RE: Takao Class Cruisers

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: Takao Class Cruisers

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] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: Takao Class Cruisers

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

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Takao Class Cruisers - 1/10/2005 5:28:32 PM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

You want I should do the art boss?

I'd love it - you're art is the best. But I thought you were up to your art in War Plan Orange???

I was.... now all I have to do are the plane tops, and side graphics for the Sparrowhawk III, A1N, and Martin T3 and T4M, and WPO is done graphic wise. Now its mostly finishing up the scenario building.

_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 31

RE: Takao Class Cruisers - 1/10/2005 5:29:06 PM

Ron Saueracker

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

What about adding some armor rating to ships and subs? For ships, it will make APs/AKs, DDs etc less vulnerable to small arms and non penetrating HE used by LCUs. This is critical as the numberof transports pounded by shore defences and LCU artillery is extreme. Armoring DDs (5mm) seems appropriate considering Fletchers and Gearings have a rating. Nothing worse than seeing your DDs explode under MG fire! Subs I'm still testing.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 32

RE: Takao Class Cruisers - 1/10/2005 5:31:27 PM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

I agree on the DDs.... subs give a light rating, but MG fire (20mm and up) could still be very damaging, so I'd say 5-10 max.

_____________________________

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 33

RE: Takao Class Cruisers - 1/10/2005 5:32:59 PM

Don Bowen

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

What about adding some armor rating to ships and subs? For ships, it will make APs/AKs, DDs etc less vulnerable to small arms and non penetrating HE used by LCUs. This is critical as the numberof transports pounded by shore defences and LCU artillery is extreme. Armoring DDs (5mm) seems appropriate considering Fletchers and Gearings have a rating. Nothing worse than seeing your DDs explode under MG fire! Subs I'm still testing.

You make a good point - let me know what you find in your testing. I checked after an earlier post and noticed the interesting values for the Fletcher and Gearing classes.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 34

Depth Charge Ammo re-Calculation - 1/12/2005 5:38:25 PM

Don Bowen

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

As part of the review of classes in the new scenario, ASW weapons and their ammo will be modified as follows:

Range, Accuracy, and Effect of all ASW weapons will be halved.

ASW weapon ammo will be calculated in "patterns". A patern is a group of multiple charges dropped/thrown over a suspected submarine position. Each pattern will contain about 3 charges from each depth charge rack, 1 charge from each depth charge thrower, and one salvo from each ahead throwing weapon (Hedgehog, Mousetrap). As an example, I've just finished reworking the Fubuki class destroyers. In their original (12/41) configuration they had two depth charge racks and 18 depth charges (9 per rack). Matrix had calculated this as 2x2, ammo=9. At 3 charges per rack per pattern, 18 charges will calculate as 3 patterns (ammo = 3).

Non-ASW vessels will carry depth charges (if they did so historically). This includes cruisers and AKs.

Thanks to Ron Saueracker and Tankerace for research contributing to these settings. And, as always, comments and suggestions welcome.

Below, the large Japanese Liner Brazil Maru. One of a class of two - the other, Argentina Maru, became the escort carrier Kaiyo. In our scenario both Argentina Maru and Kaiyo will be included (and Brazil Maru, of course). A small inaccuracy but Japan really needs these big transports!

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 35

Japanese Cruiser and Destroyer data - 1/12/2005 5:45:16 PM

Don Bowen

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

I am in the middle of reworking Japanese Cruisers and Destroyers, based primarily on data provided by subchaser and marc.

Cruisers are also acquiring some torpedo reloads, greatly reduced endurance, and some new artwork by Tankerace (so you know it will be great).

The rework for destroyers is very interesting - they are acquring torpedo reloads (for some tubes but not all), increased AA in their original configurations, and turret armor for main guns. At this time I do not have improved data for older destroyers (pre-Fubuki).

If anyone has any information on Japanese Cruisers/Destroyers, now is the time to get it in. Comments and suggestions welcome.

