RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units

RE: 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

bstarr -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/5/2005 7:48:54 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 Momis were historically used to transport troops. In WITP DEs can't be used to transport troops; APDs can. Also, Morison states that they were "converted along lines similar to our APDs" (History of the United States Naval Operations in World War II, Volume IV; pg 89)

2ndACR -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/5/2005 10:42:13 AM)
So, you are basically arguing about what the ship is called? There is no difference in the ships at all. As far as I can tell, they are equipped the same, Lemurs just changed their designation. But, it really does not matter to me. I do not use the crappy Japanese APD's for fast transport anyway. Because they are not fast at all. I use them as ASW, convoy escorts anyway.

Don Bowen -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/5/2005 3:42:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lemurs! 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? (snipped) Mike We'll get them in for sure. Also some large, fast ex-liners as transports. The general number of merchants will increase and there will be some switching - we're going to pull out the captured ships. We are going to rework the merchants (both Japanese and Allied) for class variety and to include a few unusual ships. The Japanese will gain 125 or so Type A Standard Cargo Ships (the Japanese Liberty Ship). Also special effort to include individual ships used in initial operations (both sides). Many existing (in scenario 15) ships will get reclassed. Most of the Japanese warships are already in. We don’t have room to fully expand the smaller classes (PC, aux PC/SC/AM) but we will get a representation of most of them. We are going to loose the Japanese PTs but we will gain the Japanese Landing ships (Type ES, T-1, T-101). I'll have the icons for Japanese Freighters done in a day or so and will begin outlining class details. Expect posts of the new classes to begin this week in the Ship Data thread. A day or two more (each) for Japanese Tankers, Japanese Passenger ships, a few Japanese Warships. Allied Merchants are nearly done, another day or two (or three) there too. Many of the icons are not-the-best and some have scaling problems, but they are serviceable. We can come back and clean them up later. Of the 2999 available Japanese Ship slots, we expect to use 2999. I believe we will have enough Japanese Class slots. Depending on availability we may or may not provide mid-war AA upgrades for the new merchant classes. Don

bstarr -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/5/2005 7:47:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 2ndACR So, you are basically arguing about what the ship is called? There is no difference in the ships at all. As far as I can tell, they are equipped the same, Lemurs just changed their designation. But, it really does not matter to me. I do not use the crappy Japanese APD's for fast transport anyway. Because they are not fast at all. I use them as ASW, convoy escorts anyway. DEs and APDs are different in WITP; DEs can't be for transport. They can be assigned to a fast trans TF, but they have no ability to carry units. Since they were designed and used as fast transports, then, if historic accuracy is an issue, then they should be APDs. I didn't bring this up to ruffle anyone's feathers; I just found a bit of information that I thought might be useful in designing the new mod. ps. btw, we agree on what they are called. PB# is correct.

Lemurs! -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/5/2005 8:01:40 PM)
The Momi's were NOT rebuilt to be APD's. They were used in a very limited fashion as APD's in emergencies. The Momi's and Minkaze's were looked at near the same time for coversion to APD's and the Momis were found to be too small for the role so they were instead converted to ASW PB's. Mike

Lemurs! -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/5/2005 8:06:40 PM)
For an added example, Both sides used cruisers to carry troops fairly regularly; should we relable cruisers APD's? In reality any ship could, in an emergency, carry some troops or supplies. What we are doing is classing ships on their planned role when built or rebuilt. Mike

2ndACR -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/5/2005 8:24:01 PM)
I understand what you are saying Bstarr, but do you actually use these ships as fast transports or do you use regular fast DD's for this? A DD can carry just as much as the APD's and are faster to boot. Makes no real difference to me, I will use them as DE's anyway. Their ASW suites rock compared to other Japanese ships.

Bradley7735 -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/5/2005 9:57:25 PM)
hey guys, I'm not trying to sway any decision, because you guys are like Einstein compared to me. But, APD's are very useful in transport task forces. They will bring along a little bit of supply, troops, etc. DD's in a transport task force only escort, they don't carry supply as well. In a fast transport role, DD's and APD's are almost interchangeable. (DD's tend to be a little better). So, when I'm looking at transport escorts, I try to use APD's, since they carry supply AND escort the merchies. I'd probably agree with Lemurs regarding the Japanese APD's. It seems you know what you're talking about. If the Momi's were labeled ad APD's, then they'd be moving a lot of troops and supplies when used in transport task forces. Unfortunately, they won't carry troops when in a fast transport role, but that seems to be better than the other option.

bstarr -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/5/2005 10:45:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lemurs! The Momi's were NOT rebuilt to be APD's. They were used in a very limited fashion as APD's in emergencies. The Momi's and Minkaze's were looked at near the same time for coversion to APD's and the Momis were found to be too small for the role so they were instead converted to ASW PB's. Mike yet they were used to transport troops in the midway campaign. If the goal is to give the player all the historical options possible, then these vessels should be allowed to carry troops. If fact, they were used exactly like WITP APDs, since APDs are the only DD sized unit able to carry units in a Transport Fleet. Keep in mind that there are no rules hindering using an APD from operating as an ASW platform with every bit as effectiveness as a DE. bs

