Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design



Message

Don Bowen -> Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/3/2005 5:07:09 PM)

Several Forum members are combining their efforts to produce a new scenario for War In the Pacific. This will be a full war scenario, based on the standard Scenario 15, with a possible extension into 1946. Attention will be paid to historical accuracy and detail. It has previously been referred to as “Ron Saueracker/Tankerace/Don Bowen's Mod“.

The scenario will be based on two “released” modified scenarios (Lemurs, Andrew Brown) and several others that have been completed for earlier WITP versions. It will feature a new map (Andrew Brown), tons of new artwork, many new ship classes and aircraft types, expanded Orders of Battle, and adjusted land unit Table of Organizations. We hope to merge the best of everyone’s work to produce an accurate and playable scenario.

A number of threads are being opened to group comments in different areas (devices, aircraft, artwork, etc). Please post in the most applicable one.

Please post comments on ship disposition and arrival in this thread.



bstarr -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/3/2005 11:48:34 PM)

Lemurs changed the converted Momi class APDs to DEs. You might want to consider changing them back. DEs can't carry troops and there are accounts of these vessels being used as fast transports (example: Numbers 34 and 35 were used to transport SNLF assault detachments for the aborted Midway landing). I like Lemurs' names better, though; since Morison also refered to them as PB# rather than APD#.
bs



Lemurs! -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/4/2005 12:09:50 AM)

The Japanese have enough destroyers already to carry troops if they needed them. The Momi's should stay DEs since the Japanese knew they were not large enough to carry much.
The game can not tell the difference between a large destroyer and Momi so the Momi's could carry the full load any other destroyer can carry, which is incorrect.

The Momi's were officially PB's or DE's.

Mike



Lemurs! -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/4/2005 12:12:24 AM)

Also, many Japanese Tankers were in fact Oilers.
Should we cange them to Oilers?

Mike



Tankerace -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/4/2005 12:41:52 AM)

Yes. Oilers can replenish at sea, while Tankers (unless forced into a replenishment TF by the scen designer) can't.

Although it was originaly in mine and Ron's design (the originator of the project), I feel it should be restated here. All classes should be seperated, i.e.:

The Tench class should be seperated from the Balao and the Rudderow DE from the J.C. Butler.

Also, the Gearing class should have an extra refit, as a Radar Picket. The difference from the regular class is they shall receive the Emergency AA refit (The final Gearing fit), but wil add in an APS-1 Radar for the loss of all TT.

I have more things, but this is what should be done for sure.



CobraAus -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/4/2005 5:19:34 AM)

while doing the 3D art I found 2 well known landing craft the Army Duck and the LVT's
are these worth consideration

Cobra Aus

[image]local://upfiles/13770/Ec879264814.jpg[/image]



CobraAus -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/4/2005 5:21:36 AM)

LVT's both the duck and the lvt could be used for small raiding parties
Cobra Aus

[image]local://upfiles/13770/Ca807551557.jpg[/image]



Tankerace -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/4/2005 6:01:37 AM)

They are already in the game, as Devices. They aren't like landing craft, as they have a range of about 30-40 miles. They are like tanks, and are listed as such in the device section of the game, assigned to amphib Units.

Also Cobra, photos should go in the artwork to keep these threads uncluttered. Also, I'd be willing to bet 75% of the guys that play WitP know what a Duck and a Buffalo are.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/4/2005 7:25:18 AM)

Heeeeeeeeeyyyyyy....wait a minute! Those are not REAL! This is a historical mod folks...get a grip.[:-][:)]



Don Bowen -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/4/2005 7:52:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Also, many Japanese Tankers were in fact Oilers.
Should we cange them to Oilers?

Mike


This is the only one I can find that specifically states: fitted for fueling at sea. Do you know of any others??

[image]local://upfiles/757/Eb866177351.jpg[/image]



CobraAus -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/4/2005 11:13:18 AM)

quote:

They are already in the game, as Devices. They aren't like landing craft, as they have a range of about 30-40 miles. They are like tanks, and are listed as such in the device section of the game, assigned to amphib Units.

sorry mate Devices is one area I have'nt looked at yet



Don Bowen -> Endurance of Japanese Cruisers (1/4/2005 11:23:27 PM)

Here is some excellent data from Marc Urban (marc):

Whoops, should have gone in Ship Data!

Here my conclusions to the endurance values.

