Could have been's...

[Shark7]

Got out Springsharp and decided to see what happens if the Nagara Class CLs actually got converted to CLAAs. By using Springsharp, I ensured I wouldn't make a ship that couldn't float.

Takes a few things into consideration. Japan actually managed to successfully produce the 40/mm60 Type 5 copy of the 40mm Bofors and they produced enough 100mm/65 DP guns to rearm the fleet.

And what does it look like in game?

[JuanG]

You could probably fit another turret on, as Springsharp tends to become progressively worse at modelling for ships under 10k tons.

The Akizuki class fitted 8 10cm/65 guns, so these CLs should take 10, maybe even 12 in conversion. Though more often you see them with 12 12.7cm/40s when converted to CLAA.

The proposed CLAA projects mounted some 24 10cm/65 on 7150t, but these were of course new ships rather than conversions.

[Shark7]

You have to keep in mind the weight ratios.

the 10cm/65 in a dual turret weighed in at 38 tons.
a Twin 40mm/60 mount averaged 6 tons.
Twin 25mm mount is 1 ton, 2 tons for a triple.

I have played around a bit more with it and came up with an update that carries 14x3 25mm mounts (total of 42 barrels) and thrown in some 13.2mm single mounts.

to Springsharps credit, it points out to me that the ship is undergunned.

Another thing to take into consideration is the general layout of the Nagara class. weight wise it can probably support 1-2 more dual 10cm turrets, but the deck is already very crowded...I don't think there is enough deckspace to mount them. Also, with the radar added there would be a big hit to deck space. Japanese radars were large and cumbersome, so you'd probably have an aft mounted antennae with a radar shack taking the place of the Y turret and catapult. I'm trying to keep this realistic. [;)]

Anyway, here's a couple of more options based on Sendai and Kuma.

[DuckofTindalos]

You'd probably have to remove the catapult for those conversions to be realistic.

Oh, and BTW, 7000 tons? The Nagaras were 5500 tons full displacement. I don't see anything that adds 1500 tons in your conversion.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

You'd probably have to remove the catapult for those conversions to be realistic.

Oh, and BTW, 7000 tons? The Nagaras were 5500 tons full displacement. I don't see anything that adds 1500 tons in your conversion.

That is what I copied out of the standard AE database on the tonnage. That may be something the team needs to check into.

Also, I have since removed the aircraft capacity, so no catapults. Just using the standard artwork.

I'm still in the tweaking phase anyway, so if you see anything else that doesn't look right, let me know. Going to play around with reducing the standard tonnage to 5800-6200, which was the full war displacement of the original builds.

[DuckofTindalos]

The earlier screenshots still show it having aircraft capacity, so you'll pardon my post. The other bit is something we'll look at.

In the real world, the IJN looked at converting the Tenryus into AA cruisers, armed with 4x2 12.7cm guns. I think you're probably overloading your Kuma/Sendai conversions a bit with guns, especially the latter (which, if my math is correct, had 35 mounts), on an, as you say, "crowded" deck.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The earlier screenshots still show it having aircraft capacity, so you'll pardon my post. The other bit is something we'll look at.

In the real world, the IJN looked at converting the Tenryus into AA cruisers, armed with 4x2 12.7cm guns. I think you're probably overloading your Kuma/Sendai conversions a bit with guns, especially the latter (which, if my math is correct, had 35 mounts), on an, as you say, "crowded" deck.

Ok, thanks for the info, I'll decrease the hardpoints on the sendai/kuma conversions. And I'll get some better shots up later when I've done a few more tweaks.

Edit: I've also removed the cargo and troop capacity on the CLAA versions. I doubt there was enough deck left to lash anything to.

[DuckofTindalos]

Not so much "info", as "opinion". You Sendai conversion is available at 6/43, but in my opinion, this is a ship that would more realistically be available in mid-to-late 1944.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Not so much "info", as "opinion". You Sendai conversion is available at 6/43, but in my opinion, this is a ship that would more realistically be available in mid-to-late 1944.

Probably more realistic to replace the 4cm/60 with the 37mm type 4 or additional 25mms for the 6/43 conversion, then do an upgrade in say 7/44 to the 4cm guns? It's a stretch to add the 4cm in the first place since the Japanese never really got it working right, but I'd like to see what happens if they did.

[JuanG]

Most of the Japanese cruisers in stock seems overweight to be honest - much closer to normal displacement than the intended standard.

Regardless, I think 12 x 12.7/40 is not such a stretch.

The 7 single 14cm/50s were ~20t apeice, a dual 12.7cm/40 A1 Mount (same unshielded type as on some CAs) is also ~20t. The later, Yamato like models are closer to ~26t.

