RAN/RNethN/RN ships wrong, no AA upgrades either

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RAN/RNethN/RN ships wrong, no AA upgrades either

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Tech Support >> RAN/RNethN/RN ships wrong, no AA upgrades either

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RAN/RNethN/RN ships wrong, no AA upgrades either - 9/20/2002 6:27:33 AM

angus

Posts: 103
Joined: 9/8/2002
From: Brussels
Status: offline

Like it says in the title ...

(a) Radars
Only Hr.Ms. Jacob van Heemskerck (not Van Heemskerck if you don't mind) is listed as having radar, and that AW.279 set was probably replaced by 1943 with something better. Hr.Ms. Isaac Sweers certainly had radar. I have a picture of her in front of me and it shows radar, but damifino which. The rest I know roughly what kind of radar they should have.
Some sources will say Type 279 or whatever, I'm taking the info from Lenton who uses the format below. Replace AW/SW by Type if you like.
HMAS Australia/Canberra - originally AW.286 radar, replaced in Australia by AW.281 in 1943 (Canberra sunk before this).
HM(A)S Shropshire - AW.281 and SW.273 radars.
Leander Class - Hobart had SW.272 and AW.279 in 1942. AW.281B replaced AW.279 and SW.276 replaced SW.272. These changes probably didn't happen until 1944. Leander and Achilles as Hobart in 1942 but never got the upgrade.
HMS Victorious - AW.286 radar.
Tribal Class Destoyers - AW.286 radar, may have had SW.271 added later.
Q Class Destroyers (not in game, but could have been) - AW.290 radar.
N Class Destroyers (same, RAN and RNethN) - AW.286 radar.
S Class Destroyers (same, RNethN only)- SW.272 and AW.291 sets.
Sloops Swan & Warrego - had either AW.286 or AW.291 or had first AW.286 later AW.291.
Bathurst Class - had AW.286 and SW.271 fitted during upgrades.

(b) Airgroup of HMS Victorious.
UV says Victorious has a capacity of 33 aircraft and gives her an airgroup of three squadrons - 896, 898 and 832. According to Lenton, the Victorious's airgroup in May 1943 (which is when she was in the Pacific) was 51 aircraft. Once deck parking was introduced the Illustrious class were rated at 52 aircraft. They did carry even more on a few occasions. Victorious had 55 in November 1944, 54 in March 1945, Illustrious 57 in December 1944. These numbers were only managed by using outriggers like the ones on the Ranger (no idea if used on other USN carriers ..).

Anyway, as for Victorious in the Spring of 1943, 882, 896 and 898 Squadrons were aboard with 12 F4F-4Bs each, while 832 Squadron had 15 TBFs. This wasn't a case of carrying a special large airgroup. Formidable had 45 aircraft aboard the same month and Illustrious had 46 in July 43. I have checked in Thetford's book on British naval aircraft and he lists 882, 896 and 898 all using the Wildcat IV (F4F-4B) aboard Victorious, which doesn't contradict Lenton.

(c) Armament of British, Australian and Netherlands warships.
How people can get peeved about non-existent Japanese bulldozers (UV is right ! No Jap bulldozers please !) and swallow the armaments given in UV is past me. None of the CW ships listed have the right armament. Several types of gun are missing completely. THIS BETTER BE FIXED IN WtP, and preferably in UV too. The correct - I think - armaments for the CW/NL ships in the game (or which might have been, in the case of the Aussie and Dutch N, Q and S class destroyers) is as follows.

Detailed comments on the guns themselves will need to wait until I dig out my copy of Campbell's book. Vague comments follow the ships.

HMS Victorious - 16 (8xII) 4.5in DP, 48 (6xVIII) 2pdr Mk VIII, an unknown number of 40mm Bofors which may or may not have replaced some of the 2pdrs, an unknown number of 20mm guns which didn't replace any existing guns. At the end of the war Victorious had an armament of 16 4.5in, 40 2pdr, 21 40mm and 45 20mm. What exactly she shipped in May 1943 is beyond me, but I'd expect that some of the 20mms would be aboard but not the Bofors. The layout of the 20mms is a bit vague, but there were at least 9 twin mounts on the island (starboard midships), 2 singles right forward, 2 twins and 2 singles right aft and 3 twins port midships.

