All Players : Matrix Needs Data on Transport Ship Capacities for WitP

[dgaad]

Players :

2by3 has asked that we assist them with data and research on the transport capacities of ship classes. Additionally, if you have other information on special situations regardign transport of men, fuel, supplies, or planes that would be outside of normal expectations, that data would also be useful to 2by3.

Please post any LINKS you have to data regarding the above here. Alternatively, send such information to me : dgaad@legionhq.net

Joel Billings asked me to help coordinate this data gathering effort. I don't want this thread to be a place for a gigantic debate on transport ratings, that isn't the purpose. We are looking to acquire the largest and most reliable body of data on this subject so that WitP will have that data incorporated. UV may also benefit from this, but this is personal speculation.

2by3 and the entire strategic gaming community will appreciate your assistance.

[Echo]

I would reccomend getting "Janes Ships of WW2". I stumbled across this at Media Play, and was shocked at the wealth of information in it. Its around 50 dollars. (I even found the Argonaut in it).

[Marc von Martial]

Originally posted by Echo
I would reccomend getting "Janes Ships of WW2". I stumbled across this at Media Play, and was shocked at the wealth of information in it. Its around 50 dollars. (I even found the Argonaut in it).

That is allready in our hands . Anybody of 2by3 read this, just drop me an email. It´s here on my shelves, along with the WW1 edition of it.

[Gabby]

Originally posted by Echo
I would reccomend getting "Janes Ships of WW2". I stumbled across this at Media Play, and was shocked at the wealth of information in it. Its around 50 dollars. (I even found the Argonaut in it).

I think I saw this book used on Amazon for $9.99. You can sometimes find it at Borders, or Barnes and Knoble for a good price. I recently found the WWI version at B&N for $15.98.

[Raverdave]

Does the following count?

HMAS Bungaree
Auxiliary Minelayer
Steamer 3,155 Gross Tons
369 X 48.5 X 22.3 feet
2,500 h.p = 11 knots

2 X 4-inch guns
1 X 12 pdr
2 X 40 mm
8 X 20 mm
6 MGs

Capacity of 423 mines

Built in 1937

Req 10/1940
Comm 9/6/41
Mine layer from Comm date till 1/1944
Survey ship from 1/1944 till 8/1944
Stores ship from 8/1944
Paid off 7/8/1946

[Raverdave]

I use "Conways all the worlds fighting ship 1922-1945"

But just like "Janes" it lumps all the Aussie and Kiwi ships under either Commonwealth or RN, so I tend to fall back on "Australian & New Zealand Warships1914-1945" By Ross Gillett, Doubleday publishers, ISBN 0 86824 095 8.

[Don Bowen]

There is some interesting information at

http://hometown.aol.com/troopship/index.htm

This is primarily on Atlantic crossing but general information on units transported is given. Do check out the various links.

Following those links I have just found:

http://www.merriam-press.com/mrl_0150/mrl_0127.htm

and am about to place an order. I'll let you know.

Don Bowen

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Raverdave
Does the following count?

HMAS Bungaree
Auxiliary Minelayer
Steamer 3,155 Gross Tons
369 X 48.5 X 22.3 feet
2,500 h.p = 11 knots

2 X 4-inch guns
1 X 12 pdr
2 X 40 mm
8 X 20 mm
6 MGs

Capacity of 423 mines

Built in 1937

Req 10/1940
Comm 9/6/41
Mine layer from Comm date till 1/1944
Survey ship from 1/1944 till 8/1944
Stores ship from 8/1944
Paid off 7/8/1946

This information doesn't hurt. What kind of hold did this ship have, was it specialized for mines? Could it be used for other things like men, fuel, other supplies. What was the geometry of the hold? Did it have specialized equipment in the hold? Etc. You get the picture.

[Gabby]

Here's a site that list all US ships by class, and provides data including armrments, and troop / cargo capacity.

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

[Bart_Breedyk]

I have no materials myself, but have you thought of contacting some of the Merchant Marine Veterans associations? Someone there might have access to technical manuals that we (as the general public) might have trouble finding and/or are out of print.

Here's what I could find with a quick net search.

http://www.usmm.org/

Bart

[juliet7bravo]

Personally, I'd be happy just to get the text listing the names of all ships included in UV so I can finish the dbase files.

-You might post an Excell or Access dbase sheet laying out the format for ship info to use as a template, as well as a ref sheet of standardized abbreviations.

Excellent ref's besides the usual;
-"The Japanese Merchant Marine in WW2"...excellent book, if a little disjointed. Well researched, lite on specific ship info, but a wealth of info in operations, shipping info, and economics. Even more invaluable for the sources he cites.

-the period USN INSUM's and pamphlets on Japanese shipping...available online in CD format for a very reasonable fee

-The USN "Chronology of the War at Sea" (or something like that, LOL) and JANAC are invaluable to mine for info concerning individual Japanese ship names, losses, and causes...both available online. What I used to sketch out the skeleton for my dbase of Japanese shipping losses. Since most of the Japanese navy and merchant marine were sunk...it's pretty much laid out for you.

[U2]

Originally posted by juliet7bravo

Excellent ref's besides the usual;
-"The Japanese Merchant Marine in WW2"...excellent book, if a little disjointed. Well researched, lite on specific ship info, but a wealth of info in operations, shipping info, and economics. Even more invaluable for the sources he cites.
.

