Admirals Edition Naval Thread

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: spence

Isn't it what the ASW factor for each ship is here for already?
If I am not mistaken they are rated after these factors already aren't they?

I'm pretty sure that the ASW factor is almost entirely a function of #of AS weapons.

Speaking of AS weapons...will FIDO the ASW homing torpedo make it into the AE? A significant number of sub kills resulted from its use though I don't know how many in the Pacific.

It's not accurate to say "significant" number of kills, but it was used to kill at least one IJN submarine. It's probably not going to make it, seeing that it didn't see that much service in our theatre.

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: asdicus

I am very much looking forward to this new addition to witp - have a question about surface ships asw ( anti submarine warfare) capability.

At the moment the game cannot differentiate on the capabilty of hunting subs between say a japanese early war merchantman gunboat( basically just a small merchant ship with a gun, few depth charges and perhaps passive hydrophones) and a late war us or british purpose built frigate or destroyer escort( with advanced active depth finding sonar auto linked to asw weapons like squid or hedgehog). Sure the weapons fit is different bwtween ships but the crucial submarine detection equipment ( hydrophones,asdic or sonar ) is ignored. The result is that the japanese armada of early war PG are just as effective vs subs as proper usa or british escorts. Could the game introduce some kind of sonar capability data field to naval ships eg basic passive, basic active, advanced active etc. Jap PG would rate as basic passive while a late war allied escort would mount advanced active and so forth. Sonar type would determine submarine detection %.

That's beyond the scope of this rewrite. We discussed something about sonar devices at one point, but it would have meant a BIG effort, code-wise. It was one of the 337 items that were cut from the final "to-do" list.

[Fishbed]

ORIGINAL: spence

Isn't it what the ASW factor for each ship is here for already?
If I am not mistaken they are rated after these factors already aren't they?

I'm pretty sure that the ASW factor is almost entirely a function of #of AS weapons.

Speaking of AS weapons...will FIDO the ASW homing torpedo make it into the AE? A significant number of sub kills resulted from its use though I don't know how many in the Pacific.

From what I can read on uboat.net, approx. 5 Japanese subs fell to the Fido, including one cruising in the Atlantic at the time of its destruction (probably on its way to or from Germany)

The MK24 FIDO Record in Combat
The first confirmed FIDO sinking is believed, at this time, to have occurred 14 May 1943 when a PBY Catalina flying boat from US Navy VP-84 attacked and sank U-640 with a MK24 torpedo [more probable is that the first victim was the U-657 on May 17 - Editor]. Most US Navy composite squadrons flying from the ASW escort carriers operating in the Atlantic from mid 1943 on were equipped with FIDO as were the land based patrol squadrons. The torpedo was also supplied to the British and Canadian forces.

US Navy OEG Study No. 289, 12 August 1946 provides the following estimates of MK24 usage and results achieved:

Number of attacks in which Mk24s were launched 264
Total Number of Mk24 torpedoes launched - all targets 340
Number of MK24s launched against submarines 204
Number of Mk24 attacks on submarines by US aircraft 142
Number of submarines sunk by FIDO 31
Number of submarines damaged by FIDO 15
Number of MK24 attacks on subs by Allies (primarily British) 62
Number of submarines sunk by FIDO 6
Number of submarines damaged by FIDO 3
Total number of submarines sunk by FIDO (German & Japanese) 37*
Total number of submarines damaged 18
*Note: Includes five Japanese submarines sunk;
1 in the Atlantic
4 in the Pacific

[ctangus]

ORIGINAL: Brady

ctangus- Your aware that the RN cleared the Coursare for Carrier use much sooner than the USN Navy did right?

Of course. Despite conflicting sources I think it's safe to say the RN started using Corsairs off carriers sometime in the latter half of '43. It was @ Jan '45 for the USN/USMC.

However I haven't (at least yet) seen a source showing their use by the RN in the Indian Ocean or Pacific prior to Oct '44.

[Terminus]

Shores (Air War for Burma, pp. 250-51) shows the FAA using Corsairs in a raid on Sumatra on 25 July '44, flying off the Illustrious and Victorious. This operation saw the first A2A claims by any Corsairs operating from carriers.