HMS Australia (and Canberra) - Canberra was sunk by the USN, so I'll largely ignore her. As for Australia, the main armament of 4 twin 8in is right, and she shipped 4 4in guns as built, and they may even have been Mk V antiques (tho' I doubt it). Before the war Australia and Canberra got the designed fit of 4 twin 4in Mk XVI/XIX guns, which were as superior to the Mk V as the US 5in/38 was to the 5in/25. As originally built they had 2 quadruple 0.50in Vickers mounts on top of the hangar. These were removed from Australia by 1943 and replaced by 7 20mm mountings.
When Canberra was sunk, she shipped 8 8in guns in 4 twin turrets, 8 4in Mk XVI in twin turrets, 16 2pdr Mk VIII in octuple mountings, 8 0.50in Vickers MGs in quadruple mountings and 2 20mm guns (probably in the bridge wings). Canberra and Australia also carried one aircraft.

HM(A)S Shropshire - not an "Australia" (Kent) class cruiser but a London class one. Broadly similar to the Kents. When Shropshire was handed over to the RAN she had 8 8in guns in twin turrets, 8 4in Mk XVI/XIX guns in twin mounts (these had RPC so they could be directed from the radar-equipped AA director), 18 20mm guns (7 twins, 4 singles) and no aircraft or catapult. The 20mms were (I think, it's only a little picture) twins in the bridge wings, 2 twins on each side midships, one twin on the quarterdeck, one single on each of B and X turrets and the other two on the aft part of the superstructure.

HMAS Hobart (and her half-sisters) - all kept their 8 6in guns for the period of UV and their 8 4in Mk XVI/XIX guns in twin mounts. As built they had three quadruple 0.50in Vickers MG mounts, but these were replaced by 20mms by 1942. Hobart in 1942 had had 2 quadruple 2pdr mounts between the funnels and 11 20mms. The 20mms were probably a twin in each bridge wing, a twin on the after control position, a twin either side of the funnels and the single either on B or X turret or right aft. The Achilles and Leander were similar but with single 20mms in place of some of the twins. These ships don't appear to have been much more upgraded until 1944 when X turret was removed and a large number of Bofors guns shipped.

Tribals - UV gets it right ! The Aussie Tribals never did mount 8 4.7in guns, only 6. Unfortunately, the twin 4in Mk XVI/XIX mounting which replaced X turret has gone AWOL. Also missing are 2 20mms - one in each bridge wing and the 2 quad 0.50in Vickers mounts either side midships. These rather useless weapons were quite quickly replaced by another 2 20mms and 2 more were added either side of the aft shelter deck. The only significant AA upgrade in the UV period was the replacement of all 6 single 20mm mounts by twins but Bofors guns appear not to have been fitted until later.

/to be continued/

Post #: 1

Part Two - 9/20/2002 7:27:02 AM

angus

Posts: 103
Joined: 9/8/2002
From: Brussels
Status: offline

Where did I get to ?

This is getting very long, so I will skip the N, Q and S classes for now. Which takes us to the Aussie sloops.

The Swan and Warrego - not sisters as originally built, but close enough. Bye 1942 both mounted a twin 4in mounting (so Mk XVI/XIX modern guns) forward and aft. They had a single Bofors on the forward shelter deck and 6 single 20mm guns. No idea where the 20mms were, but these were small ships and they were most likely fitted 2 or 3 to each side and 0 or 2 aft. Although these ships could, in theory, sweep mines and had once been fitted to lay them as well, I don't think they did, nor were the crews trained for it. Their primary (only) job was
anti-submarine and anti-aircraft defence of shipping.

