RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Page: << < prev 29 30 [31] 32 33 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 2/2/2010 5:55:27 PM

Don Bowen

Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

That is some amazing work Harald

Don, I just got a letter from the War Museum in London, and they sent me to a different museum to get information on the dry docks and floating dry docks used in the Pacific and Indian oceans by the RN. I have my fingers crossed.

Excellent. I'll cross my fingers too. In fact, I'll cross everything I got two of!

While you're there...

Looking into projected movement of ships to the Pacific after VE day. We know that large number of warships were projected to be sent but that this was aborted when Japan surrendered. The British Pacific Fleet was projected to be at full strength by the beginning of Downfall (circa 3/46).

Very interested in warships that were intended to go east. Looks like almost all remaining cruisers and carriers, plus a bunch of DD. Apparently the A-I group were stood down, some or all of the J-N group were to be sent, no reference for the O-P flotillas, and virtually everything Q and on.

Do you have any data on a projected "Ce" class? 5th flotilla of Ca, Cr, Ch, Co....

Any indication that Vanguard may have been given priority for completion by early 1946?

In general, we'd like to include the post 9/45 build up - it will be needed if a Downfall like outcome happens!

(in reply to oldman45)

Post #: 901

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 2/2/2010 9:54:04 PM

oldman45

Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

I will send that along with the request for dry dock info. I just realized I have this in wrong forum. Sorry about that.

_____________________________

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 902

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 2/3/2010 1:15:40 AM

mikemike

Posts: 501
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: a maze of twisty little passages, all different
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Do you have any data on a projected "Ce" class? 5th flotilla of Ca, Cr, Ch, Co....

I've never heard of that. Maybe that's a misunderstanding as the "Z" class was virtually identical to the "C" class and the five Z/C class flotillas (10th - 14th Emergency flotilla) were all ordered in 1942. After their combat experience in the Med, the RN wanted destroyers with genuine dual-purpose armament, so they stopped buying utility destroyers with the C class and concentrated on acquiring fleet destroyers with longer range for use in the PTO; the first 16 "Battle" class destroyers were also ordered in 1942 and a further 24 of a slightly modified type in 1943. The "Weapon" class which was ordered in 1944 was again a smaller type but it was a completely new design, with the engine spaces arranged on the unit principle. So I think this "CE" class is completely mythical.

quote:

In general, we'd like to include the post 9/45 build up - it will be needed if a Downfall like outcome happens!

As you may know, all the DDs of the Ch, Cr, and Co classes were completed post-WWII, mainly because of late delivery of their Mk VI directors; for the same reason, only "Barfleur" of the "Battle" class was finished early enough to deploy to the PTO before the end of the war (mid-1945, after being commissioned in September 1944). Later units of the "Battle" class apparently switched to the more readily available US Mk 37 director. Now, assuming that the ships would have to be commissioned in September/October 1945 at the latest to be present in the PTO by March 1946 (which is possibly overly generous), if we keep to the RL timetable, this would have meant at least another 7 "C" class and 6 "Battle" class DDs, possibly another "Battle" and 4-5 "C" class units assuming no slowdown after VE-Day.

The interesting scenario would be to assume that the RN, recognizing early on that the MK VI would be late in delivery, would have switched to the Mk. 37 instead, thus avoiding delayed completion of the ships. If we now assume that the timespan from launch to combat-readiness in the PTO would be 14 months for the "C" class and 16 months for the "Battle" class, that would mean having maybe 18 "C" class and 12 "Battle" class ships in the PTO for Downfall.

_____________________________

DON�T PANIC - IT�S ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 903

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 2/3/2010 2:23:32 AM

Don Bowen

Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

A "Ce" flotilla, if it existed, would have been projected in the 1941-42 timeframe. I have seen only two references to such a flotilla, neither with any supporting references. I believe one mentioned the Weapons class of 1944 as a replacement for the Ce.

I believe all of the first group of the Battle class were to ship the Mk VI director. The first 9 were completed by Jan, 1946 with this director and the remaining seven duirng the rest of 1946. Considering slowdowns in completions of all (non-cancelled) warships after VJ day, it is possible that some or all could be completed earlier. Looking for data on this.

The second group did adopt the Mk 37, along with the 4.5 DP twin turrets. I do not believe any of these could be ready in time, nor any of the third group.

