochina, I haven't gotten further than a few days into it in testing, but any significant air power in Indochina tends to turn the South China Sea into a bloodbath for the Japanese convoys (the SBC Helldivers the French bought IRL, but never deployed, are hell on wheels against unescorted merchant convoys with no air cover), so you may want to think about additional/redeployed Japanese air units. Without any mods to the AI, the Japanese aren't going to stage any major invasions aimed at Indochina, though there seems to be a taskforce aimed at Tourane in the scenario I've borrowed as a base, which should be Da Babes standard IIRC. I'm not quite certain if that's there by default, I might have put it in as an experiment and forgotten. I relocated the Japanese Indochina garrison en masse to Hainan as the core of an Indochina invasion force, but that's going to need some AI coding to control it properly. There are AI sections that can be used as a model for that, just change the targets to Indochina and use the former garrison as the core of your assault force.

GaryChildress -> RE: Plan 8-8-8 Deluxe (1/24/2013 3:15:01 AM)
Well the GHQ rulebooks arrived but it doesn't look like they are going to be much of any help with any real weapons data. [:(]

RevRick -> RE: Alternative Destroyer Design Theory (1/25/2013 1:48:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gridley380 Well, I doubt the US would have had 48 of the line in commission AT ONCE in peacetime with the IJN only having 24 and the RN about the same. I was thinking of 30 in commission (many of them scheduled for retirement as new construction came online) with 18 being built in the 1940's. Still, there's no reason that absent the depression AND the treaties the USN wouldn't have retired all the dreadnaughts and 'standard' BBs by 1941, replacing them with new construction. I want to see those old girls fight, but I'd also like to see the treaty wiped away (I demand a BB USS Montana!). It seems that the best way is to kill the treaty but keep the depression. The "old 30" would be the Delaware, Florida, Wyoming, New York, Nevada, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Tennessee, Colorado, South Dakota, and 'improved South Dakota' classes (the last being three ships built in the late 1920's). These break down pretty well into ten divisions of three ships each (common major caliber and speed in all but one division). The depression halts construction after the improved SD class, which also halts plans to retire the old 12" gunned ships in light of continuing IJN construction. Well, Here is a quick synopsis of my take on a AltWNT & failed London treaty USN... RN and IJN similarly increased as well... BTW - this is by the seat of the pants down and dirty approximations.. not calculated with intense attempt a naval construction or architecture: Battleships 1941 Two x AltHist Massachussetts class (Massachussetts, Oregon) Massachussetts- Active PacFlt, Oregon-WorkingUp LantFlt. 40,000 tons, 30 knots. 3 X 3 16" 50 caliber, 20 x 5" 38 caliber DP in twin mounts. AAA = 48 x 40mm Bofors + 48 x 20mm Oerlikon (increased by 1941). Armor = 7" decks, 12.2" belt, 18" turrets, torpedo bulkheads: 1 x 25mm & 2 x 19mm. 3 seaplanes. One x AltHist Alabama class: (Alabama, Michigan, Maine, Nebraska) Alabama-ActivePacFlt, Michigan- workingup LantFlt, Maine & Nebraska-fitting out shipyards. 40,000 tons, 30 knots. 3 X 3 16" 50 caliber, 20 x 5" 38 caliber DP in twin mounts. AAA = 48 x 40mm Bofors + 48 x 20mm Oerlikon (increased by 1941). Armor = 7" decks, 12.2" belt, 18" turrets, torpedo bulkheads: 1 x 25mm & 2 x 19mm. 3 seaplanes Two x North Carolina class. North Carolina, New Hampshire (both ActivePacFlt) 40,000 tons, 30 knots. 