RHSEBO: Updated - and expanded to ALL scenarios

[DuckofTindalos]

Always found the B64 more interesting than the B65. More "battlecruisery"...

[Historiker]

This scenario is closed due to lack of more suggestions - and as soon as I integrate the art pointers - it will upload - likely today. I will include updated ship class, ship and location files for all scenarios.

I don't know whether it was already discussed...
But this scenario has only Washington 22 with only limitations in BBs and CVs, right?

What about Cruisers that can be fitted with 11 or 12in guns? Japan had the goal to build better ships as she wasn't able to outbuilt Britain and US - and not even one of both.
Japanese Cruisers may be designed with quadrupel 20,3cm that can be upgraded to tripple 28cm; trippel 20,3 to double 28cm or double 20,3 to single 30,5cm guns?
The size of the Japanese CAs should allow 11 and 12in guns on them, I guess.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I found the logic of a CB race compelling - and plans for them to work from.

We added a new class to RHS - B-64 - the 12 inch gun version of the BC. While that needs a new gun - we are not using the 18.1 inch - so I used slot 1 to get it. This is an early design - with fewer light AA guns - and like the Dutch ship - it is sooner in this scenario than IRL. It is a response to the Dutch BC - itself a response to the Japanese Fujimoto program - and it is based on the very first version of B-64. I had a devil of a time with the guns - but they were built at Mururan and - if still semi secret in Japan - I ran them down. Due to an unusual AA battery - these vessels are the best of the three CB designs - but like the others they have weak armor.

The USN had many such programs - and this one is based on a 1938 design - the first that really looks like Alaska. I decided that if it were in production - only 2 were ordered right away - the US wartime program would include all six vessels - so 2 appear almost when the game begins - and 4 more in 1943. These ships differ in a few ways from the later Alaska's - less armor - more speed - and a different five inch layout - 7 twin turrets - broadside = 8 guns - very nice - better than usual for the 1930s. The only reason the B-64 is better is it has a four inch gun which is better even than the US five - and it has sixteen of them. By midwar the Alaskas mount vast numbers of medium and light AAA - and probably end up better protected.

This should be interesting - Japan starts with one and NEI starts with one. Japan gets one more - and US gets two - early in 1942. US gets four more in 1943. Players who want to test various operational ideas - fast carrier escorts - raider hunting - cruiser killing - can do so. Enjoy.

This scenario is closed due to lack of more suggestions - and as soon as I integrate the art pointers - it will upload - likely today. I will include updated ship class, ship and location files for all scenarios. [Japan loses a special CD unit in EOS family - because the turret - really built - is now on a ship] I also put Idzumo and Iwate back in historical form - no money to convert their guns - and scrapped Tokiwa - her crew was needed for the new B-64. But less development time (and cost) due to using a WWI gun on Yamato (and a 1930s mounting for it) means it comes out slightly sooner - and starts the war fully operational. Just as I think 15 inch KGVs are more powerful - I believe 16 inch Yamatos are more powerful.

Oh - the Japanese 12.2 inch gun is a surprise - it has a high ROF - a heavy shell - and good range: 3 RPM - 35000 yards - 1100 pounds. Penetration = 543 mm.

The Alaska class represented what the US Navy considered the ideal heavy cruiser design if the treaties were abrogated. It had the speed and range to keep up with carriers and enough firepower to deal with anything less than a battleship. I think it goes without saying that there would have been a CB race if the treaties had not been signed.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Always found the B64 more interesting than the B65. More "battlecruisery"...

The problem with it is that it is too late - a serious project that had special guns and turrets developed (a triple was built at Muroran) -
it was cancelled by Pearl Harbor - and would be in almost every variation. This ship DOES appear in BBO family - which now is reduced to BBO and RPO only - but if you want it - that is where to find it. THAT scenario set is based on the assumption the war is fought as planned - and in some ways it is MORE "historical" than the war that occurred - which was somewhat unlikely.

THIS scenario has early ships - at least the 3 BC types are early - and in fact NONE are BC but CB. These ships might have served if built to 1930s thinking - and might have been valuable if they existed in unexpected ways. Or not.

But after doing a detail study of B-64 - which I thought was inferior - I conclude it might be a more powerful ship than the 65. The guns are very strong - and there are 9 instead of only 6.

I also could give the USN a 6 gun version of Alaska - this was first proposed - but it was found triples were not a big change - and I figure no one will want a 6 gun ship with 12 inch guns.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

This scenario is closed due to lack of more suggestions - and as soon as I integrate the art pointers - it will upload - likely today. I will include updated ship class, ship and location files for all scenarios.