Subchaser -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/6/2005 12:48:16 AM)
IJN DESTROYERS 1ST CLASS PART I. ATTENTION!!! UTTERLY BORING POST!!! FUBUKI 12/41 Max. Speed – 34 Endurance – 4700 Fuel – 482 Armament 6 x 5in/50 3YT Gun [ 1 twin turret F + 2 twin turret R] (12mm turret armor) 4 x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun [ 2 twin mounts C] 2 x 13.2mm Type 93 AAMG [1 twin mount C] 9 x 24in Type 93 Torpedo (12 torps) [3 triple mounts C] Correct ammo c an be modeled this way Wpn 4 – 06 (turrets -3) C, Ammo – 1 Wpn 5 – 03 (turrets -3) C, Ammo – 2 2 x Type 95 Depth Charge (18 dc) 5/42 6 x 5in/50 3YT Gun [ 1 twin turret F + 2 twin turret R] 8 x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun [2 triple mounts R/LS + 1 twin mount F] 2 x 13.2mm Type 93 AAMG [1 twin mount C] 9 x 24in Type 93 Torpedo (12 torps) [3 triple mounts C] 2 x Type 95 Depth Charge (18 dc) 5/43 4 x 5in/50 3YT Gun [ 1 twin turret F + 1 twin turret R] 14 x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun [2 triple mounts R + 2 triple L/RS + 1 twin mount F ] 4 x 13.2mm Type 93 AAMG [ 1 twin mount LS + 1 twin mount RS ] 9 x 24in Type 93 Torpedo (12 torps) [3 triple mounts C] 4 x Type 2 Depth Charge (36 dc) 6/44 4 x 5in/50 3YT Gun [ 1 twin turret F + 1 twin turret R] 20 x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun [2 triple mounts R + 4 triple mounts L/RS + 1 twin mount F ] 4 x 13.2mm Type 93 AAMG [ 1 twin mount LS + 1 twin mount RS ] 9 x 24in Type 93 Torpedo (12 torps) [3 triple mounts C] 2 x Type 2 Depth Charge (R, 18 dc) 2 x Type 3 Depth Charge (C, 18 dc) 1 x Type 13 Radar 1 x Type 22 Radar AKATSUKI 12/41 Endurance – 4700 Fuel – 490 Armament 6 x 5in/50 3YT Gun [1 twin turret F + 2 twin turret R] (12mm turret armor) 4 x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun [ 2 twin mounts C] 2 x 13.2mm Type 93 AAMG [2 mounts C] 9 x 24in Type 93 Torpedo (12 torps) [3 triple mounts C] 2 x Type 95 Depth Charge (18 dc) 4/43 4 x 5in/50 3YT Gun [ 1 twin turret F + 1 twin turret R] 14 x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun [2 triple mounts R + 2 triple mounts R/LS + 1 twin mount F ] 2 x 13.2mm Type 93 AAMG [1 twin mount C] 9 x 24in Type 93 Torpedo (12 torps) [3 triple mounts C] 4 x Type 2 Depth Charge (36 dc) 1/44 4 x 5in/50 3YT Gun [ 1 twin turret F + 1 twin turret R] 20 x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun [2 triple mounts R + 4 triple mounts R/LS + 1 twin mount F ] 2 x 13.2mm Type 93 AAMG [1 twin mount C] 9 x 24in Type 93 Torpedo (12 torps) [3 triple mounts C] 4 x Type 2 Depth Charge (36 dc) 1 x Type 22 Radar 1/45 4 x 5in/50 3YT Gun [ 1 twin turret F + 1 twin turret R] 25 x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun [2 triple, 2 single R + 4 triple mounts R/LS + 1 triple, 2 single F] 9 x 24in Type 93 Torpedo (12 torps) [3 triple mounts C] 4 x Type 3 Depth Charge (36 dc) 1 x Type 13 Radar 1 x Type 22 Radar HATSUHARU 12/41 Max. speed – 33 Endurance – 5800 (15kts) Fuel – 465 tons Armament 5 x 5in/50 3YT Gun [1 twin turret F + 1 single turret C + 1 twin turret R ] 4 x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun [ 2 twin mounts C] 6 x 24in Type 93 Torpedo (9 torps) [2 triple mounts C] Correct ammo can be modeled this way Wpn 5 – 03 (turrets -3) C, Ammo – 1 Wpn 6 – 03 (turrets -3) C, Ammo – 2 1 x Type 95 Depth Charge (18 dc) 2/43 5 x 5in/50 3YT Gun [ 1 twin turret F + 1 single turret C + 1 twin turret R ] 8 x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun [ 2 triple mounts C + 1 twin mount F ] 4 x 13.2mm Type 93 AAMG [ 1 twin mount LS + 1 twin mount RS ] 6 x 24in Type 93 Torpedo (6 torps) [2 triple mounts C] Wpn 5 – 06 (turrets -3) C, Ammo – 1 2 x Type 95 Depth Charge (18 dc) 2 x Type 2 Depth Charge (18 dc) 9/43 4 x 5in/50 3YT Gun [ 1 twin turret F + 1 twin turret R ] 14 x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun [2 triple mounts R + 2 triple mounts C + 1 twin mount F] 4 x 13.2mm Type 93 AAMG [ 1 twin mount LS + 1 twin mount RS ] 6 x 24in Type 93 Torpedo (6 torps) [2 triple mounts C] 4 x Type 2 Depth Charge (36 dc) 1 x Type 22 Radar 10/44 4 x 5in/50 3YT Gun [ 1 twin turret F + 1 twin turret R ] 21 x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun [2 triple, 2 single mounts R + 2 triple, 2 twin mounts RS/LS + 1 triple mount F] 4 x 13.2mm Type 93 AAMG [ 1 twin mount LS + 1 twin mount RS ] 6 x 24in Type 93 Torpedo (6 torps) [2 triple mounts C] 4 x Type 2 Depth Charge (36 dc) 1 x Type 13 Radar 1 x Type 22 Radar SHIRATSUYU 12/41 Endurance – 5720 (15kts) Fuel – 505 tons Armament 5 x 5in/50 3YT Gun [1 twin turret F + 1 single turret C + 1 twin turret R] 4 x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun [ 2 twin mounts C] 8 x 24in Type 93 Torpedo (16 torps) [2 quart mounts C] 1 x Type 95 Depth Charge (18 dc) 11/42 5 x 5in/50 3YT Gun [1 twin turret F + 1 single turret C + 1 twin turret R] 8 x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun [ 2 triple mounts C + 1 twin mount F ] 4 x 13.2mm Type 93 AAMG [ 1 twin mount LS + 1 twin mount RS ] 8 x 24in Type 93 Torpedo (16 torps) [2 quart mounts C] 1 x Type 2 Depth Charge (18 dc) 6/43 5 x 5in/50 3YT Gun [ 1 twin turret F + 1 single turret C + 1 twin turret R ] 18 x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun [ 2 twin mounts R + 2 triple mounts, 2 twin mounts RS/LS + 1 triple mount, 1 single mount F ] 8 x 24in Type 93 Torpedo (16 torps) [2 quart mounts C] 4 x Type 2 Depth Charge (36 dc) 1 x Type 22 Radar 5/44 4 x 5in/50 3YT Gun [ 1 twin turret F + 1 twin turret R ] 22 x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun [2 triple mounts R + 2 triple, 2 twin mounts RS/LS + 1 triple, 2 twin mounts F] 8 x 24in Type 93 Torpedo (16 torps) [2 quart mounts C] 4 x Type 3 Depth Charge (36 dc) 1 x Type 22 Radar 1 x Type 13 Radar [ASASHIO 12/41 Endurance – 4850 (15kts) Armament 6 x 5in/50 3YT Gun [ 1 twin turret F + 2 twin turret R] 4 x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun [ 1 twin mount LS + 1 twin mount RS] 8 x 24in Type 93 Torpedo (16 torps) [2 quarter mounts C] 2 x Type 95 Depth Charge (18 dc) 6/43 4 x 5in/50 3YT Gun [ 1 twin turret F + 1 twin turret R] 18 x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun [2 triple, 2 single mounts R + 2 triple mounts RS/LS + 1 twin, 2 single mounts F] 8 x 24in Type 93 Torpedo (12 torps) [2 quart mounts C] Wpn 5 – 04 (turrets -4) C, Ammo – 1 Wpn 6 – 04 (turrets -4) C, Ammo – 2 4 x Type 2 Depth Charge (36 dc) 1 x Type 22 Radar 5/44 4 x 5in/50 3YT Gun [ 1 twin turret F + 1 twin turret R] 22 x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun [2 triple, 3 single mounts R + 2 triple mounts RS/LS + 1 triple, 2 twin mounts F] 8 x 24in Type 93 Torpedo (12 torps) [2 quart mounts C] 4 x Type 3 Depth Charge (36 dc) 1 x Type 22 Radar 1 x Type 13 Radar KAGERO 12/41 Endurance – 6200 (15kts) Fuel – 615 tons Armament 6 x 5in/50 3YT Gun [ 1 twin turret F + 2 twin turret R] 4 x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun [ 1 twin mount LS + 1 twin mount RS ] 8 x 24in Type 93 Torpedo (16 torps) [2 quart mounts C] 2 x Type 95 Depth Charge (12 dc) 1/43 6 x 5in/50 3YT Gun [ 1 twin turret F + 2 twin turret R] 8 x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun [ 2 triple mount LS/RS + 1 twin mount F ] 8 x 24in Type 93 Torpedo (16 torps) [2 quart mounts C] 2 x Type 2 Depth Charge (36 dc) 9/43 4 x 5in/50 3YT Gun [ 1 twin turret F + 1 twin turret R] 18 x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun [2 triple, 2 single mounts R + 2 triple mount LS/RS + 1 twin, 2 single mounts F] 8 x 24in Type 93 Torpedo (16 torps) [2 quart mounts C] 2 x Type 2 Depth Charge (36 dc) 1 x Type 22 Radar 5/44 4 x 5in/50 3YT Gun [ 1 twin turret F + 1 twin turret R] 22 x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun [2 triple, 4 single mounts R + 2 triple mount LS/RS + 1 twin, 4 single mounts F] 8 x 24in Type 93 Torpedo (16 torps) [2 quart mounts C] 2 x Type 3 Depth Charge (36 dc) 1 x Type 22 Radar 1 x Type 13 Radar YUGUMO Endurance – 5700 (15kts) Fuel – 530 tons Units commissioned in 1941-1942, (completed in original project configuration) Yugumo, Makinami, Onami, Naganami, Akigumo, Kazegumo, Makigumo 6 x 5in/50 3YT Gun [ 1 twin turret F + 2 twin turret R] 4 x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun [ 1 twin mount LS + 1 twin mount RS ] 8 x 24in Type 93 Torpedo (12 torps) [2 quart mounts C] Wpn 5 – 04 (turrets -4) C, Ammo – 1 Wpn 6 – 04 (turrets -4) C, Ammo – 2 2 x Type 95 Depth Charge (12 dc) Units commissioned in 1943-1944, (completed in different configurations) Kiyonami (43.01.25) Hayanami (43.07.31) 6 x 5in/50 3YT Gun [ 1 twin turret F + 2 twin turret R] 8 x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun [ 2 triple mounts LS/RS + 1 twin mount F ] 8 x 24in Type 93 Torpedo (12 torps) [2 quart mounts C] 4 x Type 2 Depth Charge (36 dc) 1 x Type 22 Radar Suzunami (43.07.27) Tamanami (43.04(!)30) 4 x 5in/50 3YT Gun [ 1 twin turret F + 1 twin turret R] 15 x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun [2 triple mounts R + 2 triple mounts LS/RS + 1 triple mount F] 8 x 24in Type 93 Torpedo (12 torps) [2 quarter mounts C] 4 x Type 3 Depth Charge (36 dc) 1 x Type 22 Radar Asashimo (43.11.27) Okinami (43.12.10) 6 x 5in/50 3YT Gun [1 twin turret F + 2 twin turret R] 14 x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun [ 2 triple mounts C + 2 triple mounts LS/RS + 1 twin mount F ] 8 x 24in Type 93 Torpedo (12 torps) [2 quart mounts C] 4 x Type 3 Depth Charge (36 dc) 1 x Type 22 Radar 1 x Type 13 Radar Hayashimo (44.02.20) Kiyoshimo (44.05.16) 4 x 5in/50 3YT Gun [ 1 twin turret F + 1 twin turret R] 14 x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun [ 2 triple mounts R + 2 triple mounts LS/RS + 1 twin mount F] 8 x 24in Type 93 Torpedo (12 torps) [2 quart mounts C] 4 x Type 3 Depth Charge (36 dc) 1 x Type 22 Radar 1 x Type 13 Radar Akishimo (44.03.11) Fujinami (43.07.31) Hamanami (43.10.05(!)) Kishinami (43.12.03) 6 x 5in/50 3YT Gun [ 1 twin turret F + 2 twin turret R] 15 x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun [ 2 triple mounts C + 2 triple mounts LS/RS + 1 triple mount F ] 8 x 24in Type 93 Torpedo (12 torps) [2 quart mounts C] 4 x Type 3 Depth Charge (36 dc) 1 x Type 22 Radar 1 x Type 13 Radar 1st Refit 5/43 4 x 5in/50 3YT Gun [ 1 twin turret F + 1 twin turret R] 18 x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun [2 triple, 2 single mounts R + 2 triple mount LS/RS + 1 twin, 2 single mounts F] 8 x 24in Type 93 Torpedo (12 torps) [2 quart mounts C] 4 x Type 2 Depth Charge (36 dc) 1 x Type 22 Radar 2nd Refit 6/44 4 x 5in/50 3YT Gun [ 1 twin turret F + 1 twin turret R] 22 x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun [ 2 triple, 4 single mounts C + 2 triple mount LS/RS + 3 twin mounts F] 8 x 24in Type 93 Torpedo (12 torps) [2 quart mounts C] 4 x Type 3 Depth Charge (36 dc) 1 x Type 22 Radar 1 x Type 13 Radar SHIMAKAZE 5/43 Endurance - 3800 nm (at 15 knots) Fuel – 517 tons Armament 6 x 5in/50 3YT Gun [ 1 twin turret F + 2 twin turret R] 4 x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun [ 1 twin mount LS + 1 twin mount RS ] 2 x 13.2mm Type 93 AAMG [ 1 twin mount F ] 15 x 24in Type 93 Torpedo (15 torps) [3 quint mounts C] Wpn 6 – 15 (turrets -5) C, Ammo – 1 (no reloading devices!) 