Hijacking Gary's two threads into one (Full Version)

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



Message

oldman45 -> Hijacking Gary's two threads into one (5/4/2013 1:59:14 PM)

Thought it would be interesting to make a collective mod with poor Gary doing most of the labor and the rest of us providing idea's, time lines, hull types. The goal is to create 3 naval forces starting at 1920.

If I have the premise correct, there will be no naval treaty's, no world depression. The navys will be the US, Britain, and Japan.

Get out your books because first we have to establish what the starting forces are for each navy so we can work up from there to the start of the game in 1941.

Now let the fun begin.


disclaimer, there is a shrimp festival today and I am heading out the door, so I will put in my thoughts later today and Sunday.



DOCUP -> RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one (5/4/2013 2:03:40 PM)

I'm game, But I have no books.[sm=00000613.gif]



GaryChildress -> RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one (5/5/2013 4:02:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Thought it would be interesting to make a collective mod with poor Gary doing most of the labor and the rest of us providing idea's, time lines, hull types. The goal is to create 3 naval forces starting at 1920.

If I have the premise correct, there will be no naval treaty's, no world depression. The navys will be the US, Britain, and Japan.

Get out your books because first we have to establish what the starting forces are for each navy so we can work up from there to the start of the game in 1941.

Now let the fun begin.


disclaimer, there is a shrimp festival today and I am heading out the door, so I will put in my thoughts later today and Sunday.


Hey, I'm game. I can churn out conterfiet copies of AE art like no one's business! [insert blanket thank you to JWE, BigB and Tomlabel clause here] [:D]

One caveat, the mod I've been working on includes, French, Italian and German navies. If you go to the OP In the 8-8-8 thread you will see that the Germans and Italians pass on the USSR and instead, focus their might to push the British out of the Middle East and India. That's a bit why I call it the Outerspace mod but hey! I get to make French German and Italian ships too. [8D]



JuanG -> RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one (5/5/2013 6:40:03 PM)

Alright, I'm happy to pull together lists like this for each of the 3 major powers;

This is all the ships of cruiser size and larger in active service as of 1/1/1920, and those under construction. The to be laid down is ships that will be laid down by the end of 1920, so it can be assumed that they are already 'in process' contractually.

Ships are listed with following details;
Normal Displacement, Main Battery, Speed, Belt Armour / Deck Armour, Year of Commisioning

United States

In service;
2x OB Kearsarge (11500t, 2x2 13in/35, 16kts, 337mm / 70mm, 1900)
3x OB Illinois (11600t, 2x2 13in/35, 16kts, 337mm / 70mm, 1901)
3x OB Maine (12600t, 2x2 12in/40, 18kts, 279mm / 64mm, 1902)
5x OB Virginia (15000t, 2x2 12in/40, 19kts, 279mm / 76mm, 1906)
2x OB Connecticut (16000t, 2x2 12in/45, 18kts, 279mm / 76mm, 1906)
4x OB Vermont (16000t, 2x2 12in/45, 18kts, 279mm / 76mm, 1907)

2x BB South Carolina (16000t, 4x2 12in/45, 18kts, 254mm / 76mm, 1910)
2x BB Delaware (20400t, 5x2 12in/45, 21kts, 280mm / 76mm, 1910)
2x BB Florida (21800t, 5x2 12in/45, 21kts, 280mm / 76mm, 1911)
2x BB Wyoming (26000t, 6x2 12in/50, 21kts, 280mm / 76mm, 1912)
2x BB New York (27000t, 5x2 14in/45, 21kts, 305mm / 76mm, 1914)
2x BB Nevada (27500t, 2x2 2x3 14in/45, 21kts, 343mm / 89mm, 1916)
2x BB Pennsylvania (31400t, 4x3 14in/45, 21kts, 343mm / 89mm, 1916)
3x BB New Mexico (32000t, 4x3 14in/50, 21kts, 343mm / 89mm, 1917)
2x BB Tennessee (32300t, 4x3 14in/50, 21kts, 343mm / 89mm, 1920)

1x AC New York/Saratoga (8200t, 2x2 2x1 8in/35, 20kts, 102mm / 76mm, 1893)
1x AC Brooklyn (9200t, 4x2 8in/35, 20kts, 76mm / 76mm, 1896)
6x AC Pennsylvania/Pittsburgh (13700t, 2x2 8in/40, 22kts, 152mm / 38mm, 1905)
3x AC St. Louis (9700t, 14x1 6in/50, 22kts, 102mm / 51mm, 1905)
4x AC Tennessee/Memphis (14500t, 2x2 10in/40, 22kts, 127mm / 38mm, 1906)

