Could have been's...

Please post here for questions and discussion about scenario design, art and sound modding and the game editor for WITP Admiral's Edition.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Dili
Posts: 4742
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: Could have been's...

Post by Dili »

100mm double turrets are much heavier that nimble 150mm they have. Certainly only one can be put in front of the bridge. In all and taking out the torpedos and catapult you can put no more than 4 turrets IMO.Diminishint returns et al.

For 4cm you do have to think what you will loose.
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.

Diagree.With training crew for AA certainly more like 6 months. For example the Kitakami conversion to Kaiten was 6 months http://www.combinedfleet.com/kitakami_t.htm
User avatar
Shark7
Posts: 7936
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:11 pm
Location: The Big Nowhere

RE: Could have been's...

Post by Shark7 »

ORIGINAL: Dili

100mm double turrets are much heavier that nimble 150mm they have. Certainly only one can be put in front of the bridge. In all and taking out the torpedos and catapult you can put no more than 4 turrets IMO.Diminishint returns et al.

For 4cm you do have to think what you will loose.
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.

Diagree.With training crew for AA certainly more like 6 months. For example the Kitakami conversion to Kaiten was 6 months http://www.combinedfleet.com/kitakami_t.htm

The two reason I reduced the 10cm turrets to 4 even after have 5 12.7cm turrets. The 10cm turret was nearly twice the weight and twice the size since it was fully enclosed. The 12.7cm often just had a front gun shield or no shield at all.

As far as the 4cm...those weigh 2 tons for a twin. The 8cm single is 3.3 tons. Replacing on a 1:1 basis gives a net savings of around 10 tons. The ship in its final form should not be over weight. Landing the the floatplane, catapult and torpedos would have saved 20-30 tons of weight if not more.

I will reconsider the conversion delay. I'm not sure it would take as much retraining as a Kaitan carrier though, since the guns were in widespread use already.
Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'
Dili
Posts: 4742
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: Could have been's...

Post by Dili »

I agree about weights and guns. I think it was a good choice the more comon 5".

Sorry when i refered 4cm "what you loose" was the industrial retooling necessary for a sizable production. Let's say some resources would have to be taken from somewhere.

When a ships goes to a yard for such long time(months) it looses always a big part of the crew, a new captain etc, that needs a training period. Anyway an even better example: Izuzu convertion to an AA cruiser was 4 months http://www.combinedfleet.com/isuzu_t.htm. But the ship was repaired and overhauled in drydock 4-5 months before. So from Jan44 to Sep44 it was in shipyard.

I know it is pain. the conversions of 2 weeks ended. For example when reading TROMs of British destroyers going to dock and putting some radar , adding some 20mm oerlikon is usually 2 months or even more(includes obviously new painting, hull cleaned, engines rebuild etc...), not all conversions are like that, but most of the time they take the chance to do a ship overhaul.
User avatar
Shark7
Posts: 7936
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:11 pm
Location: The Big Nowhere

RE: Could have been's...

Post by Shark7 »

So a 120 day conversion delay? I think 6 months is too great (the delay for the Ise hybrid conversion is only 180 days). I'm at work at the moment, so I can't really do anything, but I'll do some more tweaking when I get home.
Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'
User avatar
DuckofTindalos
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Could have been's...

Post by DuckofTindalos »

Here's my shipside for one IJN anti-air cruiser conversion. Uses the 12.7cm gun (the IJN had no realistic chance of building enough 10cm guns to make do). Torpedo tubes and aircraft facilities landed, Type 21 radar installed along with two HA directors; the Japs were notorious for neglecting that part of their shipborne air defence suites too.

Image
Attachments
JnSide0018.jpg
JnSide0018.jpg (13.16 KiB) Viewed 250 times
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
Shark7
Posts: 7936
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:11 pm
Location: The Big Nowhere

RE: Could have been's...

Post by Shark7 »

Nice looking ship Terminus. Would I have permission to use it?
Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'
User avatar
DuckofTindalos
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Could have been's...

Post by DuckofTindalos »

PM sent.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
Shark7
Posts: 7936
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:11 pm
Location: The Big Nowhere

RE: Could have been's...

Post by Shark7 »

And the next set. This one is a must even if you don't use the 4cm guns. Ise/Hyuga...going into 1945 without those embarrassing little flight decks on the back. Justification for this is easy. You don't get Midway'ed, you don't do desperate things like making a hybrid CVBB. This would be the other option, instead of having just the carrier conversion, you can choose based on what you feel is more necessary.

Image
Attachments
Ise.jpg
Ise.jpg (502.66 KiB) Viewed 240 times
Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'
Post Reply

Return to “Scenario Design and Modding”