2 x Type 2 Depth Charge (18 dc) 1 x Type 22 Radar 6/44 6 x 5in/50 3YT Gun [ 1 twin turret F + 2 twin turret R] 14 x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun [2 triple mounts R + 2 triple mounts RS/LS + 1 twin mounts F] 15 x 24in Type 93 Torpedo (15 torps) [3 quint mounts C] 4 x Type 3 Depth Charge (36 dc) 1 x Type 22 Radar 1 x Type 13 Radar 11/44 6 x 5in/50 3YT Gun [ 1 twin turret F + 2 twin turret R] 28 x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun [2 triple, 5 single mounts R + 2 triple, 4 single mounts RS/LS + 1 twin, 5 single mounts F] 15 x 24in Type 93 Torpedo (15 torps) [3 quint mounts C] 4 x Type 3 Depth Charge (36 dc) 1 x Type 22 Radar 1 x Type 13 Radar AKIZUKI Endurance - 9800 nm (at 15 knots) Fuel – 1097 tons Initial Configuration Akizuki (42.06.11) ! Teruzuki (42.08.31) ! Suzuzuki (!) (42.12.29) ! 8 x 3.9in/65 Type 98 Gun [ 2 twin turret F + 2 twin turret R] 4 x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun [ 1 twin mount LS + 1 twin mount RS ] 4 x 24in Type 93 Torpedo (8 torps) [1 quart mount C] 4 x Type 2 Depth Charge (54 dc) Hatsuzuki (42.12.29) 8 x 3.9in/65 Type 98 Gun [ 2 twin turret F + 2 twin turret R] 12 x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun [ 2 triple mount LS + 2 triple mount RS ] 4 x 24in Type 93 Torpedo (8 torps) [1 quart mount C] 4 x Type 2 Depth Charge (54 dc) 1 x Type 21 Radar Niizuki (43.03.31) Wakazuki (43.05.31) (without radar) 8 x 3.9in/65 Type 98 Gun [ 2 twin turret F + 2 twin turret R] 12 x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun [2 triple mount LS + 2 triple mount RS] 4 x 24in Type 93 Torpedo (8 torps) [1 quart mount C] 4 x Type 3 Depth Charge (72 dc) 1 x Type 21 Radar Shimozuki (44.03.31) Fuyuzuki (44.05.25) (without radar) 8 x 3.9in/65 Type 98 Gun [ 2 twin turret F + 2 twin turret R] 15 x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun [ 2 triple mount LS + 2 triple mount RS + 1 triple mount R] 4 x 24in Type 93 Torpedo (8 torps) [1 quart mount C] 4 x Type 3 Depth Charge (72 dc) 1 x Type 22 Radar Haruzuki (44.12.29) ! 8 x 3.9in/65 Type 98 Gun [ 2 twin turret F + 2 twin turret R] 38 x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun [8 single mounts R + 4 triple mounts LS/RS + 1 triple, 6 single mounts C + 5 single mounts F] 4 x 24in Type 93 Torpedo (8 torps) [1 quart mount C] 4 x Type 3 Depth Charge (72 dc) 2 x Type 13 Radar 1 x Type 22 Radar Hanazuki (44.12.26) ! Yoizuki (45.01.31) ! Natsuzuki (45.08.08) ! 8 x 3.9in/65 Type 98 Gun [ 2 twin turret F + 2 twin turret R] 43 x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun [1 triple, 14 single mounts R + 4 triple, 2 single mounts RS/LS + 2 triple, 6 single mounts F] 4 x 24in Type 93 Torpedo (8 torps) [1 quart mount C] 4 x Type 3 Depth Charge (72 dc) 2 x Type 13 Radar 1 x Type 22 Radar 1st Refit 11/43 8 x 3.9in/65 Type 98 Gun [ 2 twin turret F + 2 twin turret R] 12 x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun [ 1 triple mount R + 2 triple mount LS + 2 triple mount RS ] 4 x 24in Type 93 Torpedo (8 torps) [1 quart mount C] 4 x Type 3 Depth Charge (72 dc) 1 x Type 21 Radar 2nd Refit 8/44 8 x 3.9in/65 Type 98 Gun [ 2 twin turret F + 2 twin turret R] 27 x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun [1 triple, 4 single mounts R + 4 triple mount RS/LS + 8 single mounts F] 4 x 24in Type 93 Torpedo (8 torps) [1 quart mount C] 4 x Type 3 Depth Charge (72 dc) 1 x Type 21 Radar 1 x Type 13 Radar 3rd Refit 3/45 8 x 3.9in/65 Type 98 Gun [ 2 twin turret F + 2 twin turret R] 46 x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun [ 1 triple, 15 single mounts R + 4 triple, 4 single mounts RS/LS + 2 triple, 6 single mounts F] 4 x 24in Type 93 Torpedo (8 torps) [1 quart mount C] 4 x Type 3 Depth Charge (72 dc) 1 x Type 21 Radar 2 x Type 13 Radar --------------------------------------------------- New device Type 3 Depth Charge (modeled as combination of type 3 DC and type 3 DCT) Range – 800 Accuracy – 25 Effect – 420 Load cost – 570 Available – 10/43 Data Mass – 180kg/100kg warhead Diving speed – 5 m/s Depths – 40, 80, 120, 160 and 180m Type 2 DC should be standard ASW weapon of IJN destroyers since 10/42 Type 3 DC becomes available 10/43, more research needed here, when I’ll get more data I most probably will move availability date closer to the war end, or reduce number of classes equipped with it. EDIT: [:@] Excellent! Half of the post is in the bold text now (not my idea!) and I can’t edit it! Does anybody know how to fix it?

