RE: Between the Storms (Full Version)

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



Message

John 3rd -> RE: Between the Storms (7/28/2015 2:27:22 AM)

Was just talking with Michael and have a pair of official proposals/thoughts for changes to Treaty Mod and Between the Storms:

1. No Langley/Ely as the experimental carriers of the navy. Instead the Fleet builds two Omaha-CL conversions into CVLs. Plane complement would originally be around 24 planes but as the planes get bigger/heavier this would decrease to around 12-16 by WWII. Think on it. The Americans would start with two weak, older CVLs that can move 28-30 Knots.

2. What was the British Battlecruiser that was going to be sold to Australia? Am interested in exploring that possibility...

I am going to Las Vegas this weekend with my wife to the Subway Convention at the Venetian. Very TOUGH! Michael will have no one to play against and wants to know the EXACT list of issues/problems that players want addressed with any of the Mods. If we agree then he can work on that while I'm gone.



Cavalry Corp -> RE: Between the Storms (7/28/2015 7:23:06 AM)

In your mod you decide - suggest you take a look at the French commanders. Perhaps look at crew rating s as well. French subs look quite deadly to me.



cdnice -> RE: Between the Storms (7/28/2015 7:44:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
complement would originally be around 24 planes but as the planes get bigger/heavier this would decrease to around 12-16 by WWII. Think on it. The Americans would start with two weak, older CVLs that can move 28-30 Knots.

2. What was the British Battlecruiser that was going to be sold to Australia? Am interested in exploring that possibility...



Were you thinking of the HMAS Australia (Indefatigable-class BC) that was scrapped in 1924 as part of the Washington Treaty?



John 3rd -> HMAS Australia (7/28/2015 11:58:08 PM)

YES! HMAS Australia is the one. Has anyone done any work with her for a modernization possibility?



John 3rd -> HMAS Australia (7/28/2015 11:59:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cavalry

In your mod you decide - suggest you take a look at the French commanders. Perhaps look at crew rating s as well. French subs look quite deadly to me.



I LOVE input and ideas Cavalry. Many of them get added or tweaked into the Mods. Could you expand on your French thoughts?



cdnice -> RE: HMAS Australia (7/29/2015 8:06:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

YES! HMAS Australia is the one. Has anyone done any work with her for a modernization possibility?



Well, here are her specs according to Wikipedia (I know, I know but it is easy...):

Indefatigable (1913-1921)

Armament:
4 × 2 - BL 12-inch (305 mm) Mk X guns
16 × 1 - BL 4-inch (102 mm) Mk VII guns
2 × 1 - submerged 17.7-inch (450-mm) torpedo tubes

Armour:
Belt: 4–6 in (102–152 mm)
Decks: 1.5–2.5 in (38–64 mm)
Barbettes: 7 in (178 mm)
Turrets: 7 in (178 mm)
Conning tower: 4–10 in (102–254 mm)
Torpedo bulkheads: 2.5 in (64 mm)

Succeeded by Lion Class (1912-20):

Armament:
4 × 2 – BL 13.5-inch guns
16 × 1 – BL 4-inch guns
2 × 1 – 21-inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes

Armour
Belt: 9–4 inches (229–102 mm)
Bulkheads: 4 inches (102 mm)
Barbettes: 9–8 inches (229–203 mm)
Turrets: 9 inches (229 mm)
Decks: 2.5 inches (64 mm)
Conning tower: 10 inches (254 mm)

Tiger Class (1914-31):

Armament:
4 × 2 – 13.5-inch (343 mm) guns
12 × 1 – 6-inch (152 mm) guns
2 × 1 – 3-inch (76 mm) AA guns
4 × 21-inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes

Armour:
Belt: 3–9 in (76–229 mm)
Deck: 1 to 3 in (25 to 76 mm)
Bulkheads: 4 in (102 mm)
Barbettes: 8 to 9 in (203 to 229 mm)
Casemates: 6 in (152 mm)
Turrets: 9 in (229 mm)
Conning Tower: 10 in (254 mm)

I think all of these classes could look to the Renown class for upgrade paths and kit given the Renown's served from 1916-1945.

There was also the New Zealand if you are looking to add ships, she was scrapped but could have ended up over there as part of Jellicoes planned Far East Fleet. I remember reading somewhere of his recommendations but can't find it anywhere. I will look around and see if I come across it again.