3 X 3 16" 45 caliber in triple turrets; 20 x 5" 38 caliber DP in twin mounts AAA = 48 x 40mm Bofors & 48 x 20mm Oerlikon. Armor = 7" decks, 12" belt, 16" turrets, 1 x 25mm torpedo bulkhead & 2 x 19mm + double bulge each side. 3 planes. 1931-1934 Four AltHist South Dakota class (South Dakota, Indiana, Georgia, Louisiana) South Dakota, Indiana, Louisianna-ActivePacFlt; Georgia-ActiveLantFlt 43,600 tons; 30 knots 4 X 2 x 16" 50 caliber Mk 3., 20 x 5" 38 caliber DP in four twin mounts each side (post refit) AAA = 16 (4 x 4) 1.1 machine cannon & 12 x 2 20 mm Oerlikon.. 5” AD, 1.5 Splinter, 13.5" belt, 18" turret faces, 1 x 25mm & 2 x 19mm + internal & external torpedo bulges each side. 2 seaplanes 1919-21 Four x modified Colorado class: Colorado, Maryland, Washington, West Virginia Maryland, West Virginia-ActivePacFlt. Washington-ActiveLantFlt. Colorado-Refit Seattle. All four modernized in service in 1932-34 Naval Reconstruction Period w/extended bows. Original electric drive replaced 1932-34 w/ 85,000 hp plant w/alternating boiler & engine rooms). 37,600 tons & 26 knots 4 X 2 16" 45 caliber, 16 x 5” 38 cal DP in twin mounts. AAA = 16 (4 x 4) 1.1 machine cannon; 8 x 1 20mm Oerlikon; 10 x 1 .50 Cal M2 machine guns. 6" AD, 1.5” Splinter; 13.5" belt, 18" turret faces, three x 19mm torpedo bulkheads + 90# blister. 2 seaplanes. 1916-17 Two modified Tennessee class. Tennessee, California. Rebuilt identically to Modified Colorado class save for main battery. Main battery 4 x 3 14” 50 Cal in triple turrets. Elevation increased to 35 degrees. 1915 Four x heavily modified New Mexico class. 35,000 tons, otherwise somewhat modernized as Tennessee: engine plant rebuilt from for orig 1919 South Dakota Design. 65,000 hp. Speed 24 kts. 4th Ship in class – USS Kansas – built with funds from sale of USS Kansas (BB21) to Chile & USS Minnesota (BB22) to Brazil. 1914 Two x modified historic Pennsylvania class. Somewhat modernized as 33,500 tons, 21 knots. 12 x 14" 45 caliber in triple turrets, 10 x 5" 51 caliber in casemates, 8 x 5" 25 caliber AA in unenclosed single mounts, AAA = 16 x 40mm Bofors + 32 x 20mm Oerlikon. 4 seaplanes. 7" decks, 13.5" belt, 18" turret faces, three x 19mm torpedo bulkheads + single bulge each side. Obsolete. 1913 Two x Nevada. Somewhat modernized as 29,000 tons, 21 knots with turbine engines. 10 x 14" 45 caliber in twin turrets superimposed over triple turrets fore & aft, 10 x 5" 51 caliber in casemates, 8 x 5" 25 caliber AA in unenclosed single mounts, AAA =164 x 40mm Bofors + 32 x 20mm Oerlikon. 4 seaplanes. 5.5" decks, 13.5" belt, 18" turret faces, three x 19mm torpedo bulkheads + single bulge each side. Obsolete. Building: 2 x Alabama, 1 x Iowa, 1 Montana ready in 1942, 2 x Iowa, 1 Montana in 1943, 1 Montana in early 1944. 1 Rhode Island 1944 1 Rhode Island 1945. Planned Additions: 1942 Four X Iowa Class: Iowa, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Missouri 47,500 tons, 35 knots. 3 X 3 16" 50 caliber, 20 x 5" 38 caliber DP in twin mounts. AAA = 48 x 40mm Bofors + 48 x 20mm Oerlikon (increased by 1941). Armor = 7" decks, 12.2" belt, 18" turrets, torpedo bulkheads: 1 x 25mm & 2 x 19mm. 4 seaplanes 1942-43 Four X Montana Class: Montana, Kentucky, Illinois, Ohio 67,200 Tons, 30 Kts. 4 x 3 16” 50 Caliber, 20 x 5” 54 Caliber DP in twin mounts. AAA = 48 x 40mm Bofors + 40 x 20mm Oerlikon (both increased by 1941) Armor = 8.2” decks, 16” Belt, 20” turrets, torpedo bulkheads: 1 x 45mm & 2 x 25mm. 4 Seaplanes. 1943-44 2 x Rhode Island Class: Rhode Island, Delaware 79,200 tons, 28 kts. 8 x 2 18”47 Cal. Mk. 3, 24 x 5” 54 Cal. DP in twin mounts. AAA: 88 x 40mm Bofors + 48 x 20mm Oerlikon. Armor = 9.2” Decks, 18.6” Belt, 20.5” turret, 4” Armored bulkhead, 4 torpedo bulkheads total 95mm.