Herrbear -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/6/2005 4:14:48 AM)
Ignore the post. Different books say different things. According to Whitley's "Cruisers of WWII", the 5" guns that Watts says are DP are not even though the angle was 70 degrees. He indicates that they couldn't traverse fast enough besides other stuff. What about the 2nd group of Fubuki's? Their 5/50 seems to be a DP type gun and the 5/50 3YT (device type 18) gun is not. In addition, during 41-42 the 1st group 5/50 elevation was raised to 70 degrees thus making them DP as well. Same type of 5/50 as in the 2nd Fubuki group and the 41-42 revision of the 1st group. It should be a DP 5/50 (Device type 17) Same for the Hatsuharu, SHIRATSUYU, Asashio, Kagero and Yugomo Source: Watts and Gordon "The Imperial Japanese Navy"

bstarr -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/6/2005 5:57:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lemurs! In reality any ship could, in an emergency, carry some troops or supplies. Mike, (whoops; I missed this one and only responded to the earlier post) Anyway . . . Not any ship. The whole point is that a DE is one of the only units in the game which can't transport troops in a fast transport task force. Try it. They can join the task force, but they have 0 capacity. If possible within the game, a ship should be available for a player to use as it was historically in the war. It would be different if they were only used in emergency situations, but these ships carried crucial landing teams for one of Yamamoto's boldest undertakings - the Midway invasion. I would certainly think keeping ships close to their historic function would be important. quote: What we are doing is classing ships on their planned role when built or rebuilt. If that was the case you would be labeling them PGs or PCs. They were designated Patrol Boats. I'm beginning to think you just want to use the DE designation. [;)] bs ps. I love a good friendly debate. If I didn't respect your opinion and think you have a good head on your shoulders I wouldn't bother with you.