Terminus -> RE: HMAS Australia (7/29/2015 9:07:42 PM)

Remember that the Indefatigable BC's were designed much earlier than the Renowns. They had much less room for being modernized. Displacement is only part of it.



John 3rd -> RE: HMAS Australia (7/29/2015 11:56:10 PM)

Has anyone fuxted around and worked this for the game before?



Terminus -> RE: HMAS Australia (7/30/2015 8:15:34 AM)

Not sure. It may have been in a mod back in stock WitP days.

One thing you need to consider is that half of Austalia's main armament is in 'Q' and 'P' turret positions, situated pretty near the engineering spaces. Her engines and boilers would need a severe upgrading for her to be competitive in WWII, and that might not balance well with those two turrets.



RedLancer -> RE: HMAS Australia (7/30/2015 11:54:21 AM)

May be some ideas here: http://www.wolfsshipyard.com/Misc/NeverWeres/royal.htm



cdnice -> RE: HMAS Australia (7/30/2015 1:14:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Remember that the Indefatigable BC's were designed much earlier than the Renowns. They had much less room for being modernized. Displacement is only part of it.


Agreed but it could give a weapons path in terms of gun upgrades. I don't think it would be too hard to look at the Renown's and make adjustments downward to account for that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus
One thing you need to consider is that half of Austalia's main armament is in 'Q' and 'P' turret positions, situated pretty near the engineering spaces. Her engines and boilers would need a severe upgrading for her to be competitive in WWII, and that might not balance well with those two turrets.


Agreed again. Do you think they would have considered removing them? In all likelihood she would have been used as a convoy escort/bombard ship for landings given her speed. Maybe the two guns would have been enough?



Terminus -> RE: HMAS Australia (7/30/2015 4:58:57 PM)

Would depend. At the very minimum, the ship would have to be converted to be an oil burner, but if it needed to have any sort of increase in speed, it'd need a very extensive rebuild. Consider the RN 'R'-class BB's. They didn't receive any machinery rebuilds aside from oil burning conversion, and by the time the Pacific War began (not when it ended), they weren't capable of doing anything close to their design speed.

The Indefatigable class turret layout meant that you couldn't just take off 'P' or 'Q' turret, you'd have to remove both. Then what? You have an almost 40 year old ship with 4 12-inch guns and very thin armour. No longer capable of fulfilling Fisher's "speed is armour" nonsense.

What's it for? A status symbol flagship for the RAN with very little practical value? There's a good reason that the IRL Australians decided not to retain her and instead go with a squadron of modern cruisers.

Don't think this scenario is super tenable, is what I'm saying.



cdnice -> RE: HMAS Australia (7/30/2015 5:51:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Would depend. At the very minimum, the ship would have to be converted to be an oil burner, but if it needed to have any sort of increase in speed, it'd need a very extensive rebuild. Consider the RN 'R'-class BB's. They didn't receive any machinery rebuilds aside from oil burning conversion, and by the time the Pacific War began (not when it ended), they weren't capable of doing anything close to their design speed.

The Indefatigable class turret layout meant that you couldn't just take off 'P' or 'Q' turret, you'd have to remove both. Then what? You have an almost 40 year old ship with 4 12-inch guns and very thin armour. No longer capable of fulfilling Fisher's "speed is armour" nonsense.

What's it for? A status symbol flagship for the RAN with very little practical value? There's a good reason that the IRL Australians decided not to retain her and instead go with a squadron of modern cruisers.

Don't think this scenario is super tenable, is what I'm saying.


All very valid points, well made. I guess it comes down to how bad(if it all) you want the ship included, as you stated. Good discussion!



Lecivius -> RE: HMAS Australia (7/31/2015 3:40:57 PM)

Say John, as your always poking around at What If's, I was wondering if you had come across this. A lot of fantasy here, but a lot of neat ideas, too [;)]




DOCUP -> RE: HMAS Australia (7/31/2015 5:37:18 PM)

Could always do the Tiger class was transferred to Australia.



DOCUP -> RE: HMAS Australia (8/2/2015 3:40:12 AM)

I am going to high jack this thread. Omaha class as a CVL. Not a bad idea. The discussion I want to start is about the CLV/CAVs.