1x PC Chicago (4600t, 4x1 8in/30, 14kts, 102mm / 64mm, 1889)
1x PC Baltimore (4500t, 4x1 8in/35, 19kts, 102mm / 64mm, 1890)
1x PC San Francisco (4100t, 12x1 6in/30, 19kts, 76mm / 51mm, 1890)
2x PC Columbia (7300t, 1x1 8in/40, 21kts, 102mm / 64mm, 1894)
1x PC Olympia (5800t, 2x2 8in/35, 20kts, 121mm / 51mm, 1895)
2x PC New Orleans (3800t, 6x1 6in/50, 20kts, 89mm / 32mm, 1898)
6x PC Denver (3200t, 10x1 5in/50, 17kts, 64mm / 25mm, 1904)
3x CL Chester (3800t, 2x1 6in/50, 23kts, 51mm / 25mm, 1908)


Under construction;
4x BB Colorado (32600t, 4x2 16in/45, 21kts, 343mm / 89mm)
2x CL Omaha (7100t, 2x2 8x1 6in/53, 34kts, 76mm / 38mm)

To be laid down;
5x BB South Dakota (43200t, 4x3 16in/50, 23kts, 343mm / 89mm)
4x BC Lexington (43500t, 4x2 16in/50, 33kts, 178mm / 57mm)
8x CL Omaha (7100t, 2x2 8x1 6in/53, 34kts, 76mm / 38mm)
1x CV Langley Conversion (14000t, 4x1 5in/51 + 34 A/C, 15kts, NA / NA, 1913)


Japan

In service;
1x OB Fuji (12500t, 2x2 12in/40, 18kts, 356mm / 63mm, 1897)
1x OB Shikishima (14900t, 2x2 12in/40, 18kts, 229mm / 51mm, 1900)
1x OB Asahi (15200t, 2x2 12in/40, 18kts, 229mm / 51mm, 1900)
1x OB Mikasa (15100t, 2x2 12in/40, 18kts, 229mm / 51mm, 1902)
2x OB Kashima (16400t, 2x2 12in/45, 18kts, 229mm / 51mm, 1906)
1x OB Satsuma (19400t, 2x2 12in/45, 18kts, 229mm / 51mm, 1910)
1x OB Aki (20100t, 2x2 12in/45, 20kts, 229mm / 51mm, 1911)

1x OB Iwami (13500t, 2x2 12in/40, 18kts, 190mm / 51mm, 1904, Captured)
1x OB Sagami (12700t, 2x2 10in/45, 18kts, 229mm / 51mm, 1901, Captured)
1x OB Hizen (12700t, 2x2 12in/40, 18kts, 229mm / 51mm, 1901, Captured)

2x BB Settsu (21400t, 2x2 12in/50 4x2 12in/45, 20kts, 305mm / 30mm, 1912)
2x BB Fuso (30600t, 6x2 14in/45, 22kts, 305mm / 51mm, 1915)
2x BB Ise (31200t, 6x2 14in/45, 23kts, 305mm / 51mm, 1916)

4x BC Kongo (27500t, 4x2 14in/45, 27kts, 203mm / 38mm, 1913)

2x AC Asama (9700t, 2x2 8in/45, 21kts, 178mm / 51mm, 1899)
1x AC Yakumo (9600t, 2x2 8in/45, 20kts, 178mm / 51mm, 1900)
1x AC Azuma (9300t, 2x2 8in/45, 20kts, 178mm / 51mm, 1900)
2x AC Izumo (9800t, 2x2 8in/45, 21kts, 178mm / 51mm, 1900)
1x AC Kasuga (7600t, 1x1 10in/40, 20kts, 150mm / 25mm, 1902)
1x AC Nisshin (7700t, 2x2 8in/45, 20kts , 150mm / 25mm, 1903)
1x AC Aso (7700t, 2x1 8in/45, 21kts, 200mm / 50mm, 1903, Captured)
2x AC Tsukuba (13800t, 2x2 12in/45, 20kts, 178mm / 76mm, 1907)
2x AC Ibuki (14600t, 2x2 12in/45, 21kts, 178mm / 76mm, 1909)