I don't know whether it was already discussed...
But this scenario has only Washington 22 with only limitations in BBs and CVs, right?

What about Cruisers that can be fitted with 11 or 12in guns? Japan had the goal to build better ships as she wasn't able to outbuilt Britain and US - and not even one of both.
Japanese Cruisers may be designed with quadrupel 20,3cm that can be upgraded to tripple 28cm; trippel 20,3 to double 28cm or double 20,3 to single 30,5cm guns?
The size of the Japanese CAs should allow 11 and 12in guns on them, I guess.

Not a chance - for several unrelated reasons.

These ships structure is very light - they are "eggshells armed with hammers" and could never mount bigger turrets. Designed to mount triple 6.1 inch, they barely could handle a twin 8.

There is the matter of money and resources of various kinds: they were built INSTEAD of battleships - and if I were strict I should REDUCE the number built - by 4 or 8 = only the first four weak ships are certain to have made the cut. IF they were built- it would be in an austere financial resource environment and there is no question of making them even more expensive.

Finally- there IS a 12 inch gun super cruiser project - and this is done early due to the Dutch reaction to the new Fujimoto ships. The Japanese would need years to design and decide to do them - but unless that process - hmmm

we could REPLACE the 8 inch cruisers with the bigger ones - likely not as many - and it might be more realistic. I will think more about this today. But in any case - the existence of the super cruiser means that - well - it exists - and it surely is expensive - and Japan has big problems affording expensive ships. So getting all of the 8 inch cruisers in such a form is not really an option.

My weak rationaliation for not changing the 8 inch cruisers (instead of just cancelling many of them) is that the naval arms race was hotter and Japan was not depressed as much as other countries due to the success of economic development in Manchukuo - sort of an entrepot - which had double digit growth during the entire depression era - attracting millions of immigrents from China, Korea, Russia and Japan (about 2 million from each country).

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I found the logic of a CB race compelling - and plans for them to work from.

We added a new class to RHS - B-64 - the 12 inch gun version of the BC. While that needs a new gun - we are not using the 18.1 inch - so I used slot 1 to get it. This is an early design - with fewer light AA guns - and like the Dutch ship - it is sooner in this scenario than IRL. It is a response to the Dutch BC - itself a response to the Japanese Fujimoto program - and it is based on the very first version of B-64. I had a devil of a time with the guns - but they were built at Mururan and - if still semi secret in Japan - I ran them down. Due to an unusual AA battery - these vessels are the best of the three CB designs - but like the others they have weak armor.

The USN had many such programs - and this one is based on a 1938 design - the first that really looks like Alaska. I decided that if it were in production - only 2 were ordered right away - the US wartime program would include all six vessels - so 2 appear almost when the game begins - and 4 more in 1943. These ships differ in a few ways from the later Alaska's - less armor - more speed - and a different five inch layout - 7 twin turrets - broadside = 8 guns - very nice - better than usual for the 1930s. The only reason the B-64 is better is it has a four inch gun which is better even than the US five - and it has sixteen of them. By midwar the Alaskas mount vast numbers of medium and light AAA - and probably end up better protected.

This should be interesting - Japan starts with one and NEI starts with one. Japan gets one more - and US gets two - early in 1942. US gets four more in 1943. Players who want to test various operational ideas - fast carrier escorts - raider hunting - cruiser killing - can do so. Enjoy.

This scenario is closed due to lack of more suggestions - and as soon as I integrate the art pointers - it will upload - likely today. I will include updated ship class, ship and location files for all scenarios. [Japan loses a special CD unit in EOS family - because the turret - really built - is now on a ship] I also put Idzumo and Iwate back in historical form - no money to convert their guns - and scrapped Tokiwa - her crew was needed for the new B-64. But less development time (and cost) due to using a WWI gun on Yamato (and a 1930s mounting for it) means it comes out slightly sooner - and starts the war fully operational. Just as I think 15 inch KGVs are more powerful - I believe 16 inch Yamatos are more powerful.

Oh - the Japanese 12.2 inch gun is a surprise - it has a high ROF - a heavy shell - and good range: 3 RPM - 35000 yards - 1100 pounds. Penetration = 543 mm.

The Alaska class represented what the US Navy considered the ideal heavy cruiser design if the treaties were abrogated. It had the speed and range to keep up with carriers and enough firepower to deal with anything less than a battleship. I think it goes without saying that there would have been a CB race if the treaties had not been signed.