1. Looked in 'Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy from Jentschura'
and there are roughly the same values as in the cruiser book (my first
source).
2. I compared the endurance values from CVs, BBs and DDs in WitP with
Jentuschra and they are roughly the same with a few obvious errors but
quite correct.
-> the endurance values in WitP for IJN CAs are absolutely wrong.

Here are the ones from 'Japanese Cuisers of the Pacific War' (All after
latest reconstruction):

Furutaka-class: 1,858 t oil 7,000nm at 14 kts (designed), 7,900nm at 14
kts (effective)
Aoba-class: 2,040 t oil 8,000nm at 14 kts (designed), 8,223nm at 14 kts
(effective)
Myoko-class: 2,214 t oil 8,500nm at 14 kts (planned), 7,463nm at 14 kts
(effective) and 5,000nm at 18 kts.
Myoko after first reconstruction: only 4,000nm at 16 kts !!!!!
Mogami/Mikuma: 2,215 t oil 8,000nm at 14 kts (designed), 7,000 -
7,500nm at 14 kts (effective)
Suzuya/Kumano: 2,302 t oil 8,000nm at 14 kts (designed), 7,000 -
7,500nm at 14 kts (effective)
Tone-class: 2,690 t oil 12,000nm at 14 kts (designed), 8,000 nm at 18
kts (designed), no effective data

Agano-class: 1,420 t oil 6,000nm at 18 kts (designed)
Oyodo: 2,445 t oil 8,700nm at 18 kts (designed), 10,315nm at 18 kts
(effective)!!!!
Katori-class: 600 t oil 9,900nm at 12 kts at full load (designed)

Yubari-class: 916 t oil 5,000nm at 14 kts (designed), 3,310nm at 14 kts
(effective)!!!!! because of 15% higher weight than expected.
The 5,500t CLs to follow later.


I will put together the data for the other cruisers in the next days as
time permits.

[image]local://upfiles/757/Ig110949689.jpg[/image]



Lemurs! -> RE: Endurance of Japanese Cruisers (1/5/2005 12:04:36 AM)

Don,

These are the Oilers that are capable of at sea refueling according to documents held in the National Archives.

Akibono Maru
Erimo
Notoro
Goyo Maru
Hishi Maru #2
Hishi Maru
Kenyo Maru
Kirishima Maru
Kokuyo Maru
Koryu Maru
Kurashio Maru
Kyoei Maru
Kyoei Maru #2
Kyokuto Maru
Matsumato Maru
Naruto
Nichiei Maru
Nippon Maru
San Clemente Maru
Shinkoku Maru
Shiriya Maru
Soyo Maru
Teiyo Maru
Toei Maru
Toho Maru
Tsururni Maru
Yodogawa Maru

A couple of the old converted AVs i am unsure of.

Mike



Philbass -> Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/5/2005 12:06:43 AM)

Don Bowen,

You mentioned that work was going on regarding the British Pacific Fleet train.

Do you have good sources for that? I have listings for the state of the BPF fleet train as at January 1945, March to May 1945, July to August 1945 and those earmarked for/in transit for the BPF as of VJ day. If you need these, please let me know and I can type them up (with details of speed, tonnage and armament) and send them over (alas no artwork). These are drawn from the Naval Staff histories and the official reports of Admiral Bruce Fraser as published in the London Gazette (where all official stuff such as medals and dispatches are promulgated).

I can also hit the British National Archives/Public Record Office if time permits and a specific question is posed.

Phil Bass



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/5/2005 12:12:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Philbass

Don Bowen,

You mentioned that work was going on regarding the British Pacific Fleet train.

Do you have good sources for that? I have listings for the state of the BPF fleet train as at January 1945, March to May 1945, July to August 1945 and those earmarked for/in transit for the BPF as of VJ day. If you need these, please let me know and I can type them up (with details of speed, tonnage and armament) and send them over (alas no artwork). These are drawn from the Naval Staff histories and the official reports of Admiral Bruce Fraser as published in the London Gazette (where all official stuff such as medals and dispatches are promulgated).

I can also hit the British National Archives/Public Record Office if time permits and a specific question is posed.

Phil Bass


Go for it, Phil.[&o]



Don Bowen -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/5/2005 12:15:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Philbass

Don Bowen,

You mentioned that work was going on regarding the British Pacific Fleet train.

