IJN Ryukaku (Full Version)

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



Message

John 3rd -> IJN Ryukaku (6/24/2014 2:11:59 PM)

Here is the successor to the failed Ryujo creation. A single deck variant of Ryujo which becomes the prototype for all later Japanese CVL.


[image]local://upfiles/18041/A337FE6B30934F63A38805AE814F3CDB.jpg[/image]



John 3rd -> HMAS Melbourne (6/24/2014 2:22:10 PM)

As per our conversation yesterday I made separate British and Australian versions of the their CAV: HMS Vindictive and HMAS Melbourne.



John 3rd -> USS King's Mountain (6/24/2014 2:38:54 PM)

...and here is the American attempt at a CVL after the failed Ranger. She will become the prototype for all American CVLs:

The Air Group could be 12 F4F, 12 SBD, 12 TBD OR 18 F4F and 18 SBD. I provided the CVL with 12 TTs.



[image]local://upfiles/18041/FCC27C1A997B4CEE988171821B767B80.jpg[/image]



Kitakami -> RE: G.6 Conversion (6/24/2014 2:53:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Here is the G.6 Conversion. The ship still reflects her Mogami 'roots' but makes a jump in the Soryu's direction. Not quite Soryu's Air Group but still substantial.


Hmm... I like what I see, just have two comments:

1. I am not sure, but maybe 8x2 12.7cm /40 turrets is a bit too much? Someone with more actual naval knowledge than me should take a look. Maybe 6x2 would be more plausible?
2. Taking into account that it is Japan, are 150 days enough time for the conversion? Again, someone more knowledgeable than I should take a look.

Just my 2 cents :)



ny59giants -> RE: USS King's Mountain (6/24/2014 2:55:08 PM)

The Independence CVLs have 24 fighters and 9 TBs. So, I would go with more a 2 to 1 fighter to DB/TB ratio.



John 3rd -> RE: USS King's Mountain (6/24/2014 4:06:14 PM)

Kitakami: I was thinking the same thoughts regarding the 8x2 vs 6x2 issue. I lean towards 6x2 due to weight concerns. As conversion time I think you are spot on with that thought. Perhaps we follow the standard year or 270 Days as options.

Michael: How about 24 F4F and 12 TBD for King's Mountain?



ny59giants -> RE: USS King's Mountain (6/24/2014 5:21:23 PM)

That sounds good.



RedLancer -> RE: Sea Gladiator (6/24/2014 5:55:47 PM)

Here's the Sea Gladiator art - let me know if you need anything else. Just sorry that my work on War in the West is keeping me away from WitP:AE.

(Files in next post)

[image]local://upfiles/18789/15F64C03885E45ACB6AC505E7FF07D96.jpg[/image]



RedLancer -> RE: Sea Gladiator (6/24/2014 5:58:52 PM)

Sea Gladiator Files (Side/Top/Alpha)



John 3rd -> RE: Sea Gladiator (6/24/2014 11:47:29 PM)

GREAT! Good to see your skills at work again RL. Could we also have an Aussie Swordfish?



John 3rd -> Take a Lookie (6/25/2014 12:25:45 AM)

They DO exist!



[image]local://upfiles/18041/4BCD8405CC3B4B3CB440957BF26898AC.jpg[/image]



John 3rd -> Take a Lookie (6/25/2014 12:28:41 AM)

...and these...

[image]local://upfiles/18041/5DC87BC540FB474CAFE7C872707C235C.jpg[/image]



John 3rd -> Take a Lookie (6/25/2014 12:56:16 AM)

LOOK. No slow KB CVs! Everyone shows up including that lovely Ishitaka...


[image]local://upfiles/18041/999FFC5600014271A1DC710C7870E2D6.jpg[/image]



Kitakami -> RE: Take a Lookie (6/25/2014 1:01:08 AM)

Man! Is this mod looking good! :)



oldman45 -> RE: Take a Lookie (6/25/2014 2:01:56 AM)

Very nice, thanks Red.



John 3rd -> RE: Take a Lookie (6/25/2014 2:52:42 AM)

I figure, once I have finished with adding the new ships in, that we can seriously start talking location of the new ships within a few days. I figure Ishitaka and Amagi with KB. The Ranger and Constellation with Bill Halsey and Enterprise. After that we can talk ideas...

Remember that this is not RA it is vanilla DB-C so everything has to be reasonable in a historic mindset for deployment.



RedLancer -> RE: Aussie Swordfish (6/25/2014 10:19:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Could we also have an Aussie Swordfish?



Of course - Mk I, II or III ?



John 3rd -> RE: Aussie Swordfish (6/25/2014 12:36:08 PM)

How about Swordfish I, then Albacore, and finally Avengers? That would cover the TB line for the Aussies.

Ought to go from Sea Gladiators to Martlets. Could we have an Aussiefied variant of the Martlet?




ny59giants -> RE: Aussie Swordfish (6/25/2014 12:51:14 PM)

quote:

Remember that this is not RA it is vanilla DB-C so everything has to be reasonable in a historic mindset for deployment.