Well - yes - Adm Moffet was the treaty negotiator and CNO - and he DID have an idea for 12 inch gun cruisers if need be. He also believed in - and got - 6 inch "mini cruisers" - those US gunboats are meant to go into OCEANS - and hunt raiders. But the Alaska was not designed until 1938 - and this was too late for our purposes. I did a sort of cross between Moffet's idea assuming the first 1938 design would be what a 1936 design would look like. By then it was clear Japan was up to something - and so secrative no one could be sure just what - while the Dutch project would be an indicator what the Japanese were trying to beat. 9 twelve inch would be a good guess - and the revised plan in 1938 as presented (actually 2 of them) had exactly that. It also is better than the Alaska - it is faster - and the extra armor was useless - not enough to matter vs heavy stuff - while the original armor was proof vs 8 inch at almost all ranges. A faster ship with 15000 miles range would be a great carrier escort or cruiser hunter.

[Historiker]

@ Heavy 11/12in Cruiser

I am quite sure that you're right, that the historic Mogami-, Takao- or Tone-class cruiser can't be simply fitted with 12 or 11 in guns. I am no engineer or ship designer, so I or we might be wrong, but there's no need to discuss this.
BUT: the ship can be designed in a way, that it definitly CAN fit 11 or 12 in guns! In this case, it must be already planned that the recoil will be bigger. Japanese CAs had a displacement similar or even bigger than several pre-Dreadnought classes with 4x13,5in or up to 6x28cm + up to 20 medium guns around 6in.
They were also armoured heavier than the cruisers while having the same length. I guess the difference in weight lies in the engines or so, but anyway - doesn't that seem to prove that it's able to design and construct ships of that size which are able to carry such heavy guns?
I think so and a Japan that knows it has to have better ships would do it in this way, it would construct CAs that can be turned into some sort of pocket BBs, CBs or BCs. This are just "my two cents", but if Japan wants CAs with bigger guns than usual, it can build them, no?

Anyway, it's your mod. If you don't want them in - your choice! If you want to make Japan even stronger (as it will get weaker anyway later in the war), you might consider this...

[el cid again]

OK - I did not understand your idea - and indeed - the TONNAGE is big enough. The problem is that we are not seeking to create fictional designs. I do have the freedom in EOS family to MODIFY an EXISTING design - but not to craate a new one. But the Deutchland/Graf Spee concept proves you are right - a CA sized vessel can mount such guns - and I am both an engineer and student of naval architecture (mainly for damage control reasons - but still) and I feel qualified to confirm your very reaonable speculations.

Beyond that it is possible - but not desireable in RHS - to create a fictional ship - there is that H after all -
your suggestion cost me a night of reading and a day of data entry. I have to say that it is hard to know exactly what might have
been done if the speculative events of EBO happened with respect to Japanese cruiser planning? One result of this review is that I
removed the sister of Ibuki - which appears too late to matter anyway - and costs too much due to the peculiar WITP naval cost system.
I am not even sure it would ever appear in any game - and of course this is very like IRL happened to Ibuki herself - she never was completed or used in any role. There is too much focus (slot wise) on late war things for a game where code fails to work late in the war anyway - and I tend to cut out this dead wood. RHS has no possibiity of a 1946 campaign - even if it might have happened - because it is so unlikely to be used we can benefit from all those slots. I am still struggling with Japanese - and US - CB programs in terms of yard space, engine producition - and the possible need to cancel some cruisers (or even carriers) to get them. When I work this out I will release EBO - which technically is almost done - I debugged some air groups and ship eratta - and only have about 3 art pointers to define.

Working up the art I had to remove Mikasa - there are no Japanese art slots left - so it is gone from ALL scenaios. Nor would Japan have reserructed this relic in any case - although it is a very Japanese like idea "never throw anything away" was once said to me by a historian trying to describe it.

[el cid again]

WARNING: DO NOT INSTALL AND RUN RHSEBO AS RELEASED UNTIL YOU INSTALL REVISED SHIP ART - OR THE GAME WILL CRASH WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SHIPS THAT NEED NEW ART

THIS ART WILL BE UPLOADED PRIOR TO THE SCENARIO FILES

ETA TODAY

[Historiker]

Well, there are plenty designs to fit the task of carrying BB guns on CAs.
The question is: what do you want? Do you want a Japan that is as strong as it can be by any means? A Japan, that does really everything possible, to be able to fight the allies? CAs with 6-8 11-13,5in guns would be such a thing. This ships can't be armoured heavily, but I guess that Japan showed it might accept weaker armoured ships for more firepower.