Do you have good sources for that? I have listings for the state of the BPF fleet train as at January 1945, March to May 1945, July to August 1945 and those earmarked for/in transit for the BPF as of VJ day. If you need these, please let me know and I can type them up (with details of speed, tonnage and armament) and send them over (alas no artwork). These are drawn from the Naval Staff histories and the official reports of Admiral Bruce Fraser as published in the London Gazette (where all official stuff such as medals and dispatches are promulgated).

I can also hit the British National Archives/Public Record Office if time permits and a specific question is posed.

Phil Bass


Yes Sir, we do need your resources. We are currently building the Eastern and Pacific Fleets based primarily on Lenton, Operation Pacific by Edwyn Gray, what little is in the Australian Official Histories and a few on-line resources. Luckily there is a good on-line site for sub-tenders but we badly need accurate data on RN units sent to the Indian Ocean and Pacific at anytime during the war - especially for smaller warships, transports and auxiliary ships.



Don Bowen -> RE: Endurance of Japanese Cruisers (1/5/2005 12:23:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Don,

These are the Oilers that are capable of at sea refueling according to documents held in the National Archives.

(snipped)

Mike


Thanks - I'll cross reference these with the data in Japanese Merchant Ships and define a couple of classes of merchant oilers.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Endurance of Japanese Cruisers (1/5/2005 12:33:58 AM)

Philbass. What resources do you have access to regarding Canadian and other Dominion merchant fleets operations in the Pacific during WW2? Hopefully you can help fill a huge vacuum here.



Philbass -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/5/2005 12:54:54 AM)

Ok Don.
Here is a random stream of near consciousness. Although we're probably approaching Europa-esque 'crome' levels here.

(1)I'll start typing up the British East Indies Fleet and British Pacific Fleet then.

The Fleet Air Arm is covered here in case you haven't seen this (I'm sure you have though), with the real numberings of the escort carrier air groups:

Link - Fleet Air Arm Archive

It may help with the Seafire issue as well.

Now, who do I have to convince around here to allow 618 Mosquito squadron (should be placed in Australia not Ceylon) to use the Highball anti-shipping weapon (it was a variant of Barnes Wallis's bouncing bomb - orginally planned to be used against the Tirpitz)? Cue the 'Dambusters March...' It could be used in port attacks as a low accuracy/high penetration skip bombing attack. The weapon did actually work (of a kind) and therefore arguably has a place in a historical scenario. It would give the Japanese fanboys a fright as they see their precious Yamato class battleships get crippled in a supposedly safe anchorage. Fun for all.

(2) Is there any thought to showing the German U-boats that turn up in Penang (Georgetown) in 1943/1944? Again, this occupied significant British air and naval resources in that time. Of course we'd probably have to have a house rule that they could only be deployed in the Indian Ocean. It would also restrict the SEAC Liberator and Catalina squadrons to ASW patrol, and force the use of Brit destroyers for convoys until this threat was dealt with (historically by mining Penang harbour).

(3) I suppose that midget submarines are out, given the coding preventing sub attacks on ports over a certain size? Otherwise we could add in the Brit X-craft (which unlike the Jap midgets did actually sink targets - TAKAO in Singapore Harbour in July 1945). Would also be fun.

(4) What about different types of Japanese barges? If you've seen: Parillo, Mark (1993) The Japanese Merchant Marine in World War II (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press) then it discusses the several different versions the Japanese built - would also be fun to model. Is this doable? I seem to remember that the allies get two types of barges when you press the 'Create Barges' button

Sorry if this all sounds like crome and detail for the sake of it...then yes it is, but I'm full of illness at the moment and am probably tripping on codeine.

Regards,

Phil Bass



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/5/2005 1:07:03 AM)

quote:

(4) What about different types of Japanese barges? If you've seen: Parillo, Mark (1993) The Japanese Merchant Marine in World War II (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press) then it discusses the several different versions the Japanese built - would also be fun to model. Is this doable? I seem to remember that the allies get two types of barges when you press the 'Create Barges' button


I believe Don already has this by the horns.[&o]



Andrew Brown -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/5/2005 1:21:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Philbass
(2) Is there any thought to showing the German U-boats that turn up in Penang (Georgetown) in 1943/1944? Again, this occupied significant British air and naval resources in that time. Of course we'd probably have to have a house rule that they could only be deployed in the Indian Ocean. It would also restrict the SEAC Liberator and Catalina squadrons to ASW patrol, and force the use of Brit destroyers for convoys until this threat was dealt with (historically by mining Penang harbour).