Hi juliet7bravo

Could you be so kind and give me the author of this book. Sounds like an interesting book but most importantly I want to know which books he used as sources.

Dan

[juliet7bravo]

Mark Parillo...1-55750-677-9

"Additionally, if you have other information on special situations regardign transport of men, fuel, supplies, or planes that would be outside of normal expectations, that data would also be useful to 2by3."

Items for consideration;

-Proper use/behavior of Japanese barges.

-Inclusion of Japanese Sea trucks, coasters, and other small transports, which formed a key part of the Japanese logistics structure.

-Higher troop capacity for Japanese ships, but with an increased negative impact on morale and combat effectiveness due to conditions in transit.

-Lower supply requirements for Japanese troops, to reflect less mechanization and lower tech.

-The use of both equipment (cranes, crane barges ect.) and special cargo units to modify unloading times for both the Japanese and US. US should have a lower base unloading rate due to better planning, cargo stowage, and ship design/cargo handling equipment from the start, and this rate should be modified upward in late '42 to reflect "lessons learned"...the Japanese didn't learn so theirs should remain constant. These base load/unload rates should then be modified by the use of the cargo units/equipment. A non-sexy yet highly important area for consideration.

-Japanese resource availability and shipbuilding capacity (US effectively a moot point) affecting the production of new ships. The mass production of "standard design" ships (with all their shortcomings) should be included and balanced against the construction of more capable non-standard designs. Standard designs would use less resources and shipbuilding points, yet suffer from reduced cargo capacity, lower durability, and increased rate of systems damage.

-Ports in the Greater Co-prosperity Sphere should have a separate shipbuilding/repair capacity for wood hulled coasters and barges.

-Revert to the PW idea of separate "cargo" and "transport" TF's. Cargo TF's should carry a full load of troops/supplies, and load/unload more slowly. Transport TF's should carry fewer troops/supplies, yet load/unload much faster to reflect "combat loading".

-Parachute supply drops. Base/units on ground should receive 50-75% of supplies dropped. If enemy unit present in the same hex, should be a random chance that they will receive some of the dropped supplies.

-Troops carried by Fast transport or Evac TF's should "lose" all heavy equipment.

-AO/TK's unload much to slowly in UV. Fuel transfer rates/pump capacities are easily found in the ships spec sheets.

-Allow AP/AK to carry 50/50 mix of fuel/supplies

-Overland supply, with different supply movement rates for trails, roads, and railroads.

-The ability to build trails, roads, and railroads.

If we're going to bean count, let's bean count;

-Gasoline tracked separate from general supplies or fuel oil. Gasoline would be used by AC, PT boats, all units with vehicles/mech equipment/tanks would require gas.

-Naval stores tracked separate from general supplies. Naval stores would be required to resupply torps, mines, DC's, main gun ammo, and to repair ships.

-Limits to stored fuel oil, gas storage, and naval stores at bases/AF's based on the base/AF size.

-Limits to the number of troops a base of a given size can support at full combat effectiveness, morale, or fort levels.

[Montbrun]

I would suggest "United States Naval Vessels - The Official United States Navy Reference Manual - Prepared by the Division of Naval Intelligence - 1 September 1945," - reprint by Schiffer Military History - 1996, ISBN: 0-7643-0090-3.
Contains information on all US combatant naval vessels, as well as all auxiliaries, from the BBs and CVs to the LCRs (Landing Craft Rubber!), with all IDs, ship names, and data. Highly recommended.

Thanks,

Brad

[Ron Saueracker]

I had not even started on the Transports and auxilliaries yet as my sources are a bit incomplete in this area. Right On! Dgaad, any chance you could get accurate line drawings of these classes for Marc S?

[Ron Saueracker]

bump

[JohnK]

Has been mentioned in this thread but I think it's critical that this be kept in mind (and also the fact that UV makes no distinction between the two.)

This concern with transport ships, IIRC, seemed to start with concerns that the capacity of US transports and cargo vessels was too LOW.

However, when playing UV, at no time playing as Allied do I ever feel I don't have enough transports..in fact, often seems I have more than I can use. In reality, the SW Pac was DESPERATELY short of transport at all times...much was being hoarded for the Invasion of North Africa, used uselessly reinforcing Alaska, etc.

A real transport loaded with a variety of supplies, and military equipment, is never going to meet its rated cargo capacity, because of large, bulky, but "light" items, things not fitting perfectly together, etc.

And a transport carrying a unit for an amphib operation could carry FAR less than a transport merely shuttling supplies from one friendly port to another, as well.


In UV, the number of transports to assault-land a division SEEMS about right; the numbers we have for capacity, it seems, are leanings toward combat-loaded numbers. a valid design decision if you aren't going to make a distinction between combat and regular loading.

Better to err on the side of low capacity than high capacity, I think.

[Gabby]

Well John K, I seem to always have the opposite sititation, where I could use more transports.

I usually play Scen17 as the US. The first few months is okay, but it seems like around Feb, or March 43, I have to strech my transports pretty thin to make any offensive moves, because so many are tied up trying to supply all my other bases. I can never really run major ops in SOPAC, and SWPAC at the same time.


What I usually don't have trouble doing is keeping fuel at fowarded bases, there seems to be plenty of AO's, and TK's around. They just take so long to load unload.