[el cid again]

Allied and Japanese ship art for RHSEBO has been sent to the primary distribution list - and likely will also be included in a revision of the installer program.

I am doing some game turns - which might lead to discovering eratta -

and calling for eratta or additions/changes to EBO before doing a microupdate for all Level 6 and 7 scenarios -
and issuing EBO for the first time.

I discovered that HMS Bellerophon - which never completed as a member of her class - but which was changed on the stocks to a different type - never completed as such - and finally completed long after the war as HMS Tiger - would and could have been completed midwar had there been a pressing need for it. The British tried to go with an automatic 6 inch gun - and this ran into the usual trouble.

This discovery came with a description that USS Brooklyn and her sisters had 60 degree elevation primary batteries intended for AA use - preceed into service only by a similar French gun - which itself was unsuccessful. The US concept was a gross failure in the AA role - and ultimately many of the turrets were not even fitted to elevate above 40 degrees (preventing even maximum surface range with them). Still - the Dutch seem not to have been first with the idea. In the end - the US went over to a much more complex approach - and US and UK decided to use twin mounts to reduce mounting weight so rate of traverse would be more useful - this work lasing long after WWII.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Well, there are plenty designs to fit the task of carrying BB guns on CAs.
The question is: what do you want? Do you want a Japan that is as strong as it can be by any means? A Japan, that does really everything possible, to be able to fight the allies? CAs with 6-8 11-13,5in guns would be such a thing. This ships can't be armoured heavily, but I guess that Japan showed it might accept weaker armoured ships for more firepower.

In my mechanical games I permit players to design ships - and I have a set of rules for that. [They were even published once in a naval magazine] This isn't that sort of game - although we could do such a scenario if there was interest - it takes a long time to work it out.

The USN was far more an advocate of naval gunnery for cruisers than Japan was - Japan bet on oxygen torpedoes - and reloads for them - and it probably was a better bet. I - and the captain of Tone - think Japanese heavy cruisers are the premier surface warships of the era - more powerful than any battleship. In tactical surface battles I use these ships to hunt BB - and aim their guns at enemy destroyers. I see BB as cruiser killers - not BB fighters. It works for me - and in a Fletcher Pratt mechanical or computer tactical game I am very good - able to calculate torpedo angles in my head.

Nevertheless - I did not understand the 12.2 inch (31 cm) gun of Japan - it is usually listed as "no data available" - and it may be that it is a superior weapon. The 14 inch BC had 2/3 the guns firing 2/3 the ROF - or about half the effective number of rounds per minute. The chance of a hit are far less - half in the case of WITP and not much better than that IRL - while the value (impact) of a hit is nothing like twice as great. So the original CB design - which ALSO had 24 inch torpedoes - was probably the better one. It also had the best AA suite in the world - 16 of the 100 mm guns - for its era. It should be very interesting to see this ship in use in game terms.

[Historiker]

Hmm...
Japan allowed Germany to study their carriers, why shouldn't Germany allow Japan to study the Deutschland-class in return? The design is from the 20th, so there's plenty of time to copy it... This is not a fictional design then and might be a nice addition of firepower...

[DuckofTindalos]

The 31cm gun is something you'll have to use at least some guess work on if you want it. I did for my mod, and am quite happy with it (based it on this):

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_122-50.htm

[el cid again]

While that site certainly has the usual story, it is incorrect in its speculation

"it appears no prototypes were ever made"

au contraire,

after the prototype was made and tested, an entire production turret was built, on the assumption the process would need to be repeated five more times for two ships

this work ended two days after PH - when the decision was made not to build the ships in either B-64 or B-65 form because
carriers were more powerful than anticipated

I was able to get the data from the test range at Muroran, courtesy of a retired captain at the National Diet Library

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Hmm...
Japan allowed Germany to study their carriers, why shouldn't Germany allow Japan to study the Deutschland-class in return? The design is from the 20th, so there's plenty of time to copy it... This is not a fictional design then and might be a nice addition of firepower...

Japan allowed study of carriers later than that

but it is a good point - and Japan was allowed to study German aircraft.

The problem is - who wants a Deutschland? It is a technical mistake. It is too slow to be effective. It is too weakly protected to stand up to six inch shells.

When Fletcher Pratt did a game in NYC in which three RN light CL beat up this ship, nobody believed it. A few weeks later two CL and a six gun CA did exactly that to Graf Spee in the Battle of the River Platt - and the reputation of the naval game system was made.