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 36

Akatsuki - 1/13/2005 12:05:18 AM

Don Bowen

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

A sample Akatsuki using Subchaser's data. Note the main gun armor and torpedo reloads.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 37

Hatsuharu - 1/13/2005 12:06:19 AM

Don Bowen

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

Here's a Hatsuharu, also from Subchaser. Note extensive and detailed AA.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 38

AKs - 1/13/2005 6:27:19 AM

bstarr

Posts: 881
Joined: 8/1/2004
From: Texas, by God!
Status: offline

Well, I've found a site that has a lot of merch ship data.

classes
C1-A - 5028 gt, 6440 dt, 14 k, 412 l
C1-B - 6750 gt, 8015 dt, 14 k, 417 l
C1-M (Alamosa Class, USN) - 3805 gt, 5032 dt, 11kt, 378
C2 (varies greatly) - @7200 gt, 15 k, 459 l
C3 (ditto) - @7800 gt, 16 kt, 492 l
C4&C5 - troopships; I still havent figured out how to translate their tonnage.

and these are just the civilian prewar designs!

I even have a list of what ships belong to what class. The question is, if I come up with all this info, who is the poor sucker who is going to get stuck with the tedious job of sifting through all those damn US AKs and APs in the game, checking their name against a monster list of ships, then changing them? Should we just leave them alone?

_____________________________

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 39

RE: AKs - 1/13/2005 7:02:25 AM

Don Bowen

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: bstarr

Well, I've found a site that has a lot of merch ship data.

classes
C1-A - 5028 gt, 6440 dt, 14 k, 412 l
C1-B - 6750 gt, 8015 dt, 14 k, 417 l
C1-M (Alamosa Class, USN) - 3805 gt, 5032 dt, 11kt, 378
C2 (varies greatly) - @7200 gt, 15 k, 459 l
C3 (ditto) - @7800 gt, 16 kt, 492 l
C4&C5 - troopships; I still havent figured out how to translate their tonnage.

and these are just the civilian prewar designs!

I even have a list of what ships belong to what class. The question is, if I come up with all this info, who is the poor sucker who is going to get stuck with the tedious job of sifting through all those damn US AKs and APs in the game, checking their name against a monster list of ships, then changing them? Should we just leave them alone?

That would be me. Post or send me the link, I'll check it out. As far as I know the C5 was not used for troopships but the refrigerated cargo version was used for Navy AFs.

Here's what I have so far:

Standard C1 and C1-M-AV1
Standard C2 and C2-S-A1
Standard C3 and C3-P

There is a reasonable representation of a C4-P in the base icon set.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to bstarr)

Post #: 40

RE: Takao Class Cruisers - 1/13/2005 4:34:44 PM

Don Bowen

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

Here is a sample of the Takao class. This is the 6/44 upgrade, with all of marc's data in and my typos out. Had to compress the 25mm into groups to reduce number of weapons slots - anything over about 16 slots forces a scroll bar on the ship data display.

Actual 25mm on each side was two triples, three twins, nine singles - 21 total - represented as if it were seven triples.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 41

RE: Takao Class Cruisers - 1/13/2005 7:31:54 PM

Lemurs!

Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline

The range figures for the Japanese cruisers at 15nm are:

Furutaka/Aoba: 6000nm
Takao/Myoko: 8000nm
Mogami: 8100nm
Tone: 11000nm
Agano: 8000nm
Oyodo: 13000nm

Remember, except for merchant ships, subs, and a few specialized craft we are working with a default cruise speed of 15knots.
Adjust accordingly.

Most ships built in the 30's or early 40's could develop 15kts with 20% power.

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 42

RE: Takao Class Cruisers - 1/13/2005 7:35:26 PM

Don Bowen

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

The range figures for the Japanese cruisers at 15nm are:

Furutaka/Aoba: 6000nm
Takao/Myoko: 8000nm
Mogami: 8100nm
Tone: 11000nm
Agano: 8000nm
Oyodo: 13000nm

Remember, except for merchant ships, subs, and a few specialized craft we are working with a default cruise speed of 15knots.
Adjust accordingly.

Most ships built in the 30's or early 40's could develop 15kts with 20% power.