The Bathurst Class minesweepers - As designed, these shipped as 4in Mk V gun (at last !) forwarc and a single 20mm aft. For whatever reason (shortage of guns most likely) some ships carried an ancient 12pdr/12cwt gun in place of the 4in. Upgrades were carried out to all eventually, replacing the single 20mm with a single Bofors and fitting a 20mm in each bridge wing. The main gripe I have about these in UV is their short range. The designed range for these ships was 4300nm at 10 knots. That's a lot better than they can do in UV !

Dutch ships now. Nice and short ...

Gerard Callenburgh Class destroyes (Isaac Sweers) - as rearmed by the British Isaac Sweers carried 3 twin 4in MkXVI/XIX mountings, one forward and two aft, 2 quad 21in torpedo mountings, one quad 0.50in Vickers between the funnels and one aft of the funnels, replaced in 1941 by twin 20mm Oerlikons, 4 DC launchers and 2 racks.

Jacob van Heemskerck - 5 twin 4in Mx XVI/XIX mounts, 2 forward, 2 midships, port and starboard and one aft. Also one quad 2pdr Mk VIII and 6 Hispano 20mm cannon. At some point while she was in the East, the light AA armament was overhauled and she was fitted with 8 40mm Bofors and 8 20mm Oerlikons. UV is pretty close on this one, except that the 4in guns weren't Mk Vs, the 2pdrs were in one quad mount and the 20mms Hispanos rather than Oerlikons. All that's missing is her two depth charge racks.

Guns :-

(a) I have no idea if UV rates guns accurately or not, but the rating for the 2pdr Mk VIII is extremely generous. It should be in every respect worse than the Bofors.

(b) The missing weapons.

(b1) British 4in single/twin Mk XVI or XIX gun. The gun had a high rate of fire, the 31lb shells being easy to handle. A trained crew could shoot 20 rpm per barrel. Shellpower and range inferior to the US 5in/38 but otherwise one of the best all-round guns of it's day apart from the fact that a 4in shell wasn't really big enough for surface actions. The main problem was that the British couldn't build enough of them.

(b2) British 12pdr/12cwt. An antique. Dating from 1889 I think. Not a bad gun, even in 1940, but lacking in range and hitting power. It's practical ceiling was far below 20000'.

(b3) British 2pdr Mk VIII in single, quad and octuple mounts. Not a great success. Would have been completely replaced by the Bofors if enough guns, mountings had been available. One Bofors was probably worth 2 2pdr Mk VIIIs and more when more advanced fire-control systems supplied from US.

(b4) A 20mm Hispano would be indistinguishable from any other 20mm cannon, whether Madsen, Oerlikon or Mauser.

(b5) British 4.5in Mk II DP. Not a great gun like the 5in/38, but the nearest the British had. Used fixed shell too long and heavy to manhandle so only useful on big ships with power loaders and so on. Rate of fire inferior to US 5in/38 and mountings far too heavy for what they were, but it was a good gun otherwise. It's descendants, lightened and using semi-fixed ammo, were in use with the RN during the Falklands (on the County Class, Leanders and so on) and some might still be afloat today.

(b6) Quad 0.50in Vickers MG. Not to be confused with the Browning 50 cal, which was a far better weapon. Not very useful gun but better than nothing. It's value can be deduced from the fact that replacing the quad mount with a single Oerlikon was a large improvement. Worse than the Browning in ROF, range and hitting power and more expensive and less reliable.

And nearly finally. Let's not forget the aircraft for the Aussie cruisers. According to Leo Niehorster's OOB site Australia and Canberra carried a Walrus and Hobart carried a "seaplane" (probably a Seafox).

And really finally. What are those AMCs doing pretending to be transports ? The Manoora wasn't converted to an LSI(L) until 1943, likewise the Monowai, Westralia and Kanimbla. Until then they may well have carried troops on occasions but they were armed merchant cruisers. The Kanimbla and Manoora carried 7 ancient 6in guns, 2 12pdr/12cwt AA guns and 4 Oerlikons. The Monowai had 8 ancient 6in guns, 4 12pdr/12cwt and a Supermarine Seagull V (Walrus is close enough) aircraft. Westralia has 6 6in, 2 12pdr and a Seagull V.