(in reply to mikemike)

Post #: 904

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 2/3/2010 6:53:06 PM

Dutch_slith

Posts: 330
Joined: 7/21/2005
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harald Velemans

...
New ship classes:
...
TM 4 'OJR' same as 219 Type: SC (Sub Chaser) 1x1 DC Rack (4 DCs) facing rear replacing the 45mm H1 Torpedo (2x1)
...

Have never heard of this. I know that eight PTCs were ordered from the US and given OJR names. Six delivered to Java and lost, the last two to West Indies.

But PTC is a problem. They were not successful as a type as the high speed made it impossible to maintain accoustic contact with a target submarine. And, if they slowed down, there was little justification for the expense and maintenance of the high speed engines. Those in the US Navy were converted to PT or MGBs, or else lend leased to the Royal Navy - which did the same.

All the dutch sources give the same information about the three TM-Boats. The fact that only one commander of these boats is known, is an indication of their failure.

The PTCs you speak of, were OJR-1 to OJR-8. These were also known as Higgins-boats. They were absolutely useless and never became operational.

OJR means onderzeebootjager (= Sub Chaser).

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 905

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 2/3/2010 9:08:22 PM

Don Bowen

Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harald Velemans

All the dutch sources give the same information about the three TM-Boats. The fact that only one commander of these boats is known, is an indication of their failure.

The PTCs you speak of, were OJR-1 to OJR-8. These were also known as Higgins-boats. They were absolutely useless and never became operational.

OJR means onderzeebootjager (= Sub Chaser).

Thanks for you data. One learns something new everyday.

(in reply to Dutch_slith)

Post #: 906

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 2/5/2010 11:42:05 AM

latosusi

Posts: 327
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: London/Kuopio
Status: offline

Sub TF has just turned red (enemy color)!

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 907

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 2/5/2010 3:41:33 PM

Dutch_slith

Posts: 330
Joined: 7/21/2005
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline

Ex-Gouvernementsmarine

These vessels belonged to the Gouvernementsmarine but were requested by the Kon. Marine. Commanders were a mix of Gouvernementsmarine and Kon. Marine.

Sources:
Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1922-1946
L.L. von M�nching Schepen van de Kon. Marine in de tweede Wereldoorlog
Ph.M. Bosscher De Koninklijke Marine in de Tweede Wereloorlog (3 volumes)
P.S. van't Haaff/M.J.C. Klaassen Gedenkboek Adelborsten-Opleiding te Willemsoord 1854-1954
Chris Mark Schepen van de Koninklijke Marine in W.O. II

New Ship Classes:
Bangkalan Type: CMc Month/Year: 2/42 Max Spd: 10 Tonnage: 397 Armament: 2x12.7mmAA 30 Mines
Ciska Type: AMc Max Spd: 9 Tonnage: 133 Armament: 1x37mm 2x12.7mmAA
Holland Type: AMc Tonnage: 120 Armament: 2x12.7mmAA

Ship Class changes:
257- Name: Kawi Month: 12 Max Spd: 10 Tonnage: 51 Armament: 2x7.7mmAA
254- Name: Aroe Month: 12 Tonnage: 145 Armament: 2x37mm, 2x7.7mmAA
253- Name: Merbaboe Month: 12 Tonnage: 60 Armament: 2x7.7mmAA
256- Name: Endeh Month: 12 Armanent: 2x7.7mmAA
255- should be deleted, no ships of this class were ever launched

New Leaders:
Sax, H.N. Rank: LT Type: Ship Delay: 420216 **
van den Berg, W.T.L. Rank: LCDR Type: Task Force Delay: 411201
Hokke, P. Rank: ENS Type: Ship Delay: 411201 *
Bik, W.F.K. Rank: ENS Type: Ship Delay: 411201 *
Wasch, J.A. Rank: ENS Type: Ship Delay: 411201 *
Mooij, M.A. Rank: ENS Type: Ship Delay: 411201
Jonkers Both, E.J.W. Rank: ENS Type: Ship Delay: 411201
Vermeulen, J.P.C.K. Rank: ENS Type: Ship Delay: 411201 *
Korthals Altes, J. Rank: LCDR Type: Task Force Delay: 411201
Diekerhoff, F.L. Rank: ENS Type: Ship Delay: 411201
Vegter, E.J.P. Rank: ENS Type: Ship Delay: 411201
Monteiro, J. Rank: ENS Type: Ship Delay: 411201
Jedeloo, H. Rank: ENS Type: Ship Delay: 411201
Kuiper, L. Rank: ENS Type: Ship Delay: 411201
Roozen, P.A.H. Rank: ENS Type: Ship Delay: 411201
Masselink, J. Rank: ENS Type: Ship Delay: 411201
de Wolff, J.J. Rank: LCDR Type: Task Force Delay: 411201
van Gulpen, H. Rank: ENS Type: Ship Delay: 411201 *
van Loopik, G.J. Rank: ENS Type: Ship Delay: 411201 *
Geelhoed, P.T. Rank: ENS Type: Ship Delay: 411201 *
van der Roest, H.J. Rank: ENS Type: Ship Delay: 411201 *
Kraal, H.L.W. Rank: ENS Type: Ship Delay: 411201 *