Scout cruisers are to scout out and find the enemy report back to the main battle fleet. So a CLV/CAV can cover more ground, with their AC. Not saying they would be a great gun or bomber platform. They would be able to perform several jobs well for just one ship. It seems to me that they would be a good ship to have around. Also Britain wanted more trade cruisers. I believe their job was to protect convoys and such from raiders and subs. So again the CLV/CAVs can perform ASW, scout the area around a convoy, and as a last resort uses its AC or guns. Am I missing something



JeffroK -> RE: HMAS Australia (8/2/2015 4:58:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

Could always do the Tiger class was transferred to Australia.

If you go ahead with this, the Heavy Cruiser HMAS Australia would have t be renamed, I'd suggest HMAS Melbourne as this was vacant at the time



John 3rd -> RE: HMAS Australia (8/2/2015 10:14:49 PM)

Don't know if I want to or not. It has been a background thought rumbling around in the truck garden of my mind.

I am nearly complete with my reading of Hybrid Warships. FASCINATING reading. I am going to present some serious proposals regarding the CLVs/CAVs we already have in the Mods plus some different ones. LOTS of interesting possibilities.



cdnice -> RE: HMAS Australia (8/11/2015 8:02:09 PM)

quote:

There was also the New Zealand if you are looking to add ships, she was scrapped but could have ended up over there as part of Jellicoes planned Far East Fleet. I remember reading somewhere of his recommendations but can't find it anywhere. I will look around and see if I come across it again.


Found it, posted as FYI for potential modder use:

In November 1918, the Australian Minister for the Navy, Sir Joseph Cook, had asked Admiral Lord Jellicoe to draw up a scheme for the Empire's naval defence. Jellicoe set out on a tour of the Empire in the battlecruiser HMS New Zealand in February 1919.[25] He presented his report to the Australian government in August 1919. In a section of the report classified as secret, he advised that the interests of the British Empire and Japan would inevitably clash. He called for the creation of a British Pacific Fleet strong enough to counter the Imperial Japanese Navy, which he believed would require 8 battleships, 8 battlecruisers, 4 aircraft carriers, 10 cruisers, 40 destroyers, 36 submarines and supporting auxiliaries.(5) - Wikipedia

I have found the following breakdown for an ideal composition (larger than noted above) from reviewing the reports from the trip online at The British Library:

- 8 Battleships (UK-Valiant)
- 8 Battle Cruisers (Tiger- 6 UK, 1 Australia + 1x Australia)
- 19 Light Cruisers (Cassandra- 8 UK, 8 Australia- 4 in reserve, 3 New Zealand)
- 3 Flotilla Leaders (Shakespeare- 2 UK, 1 Australia)
- 40 destroyers (Improved "W" Class/"V Class"- 28 UK, 12 Australia- 2 in reserve)
- 2 Torpedo Boat Destroyer Depot Ship (Woolwich- 1 UK, 1 Australia)
- 36 Submarines ('L'Class- 22 UK, 8 Australia, 6 New Zealand)
- 4 Submarine Parent Ship (Lucia/Platypus- 2 UK, 1 Australia, 1 New Zealand)
- 12 Sloop Mimesweeper (Flower Q Boat- 8 UK, 4 Australia in reserve)
- 4 Aircraft Carriers (No classes noted- UK 2 large, Australia- 1 large, New Zealand- 1 small)
- 2 Fleet Repair Ships (No classes noted UK 1, 1 Australia)
- 1 Seagoing Minelayer (No classed noted, 1 Australia in reserve)

Also noted for Australia and dedicated to Harbour Defence are: 20 (16 in reserve) old destroyers of the 'M' class or earlier, 4 Yarra class moved to Harbour Defence as 'V' class are commissioned, 10 submarines (no class noted), 82 Trawler Minesweepers (8 active, 74 in reserve/fishing trawlers identified for appropriation/conversion).

The report for Canada listed for protection of trade and ports:

- 3 x Light Cruisers (Bristol)
- 1 x Flotilla Leader
- 12x Torpedo Destroyer Boats (Improved "W" Class)
- 8 x Submarines
- 1 x Parent Ship

For co-operation in general naval needs of the Empire:

- 1 x Battle Cruiser
- 2 x Light Cruiser (Bristol)
- 6 x Destroyers
- 4 x Submarines
- 2 x Fleet Minesweepers

No classes were listed but I would presume that those listed in the Australian report would be the ones used.