Both IRL and in simulation, the Deutschland is not a winner. I am unsure what they were thinking - but I think it was a commerce raider - and just how it was supposed to beat - say - Repulse or Renown is not clear to me? It could neither run nor fight. Since it could not stand up to a CL - it is not something I think worth wanting.

It DID have range. The triple 11 inch are a bad idea - you lose one you lose half the main battery. A main battery should be divided into 3 or 4 parts.

The Dutch CL is better in that respect - the same 6 guns are in 3 turrets - it is fast enough to run when it cannot fight - etc. And we have Japan replying to that - with its B-64 - almost the same ship but with 9 guns and serious AAA.


My first chief said "the Japanese built the best warships" - and he was essentially correct.

[el cid again]

UPLOADED TO PRIMARY DISTRIBUTION LIST AS SCENARIO 074 REPLACING RHSPPO FOR LEVEL 7

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Hmm...
Japan allowed Germany to study their carriers, why shouldn't Germany allow Japan to study the Deutschland-class in return? The design is from the 20th, so there's plenty of time to copy it... This is not a fictional design then and might be a nice addition of firepower...

Japan allowed study of carriers later than that

but it is a good point - and Japan was allowed to study German aircraft.

The problem is - who wants a Deutschland? It is a technical mistake. It is too slow to be effective. It is too weakly protected to stand up to six inch shells.

When Fletcher Pratt did a game in NYC in which three RN light CL beat up this ship, nobody believed it. A few weeks later two CL and a six gun CA did exactly that to Graf Spee in the Battle of the River Platt - and the reputation of the naval game system was made.

Both IRL and in simulation, the Deutschland is not a winner. I am unsure what they were thinking - but I think it was a commerce raider - and just how it was supposed to beat - say - Repulse or Renown is not clear to me? It could neither run nor fight. Since it could not stand up to a CL - it is not something I think worth wanting.

It DID have range. The triple 11 inch are a bad idea - you lose one you lose half the main battery. A main battery should be divided into 3 or 4 parts.

The Dutch CL is better in that respect - the same 6 guns are in 3 turrets - it is fast enough to run when it cannot fight - etc. And we have Japan replying to that - with its B-64 - almost the same ship but with 9 guns and serious AAA.


My first chief said "the Japanese built the best warships" - and he was essentially correct.

The pocket battleships were built as replacements for the pre-dreadnought battleships Germany was allowed to keep by Versailles. Their mission was long-range commerce-raiding, which is the reason they didn't have overwhelming speed. They were essentially heavy cruisers with guns heavy enough to deal with single cruisers.

[Mifune]

The files have been uploaded to the RHS web site. Within the RHS EBO folder includes the additional RHS EBO ship art. Here is the link. http://rhs.akdreemer.com/RHS%20Scenarios/RHSEBO%20074/

[Historiker]

Japan allowed study of carriers later than that

but it is a good point - and Japan was allowed to study German aircraft.

The problem is - who wants a Deutschland? It is a technical mistake. It is too slow to be effective. It is too weakly protected to stand up to six inch shells.

The Deutschland-class was what it was. It was no BB, it was a commerce raider that should be able to outrun (most) BBs (only 7 BBs were able to catch it in the time of construction; the 4 Kongos, Hood, Renown and Repulse) while it was to outfight CAs, This was its concept, what she fulfilled! Yes, the Admiral Graf Spee took several hits in the battle of the River Plate, but AFAIK, it was still full seaworthy with all (major - perhaps some light AAA disabeld) guns operational. So why is this concept bad?
Yes, the hits in the superstructe killed sailors but did it harm the ship's fighting power? No!
It's armour could be compared with CAs, it's turrets were armoured heavier than the turrets of most of the CAs (which was necessary indeed due to the two tripple turrets)... So where's the problem?
The speed of 28kt is too slow for you? Well, the Panzerschiffe were equipped with Diesels. If Japan showed (I don't know) that they considered speed to be more important than range, fit it with turbines! You should have plenty of CAs with compareable size to give Japanese Deutschland-class CAs with turbines an accurate range and speed.

I'm not sure, but I would consider Deutschland-class Panzerschiffe to be definitly more powerful than usual CAs.
To camourflage this CBs (which might be a better classification than CA for them) in the times of the Washington Treaty, they can easily be fitted with quadrupel 20,3cm turrets that can be exchanged by tripple 28cm.


I know that Germany examined Japanese Carriers later, but this scenario is already fictional, so why not allow Japan to take over the Deutschland-class design?