* = Gouvernementsmarine
** = Gouvernementsmarine and Koninklijke Marine Reserve

Gouvernementsmarine Ranks:
gezaghebber (roughly equivalent to LCDR)
1e officier (roughly equivalent to LT)
2e officier/3e officier (roughly equivalent to ENS)

New Ships:
Bangkalan HQ: 107 Captain: Sax, H.N. Loc: Soerabaja Delay: 420216 Sunk: 420302
Ciska HQ: 107 Loc: Soerabaja Delay: 411206 Sunk: 420302
Holland HQ: 107 Loc: Soerabaja Delay: 411206 Sunk: 420302

Ship changes:
9637- Loc: Soerabaja Sunk: 420302
9639- Sunk: 420302
10006- HQ: 107 Captain: Bik, W.F.K. Loc: Batavia Sunk: 420302
10007- HQ: 107 Captain: Hokke, P. Loc: Batavia Sunk: 420302
10008- HQ: 107 Captain: Wasch, J.A. Loc: Batavia Sunk: 420302
10009- HQ: 107 Captain: Vermeulen, J.P.C.K. Loc: Batavia Sunk: 420302
10010- HQ: 107 Captain: Mooij, M.A. Loc: Batavia Sunk: 420302
10011- HQ: 107 Captain: Jonkers Both, E.J. Loc: Batavia Sunk: 420302
9636- Captain: Diekerhoff, F.L. Sunk: 420303
9638- Captain: Vegter, E.J.P. Loc: Soerabaja Sunk: 420303
9635- Captain: Monteiro, J. Sunk: 420303
9632- Captain: Jedeloo, H.
9631- Name: Merbaboe Captain: Roozen, P.A.H.
9633- Captain: Masselink,
10019- Captain: van Gulpen, H. Loc: Batavia Sunk: 420301
10020- Captain: van Loopik, G.J. Loc: Batavia Sunk: 420301
10021- Sunk: 420302
10022- Captain: Geelhoed, P.T. Sunk: 420301
10023- Captain: Kraal, H.L.W. Loc: Batavia Sunk: 420301
10024- Captain: van der Roest, H.J. Sunk: 420302
9634- Ship never launched, should be deleted
9652- Ship never launched, should be deleted
9653- Ship never launched, should be deleted

next to come:
Gouvernementsmarine

< Message edited by Harald Velemans -- 5/2/2010 9:14:18 AM >

(in reply to latosusi)

Post #: 908

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 2/5/2010 6:01:38 PM

Don Bowen

Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

Love these posts and the data. Keep it coming!

(in reply to Dutch_slith)

Post #: 909

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 2/5/2010 6:40:18 PM

Buck Beach

Posts: 1973
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: latosusi

Sub TF has just turned red (enemy color)!

I am color blind and the different colored ally TF are driving me crazy. Didn't have a problem when they were all the color of the U.S..

(in reply to latosusi)

Post #: 910

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 2/6/2010 5:56:14 AM

Bradley7735

Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

Duplicate ship

7374 C Francis Jenkins - Arrives Jan 45 at Balboa
8243 C. Francis Jenkins - Arrives Nov 44 at Portland.

I'm guessing the first is the duplicate? Same class 2506.

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to Buck Beach)

Post #: 911

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 2/6/2010 4:56:17 PM

Don Bowen

Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Duplicate ship

7374 C Francis Jenkins - Arrives Jan 45 at Balboa
8243 C. Francis Jenkins - Arrives Nov 44 at Portland.

I'm guessing the first is the duplicate? Same class 2506.