JuanG -> RE: Alternative Destroyer Design Theory (1/25/2013 12:23:35 PM)
Some thoughts on the designs... quote: ORIGINAL: RevRick Planned Additions: 1942 Four X Iowa Class: Iowa, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Missouri 47,500 tons, 35 knots. 3 X 3 16" 50 caliber, 20 x 5" 38 caliber DP in twin mounts. AAA = 48 x 40mm Bofors + 48 x 20mm Oerlikon (increased by 1941). Armor = 7" decks, 12.2" belt, 18" turrets, torpedo bulkheads: 1 x 25mm & 2 x 19mm. 4 seaplanes Where are you getting the power for 3 extra knots on less displacement than Iowa herself, with comparable weapons and armour? If you want that speed - look at 55-60,000 tons standard for these things (33 -> 35 knots requires ~30% more power than historical Iowa). quote: 1943-44 2 x Rhode Island Class: Rhode Island, Delaware 79,200 tons, 28 kts. 8 x 2 18”47 Cal. Mk. 3, 24 x 5” 54 Cal. DP in twin mounts. AAA: 88 x 40mm Bofors + 48 x 20mm Oerlikon. Armor = 9.2” Decks, 18.6” Belt, 20.5” turret, 4” Armored bulkhead, 4 torpedo bulkheads total 95mm. I presume that is meant to read 4 x 2 18in/47? Because otherwise theres no way you're putting that many turrets and that armour on 80,000 tons.

RevRick -> RE: Alternative Destroyer Design Theory (1/25/2013 8:28:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JuanG Some thoughts on the designs... quote: ORIGINAL: RevRick Planned Additions: 1942 Four X Iowa Class: Iowa, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Missouri 47,500 tons, 35 knots. 3 X 3 16" 50 caliber, 20 x 5" 38 caliber DP in twin mounts. AAA = 48 x 40mm Bofors + 48 x 20mm Oerlikon (increased by 1941). Armor = 7" decks, 12.2" belt, 18" turrets, torpedo bulkheads: 1 x 25mm & 2 x 19mm. 4 seaplanes Where are you getting the power for 3 extra knots on less displacement than Iowa herself, with comparable weapons and armour? If you want that speed - look at 55-60,000 tons standard for these things (33 -> 35 knots requires ~30% more power than historical Iowa). quote: 1943-44 2 x Rhode Island Class: Rhode Island, Delaware 79,200 tons, 28 kts. 8 x 2 18”47 Cal. Mk. 3, 24 x 5” 54 Cal. DP in twin mounts. AAA: 88 x 40mm Bofors + 48 x 20mm Oerlikon. Armor = 9.2” Decks, 18.6” Belt, 20.5” turret, 4” Armored bulkhead, 4 torpedo bulkheads total 95mm. I presume that is meant to read 4 x 2 18in/47? Because otherwise theres no way you're putting that many turrets and that armour on 80,000 tons. Yup... and like I said... a lot of this is SWAG... Every time I stick my nose into Springsharp, I wind up with a ship that either capsizes on the first broad side or steams like a 8 oxen hitch pulling a prairie breaker. To counterbalance... one of the things I have stipulated in the AltHist is that a lot of R & D went into the Navy during the 1920s to early 30s, and the engineering plants progressed a few years more quickly with the recognition that the IJN was not going to play well with others regarding the WNT, and because Stimson did not shut down the Black Chamber... the RN and USN knew that the IJN was building monsters on the "sly". BTW - is there anywhere I can find some quick instructions about the meaning of the data in Springsharp. Some of it I can figure out, but block coefficient and meta height are things one just does not run into in Seminary, or as an Elizabethan English major either..

Cap Mandrake -> RE: Plan 8-8-8 From Outerspace! (1/27/2013 5:39:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gary Childress [image]http://i2.listal.com/image/1157037/600full-plan-9-from-outer-space-screenshot.jpg[/image] That's the B-226 cockpit, is it not?

GaryChildress -> RE: Plan 8-8-8 From Outerspace! (4/24/2013 3:02:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake quote: ORIGINAL: Gary Childress [image]http://i2.listal.com/image/1157037/600full-plan-9-from-outer-space-screenshot.jpg[/image] That's the B-226 cockpit, is it not? Been on a long sabbatical. Ah Cap Mandrake, you are almost right, however, you'll note the clipboard showing the flight plans on the wall in the top right of the photo. The B-226's clipboard hook was on the right side of the cockpit and therefore would show up in the upper left of this picture. You'll need to brush up on your alternative history knowledge a bit. This is clearly a B-227 cockpit. You'll also note the large circular wigi board in the upper left, above the co-pilot's head (used to make navigation decisions). Clearly an innovation found only in the B-227.

GaryChildress -> RE: Alternative Destroyer Design Theory (4/24/2013 3:15:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RevRick Yup... and like I said... a lot of this is SWAG... Plan 8-8-8 utilizes the SWAG method as well. I adhere to it rigorously! [:D]

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.1875