1x PC Chiyoda (2500t, 10x1 6in/40, 19kts, 92mm / 35mm, 1891)
1x PC Matsushima (4200t, 1x1 12.6in/38, 16kts, 38mm / 38mm, 1891)
1x PC Akitsushima (3100t, 4x1 6in/40, 19kts, 75mm / 75mm, 1894)
2x PC Suma (2700t, 2x1 6in/40, 20kts, 51mm / 25mm, 1896)
1x PC Chitose (4800t, 2x1 8in/45, 22kts, 114mm / 45mm, 1898)
2x PC Tsushima (3400t, 6x1 6in/40, 20kts, 64mm / 38mm, 1904)
1x PC Tsugaru (6800t, 8x1 6in/45, 19kts, 76mm / 51mm, 1902, Captured)
1x CL Tone (4100t, 2x1 6in/45, 23kts, 76mm / 38mm, 1910)
3x CL Chikuma (5000t, 6x1 6in/45, 26kts, 89mm / 38mm, 1912)
2x CL Tenryu (3900t, 4x1 5.5in/50, 33kts, 63mm / 25mm, 1919)


Under construction;
2x BB Nagato (33800t, 4x2 16in/45, 26kts, 305mm / 70mm)
5x CL Kuma (5500t, 7x1 5.5in/50, 36kts, 63mm / 29mm)
1x CV Hosho (7500t, 4x1 5.5in/50 + 26 A/C, NA / NA)

To be laid down;
2x BB Kaga (39900t, 5x2 16in/45, 26kts, 280mm / 102mm)
2x BC Amagi (41200t, 5x2 16in/45, 30kts, 254mm / 102mm)
4x CL Nagara (5600t, 7x1 5.5in/50, 36kts, 63mm / 29mm)



oldman45 -> RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one (5/5/2013 8:23:13 PM)

This is great, I am still digging around for what data I can provide. Something to consider for the Germans, anybody know when they decided to blow off the restrictions placed on them by the Versaille treaty?



Terminus -> RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one (5/5/2013 8:28:45 PM)

Officially it was 1935, in reality they ignored them all the way.



GaryChildress -> RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one (5/6/2013 1:26:06 AM)

EDIT: please disregard. Just looked closer at Oldman45's original post.

Looking forward to what develops out of JuanG's list. And don't forget the Germans, Italians and French! [&o]



JuanG -> RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one (5/6/2013 7:13:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

EDIT: please disregard. Just looked closer at Oldman45's original post.

Looking forward to what develops out of JuanG's list. And don't forget the Germans, Italians and French! [&o]


I'm very light on sources for those, so if I do make a list for them it would be nice if someone more knowledgeable checked it for correctness.

Will work on the UK and others done after work today.



traskott -> RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one (5/6/2013 11:58:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

EDIT: please disregard. Just looked closer at Oldman45's original post.

Looking forward to what develops out of JuanG's list. And don't forget the Germans, Italians and French! [&o]


I'm very light on sources for those, so if I do make a list for them it would be nice if someone more knowledgeable checked it for correctness.

Will work on the UK and others done after work today.


I can't see italian ones...Where can I find them ? Thanks.



GaryChildress -> RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one (5/6/2013 2:04:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

EDIT: please disregard. Just looked closer at Oldman45's original post.

Looking forward to what develops out of JuanG's list. And don't forget the Germans, Italians and French! [&o]


I'm very light on sources for those, so if I do make a list for them it would be nice if someone more knowledgeable checked it for correctness.

Will work on the UK and others done after work today.


I have Conway's for both 1922-1946 & 1906-1921. So I can probably do the lists for them while you work on the US, Japan and UK.



GaryChildress -> RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one (5/6/2013 3:19:20 PM)

Here is the German navy in 1922, 1920 would be pretty much the same other than some ships which were already sold for scrap and ready to be broken up.

GERMANY

In service:
5 x OB Braunschweig (13000, 2x2 11in/40, 18kts, 225mm / 40mm, 1905)
4 x OB Deutschland (12983, 2 x 2 11in/40, 18kts, 240mm / 40mm, 1906)

6 x CL Gazelle (2617, 10 x 4.1in/40, 21kts, 25mm (deck), 1900)
2 x CL Bremen (3220, 10 x 4.1in/40, 22kts, 80mm (deck), 1904)

Under construction:
1 x CL Emden (5600, 8x5.9in/55, 29kts, 82mm / 6mm)



GaryChildress -> RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one (5/7/2013 5:10:05 AM)

Here's the French in 1922, as best I can put together, (anyone let me know if I've missed anything):

FRANCE:

In service:
1 x OB Patrie (14900, 2x2 12in/40, 19kts, 280mm / 53mm, 1906)
3 x OB Danton (18850, 2x2 12in/45, 19kts, 270mm / 48mm, 1911)

4 x BB Courbet (22189, 6x2 12in/45, 21kts, 270mm / 70mm, 1913)
3 x BB Bretagne (21838, 5x2 13.4in/45, 20kts, 270mm / 40mm, 1916)