I added a list of these subs in one of the old OOB suggestion threads. The problem as I see it is that these subs really should be a separate nationality (i.e German). There are spare nationality slots in the data, but I have no idea if they would be treated as Axis or Allied. If the subs are simply made "Japanese' instead then they are really just another handful of subs. Another problem is that they only made a few sorties as they had a critical shortage of supplies, such as torpedoes. Some experimentation is required if any serious thought is given to adding the U boats. This one qualifies as "chrome" for sure.



Philbass -> In reply to Ron Saueracker (1/5/2005 1:25:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Philbass. What resources do you have access to regarding Canadian and other Dominion merchant fleets operations in the Pacific during WW2? Hopefully you can help fill a huge vacuum here.


Ron,

Alas I have nothing on the Canadian and other Dominion merchant fleets at home (to tell the truth I don't have too many sources - I just have access to very good lending libraries for military history)

(1)I will have a look at the British official history: Behrens, C. B. A (1955) Merchant Shipping and the Demands of War (London: HMSO) as a first stop when I get back to work. It won't have individual ships, but may give tonnage and port capacities etc. This may be a start

A quick search reveals: Halford, Robert G (1995) The Unknown Navy: Canada's World War II Merchant Navy (Ontario: Vanwell Pub) as a possible source for bibliographies and sources of ship lists etc. Its only 272 pages - I can have a look at the copy in the British Library next Monday if you think it would be worth it. Its probably focussed on the Battle of the Atlantic. I'll report back when I done that if you want.

As for the other Dominions, well my Fleet train data shows which flag/nationality the ships in that were.


(2) In the National Archives/Public Record Office, the Pink Lists and the Red Lists (updated twice weekly) show the location (by port) of all British and Allied warships - including Royal Fleet Auxillary and minor war vessels. I'm not sure if there is a merchant ship equivalent (War time version of the Lloyds List). But I'm not too keen on searching those lists unless absolutely necessary...would be time consuming!

(3) To be honest this sort of research for merchant shipping normally requires going to the records of the Shipping lines themselves and is specialist task.

Sorry if thisn't much of an answer, but the best I can do right now.

Regards,

Philip Bass



Don Bowen -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/5/2005 1:32:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Philbass

Ok Don.
Here is a random stream of near consciousness. Although we're probably approaching Europa-esque 'crome' levels here.

(1)I'll start typing up the British East Indies Fleet and British Pacific Fleet then.

The Fleet Air Arm is covered here in case you haven't seen this (I'm sure you have though), with the real numberings of the escort carrier air groups:

Link - Fleet Air Arm Archive

It may help with the Seafire issue as well.


That's on my favorites list. Lenton also gives carrier complements in a more convient form by listing each carrier's airgroup at various times. Both of them then to slip on the actual model. Sometimes Corsair, sometimes Corsair IV, etc.

quote:


Now, who do I have to convince around here to allow 618 Mosquito squadron (should be placed in Australia not Ceylon) to use the Highball anti-shipping weapon (it was a variant of Barnes Wallis's bouncing bomb - orginally planned to be used against the Tirpitz)? Cue the 'Dambusters March...' It could be used in port attacks as a low accuracy/high penetration skip bombing attack. The weapon did actually work (of a kind) and therefore arguably has a place in a historical scenario. It would give the Japanese fanboys a fright as they see their precious Yamato class battleships get crippled in a supposedly safe anchorage. Fun for all.

This is a good question. I guess it's just a bomb and could be modeled that way. Any idea on specs.

quote:

(2) Is there any thought to showing the German U-boats that turn up in Penang (Georgetown) in 1943/1944? Again, this occupied significant British air and naval resources in that time. Of course we'd probably have to have a house rule that they could only be deployed in the Indian Ocean. It would also restrict the SEAC Liberator and Catalina squadrons to ASW patrol, and force the use of Brit destroyers for convoys until this threat was dealt with (historically by mining Penang harbour).

I've seen some reference to it on the forum but I, personally, have not done anything about it. Anyone else?

quote:


(3) I suppose that midget submarines are out, given the coding preventing sub attacks on ports over a certain size? Otherwise we could add in the Brit X-craft (which unlike the Jap midgets did actually sink targets - TAKAO in Singapore Harbour in July 1945). Would also be fun.