Lemurs! -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/6/2005 7:06:41 PM)
Damn you Bstarr! I hate people that make sense! Bastard! I don't know, i will think about it. I don't know what will fit best. I don't like them being APDs because they were not APDs. I guess just putting them back to destroyers would be good. The reason in my mod i made them DEs is so players who maybe don't know as much about Jap ships would know what they were for. I tried recategorizing several classes for ease of use. Mike

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/6/2005 7:15:23 PM)
Should we do as Mike did and add some belt armor to DDs so that they don't blow up under MG fire? I think this is a must. I also would like to reduce the durability ratings of subs to a more appropriate level. In conjuction with this, I'd like to add belt armour based on their test depth. For EG, armor rating of 2 for 200 ft;3 for 300 ft; etc. This needs testing of course.

tanjman -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/6/2005 9:15:25 PM)
Ron, From page 14 of the editor manual Durability represents the size and toughness of the ship in terms of how difficult it is to sink. For submarines, this also represents the maximum dive depth of the submarine (in tens of feet, i.e. 30 represents a 300 feet max dive depth). quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker Should we do as Mike did and add some belt armor to DDs so that they don't blow up under MG fire? I think this is a must. I also would like to reduce the durability ratings of subs to a more appropriate level. In conjuction with this, I'd like to add belt armour based on their test depth. For EG, armor rating of 2 for 200 ft;3 for 300 ft; etc. This needs testing of course.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/6/2005 10:46:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tanjman Ron, From page 14 of the editor manual Durability represents the size and toughness of the ship in terms of how difficult it is to sink. For submarines, this also represents the maximum dive depth of the submarine (in tens of feet, i.e. 30 represents a 300 feet max dive depth). quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker Should we do as Mike did and add some belt armor to DDs so that they don't blow up under MG fire? I think this is a must. I also would like to reduce the durability ratings of subs to a more appropriate level. In conjuction with this, I'd like to add belt armour based on their test depth. For EG, armor rating of 2 for 200 ft;3 for 300 ft; etc. This needs testing of course. I'm completely aware of that. But a few have experimented with armor on subs to alleviate the BS accuracy of DCs and it appears to help...not always a penetration when hit. So, I want to try lowering durability and adding armor to subs relative to their test depth. Lowering the durability of subs will lower the exorbitant production cost of subs at the moment.