Mike

Thanks Mike - We've been looking for these. The only figure Marc had for Takao was at 18 knots (from "Japanese Cruisers of World War II"). Quite a difference!

Here's what I currently have for other Japanese Cruisers (also from "Japanese Cruisers of World War II"):

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.

Don

< Message edited by Don Bowen -- 1/13/2005 11:40:10 AM >

(in reply to Lemurs!)

Post #: 43

RE: Takao Class Cruisers - 1/14/2005 12:44:07 AM

Marc

Posts: 280
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Braunschweig, Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

The range figures for the Japanese cruisers at 15nm are:

Furutaka/Aoba: 6000nm
Takao/Myoko: 8000nm
Mogami: 8100nm
Tone: 11000nm
Agano: 8000nm
Oyodo: 13000nm

Remember, except for merchant ships, subs, and a few specialized craft we are working with a default cruise speed of 15knots.
Adjust accordingly.

Most ships built in the 30's or early 40's could develop 15kts with 20% power.

Mike

Lemurs! What is the source of these values?

Compared to the data from "Japanese Cruisers Of The Pacific War":
- Furutaka/Aoba: 2000 nm less with only 1 knot difference isn't possible.
- Myoko: also one value is wrong
- Takao: 5049/18 - 8000/15 -> Again one must be wrong
- Mogami: again one is wrong
- Tone: this is absolutely possible.
- Agano: Hm. Maybe.
- Oyodo: Maybe too.

So. The question is which data to trust. I must admit that "Japanese Cruisers Of The Pacific War" is so detailed that I find it hard to believe that any other source (that I can read) is more reliable.

Lemurs! ?

_____________________________

IJN Chokai

(in reply to Lemurs!)

Post #: 44

Endurance - 1/14/2005 12:48:00 AM

Marc

Posts: 280
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Braunschweig, Germany
Status: offline

I already asked Don. Does anybody know if the endurance values in WitP are nautical miles or just miles?
It is quite important since a nautical mile is 1.1508 miles.
One hex is 60 miles, isn't it? So perhaps Matrix is always calculating with miles?

Anybody?

_____________________________

IJN Chokai

(in reply to Marc)

Post #: 45

RE: AKs - 1/14/2005 1:24:21 AM

bstarr

Posts: 881
Joined: 8/1/2004
From: Texas, by God!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: bstarr

Well, I've found a site that has a lot of merch ship data.

classes
C1-A - 5028 gt, 6440 dt, 14 k, 412 l
C1-B - 6750 gt, 8015 dt, 14 k, 417 l
C1-M (Alamosa Class, USN) - 3805 gt, 5032 dt, 11kt, 378
C2 (varies greatly) - @7200 gt, 15 k, 459 l
C3 (ditto) - @7800 gt, 16 kt, 492 l
C4&C5 - troopships; I still havent figured out how to translate their tonnage.

and these are just the civilian prewar designs!

I even have a list of what ships belong to what class. The question is, if I come up with all this info, who is the poor sucker who is going to get stuck with the tedious job of sifting through all those damn US AKs and APs in the game, checking their name against a monster list of ships, then changing them? Should we just leave them alone?

That would be me. Post or send me the link, I'll check it out. As far as I know the C5 was not used for troopships but the refrigerated cargo version was used for Navy AFs.

Here's what I have so far:

Standard C1 and C1-M-AV1
Standard C2 and C2-S-A1
Standard C3 and C3-P

There is a reasonable representation of a C4-P in the base icon set.

I'm on it. I'll post any major finds and questions but, if it's okay, I'll just PM you or Mike on minor questions rather than clutter the thread.

Oh! One Important item! While researching merchant ships, I noticed that the speeds are generally faster than those given in WITP. However, keep in mind that the speed of a Merchant convoy is much slower than the max speed of it's slowest vessel. In fact, it was often as slow as 6 knots. I think the max speed of merchant ships in the game may have lowered to reflect this. If this is the case, you need to lower the Jap Merchant ships that you've found. Note how C1s and C2s (which are basically S. AKs and L. AKs) are rated much slower in the game. And the generic jap AKs are slower than the average historic jap AKs.