I do believe midget subs have been brought up several times and are a dead issue.

quote:


(4) What about different types of Japanese barges? If you've seen: Parillo, Mark (1993) The Japanese Merchant Marine in World War II (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press) then it discusses the several different versions the Japanese built - would also be fun to model. Is this doable? I seem to remember that the allies get two types of barges when you press the 'Create Barges' button


We're modeling the Japanese Sea Truck, type SD. (See Parillo, Page 182). These were 300 ton small merchant ships based on trawlers. Japan had hundreds of them and they actually had names. We are giving then numbers (SD-1, etc) and modeling them as barges so they re-appear when lost. Don't know how many, Japanese slots are tight, but we are generally stealing dihatsu slots for them.

quote:


Sorry if this all sounds like crome and detail for the sake of it...then yes it is, but I'm full of illness at the moment and am probably tripping on codeine.

Regards,

Phil Bass


Don't worry. Two days ago I would have said my retirement money was in the stock market. Now it looks like the stock market is in my retirement money.

Don

[image]local://upfiles/757/Db853639204.jpg[/image]



Philbass -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/5/2005 2:35:14 AM)

Don,

The Highball weighed 1,280 lb and packed with 600 lb explosives (I'm guessing Torpex with its greater explosive power). Each Mosquito could carry two of these. Release height was 60ft (Yikes).

Alas we'd probably have to create a special device slot for the 618 Mosquitos that launched these as the length of time for the special training required would mean there would be no replacements.

Regards

Phil Bass



Don Bowen -> RE: Endurance of Japanese Cruisers (1/5/2005 3:15:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Don,

These are the Oilers that are capable of at sea refueling according to documents held in the National Archives.

Mike


Here's what I can add. Capacity is in Barrels. Check out those speeds!

[image]local://upfiles/757/Lj216610700.jpg[/image]



Herrbear -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/5/2005 3:23:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

The Japanese have enough destroyers already to carry troops if they needed them. The Momi's should stay DEs since the Japanese knew they were not large enough to carry much.
The game can not tell the difference between a large destroyer and Momi so the Momi's could carry the full load any other destroyer can carry, which is incorrect.

The Momi's were officially PB's or DE's.

Mike



The Momi's capacity is only 150. Doesn't the game take into account the capacity when figuring the load?



Herrbear -> RE: Endurance of Japanese Cruisers (1/5/2005 3:39:03 AM)

Different sources can reveal different results. From Watts and Gordon "The Imperial Japanese Navy", I get the following for example.

Furutaka - 1200 tons oil, 400 tons coal - 6000m at 14kts
Aoba - 1800 tons oil, 450 tons coal - 12000m at 14kts
Myoko after 1940 refit - Oil 2000 - 8500m at 14kts



2ndACR -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/5/2005 3:45:32 AM)

Leave them as DE's. That is what I use them for when I first got the game. Better ASW weapons than regular escorts. I do not even use the APD's for fast transport, they are not fast enough. I use DD's for that. At least they can get out of enemy air cover by day break. The APD's always get caught and plastered by air power.

I use the regular APD's in Lemurs mod as convoy escorts and for invasion force escorts. They have decent AA ratings and ASW ratings for this.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/5/2005 6:26:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Leave them as DE's. That is what I use them for when I first got the game. Better ASW weapons than regular escorts. I do not even use the APD's for fast transport, they are not fast enough. I use DD's for that. At least they can get out of enemy air cover by day break. The APD's always get caught and plastered by air power.

I use the regular APD's in Lemurs mod as convoy escorts and for invasion force escorts. They have decent AA ratings and ASW ratings for this.


Heyho,Hoss! This is supposed to be a historical mod, not a what would be best for Japan for game purposes mod.[8D] Just don't upgrade it when the option comes, if at all.



Lemurs! -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/5/2005 7:07:01 AM)

Don,
Now that is what i am talking about! High speed oilers! How does it look stat and class wise? Are we going to be able to fit them in?

Herrbear,
If we made the Momi's APD's we could set theircap at 150, but a destroyers cap is automatically 200. No matter the size. Trust me, i tried to mod it and ended up with destroyers carrying 150 aircraft!

I still feel that because the Momi's were officially designated as DE's before the war and the Minekaze's as APD's we should leave it that way. You are arguing over a very minor lift capacity that was used like twice in the entire war.

Mike



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.078125