I know we have discussed this multiple times already, but most ships that may be available at start should go to either existing TFs or for the Australians at Sydney.

1) CL Boise gets a division (4) of either Porter or Somer Class DDs. This will make a very good small SC TF.

2) Since Australia gets her new CLV, then she will need a division of DDs. What class of British DDs would that be based on??

3) The American BCs go with Enterprise and along with 2 CAs. Lexington and Saratoga each have 2 to 4 CAs with them. Maybe the CLVs start as pair with Pensacola at Darwin and have the separate 4 DD TF (402) that is deployed at Balikpapan. If not at Darwin, then the CLV starts at San Diego with Saratoga.

4) Philippines - I have suggested this to John in a recent phone call. Move one of three AS from Manila to Cebu with about 6 to 9 subs along with 10k fuel and another 1000 in supply deducted from Manila's at start. Possibly move the small BF and P-26s from Batangas (1 SW of Manila) down here. Admiral Hart was able to disperse some of his assets prior to outbreak of war.

5) If the British hybrid CAV or CLV is at start, then I can think of two possibilities. One with Hermes in Ceylon or with the 18th UK Division TF leaving Cape Town.

I'll leave possible Japanese deployments to their fanboys. [;)]



btd64 -> RE: Aussie Swordfish (6/25/2014 9:14:50 PM)

What about putting one BC with each US CV to at sea? GP



wdolson -> RE: Aussie Swordfish (6/26/2014 12:12:42 AM)

You probably should try to get into the mindset of the admirals of the day. In December 1941, the Japanese had Kongos along with the KB to protect against surface threats. Experience in the Atlantic/Europe did not support the concept of using battleships for carrier escort. The US would have likely used RN doctrine which put the BCs in the battleline, not with the CVs.

The US fast BBs (North Carolina and South Dakota classes) were designed to operate on the end of the battleline and counter threats from Kongos doing an end run. The US had badly underestimated the top speed of IJN battleships after refit. It was thought the Kongos could only do 26 knots, so the new US BBs were built for 28 knots.

In all likelihood in a Pacific inhabited by BCs, the BCs the doctrine would mostly be to put the BCs on the end of the battlelines to operate as naval cavalry. Look for an opening to charge in and otherwise stay on the edges and prevent the other side from doing the same thing. US fast BBs probably would have been built, but their intended use would be to be better at countering Japanese BCs. As a result, they may have been a bit faster. The US may have traded off some armor protection to get the speeds up. The South Dakotas on the other hand could probably have been given a couple of extra knots by simply extending the bow a bit. They had the raw horsepower.

Bill



Connfire -> RE: Aussie Swordfish (6/26/2014 2:19:36 AM)

Is there a possibility one of the US BCs would be overhauling on the West Coast? They would have entered commission about the same time as the Colorado class, and BB Colorado was getting overhauled during Pearl Harbor.

I recall reading that while the British (and by extension Japanese) BCs started out as an evolutionary step past Armored Cruisers, the Lexington class would have been quite different. They were compared to an evolutionary step above light cruisers. The Lexington's maximum belt armor was 7". That is only 1" more then British BCs Invincible and Indefatigable, and 2" less then the Queen Mary, all 3 of which were sunk at the Battle of Jutland. Lexington's maximum deck armor would have been less then all 3 of the British BCs.

Considering these ships were designed after the battle, it does not appear that the US intended their BCs to serve in the battle line. It appears that their original mission, like the Omaha CLs, would be for scouting, as well as hit and run attacks on weaker ships. Considering the US used their fast CAs and CLs as CV escorts, I would think by 1941 the Lexingtons would have evolved into the same role.



John 3rd -> RE: Aussie Swordfish (6/26/2014 4:36:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

You probably should try to get into the mindset of the admirals of the day. In December 1941, the Japanese had Kongos along with the KB to protect against surface threats. Experience in the Atlantic/Europe did not support the concept of using battleships for carrier escort. The US would have likely used RN doctrine which put the BCs in the battleline, not with the CVs.

The US fast BBs (North Carolina and South Dakota classes) were designed to operate on the end of the battleline and counter threats from Kongos doing an end run. The US had badly underestimated the top speed of IJN battleships after refit. It was thought the Kongos could only do 26 knots, so the new US BBs were built for 28 knots.

In all likelihood in a Pacific inhabited by BCs, the BCs the doctrine would mostly be to put the BCs on the end of the battlelines to operate as naval cavalry. Look for an opening to charge in and otherwise stay on the edges and prevent the other side from doing the same thing. US fast BBs probably would have been built, but their intended use would be to be better at countering Japanese BCs. As a result, they may have been a bit faster. The US may have traded off some armor protection to get the speeds up. The South Dakotas on the other hand could probably have been given a couple of extra knots by simply extending the bow a bit. They had the raw horsepower.

Bill


I've always thought of them as part of the Scouting Force so felt they would be folded into the role played by the CVs as guarding the flanks and lookin' ahead. The thing I think of is when Kimmel asked Halsey if he wanted to take any of the BBs with him and he said no their to damned slow. Would he have said that if those two BC were present and available?