(and if I'm getting all excited about something you guys figured out two weeks ago, just nod, pat me on the head, give me a doggy biscuit, and I'll blissfully go on my way thinking I've saved the day

)

_____________________________

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 46

RE: Endurance - 1/14/2005 1:41:26 AM

Marc

Posts: 280
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Braunschweig, Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc

I already asked Don. Does anybody know if the endurance values in WitP are nautical miles or just miles?
It is quite important since a nautical mile is 1.1508 miles.
One hex is 60 miles, isn't it? So perhaps Matrix is always calculating with miles?

Anybody?

From the manual:
6.1.17 Ship Endurance
Ships use fuel whenever they move. In War in the Pacific - The Struggle Against Japan, 1941-
45�, each ship is rated for how much fuel it can hold as well as its maximum endurance, which is
the number of miles the ship can travel at cruising speed. The TF display shows the amount of
endurance remaining for each ship in the TF. A ship with no endurance left will cause its TF to
have a maximum movement speed of one hex per naval movement phase.

Is it possible that we have to multiply all endurance values with 1.1508 because we searched for nautical miles ?????

_____________________________

IJN Chokai

(in reply to Marc)

Post #: 47

RE: AKs - 1/14/2005 4:03:40 AM

bstarr

Posts: 881
Joined: 8/1/2004
From: Texas, by God!
Status: offline

Check this out:

type / Morison / USMM.org / HazeGrey
C2-S-AJ3 (Tolland)/ 6318-6456 gt / 8160 gt / 6350 gt
C2-S-B1 (Andromeda) / 6556-7132 gt / 6230 gt / 6458 gt
Liberty / 4023-4674 gt / *see below* /4023 gt /

*no listing but says a liberty can hold over 9000 tons!*

See what I�m getting at here. Most sources say the Liberty holds 7200, but even at that lesser amount, if we increase the C2s by the same gross ton to cargo capacity ratio you come up with L. AKs that carry around 11000 tons. Hell, the Libertys are actually closer to the C1s in gross tonnage ( but the overall dimensions suggest the Liberty�s capacity would be almost exactly in between)

Any ideas? Should we reduce the cargo capacity of the Liberty ships accordingly? I�d hate to since they are the best researched merchant vessels in the game, but if we increase the other classes in proportion to them we�ll end up doubling the allied shipping capacity!

_____________________________

(in reply to bstarr)

Post #: 48

RE: AKs - 1/14/2005 4:36:21 AM

Don Bowen

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

I'm used to seeing GRT for an EC2 (Liberty Ship) at around 7150. Remember, GRT is a space measurement, not a weight measurement. Technically this equates to internal space for cargo in 100 cubic feet increments (7150 X 100 cubic feet). This would make the WITP capacity just about right. 9000 tons of cargo weight is possible with heavy items (but would make for an uncomfortable ride).

I am using 90% of GRT as cargo capacity for AKs, still scratching my head on transports.

(in reply to bstarr)

Post #: 49

RE: AKs - 1/14/2005 7:03:39 AM

bstarr

Posts: 881
Joined: 8/1/2004
From: Texas, by God!
Status: offline

check this out:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ships/ships-mc.html#c2

apparently the C2s were larger than the Libertys

good source here. Lists just about everything. Apparently that low tonnage I kept finding is "Navy Light Tonnage" Any idea how they come up with that #?

_____________________________

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 50

RE: AKs - 1/14/2005 3:58:39 PM

Don Bowen

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: bstarr

check this out:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ships/ships-mc.html#c2

apparently the C2s were larger than the Libertys

good source here. Lists just about everything. Apparently that low tonnage I kept finding is "Navy Light Tonnage" Any idea how they come up with that #?

Good information - includes some endurance figures (it seems US Tankers might be too low in WITP). I should have remembered Clancey's site - I dealt with it back in PacWar days. I believe Navy Light Tonage is similar to standard displacement for a warship - the ship with crew and "normal" levels of fuel and stores but no cargo.