bstarr -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/6/2005 11:20:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker quote: ORIGINAL: tanjman Ron, From page 14 of the editor manual Durability represents the size and toughness of the ship in terms of how difficult it is to sink. For submarines, this also represents the maximum dive depth of the submarine (in tens of feet, i.e. 30 represents a 300 feet max dive depth). quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker Should we do as Mike did and add some belt armor to DDs so that they don't blow up under MG fire? I think this is a must. I also would like to reduce the durability ratings of subs to a more appropriate level. In conjuction with this, I'd like to add belt armour based on their test depth. For EG, armor rating of 2 for 200 ft;3 for 300 ft; etc. This needs testing of course. I'm completely aware of that. But a few have experimented with armor on subs to alleviate the BS accuracy of DCs and it appears to help...not always a penetration when hit. So, I want to try lowering durability and adding armor to subs relative to their test depth. Lowering the durability of subs will lower the exorbitant production cost of subs at the moment. I dunno. Someone already mentioned that they were reducing the accuracy and effectiveness of the depth charges in this mod. If we try too many fixes at once, we may well end up with supersubs. Maybe test out the DC changes first, then go from there.

bstarr -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/6/2005 11:23:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lemurs! Damn you Bstarr! I hate people that make sense! Bastard! I don't know, i will think about it. I don't know what will fit best. I don't like them being APDs because they were not APDs. I guess just putting them back to destroyers would be good. The reason in my mod i made them DEs is so players who maybe don't know as much about Jap ships would know what they were for. I tried recategorizing several classes for ease of use. Mike I'm about to leave to go over to a friend's house. About six or seven beers from now I promice I won't make any sense whatsoever. [:D]

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/6/2005 11:27:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bstarr quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker quote: ORIGINAL: tanjman Ron, From page 14 of the editor manual Durability represents the size and toughness of the ship in terms of how difficult it is to sink. For submarines, this also represents the maximum dive depth of the submarine (in tens of feet, i.e. 30 represents a 300 feet max dive depth). quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker Should we do as Mike did and add some belt armor to DDs so that they don't blow up under MG fire? I think this is a must. I also would like to reduce the durability ratings of subs to a more appropriate level. In conjuction with this, I'd like to add belt armour based on their test depth. For EG, armor rating of 2 for 200 ft;3 for 300 ft; etc. This needs testing of course. I'm completely aware of that. But a few have experimented with armor on subs to alleviate the BS accuracy of DCs and it appears to help...not always a penetration when hit. So, I want to try lowering durability and adding armor to subs relative to their test depth. Lowering the durability of subs will lower the exorbitant production cost of subs at the moment. I dunno. Someone already mentioned that they were reducing the accuracy and effectiveness of the depth charges in this mod. If we try too many fixes at once, we may well end up with supersubs. Maybe test out the DC changes first, then go from there. The accuracy and effect test is a success. Now I'm going to try the armor.

Bradley7735 -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/7/2005 5:33:39 PM)
Hi Ron, If you reduce the durability of subs, you'll reduce the victory points for killing them. (I think). So, fixing the production cost problem will potentially make subs worth the same as a PT or minesweeper. (I think) bc

Lemurs! -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units (1/7/2005 6:13:02 PM)
One of the problems the sub durability method is causing is that the I-400 costs the same as a B-2 class. In reality the I-400 cost 3.5 times as much to build as the B-2's. Mike

Don Bowen -> Ex-Minekaze and Ex-Momi Patrol Boats (1/7/2005 8:17:29 PM)
The Japanese Patrol Boats No.1 and No.2 (ex-Minekaze) and No.31 through No.39 (ex-Momi) were specifically equiped to carry troops. Patrol Boat No. 46 (ex-Wakatake Class Yugao) was not. The ex-Minekazes could carry two daihatsu landing craft and 250 troops. They had their sterns raked down to the waterline to allow launch of the daihatsu. WHEN NO TROOPS OR LANDING CRAFT WERE CARRIED they could operate as ASW vessels, carrying a total of 60 depth charges. When carrying troops, the depth charge capacity was 18. The ex-Momi class were originally configured as patrol craft but all except No.31 were modifed pre-war similarl to the ex-Minekazes, with cut down stern and a capacity of one daihatsu and 150 troops. Normal depth charge load was 60, reduced to 18 when carrying troops. Though not specifically clear, it appears that No. 31 was never equipped to carry troops. However, we will probably fold her into the rest of the class in our scenario. All data from Japanese Warships of World War II by A.J.Watts - Page 273.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Ex-Minekaze and Ex-Momi Patrol Boats (1/8/2005 5:36:06 AM)
We are going to place a"static" Utah, AG-16 at PH, correct? Given it's significance on turn 1 I think it's inclusion of value. I tested it's presence with PH attacks and it performs historically, usually drawing a bit of attention. Tanker made an excellent pic.