If some nice person has performance data for any of the guns mentioned above, perhaps they could post it ? If anyone knows exactly when the AA armaments of any of the ships mentioned was changed, please let me know ! Apologies in advance for any errors.

And did I say what a great game it is ?

Cheers,

Angus

(in reply to angus)

Post #: 2

Re: RAN/RNethN/RN ships wrong, no AA upgrades either - 9/20/2002 8:41:23 AM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by angus
[B]Like it says in the title ...

(c) Armament of British, Australian and Netherlands warships.
How people can get peeved about non-existent Japanese bulldozers (UV is right ! No Jap bulldozers please !) and swallow the armaments given in UV is past me.

/to be continued/ [/B][/QUOTE]

This is aimed - among others - at me, as I was among those that complained at the lack of Jap dozers in the game (and presented some evidence as to why at least some of them should be included in OOB).

So I'll answer.

I can get "peeved" about bulldozers, because having, say, 15% or 25% more engineering capability at the beginning of the game MAY prove to be win or lose issue in this game. This is also explained in several threads (for better part in the thread dealing with - Jap dozers). While I won't question the veracity of your data, your goodwill, nor your right to complain, I must say that everything you listed (no matter whether it is modelled right or not) in 99,7% of games won't do much to change the final outcome of the grand campaign.

If I'd want to be malicious a bit, I'd be rephrasing your question: how can anybody be "peeved" about such miniscule trivia re guns (note: most APs and MSW and minor classes NEVER EVER get to use their guns in the game!), while ignoring crucial issue of early engineering capability (that is make or break issue in the game, especially for the Japs).

Now sorry for raining on your parade, get back to your regular programming. Oh, and by the way, Canberra was not sunk by the USN, unless you try to say something deep here? :D

O.

(in reply to angus)

Post #: 3

- 9/20/2002 9:18:34 AM

angus

Posts: 103
Joined: 9/8/2002
From: Brussels
Status: offline

Actually, I think my comment is entirely fair. One of the points mentioned in the absolutely superb _Kaigun_ by Evans and Peattie is that the IJN was hopeless at base construction. On p465 we learn that the IJN was still trying to build fortifications in the Marshalls in early 44. It had begun in 37. Evans and Peattie mention one airbase that took seven years to build. Japanese engineering methods weren't significantly advanced over those used to build the Great Wall and would have been thought backward in the First World War.

While it is true that the IJN and IJA had some bulldozers and the like they didn't have very many. They also didn't have many cranes, many trucks, many power tools, pumps or any of the other things that US Army engineers and Naval Construction Battalions had in huge quantities, even in the backwaters of the South Pacific. If anyone's engineering abilities are underrated by UV, it's certainly not the Japanese. A few weeks in the boonies and most Allied heavy engineering units will have run out of engineer vehicles. And it's not like you can just stick three bulldozers on the next freighter as things stand.

Japanese engineering units had almost no heavy equipment, few officers or men with any knowledge of construction or related fields and a rank and file made up of rejects from other, more "heroic" parts of the armed forces and a mass of unenthusiastic, untrained foreigners. Japanese engineeing units were pretty much useless. That's true for almost everything in the Imperial Japanese armed forces that wasn't directly related to fighting battles.

As for the specific case of Lunga, UV appears to do the IJA and IJN plenty favours. When the USMC landed on Guadalcanal, the airfield wasn't that big and the port and fortifications were non-existent. Playing against the AI, I've usually found that by August 1942 the airfield at Lunga is size 4-6 and the portr size 1-3, which is not a small base at all. My guess would be that the historical base was a size 2-3 airfield and a size 0-1 port. The game appears to let the Japanese build large bases without too much trouble, quite possibly too large and too quick.

YMMV and apparently does,

Angus

(in reply to angus)

Post #: 4

- 9/20/2002 9:40:28 AM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

Oh no... don't you just love newbies who post their, like, sixth post and seem to think that these boards were started yesterday, and just waited for them to appear? :)

Since you seem to be a newcomer here, please take a look at the "famed" Jap dozer thread on these boards. Everything I, and others that discussed this ad nauseam, have had to say - is there. I am not going to repeat it, nor beat that dead horse any longer.