Liberty ships were designated "EC2" - for Emergency C2. They were a simplified version of the C2 for ease of construction. Incidentally the USMC designation system was based on a type ("C" = cargo) and a size ("2"). I don't remember the specifications for size by it was based on length and 1 was the smallest. There were variations within each designation based on engine type and configuration. I'll see if I can find the data again and post it.

(in reply to bstarr)

Post #: 51

RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Ship Data - 1/15/2005 12:54:46 AM

Herrbear

Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline

I notice that according to Watts and Gordon, "The Imperial Japanese Navy" that a number of minelayers were modified in 43-44 to escort vessels by adding depth charges and droping the minelaying capability.

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 52

RE: Takao Class Cruisers - 1/15/2005 6:49:19 AM

bstarr

Posts: 881
Joined: 8/1/2004
From: Texas, by God!
Status: offline

Don,
Okay, now I'm getting somewhere. I noticed that when I divided the M.C. deadweight (given on the above site) of a Liberty by 70% I came up with 7200 and when I did the same with a standard C2 I came up with 7000. That's exactly WITP has for Liberty and the L. AK. I decided I had something I could work with and here are the results.

First is ship's name; The next three listings are speeds given with max then cruise in parenthesis - 1st speed is actual if going purely historical; then my 1st WITP suggestion(I subtracted one for nonAKAs and made a few other minor adjustments); third being my slower speed suggestion, bringing the ships closer to the actual speeds they traveled; next is suggested Man, based on ship's length; next is suggested durability, based on tonnage with a two or three points added for AKAs; next is capacity, based on the above formula.

Liberty
11(10) / 11(10) / 10(8) / 56 / 15 / 7200

Tolland class AKA, USN; C2-S-AJ3
15(12) / 15(12) / 14(11)/ 55 / 22 / 5800

Andromeda class AKA, USN; C2-S-B1
15(12) / 15(12) / 14(11)/ 55 / 23 / 5900

Artmetis class AKA, USN; S4-SE4-BE1
16(12) / 16(12) / 15(11)/ 58 / 18 / 2000

Alamosa class AK, USN; C1-M-AV1
11(10) / 11(10) / 10 (8)/ 62 / 15 / 3750

Generic AKA, USN; various C2 classes, only 14 historically
15(12)/ 14(11) / 13(10) / 55 / 21 / 6200

C1-A, USMM
14(12)/ 13(11) / 12(9)/ 59 / 15 / 5250

C1-B, USMM
14(12)/ 12(10) / 11(9) / 58 / 16 / 6300

C2 (generic), USMM
15(12)/ 14(11) / 12(10) / 55 / 20 / 7000

C3 (generic), USMM
16(13)/ 15(12) / 14(11) / 52 / 22/ 9000

C4 (generic), USMM
17(14)/ 16(13) / 15(12) / 50 / 24 / 4200? (the formula didn't work well on this one)

I have an index that lists which AKAs and USN AKs belong to which class, and I know of a site that lists the USMM AKs and gives their class. So I think we're in business.

Like I said, I prefer the third speed listed, but we should at least use the second, since merchant ships seldom could run their top rated speed in the best of conditions.

I'm still working on it but I have an idea for armament, but range is beyond me. I do think C1s should be short-legged and C2,3,4s long-legged, but other than that I have no suggestions for range as yet. I'm also tinkering with APs and APAs.

Let me know if this helps or if you'd prefer me to search in another direction.
bs

_____________________________

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 53

RE: Takao Class Cruisers - 1/15/2005 9:43:11 AM

Don Bowen

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: bstarr

Don,
Okay, now I'm getting somewhere. I noticed that when I divided the M.C. deadweight (given on the above site) of a Liberty by 70% I came up with 7200 and when I did the same with a standard C2 I came up with 7000. That's exactly WITP has for Liberty and the L. AK. I decided I had something I could work with and here are the results.