Lemurs! -> RE: Ex-Minekaze and Ex-Momi Patrol Boats (1/8/2005 6:30:19 AM)
Don, My sources disagree with yours; In mine the Momi's were looked at for conversion to APD but the conversion was not done due to small size. Mike

Don Bowen -> RE: Ex-Minekaze and Ex-Momi Patrol Boats (1/8/2005 8:16:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lemurs! Don, My sources disagree with yours; In mine the Momi's were looked at for conversion to APD but the conversion was not done due to small size. Mike All I have is Watts and Conway - both agree with my previous post (in fact, the language is disturbingly similar). A little Googling found this interesting site: http://smmlonline.com/articles/momi/momi.html Lots of artwork, including: [image]local://upfiles/757/Ay751081830.jpg[/image]

Don Bowen -> RE: Ex-Minekaze and Ex-Momi Patrol Boats (1/8/2005 8:28:03 AM)
Here's the link for Minekaze and similar. Excellent sources for WITP artwork for these DDs and their modifications - should anyone want to do some. http://smmlonline.com/articles/minekaze/minekaze.html It looks like the Momi PBs are really two sub-classes. 31-33 as DE and 34 on as APD. Perhaps we could merge the 31-33 with the other surviving Momi. [image]local://upfiles/757/Eb868800336.jpg[/image]

Lemurs! -> RE: Ex-Minekaze and Ex-Momi Patrol Boats (1/8/2005 6:25:52 PM)
Hi all, That is what really ticks me off about Japanese operational planning. Why, when you have many purpose built APD's sitting around Japan, would you use 2 NON-APD's as troop transports at Wake and just run them aground? WTF? There were half a dozen or so unused Minekazes sitting around Japan. WTF? Anyway, my source does not mention the 6 units converted to semi APD's. It just mentions the PB conversion. We probably need a new freaking class. The 3 destroyers, 3 PBs(DEs), & 6 APDs with a small capacity. Whydidn't they just convert all of the small Momis and Wakatakes to PBs and convert a few Kamikazes to APDs? That would have been so much more intelligent. Mike

Don Bowen -> RE: Ex-Minekaze and Ex-Momi Patrol Boats (1/8/2005 7:57:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lemurs! Hi all, That is what really ticks me off about Japanese operational planning. Why, when you have many purpose built APD's sitting around Japan, would you use 2 NON-APD's as troop transports at Wake and just run them aground? WTF? There were half a dozen or so unused Minekazes sitting around Japan. WTF? Anyway, my source does not mention the 6 units converted to semi APD's. It just mentions the PB conversion. We probably need a new freaking class. The 3 destroyers, 3 PBs(DEs), & 6 APDs with a small capacity. Whydidn't they just convert all of the small Momis and Wakatakes to PBs and convert a few Kamikazes to APDs? That would have been so much more intelligent. Mike You want intelligent, look at the 3 ex-flush deck destroyers that became US Army Transports. These were sold by the Navy pre-war and purchased by a fruit company to run bananas. Even with some boilers removed they were fairly fast and could deliver bananas before they rotted. Anyway, once the war began the Army snapped them up for conversion to blockade runners (to try and get supplies to the Philippines). Military conversion was incomplete by the time the Philippines fell so they became general service transports. Very useful around New Guinea. One was lost there and another somewhere (Alaska maybe). Away from my library so I don't have the names. Anyway, we can set up a couple of classes for the Momi - one APD and one (or two) DE, maybe one DD. Depends on how many classes we end up with - considering upgrades this could be a lot of classes for a class of obsolete small DD.

Marc -> RE: Ex-Minekaze and Ex-Momi Patrol Boats (1/11/2005 1:00:02 AM)
Here is what I have: Source: Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy 1869-1945, Jentschura, Jung, Mickel [image]local://upfiles/1062/Tr502008039.jpg[/image]

Don Bowen -> Late war Yugumo upgrades (1/13/2005 10:39:40 PM)
I am trying to find additional information on a late-war modification made to some Yugomo class DDs. It was performed on ships that had already had #2 twin 5/40 removed and replaced with 25mm. According to Conway the #3 5/50 and the 25mm AA in the old #2 gun location were removed and replaced with a twin 5/40 mount. Watts agrees but says a twin 4.7in mount. To confuse it even more: http://www.combinedfleet.com/yugumo_n.htm Does anyone have anything on this??

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.90625