John 3rd -> CA/CLV Modifications (6/26/2014 6:00:23 AM)

Got to thinking about the Hybrid CA/CLVs and decided I wanted to them to actually be modeled as a 'failed' design concept. Terminius and Symon pointed this out and it has sat in the back of my mind for two days as I mulled it over. The ships are not cruisers and they are not carriers. They don't carry enough planes or have enough guns/magazine space for ammo. SO...this is what I decided to do:

G.6: Lowered air group from 36 to 24 planes (15 F and 9 TB). Lowered the ammo amount of the ship to only 9 main gun rounds of ammo available. Sorties cut in half.
Charlotte: Lowered air group from 24 to 18 planes (12 F and 6 SBD), ammo reduced to 10 salvos, and sorties cut in half.
Vindictive: Lowered from 21 to 15 planes (9 F and 6 TB), main gun rounds set at 10, kept TTs, and sorties cut by 50%.

Still interesting ships but not very capable. Players will WANT to convert them into carriers and get a nice ship in return!



John 3rd -> Distribution (6/26/2014 6:10:18 AM)

Worked on the layout of the new ships with where they start:

Japan
Amagi--Ishitaka in KB
Ryukaku plus Zuiho and Ryujo at Babeldoap
CAV Tokachi and Kushiro at Cam Rahn Bay

USA
CVL King's Mountain arrives with Yorktown in late-December 41.
BC Ranger and Constellation with CV Enterprise
CA Burlington and Rome at San Diego with Yorktown and King's Mountain
CL Anchorage the same as above and CL Dallas joins her sister Boise in the Asiatic Fleet
CLV Charlotte and Jacksonville added to convoys (the one east of Lunga and the Pensacola TF)
ADDED: 2 Porter DDs to Houston TF and 2 more Porter DDs to Boise-Dallas TF, two more Benham arrive with Yorktown TF
MOVED: CA Northampton and Chester to San Diego joining Saratoga Battle Group, placed CA Chicago with Houston in Philippines, and AS Otis to Cebu.

Empire
HMAS Melbourne at Sydney
HMS Vindictive with CVL Hermes in Ceylon


As can be seen, the Asiatic Fleet gets reinforced by the Pacific Fleet at the prodding of HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS Commanding the Philippines. Starting Forces in the Asiatic Fleet are 2 CA, 3 CL, and 12 DDs (they add 4 newer DDs). Japan had better watch out for this!



Kitakami -> RE: Distribution (6/26/2014 12:47:36 PM)

Lowering the capabilities of the hybrids makes sense, if what you seek is for the player to send them to the yards for conversion, that is.

One question... would it not make more military sense to deploy the IJN CAVs at Babeldoab with the others? I mean, the historical ones were deployed there and not in Cam Ranh for a reason. I think the reason still stands, even more so with the beefing up of the Asiatic Fleet.

Just my 2 cents :)



John 3rd -> RE: Distribution (6/26/2014 1:53:55 PM)

Good thought.

I felt placing the CAVs in CRB wasn't as provocative as bringing a carrier deck there. They would provide at least a bit of CAP over any Japanese landing on the Western DEI side. Perhaps having the two additional CVLs at Babeldoap could be seen as a reaction to the increased Asiatic Fleet?



DOCUP -> RE: Distribution (6/26/2014 6:02:05 PM)

Interesting placement of ships.  Playing devils advocate here.  Seeing all this naval build up in the area.  I believe that everyone in the area will mobilize some of their ground forces and move them around.

If 3 CVLs move to Babeldoap.  Might see some search planes being moved to cover that area from the PI and DEI.  Maybe some redistribution of AC, Ships, and ground troops by all in the area. 



RedLancer -> RE: Aussie Swordfish (6/26/2014 6:22:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

How about Swordfish I, then Albacore, and finally Avengers? That would cover the TB line for the Aussies.

Ought to go from Sea Gladiators to Martlets. Could we have an Aussiefied variant of the Martlet?




Do I need to make the Gladiator aussie too? I think most of what you need is already in Cathartes excellent rotating art mod. I'll still need to modify his Albacore though.



wdolson -> RE: Aussie Swordfish (6/26/2014 10:43:27 PM)

The Aussie carrier squadrons could draw from British stocks, though having Aussie pools would better restrict how many of each they get. An Allied carrier with any halfway decent capability in the Coral Sea at start can cause a lot of damage.

Here are the production numbers on the SBD as promised. I scanned the PBY production figures, but the image may be too large to attach.

SBD production

SBD-3
174 French Spring 1942
410 USN -4518 to 4691 and 03185 to 03384 and 06492 to 06701

A-24 (SBD-3)
168 USAAF 41-15748 to 15823 and 42-6682 to 6771

SBD-4
780 USN/USMC 06702 to 06991 and 10317 to 10806
Oct 1942 to April 1943
170 A-24A 42-6772 to 6831 and 42-60772

SBD-5
2965 USN/USMC
615 Army


OK, it uploaded. Sorry for the weird warping, the page twisted a little under the scanner.

Bill

[image]local://upfiles/21277/A39C19BE47F948988728B9759F2D40B7.jpg[/image]



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.203125