Thx!

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 912

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 2/7/2010 4:40:23 PM

latosusi

Posts: 327
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: London/Kuopio
Status: offline

Why can't tanker TF replenish themselves. Running out of fuel seems stupid when you have loads on.
And fuel supply seems to very poor. Looks like you get a tanker TF to unload in port only to replenish itself...

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 913

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 2/7/2010 4:45:40 PM

Don Bowen

Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: latosusi

Why can't tanker TF replenish themselves. Running out of fuel�seems stupid when you have loads on.
And fuel supply seems to very poor. Looks like you get a tanker TF to unload in port only to replenish itself...

I do not recall why but the issue was considered and the decision was made not to include it. A real-world technical limitation perhaps??

(in reply to latosusi)

Post #: 914

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 2/7/2010 5:46:01 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: latosusi

Why can't tanker TF replenish themselves. Running out of fuel�seems stupid when you have loads on.
And fuel supply seems to very poor. Looks like you get a tanker TF to unload in port only to replenish itself...

I do not recall why but the issue was considered and the decision was made not to include it. A real-world technical limitation perhaps??

I vaguely remember that being stated.

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 915

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 2/8/2010 12:45:06 AM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Osterhaut

quote:

ORIGINAL: latosusi

Why can't tanker TF replenish themselves. Running out of fuel�seems stupid when you have loads on.
And fuel supply seems to very poor. Looks like you get a tanker TF to unload in port only to replenish itself...

No that is silly. many ships can transfer there bunker fuel and that is in the game but tankers cannot transfer cargo to other ships for fuel. They did not have the right pumps and did not have the right cargo. So what if the tanker has crude oil or naptha or airplane gasoline, or something else? So no a tanker will not refeul from a cargo and it did not but if it has fuel it can share that and that is all it can do.

In my game I see them working as you describe - they refuel escorts, but not from cargo.

Post #: 916

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 2/8/2010 3:47:27 AM

Fishbed

Posts: 1822
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline

People, sorry about the bother, but I've been seeing this a lot in many AARs so far: may we make sure that, in the next patch, Miss "La" Triomphant becomes Mr. "Le" Triomphant as he ought to be?

thanks in advance!

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 917

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 2/9/2010 8:14:05 AM

Fishbed

Posts: 1822
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline

Good man!

_____________________________

Post #: 918

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 2/10/2010 8:44:59 PM

mikemike

Posts: 501
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: a maze of twisty little passages, all different
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

I believe all of the first group of the Battle class were to ship the Mk VI director. The first 9 were completed by Jan, 1946 with this director and the remaining seven duirng the rest of 1946. Considering slowdowns in completions of all (non-cancelled) warships after VJ day, it is possible that some or all could be completed earlier. Looking for data on this.

The second group did adopt the Mk 37, along with the 4.5 DP twin turrets. I do not believe any of these could be ready in time, nor any of the third group.

I refer to Whitley, Destroyers of WWII. You are correct in regard to the commissioning dates. However, commissioning doesn't mean the ships mounted the director. Barfleur was commissioned in November 1944 to do its trials, but was then laid up awaiting delivery of the director and only just managed to reach the PTO before VJ-Day. What's more, the ship is said to have been essentially complete in March 1944.

Just as interesting is the case of "Chevron". Launched in February 1944, the ship was expected to be complete in June, 1944. It was eventually commissioned in August 1945 - 14 months late, probably largely due to late delivery of the director.

It seems that under normal conditions, one should expect British DDs to go into service about 5-6 months after their launch. How much time to get them worked up and into the PTO? Maybe 3-4 months?
If one is generous, that would mean that all ships launched until May/June 1945 could be in the PTO in march 1946 - excluding only "Vigo" of the first "Battle" group and "Creole", "Cromwell" and "Crown" of the second "C" group - assuming timely delivery of the directors.

You're largely right about the later Battles - only two of them were even launched before VE-Day; and several were not even laid down. But five were laid down in 1943 - these five might make it to the PTO before 3/1946.

_____________________________

DON�T PANIC - IT�S ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 919

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 2/10/2010 9:52:00 PM

Don Bowen

Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

This is good data.

For British DDs, I usually use Lenton. I was a little disappointed in the new Friedman series on British DDs as it was heavily on deisgn issues and little on completion and modifications.