Question is not whether the historical Japs were quick builders (they were not), issue here is of giving the Jap player in the GAME proper tools to do better than his historic counterpart (that is what wargames are all about). It is well known fact that Marines captured SOME heavy equipment when they landed on Guadalcanal, and even used this equipment to finish the (basic) airfield! In this game Japs have NONE of the heavy equipment.

It is also well known fact that Japs used forced labor, Koreans, even POWs etc. And they did have dozers. Nowhere near the US, but they did have SOME. This is not modelled in the game.

But, as I said, I accept the decision of the designers, and indeed don't want to discuss the Jap dozer issue in detail any more.

What struck me is that you believe some minor gun adjustments to be more important than engineer/builder issue. At least that's the impression I got, but then again - that's why pet peeves are called *pet* peeves. I firmly believe that building some important bases ASAP is Do or Die issue in the game, while the gun armament on MSWs is utter trivia. Interesting trivia maybe, but of no real consequence to the outcome of campaign...

In other words: My pet peeve is more important than yours! :D (Indeed it is.)

O.

(in reply to angus)

Post #: 5

- 9/20/2002 10:04:48 AM

angus

Posts: 103
Joined: 9/8/2002
From: Brussels
Status: offline

And doncha just love smileys ?

I suppose I just have to accept that you consider missing out three broken down bulldozers a more egregious error than something like giving an Essex Class carrier a maximum airgroup of 55 aircraft, 3in guns and no radar. To each his own.

Angus

(in reply to angus)

Post #: 6

- 9/20/2002 11:28:01 AM

XPav

Posts: 550
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Northern California
Status: offline

Gosh darn it (I luv profanity filters) angus, that's some nice work.

Ignore Oleg, he just has this fantasy of riding bulldozers to crush pesky USMC troops. :p

_____________________________

I love it when a plan comes together.

(in reply to angus)

Post #: 7

Hey Angry...oh I mean Angus - 9/20/2002 11:31:22 AM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

Most of the details you mention for RN/RAN/RNZN ships have been adressed and you should be sated soon. Differences within a class of ship are difficult within the UV format, so single ship configs represent the class. ie, Australia's late 1942 fit is modelled for Kent class, as is Hobart's for Apollo/Orion classes.

Cheers!:)

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to angus)

Post #: 8

- 9/20/2002 11:31:56 AM

DoomedMantis

Posts: 1922
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

I suggest you two have a PBEM, you certainly both want to kill each other and that will be a good avenue for it.

Doomed

_____________________________

I shall make it a felony to drink small beer.

- Shakespeare

(in reply to angus)

Post #: 9

- 9/20/2002 12:07:55 PM

Drongo

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline

Posted by Oleg
[QUOTE]Oh no... don't you just love newbies who post their, like, sixth post and seem to think that these boards were started yesterday, and just waited for them to appear? :) [/QUOTE]

How dare he! Newbies should be seen and not heard for at least, say, 100 posts. Until then they should be respectful to their elders (like we all were (not)).:p

Posted by Angus

[QUOTE]And doncha just love smileys ? [/QUOTE]

I reckon they're great. There's not too many ways for you to kick someone in the nuts while giving them a reassuring wink at the same time. (Although I don't think that's what Oleg was doing).

Angus,
welcome, mate.
Good job with the info. A few people have pointed out the inaccuracies in shipboard weapons (no pun intended) but I think you may be the first to highlight those of the clog dancers. From my own experience, OOB posts like yours will get noticed by Matrix. (refer the last few posts on following thread - esp that of Rich Dionne's post).

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26017

One last point on the 'mythical' Japanese (Toyota?) bulldozers.

If they really were available (no opinion) in the Pacific during the period of UV (even in small numbers), I think Oleg and others are fully justified in asking for them. They do have an enormous impact on how quickly a base can be built. Even if there is only one formation of them available, if they could be deployed to a key location like PM or GC, they could play a critical role.