They also listed numbers used as a base strike force and the requirement for support ships. They are:

Strike Force = 1xBC, 2xCL, 6xDD, 4xSS, 2xFleetMSW

and in support:

- 18 x Destroyers = 1 x Depot Ship
- 9 x Destroyers = 1 x Flotilla Leader
- 8 x Submarines = 1 x Depot Ship
- 2 x strike units = 1 x Aircraft Carrier
- 8 x do (units/ships?) = 1 x Repair Ship
- 16 x do (units/ships?) = 1 x Minelayer

Anyways, some interesting reading. The Australia report can be found at: Jellicoe Report- Australia 1919



I also saw references to the British war plans which included fighting the US in the Pacific. Now there is a mod no one has looked at yet that I am aware of, the British-Japanese Alliance remains in place and the two fight the US. Big what-if but I know how many on this forum love those!! [;)]



morejeffs -> RE: HMAS Australia (8/14/2015 2:18:40 PM)

Hi John (or anybody else). I have a scenario DBB-28 question.
It seems there was a recent update and the garrison for Mukden went from 200 to 2000.
Is that a typo or legit, purposeful change? Who would be the person responsible and how can I contact them?

Thanks



DOCUP -> RE: HMAS Australia (8/15/2015 6:18:51 PM)

Hey John what are your proposals for the hybrids?

The Omaha CVL whats the armament. Four 5in guns and some 1.1in cannons.



John 3rd -> CVL-1 (8/16/2015 6:10:33 AM)

According to The Lexington-Class Carriers by Robert Stern, this was the initial conversion:

Converted Scout Cruiser
Displacement: 9,500 T
Speed: 31 Knots
Range 7,000 Miles
Armament: 4x6" Guns, 4x3" Guns, 2 Twin Torpedo Tubes
Aircraft: 18 (12 VF and 6 VT)

Keep in mind this is in 1920. Had they been built, experience would have led to modifications. These two ships would have been the pioneers with no Langley.

By Treaty they had to stay under 10,000 T to be an 'experimental' carrier.

Thoughts:
1. Figure the 6" guns were single casemate mounts (like the real CLs) and the 3" guns were AA. How would that have changed? The 3" become 5" guns? Strike the TTs to allow more weight elsewhere?
2. If weight rose to 10,000 T would speed have dropped a bit? Figure they are 20 years old when the war starts...
3. They were designed to carry EIGHTEEN early-1920's planes. Figure that drops by the late-30s.

What do you guys think?

In the Treaty Mod (045)and Between the Storms (055 and 057--BTS: Lite) the US Navy gets two of these ships. Sure they would be marginal but I bet players could still USE them.

Toss out your ideas for a 1941 modification from the beginning creation.




paradigmblue -> RE: CVL-1 (8/16/2015 6:36:49 AM)

How about have them both start the game as AVs, like the Langley was at the war's start?

I would think that as larger, more modern carriers came online, the small flight deck would be more of a liability than an asset. Being converted in the 30s to AVs makes more sense to me than having them continue as CLVs.

In game, you could then have two conversion paths - one to a CVL, similar to the Jacksonville class in BTS, and one back to a CLV, similar to the Charlotte class. The CVL conversion would be longer, giving the player the choice of whether they want two CLVs in two months, or or two CVLs in five.



Terminus -> RE: CVL-1 (8/16/2015 10:16:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

According to The Lexington-Class Carriers by Robert Stern, this was the initial conversion:

Converted Scout Cruiser
Displacement: 9,500 T
Speed: 31 Knots
Range 7,000 Miles
Armament: 4x6" Guns, 4x3" Guns, 2 Twin Torpedo Tubes
Aircraft: 18 (12 VF and 6 VT)

Keep in mind this is in 1920. Had they been built, experience would have led to modifications. These two ships would have been the pioneers with no Langley.

By Treaty they had to stay under 10,000 T to be an 'experimental' carrier.