(in reply to mikemike)

Post #: 920

AE Naval and OOB Issues - 2/11/2010 5:41:19 PM

Oliver Heindorf

Posts: 1911
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Hamburg/Deutschland
Status: offline

Hi,
I found some strange behaveiour of AE whrn creating an ASW TF out of Victoria.

Pic 1 shows the newly created TF 563. It has LCDR Bowers as TF Boss. The # at DD Rathburne indicates the Flagship of this TF.
In Vanilla WITP and its Mods the TF Commander was this way always the commander of the Boat with the # nearby.

If you select Rathburne : Pic 2 shows the selected DD Rathburne.

Surprise : Rathburne commander is Mc Neal. DD Sands, which is also in the TF has Bowers as ship captain and as TF commander. But the # indicates still Rathburne as carrying the fleet boss.

errrm ?

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 921

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 2/11/2010 5:43:43 PM

Oliver Heindorf

Posts: 1911
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Hamburg/Deutschland
Status: offline

pic 2

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to Oliver Heindorf)

Post #: 922

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 2/11/2010 5:44:11 PM

Oliver Heindorf

Posts: 1911
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Hamburg/Deutschland
Status: offline

pic 3

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to Oliver Heindorf)

Post #: 923

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 2/12/2010 2:25:01 AM

Local Yokel

Posts: 1494
Joined: 2/4/2007
From: Somerset, U.K.
Status: offline

Looking at the Chidoris and the follow-on class of Otoris in the database, I was surprised to note that they start the war with no ASW weaponry whatsoever. My sources aren't particularly comprehensive, but they suggest that both these classes were, in fact, equipped with depth charge throwers before the war's outbreak. Looking at the Chidori drawings in Jentschura et al, I'm confident I can discern a thrower and associated ready-use ammunition rack abaft the monstrous twin 5" mount of the pre-Tomozuru Incident configuration, suggesting that a thrower was carried from the outset.

So I just wondered, are these ships sold a bit short on equipment at the war's outbreak, or do you have data suggesting that depth charge gear was actually not fitted until 1942?

_____________________________

(in reply to Oliver Heindorf)

Post #: 924

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 2/12/2010 10:34:34 AM

Gilbert

Posts: 243
Joined: 8/8/2009
From: Hendaye, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

Looking at the Chidoris and the follow-on class of Otoris in the database, I was surprised to note that they start the war with no ASW weaponry whatsoever.� My sources aren't particularly comprehensive, but they suggest that both these classes were, in fact, equipped with depth charge throwers before the war's outbreak.� Looking at the Chidori drawings in Jentschura et al, I'm confident I can discern a thrower and associated ready-use ammunition rack abaft the monstrous twin 5" mount of the pre-Tomozuru Incident configuration, suggesting that a thrower was carried from the outset.

So I just wondered, are these ships sold a bit short on equipment at the war's outbreak, or do you have data suggesting that depth charge gear was actually not fitted until 1942?

Both Class ships were indeed fitted with 2 depth charge throwers (1Starboard, 1Port) from their completion date. During the war (in 1943-ish), this gear was increased to two or three DC throwers and the addition of 2 stern DC racks for a total of 48DC.
As you have stated, this can be clearly noticed in Jentschura's book and similar drawings can be found in the Japanese publication "Kojinsha's, warships of the IJN" #21.

Regards
Gilbert

_____________________________

UMI YUKABA
"If I go away to sea, I shall return a corpse awash, if duty calls me to the mountain, a verdant will be my pall, thus for the sake of the Emperor, I will not die peacefully at home...."

(in reply to Local Yokel)

Post #: 925

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 2/14/2010 1:34:41 PM

Local Yokel

Posts: 1494
Joined: 2/4/2007
From: Somerset, U.K.
Status: offline

Gilbert, many thanks for confirming my suspicions. I hesitated to suggest that the depth charge gear had been overlooked, since the accuracy of the ship data in AE has generally been so good.

Mike, good to hear that the omission could be made good in Da Babes!

I've just noticed larger scale drawings than Jentschura's of the Chidoris' pre- and post-Tomozuru Incident configurations in 'Kaigun', in which the throwers and ready-use rack are more clearly shown. 'Kaigun' says that another 16 of the class were projected but cancelled in the wake of the Incident, so it appears that it also cost the IJN a good opportunity to enlarge their meagre inventory of ASW-capable vessels.

_____________________________