On the other hand, minor corrections to some individual ships and classes tend to have less impact due to the sheer number of ships in the game (although, like you, I'll always be pushing for an accurate OOB/TO&E - especially for historical IJN ship AA upgrades :) ).

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to angus)

Post #: 10

- 9/20/2002 1:53:07 PM

Possum

Posts: 349
Joined: 3/27/2000
From: Adelaide, SA, Australia
Status: offline

Hello Angus.
If you search the Bug Forum, You will find where I pretty much posted what you have just written, about a month ago.
Although you have gone into far more detail than what I did.
Pity it didn't make the V1.4 patch...
Here's hoping it's in the V1.5 patch, along with beauFIGHTERS!

_____________________________

"We're having a war, and we want you to come!"
So the pig began to whistle and to pound on a drum.
"We'll give you a gun, and we'll give you a hat!"
And the pig began to whistle when they told the piggies that.

(in reply to angus)

Post #: 11

- 9/20/2002 4:07:06 PM

angus

Posts: 103
Joined: 9/8/2002
From: Brussels
Status: offline

Possum says :-

"If you search the Bug Forum, You will find where I pretty much posted what you have just written, about a month ago. "

Sorry mate ! I must have missed that one (unlike the Beaufighters and the Wildcats and the bulldozers) when I was reading through the old posts.

Cheers,

Angus

(in reply to angus)

Post #: 12

- 9/20/2002 6:53:12 PM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by angus
[B]And doncha just love smileys ?

I suppose I just have to accept that you consider missing out three broken down bulldozers a more egregious error than something like giving an Essex Class carrier a maximum airgroup of 55 aircraft, 3in guns and no radar. To each his own.

Angus [/B][/QUOTE]

We agree at last, now lets shake hands :)

Within constraints of a game, I do indeed consider several dozers more egregious error than Essex airwing. By the time your Essex arrives to the theatre grand campaign game is most probably already decided. And certainly I find dozers more important than MSW gun armament.

Regardless to that, your data seems well researched, comprehensive, and I do not question your right to complain, nor the veracity of your data. If your list of errors is correct - then, hey, more power to you!! I support every effort to make the game better and more realistic!

It's just that you didn't have to "attack" my pet peeve to make your pet peeve look more important, that's all.

O.

(in reply to angus)

Post #: 13

- 9/21/2002 1:23:02 AM

panda124c

Posts: 1692
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Houston, TX, USA
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by XPav
[B]Gosh darn it (I luv profanity filters) angus, that's some nice work.

Ignore Oleg, he just has this fantasy of riding bulldozers to crush pesky USMC troops. :p [/B][/QUOTE]

What! did he not see that JW movie 'The Fighting SeaBees' where the SeaBees ride the dozer to crush the Japs? :D

If I remember correctly there is a picture of Henderson field with a Japaness Bull Dozer that was captured by the Marines and used to finish the airfield.

(in reply to angus)

Post #: 14

- 9/21/2002 5:25:28 AM

Wilhammer

Posts: 449
Joined: 5/24/2002
From: Out in the Sticks of Rockingham County, North Caro
Status: offline

A Jap bulldozer was at Henderson when we took it.

It was used by the Marines to finish the airfield, and many other tasks.

This bulldozer is mentioned all over the place in many Guadalcanal books, so the Japs had at least 1.

And if they had 1, I bet they had more.

In First Team: Gualadalcanal, it even describes ANOTHER piece of Jap construction equipment, a steamroller in a situation when an F4F that flipped on top of the steamroller, mortally injuring the pilot.

A chapter or two before that, it tells the tale of the Seabees using it to mash down the grass on the airstrip.

=================

Unlike Allied resources, Japanese resources are very sparse (due to destruction and translation problems, and a usual lack of record keeping), so it is not possible to definitively said they had none. That is probably going to far.

Id say sprinkle a dozen or so in the OOB, and it would be OK.

(in reply to angus)

Post #: 15

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Tech Support >> RAN/RNethN/RN ships wrong, no AA upgrades either

Page: [1]