First is ship's name; The next three listings are speeds given with max then cruise in parenthesis - 1st speed is actual if going purely historical; then my 1st WITP suggestion(I subtracted one for nonAKAs and made a few other minor adjustments); third being my slower speed suggestion, bringing the ships closer to the actual speeds they traveled; next is suggested Man, based on ship's length; next is suggested durability, based on tonnage with a two or three points added for AKAs; next is capacity, based on the above formula.

Liberty
11(10) / 11(10) / 10(8) / 56 / 15 / 7200

Tolland class AKA, USN; C2-S-AJ3
15(12) / 15(12) / 14(11)/ 55 / 22 / 5800

Andromeda class AKA, USN; C2-S-B1
15(12) / 15(12) / 14(11)/ 55 / 23 / 5900

Artmetis class AKA, USN; S4-SE4-BE1
16(12) / 16(12) / 15(11)/ 58 / 18 / 2000

Alamosa class AK, USN; C1-M-AV1
11(10) / 11(10) / 10 (8)/ 62 / 15 / 3750

Generic AKA, USN; various C2 classes, only 14 historically
15(12)/ 14(11) / 13(10) / 55 / 21 / 6200

C1-A, USMM
14(12)/ 13(11) / 12(9)/ 59 / 15 / 5250

C1-B, USMM
14(12)/ 12(10) / 11(9) / 58 / 16 / 6300

C2 (generic), USMM
15(12)/ 14(11) / 12(10) / 55 / 20 / 7000

C3 (generic), USMM
16(13)/ 15(12) / 14(11) / 52 / 22/ 9000

C4 (generic), USMM
17(14)/ 16(13) / 15(12) / 50 / 24 / 4200? (the formula didn't work well on this one)

I have an index that lists which AKAs and USN AKs belong to which class, and I know of a site that lists the USMM AKs and gives their class. So I think we're in business.

Like I said, I prefer the third speed listed, but we should at least use the second, since merchant ships seldom could run their top rated speed in the best of conditions.

I'm still working on it but I have an idea for armament, but range is beyond me. I do think C1s should be short-legged and C2,3,4s long-legged, but other than that I have no suggestions for range as yet. I'm also tinkering with APs and APAs.

Let me know if this helps or if you'd prefer me to search in another direction.
bs

This helps very much. I still lean toward basing capacity on GRT though. I'll sit down and look at speeds as soon as I finish cross-referencing the Japanese Merchant Ships. Big headache - so many different spellings. I've found and fixed a few duplicates but I think there are many more. I'm just not sure enough to throw away all the research the Matrix did.

Don

(in reply to bstarr)

Post #: 54

RE: Takao Class Cruisers - 1/15/2005 7:36:20 PM

bstarr

Posts: 881
Joined: 8/1/2004
From: Texas, by God!
Status: offline

Don,
I would have gone with gross tonnage, but I couldn�t find a source that stayed consistant. However, I think M.C. tonnage may stand for Maximum Cargo Tonnage. Notice how the AKAs have a lower MCT in comparison to the exact same USMM vessels. This makes sense; the AKAs would have larger crews, extra landing equipment (cranes, etc, since they aren�t made to unload at readymade ports), more lifeboats, and probably more armament (and ammo), fuel, and larger engines. Another example - the USMM C1s were used most for coastal and short oceanic runs, requiring smaller crews and engines, and less fuel therefore their cargo capacity is larger in relation to their size. Last night I was completely confused by the fact that an AP sometimes had less than half the MCT of an identical AK. It just dawned on me (in fact, while writing this) that this makes sense if MCT is Maximum Cargo and �cargo� doesn�t include passengers. Not only that, but imagine the extra lifeboats and landing equipment that would be required for a fully loaded AP. I dunno, I still could be wrong, but the more I look at it, the more I think M.C. really does stand for Maximum Cargo.
bs

ps. also notice how Naval light tonnage ads up with MCtonnage to come up with a number very close to the fully loaded tonnage.

pps. No, wait. Wasn't M.C. Tonnage an overweight rapper in the late ninties?