1 x AC Latouche-Treville (4700, 2x7.6in/45, 17kts, 91mm / 45mm, 1894)
1 x AC Pothuau (5374, 2x7.6in/40, 19kts, 58mm / 43mm, 1897)
1 x AC Jeanne d'Arc (11029, 2 x 7.6in/40, 21kts, 152mm / 66mm, 1902)
2 x AC Gueydon (9548, 2 x 7.6in/40, 21kts, 152mm / 55mm, 1903)
1 x AC Desaix (7547, 4x2 6.4"/45, 21kts, 101mm / 71mm, 1904)
2 x AC Conde (10233, 2 x 7.6"/40, 21kts, 152mm / 45mm, 1904)
2 x AC Jules Ferry (12379, 2x2 7.6"/40, 22kts, 152mm / 45mm, 1905)
1 x AC Jules Michelet (13105, 2x2 7.6"/50, 22kts, 152mm / 45mm, 1906)
1 x AC Ernest Renan (13504, 2x2 7.6"/50, 23kts, 152mm / 45mm, 1909)
2 x AC Edgar Quinet (13847, 14x7.6"/50, 23kts, 165mm / 63mm, 1911)

1 x CL Cassard (3890, 6x6.4"/45, 20kts, ? / 71mm, 1898)
1 x CL Colmar (4350, 12x4.1"/45, 25kts, 50mm / 78mm, 1910, Captured)
1 x CL Mulhouse (4550, 12x4.1"/45, 27kts, 61mm / 61mm, 1912, Captured)
1 x CL Strasbourg (4900, 12x4.1"/45, 28kts, 61mm / 61mm, 1915, Captured)
1 x CL Metz (5300, 8x5.9"/45, 27kts, 61mm / 61mm, 1916, Captured)

Under construction:
5 x BB/CV Normandie (25230, 3x4 13.4in/45, 21kts, 300mm / 50mm) - I'm thinking these would make a nice class of CVs

To be laid down:
3 x CL Duguay-Trouin (7249, 4x26.1in/55, 33kts, 20mm / 20mm)



MateDow -> RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one (5/7/2013 2:52:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Under construction:
5 x BB/CV Normandie (25230, 3x4 13.4in/45, 21kts, 300mm / 50mm) - I'm thinking these would make a nice class of CVs



Eh. They did convert the Bearn into a carrier. Didn't turn out too well. Makes the Hermes and Eagle look better in the game though. [;)]
[:D]



Terminus -> RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one (5/7/2013 4:38:43 PM)

Royal Navy in 1922:

Battleships: Colossus, Monarch, Thunderer, Ajax, Centurion, King George V, Benbow, Emperor of India, Iron Duke, Marlborough, Barham, Malaya, Queen Elizabeth, Valiant, Warspite, Ramilies, Resolution, Revenge, Royal Oak, Royal Sovereign.

Battlecruisers: Australia, Lion, Tiger, Renown, Repulse, Courageous, Glorious, Hood.

Monitors: Gorgon, Abercrombie, Havelock, Roberts, Lord Clive, Marshal Soult, Erebus, Terror.

Carriers: Ark Royal, Pegasus, Argus, Vindictive, Eagle, Hermes.

Cruisers: Dartmouth, Weymouth, Yarmouth, Brisbane(RAN), Chatham(RNZN), Dublin, Melbourne(RAN), Southampton, Sydney(RAN), Birmingham, Lowestoft, Adelaide(RAN), Aurora(RCN), Penelope, Carysfort, Cleopatra, Comus, Conquest, Cordelia, Calliope, Cambrian, Canterbury, Castor, Champion, Constance, Centaur, Concord, Caledon, Calypso, Caradoc, Cardiff, Ceres, Coventry, Curacoa, Curlew, Cairo, Calcutta, Capetown, Carlisle, Colombo, Effingham, Hawkins, Danae, Dauntless, Delhi, Despatch, Diomede, Dragon, Dunedin, Durban.

Under construction

Carrier: Furious (under reconstruction from large light cruiser)

Cruisers: Frobisher, Emerald, Enterprise

Being laid down in 1922

Battleships: Nelson and Rodney

Cruiser: Adventure

EDIT: cleaned up the list to remove ships that had been demilitarised into barracks vessels, school ships and whatnot.



oldman45 -> RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one (5/7/2013 5:08:28 PM)

Are some of those cruisers A/C?