This means the switch actually leaves you some 20t lighter. So weight wise it should not be a problem.

The 10cm/65 is a beast weight wise at ~35t for the Akizuki style turret, but a stripped version might come close to ~32t. This means 5 dual mounts would mean a slight weight increase ~10t. This is acceptable if the catapult is stripped.

Deckspace is another matter, but a layout of 1 fore, 1 aft and 2 on each side (whereabouts the Kitakamis had their TTs) should work, especially if the catapult is removed. It does means deckspace for light AA is restricted, but as historically the most common gun used by the IJN for that was the 25mm, I'd rather have more DP guns than those.

The only real issue with this conversion I could see is directors, as I dont think more than two could be fitted, and this might mean firecontrol suffers.

Also, I could see this type of ship having a few twin or triple 25mm due to limited deckspace, but more singles or 13.2mm duals as these were much easier to mount in the bow or other tight locations, as was done on several BBs.

Lastly, this sort of upgrade might also feature a reworking of the funnels to increase deckspace somewhat, but that would likely only be done in the case of an already damaged ship that required serious topside work anyway.

[DuckofTindalos]

The 37mm AA gun we include in AE was an IJA type, exclusive to the Army Yu-type transport subs. If you're going for realism, I'd discontinue using it entirely, and do a gradual increase in 25mm mounts, followed by a progressive upgrade of a small number of these to 4cm.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Most of the Japanese cruisers in stock seems overweight to be honest - much closer to normal displacement than the intended standard.

Regardless, I think 12 x 12.7/40 is not such a stretch.

The 7 single 14cm/50s were ~20t apeice, a dual 12.7cm/40 Mod A1 (same type as on the CAs) is also ~20t. The later, Yamato like models are closer to ~26t.

This means the switch actually leaves you some 20t lighter. So weight wise it should not be a problem.

Deckspace is another matter, but a layout of 1 fore, 1 aft and 2 on each side (whereabouts the Kitakamis had their TTs) should work, especially if the catapult is removed. It does means deckspace for light AA is restricted, but as historically the most common gun used by the IJN for that was the 25mm, I'd rather have more DP guns than those.

The only real issue with this conversion I could see is directors, as I dont think more than two could be fitted, and this might mean firecontrol suffers.

Honestly, 6x2 12.7cm is very possible. The type 89 twin mount was only a little over 20 tons, compared to the 10cm/65 twin mount at 38 tons. And there are up to 7 large gun hard points on the hulls as they were built (these ships came with 7x1 14cm guns). Also, landing the float plane, torpedo tubes and ASW/mine rails would give you weight to play with, even additional deck space.

But the 10cm/65 was the superiour weapon when it came to anti-air. More accurate and a faster muzzle velocity (meaning higher ceiling).

[Shark7]

Another option might be to give a secondary battery of the 8cm/40 3rd YT and have those convert over directly to 4cm/60 weapons. The weights are roughly equal, so a twin 4cm could replace a single 8cm.

[JuanG]

ORIGINAL: Shark7
But the 10cm/65 was the superiour weapon when it came to anti-air. More accurate and a faster muzzle velocity (meaning higher ceiling).

True, but given that the Japanese did not convert any of the DDs, CAs or BBs to use it and instead most ended up as landbased guns, one has to question the likelyhood of it being used for the old CLs.

Something that might have been interesting is a 16 8cm/60 ship, as the 8cm/60 was also a very good gun, though its production was rather limited. 8 twins 1 fore, 1 aft and 3 per side should be possible, and the mount was light too at ~14t.

[Shark7]

And my latest version with revisions and rethinking. This brings it up over 3 steps:

[JuanG]

Nice, and a sensible evolution, though I'd push all the dates back by 3 months and the first by 6. But its your choice.

And there was no 12.7cm/40 or 10cm/65 mount with 25mm shields. At most they had 10mm shields, and this was not even proper armour but structural metal, worth maybe 5mm of armour. 25mm is almost as much as the IJN CA turrets.

[Shark7]

Upgrade dates...

Since this was in direct response to the Midway debacle...8/42...2 months after the battle on a hurry up project doesn't seem unreasonable. Remember, you won't get it back until 11/42 if you convert as soon as its available. I put in a 90 day conversion delay.

Gun shields fixed. [;)]

[DuckofTindalos]

Is it intentional that you picked the 8cm/40 Type 88, instead of the 8cm/60 Type 98?

[Shark7]

Well, I was wanting the 8cm/40 3YT, which is the same as the type 88. There were only 28 Type 98s produced total, which either went on the Agano class or in shore batteries. It wouldn't be hard to change it out though.

[Big B]

Nahhh.... you would need new ship art[;)][:D]