< Message edited by bstarr -- 1/15/2005 5:44:19 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 55

RE: Takao Class Cruisers - 1/15/2005 8:08:36 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

This helps very much. I still lean toward basing capacity on GRT though. I'll sit down and look at speeds as soon as I finish cross-referencing the Japanese Merchant Ships. Big headache - so many different spellings. I've found and fixed a few duplicates but I think there are many more. I'm just not sure enough to throw away all the research the Matrix did.

Don

Don Deadweight Tonnage is probably as accurate a reflection of varying ships as is
going to be readily available. A DW ton is simply 100 cubic feet of cargo space. As
cargos and usages and designs varied widely, comparing how much useable space
was available to put stuff in is at least a consistant standard for which lots of figures
are published.

_____________________________

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 56

RE: Takao Class Cruisers - 1/15/2005 8:34:56 PM

Don Bowen

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

This helps very much. I still lean toward basing capacity on GRT though. I'll sit down and look at speeds as soon as I finish cross-referencing the Japanese Merchant Ships. Big headache - so many different spellings. I've found and fixed a few duplicates but I think there are many more. I'm just not sure enough to throw away all the research the Matrix did.

Don

Don Deadweight Tonnage is probably as accurate a reflection of varying ships as is
going to be readily available. A DW ton is simply 100 cubic feet of cargo space. As
cargos and usages and designs varied widely, comparing how much useable space
was available to put stuff in is at least a consistant standard for which lots of figures
are published.

I think that is the definition of Gross Registered Tons. Here is a concise definition of DWT and GRT:

http://members.tripod.com/~merchantships/fortcrevier1dwtdefinition.html

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 57

RE: Takao Class Cruisers - 1/15/2005 9:31:28 PM

bstarr

Posts: 881
Joined: 8/1/2004
From: Texas, by God!
Status: offline

the two should work out to be six on one hand and a halfdozen on the other. They won't be the same result, of course, but knowing one measurement will pretty much tell us what the other one will be - a ship with a large gross tonnage will have a comparatively large deadweight tonnage. I think the only time we'll come up with a situation where using one or the other one makes significant difference would be barges, due to their long, flat body. I'm pretty sure gross tons is going to be what is represented in the game, but 70% of M.C. deadweight is very close to the gross tonnage of every ship I've been able to research, so it should be an accurate translation into WITP terms. Not perfect, but very close. Anyway, I'm having fun doing this, so if you decide not to use what I come up with it won't bother me in the least.
bs

_____________________________

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 58

RE: Takao Class Cruisers - 1/15/2005 9:36:42 PM

Don Bowen

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: bstarr

the two should work out to be six on one hand and a halfdozen on the other. They won't be the same result, of course, but knowing one measurement will pretty much tell us what the other one will be - a ship with a large gross tonnage will have a comparatively large deadweight tonnage. I think the only time we'll come up with a situation where using one or the other one makes significant difference would be barges, due to their long, flat body. I'm pretty sure gross tons is going to be what is represented in the game, but 70% of M.C. deadweight is very close to the gross tonnage of every ship I've been able to research, so it should be an accurate translation into WITP terms. Not perfect, but very close. Anyway, I'm having fun doing this, so if you decide not to use what I come up with it won't bother me in the least.
bs

Glad for your help. Allied merchants will be coming up in a little while - nearly finished with Japanese. I have GRT for all the Japanese ships and have used 90% of GRT (rounded) as capacity.

I wonder if M.C. Tons might be Maritime Commision Tons??

Don

(in reply to bstarr)

Post #: 59

RE: Takao Class Cruisers - 1/15/2005 10:34:11 PM

bstarr

Posts: 881
Joined: 8/1/2004
From: Texas, by God!
Status: offline

I just did a little researching on other allied merchant ships. Y'all reckon the Liberty was based on the British North Sands class? They're about the same size and their grt is almost identical.

Oh, and I may have figured a possible reason for the differences in some ship's grt within the same class. If fuel stores aren't included in grt then coal burning ships would have a lower tonnage since coal takes up more space than normal fuel. I noticed that Canadian built "Fort" class ships were often rated for lower grt, and then read somewhere that early canadian built merchships were coal burners.

_____________________________

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 60

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

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