Terminus -> RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one (5/7/2013 5:11:53 PM)

Nope. The only nation to have their armoured cruisers see combat wisely retired them.



oldman45 -> RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one (5/7/2013 5:15:38 PM)

Here is a site I came upon

Cruiser development



GaryChildress -> RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one (5/8/2013 2:59:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MateDow

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Under construction:
5 x BB/CV Normandie (25230, 3x4 13.4in/45, 21kts, 300mm / 50mm) - I'm thinking these would make a nice class of CVs



Eh. They did convert the Bearn into a carrier. Didn't turn out too well. Makes the Hermes and Eagle look better in the game though. [;)]
[:D]


True, but I'm thinking they would be more useful as CVs than BBs. Put some SBC-4s on them and some sort of fighter and they could at least go after merchies.



GaryChildress -> RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one (5/8/2013 5:18:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Nope. The only nation to have their armoured cruisers see combat wisely retired them.


Looking at Conways, I've noticed that not many navies built A/Cs after 1906. There's like a whole mess of them dating from 1895-1906 and then virtually zippo, nada. If the AC was worth building at all then it looks to me like there would have been some replacements built during WW1, but almost none were.



mike scholl 1 -> RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one (5/8/2013 4:58:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Here's the French in 1922, as best I can put together, (anyone let me know if I've missed anything):

Under construction:
5 x BB/CV Normandie (25230, 3x4 13.4in/45, 21kts, 300mm / 50mm) - I'm thinking these would make a nice class of CVs




Awfully slow to be made useful CV's..., especially as the French had no previous experience with this type of vessel.



mike scholl 1 -> RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one (5/8/2013 5:00:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Nope. The only nation to have their armoured cruisers see combat wisely retired them.


Looking at Conways, I've noticed that not many navies built A/Cs after 1906. There's like a whole mess of them dating from 1895-1906 and then virtually zippo, nada. If the AC was worth building at all then it looks to me like there would have been some replacements built during WW1, but almost none were.



Wasn't the "Armoured Cruiser" pretty much superceeded by the "Battlecruiser"?



Terminus -> RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one (5/8/2013 5:22:47 PM)

Not "pretty much", entirely.



oldman45 -> RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one (5/8/2013 6:26:06 PM)

Mike, I think the Hawkins started the idea of what a "new" cruiser would be in the future. I would go out on a limb and say the BC replaced the AC



mike scholl 1 -> RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one (5/8/2013 6:47:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Mike, I think the Hawkins started the idea of what a "new" cruiser would be in the future. I would go out on a limb and say the BC replaced the AC


I believe the British (and almost everybody else) considered the "Hawkins Class" to be an abberrition. It's true claim to fame came with the Washington Treaty, where a special clause had to be added to allow the Brits to keep these brand new ships..., thus creating the Heavy Cruiser and the subsequent "CA race" with BB construction restricted.
.



oldman45 -> RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one (5/8/2013 6:49:16 PM)

It was, but after it was put in the treaty, everybody started building ships along those lines. Much better of course. [;)]



Terminus -> RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one (5/8/2013 7:47:38 PM)

The Hawkins class was built specifically to fight German commerce raiders. The Grand Fleet battlecruisers were too few and to valuable to spread out all over the place and the light cruisers had neither the legs, firepower or survivability to do the work.



GaryChildress -> RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one (5/9/2013 3:17:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Not "pretty much", entirely.


But there weren't really many BCs built after WW1 either. There were a few "large cruisers" or "cruiser killers" built like the Scharnhorsts, Alaskas and Dunkerques but not much in the way of true BCs like Hood or Invincible et al. And this despite the fact that there were cruisers galore. Of course maybe it's because of the treaty limitations, if you're going to build something big, might as well go all out and make it a BB instead of a BC.



mike scholl 1 -> RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one (5/9/2013 11:42:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

It was, but after it was put in the treaty, everybody started building ships along those lines. Much better of course. [;)]



True..., but that was because they couldn't build BB's under the Treaty. Remove the Treaty, and the CA becomes far less inviting.



mike scholl 1 -> RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one (5/9/2013 11:47:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Not "pretty much", entirely.


But there weren't really many BCs built after WW1 either. There were a few "large cruisers" or "cruiser killers" built like the Scharnhorsts, Alaskas and Dunkerques but not much in the way of true BCs like Hood or Invincible et al. And this despite the fact that there were cruisers galore. Of course maybe it's because of the treaty limitations, if you're going to build something big, might as well go all out and make it a BB instead of a BC.



What really killed the Battlecruiser concept was the ability to build FAST Battleships. It was no longer necessary to skimp on armor or armament to achieve speed.



oldman45 -> RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one (5/9/2013 11:59:51 AM)

I think we are at the point where we need to discuss the mission that each country is building its navy and specific ship classes for.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.7189941