[Brady]

ctangus-Without going and looking it up, I think your right, I looked it up a few times before and drew on a few sources to be shure, but my memory indicates:

F4U-Shore based Pacific mid to late 43 debute (Navy/Marines/then RNZAF)

RN-Mid 43, Atlantic (first operational use over Norway,Tripetiz)

RN-Pacific theater 44'ish over I belave an Oil field in SRA, at least this is what I recal, to lazy to look it up tonight.[:)]

[Terminus]

Yeah, like I said...

Anyway, the earliest I can find (same book as above, page 208) was the joint USN/RN operation against Sabang in Sumatra on 19 April '44, HMS Illustrious flying off Corsairs of 1830 and 1833 Squadrons, FAA.

[Brady]

Bow Doar Detal for LBT:
 
 

 
O-and a Favorate of mine that I have never sean a detail of:
 

 
 

[Chad Harrison]

A thought just came to me today and I have yet to see it mentioned:

Can we get a separate class for APA and AKA?

As it is now, they show up as normal AP's and AK's. It gets annoying always looking for your AKA's and APA's among hundreds (and in endgame), thousands of other ships. Would be nice if they were listed as their actual class, not generic AP's or AK's. Similar to how you can *see* the difference between CLAA and CL.

Just a thought.

Thanks

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison

A thought just came to me today and I have yet to see it mentioned:

Can we get a separate class for APA and AKA?

As it is now, they show up as normal AP's and AK's. It gets annoying always looking for your AKA's and APA's among hundreds (and in endgame), thousands of other ships. Would be nice if they were listed as their actual class, not generic AP's or AK's. Similar to how you can *see* the difference between CLAA and CL.

Just a thought.

Thanks

Lots of work in ship classes, including adding APA and AKA

[jwilkerson]

Don,

If you like, go ahead and upload the new class table. Of course we reserve the right to change this table, but I think it would be an example of the amount of expansion we are looking at. But give us the version that explains the classes, otherwise the list might not be comprehensible.

Joe

[Don Bowen]

OK. Following six displays are the AE ship types. You will notice considerable expansion.

Also:
1. A number of additional types are primarily variations of pre-existing types, included for historical accuracy. CVB as a variant of CV, for instance.
2. As much as possible, we adjusted ship type designations to the US Navy standard. It is generally understood and very detailed.
3. Where necessary, we used designations from other navies - generally for types that did not fit well into the standard US designations.
4. Several existing types have been reclassified! AG is just the beginning.

Here is number one. Not too much new here. We added CVB, CB, and TB (especially for the 12 Japanese large TB).

[Don Bowen]

Now it gets a little more interesting. We have several Japanese and British designations, plus some significant changes.

Notice ML - the British Fairmile B Motor Launch. Virtually the same size as US Sub Chasers.

[Don Bowen]

Page 3.

ARD represents all of the variations of floating drydock. YFD, Advanced Base, and section Floating Docks.

AG is now it's proper miscellaneous auxiliary. We have implemented it as a mixture of base ship and light cargo ship.

[Don Bowen]

You will find you always wish you had more AKE. We had hoped to do a little more with AKV but it did not turn out to be possible.

(edit) Typo on this one - second type is LSIS. Landing Ship Infantry, Small.

[Don Bowen]

We added a number of the smaller types, largely for modders. Many of these little guys were useful in specific circumstances.

[Don Bowen]

And the end. A total of 78 types.

Also, the AI will use some ship types depending on class attributes.

[jwilkerson]

Thanks Don!

Some thoughts from an IJN OOBer perspective.

Initially, our class list had a decidedly USN perspective. But as the OOBers made progress on their work, it became clear that Navies such as RN and IJN had different concepts on ship classifications. PF is a much larger ship than many small DD or DE. Bottom line a single real world, single Navy classification system just did not seem to work. In an ideal world, an ideal classification system might underlie an individual navy classification system. But for AE, we needed a single system, so there is some overlap. But we believe we have acheived a decent compromise in terms of allowing some historical classification for the majority of ships for each major navy and yet not requiring total system replacement in terms of ship classification.

Note that the new classification system, inconjunction with the robust upgrade and conversion system offer an significant upgrage in terms of ability to define ships reclassifying themselves over to other types. A modders paradise that we ourselves are only beginnging to understand.

Thanks Don for making this whole system possible!!

Joe

[bradfordkay]

I can tell you that it will take this cat awhile to get used to the new ML, CM, and AM designations. I'm not asking you to discard them, but I can recognize that I've been trained for so long now to think of MLs and MSWs as mine warfare ships...

[Rainerle]

Is sub vs. sub finally there ?