Thoughts:
1. Figure the 6" guns were single casemate mounts (like the real CLs) and the 3" guns were AA. How would that have changed? The 3" become 5" guns? Strike the TTs to allow more weight elsewhere?
2. If weight rose to 10,000 T would speed have dropped a bit? Figure they are 20 years old when the war starts...
3. They were designed to carry EIGHTEEN early-1920's planes. Figure that drops by the late-30s.

What do you guys think?

In the Treaty Mod (045)and Between the Storms (055 and 057--BTS: Lite) the US Navy gets two of these ships. Sure they would be marginal but I bet players could still USE them.

Toss out your ideas for a 1941 modification from the beginning creation.




Highly unlikely to keep pulling 31 knots with the weight increase, given that they wouldn't exactly be top priority for a machinery rebuild. As for the 6-inchers, where would you put the casemates? They'd have to be quite low on the hull to avoid interfering with the hangar deck (which would be narrow enough as is), and by the time WWII rolled around, it'd be clear, as it was with ships like the Akagi and Kaga, that low-slung casemate guns would be useless in any sort of sea state. Do some sponsoned 5-inchers off the flight deck along with .50cal AAMGs. 1.1-in is assumed to be in as short supply as it was IRL. Torpedo tubes are taken off in the first post-conversion overhaul.

As for the air group, figure 6 each of VF and VS. Ship's too small to carry a meaningful load of air-dropped torps.

EDIT: Here's my proposal for it. If they survive, they'll probably convert to CVE, with .50cal replaced by 1.1in and then Oerlikon. Low priority, as before.

[image]local://upfiles/16369/707EDCCD8CB54C9993BD79524AEE2AD5.jpg[/image]



John 3rd -> RE: CVL-1 (8/16/2015 2:01:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: paradigmblue

How about have them both start the game as AVs, like the Langley was at the war's start?

I would think that as larger, more modern carriers came online, the small flight deck would be more of a liability than an asset. Being converted in the 30s to AVs makes more sense to me than having them continue as CLVs.

In game, you could then have two conversion paths - one to a CVL, similar to the Jacksonville class in BTS, and one back to a CLV, similar to the Charlotte class. The CVL conversion would be longer, giving the player the choice of whether they want two CLVs in two months, or or two CVLs in five.



That is an interesting idea. What do others think on it?



John 3rd -> RE: CVL-1 (8/16/2015 2:04:17 PM)

Terminus: Your proposal is well thought out. I like the thinking and logical steps made in evolving the ships.

They certainly wouldn't be frontline vessels but ANYTHING carrying aircraft would be a great boon in 1941/1942. Six Fighters and DB make sense to me? A speed of 29 Knots would still make them highly useful with the Fleet.

They strike me as fine convoy escorts (like the Pensacola Convoy) or assigned to the Asiatic Fleet or as Training Ships assigned to the West Coast...



ny59giants -> RE: CVL-1 (8/16/2015 3:11:20 PM)

quote:

They strike me as fine convoy escorts (like the Pensacola Convoy) or assigned to the Asiatic Fleet or as Training Ships assigned to the West Coast...


At San Diego with Sara.



Terminus -> RE: CVL-1 (8/16/2015 9:49:20 PM)

Futzed around with some upgrades. These are strictly second-line ships, so I might not even be able to justify them getting Bofors and radar, but still...

[image]local://upfiles/16369/776B9869F6504F3E92E0406BBF696D1E.jpg[/image]

EDIT: Typo in the 12/43 upgrade. Should be 8 Bofors in total, 2 twins either side, in the vacated 5in tubs.



paradigmblue -> RE: CVL-1 (8/16/2015 10:09:25 PM)

While the proposed design could only fit 12 in the hanger, do you think that they could have handled more aircraft with deck park? Another option would be to extend the hangar all the way to the aft of the ship with an upgrade, increasing their capacity.

Also, I think Terminus's AA armament might be a little on the low side, especially late war when it seemed like every inch of USN ships were crammed with AA.



wdolson -> RE: CVL-1 (8/16/2015 10:15:21 PM)

I would think that if these types of ships existed, they would have been withdrawn to the Atlantic to escort convoys early in the war before the CVE building program hit its stride. But that wouldn't be a very interesting thing for a WitP AE what it scenario.

Bill



Page: <<   < prev  26 27 [28] 29 30   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.28125