Is a 6-8K tons CL usefull to Japan .

[bklooste]

Im just looking at a few options for the 3* 6.1" Mogami turrets and i cant see the use for the Agano class even if you made them 9*6" . For minimal cost say 20% more ( asuming turrets are available) you could add some torpedo bulges and go for a Mogami 5*3 and get 67% more firepower , torpedo bulges , better armour and an existing design. Or better yet build HNLMS Tromp 4000 tons destroyer leader for 6 * 6" ( 3*2) , you have 2/3 the fire power but half the cost and the fire power is enough for the Destroyer leader roll. Is it possible to use the existing tripple turrets on a 4000 ton design ?

What were the Agano and Oyodo ( And katori) class going to do ? They were too expensive ( or slow) as destroyer leaders yet couldnt stand up to a US heavy cruiser.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: bklooste

Im just looking at a few options for the 3* 6.1" Mogami turrets and i cant see the use for the Agano class even if you made them 9*6" . For minimal cost say 20% more ( asuming turrets are available) you could add some torpedo bulges and go for a Mogami 5*3 and get 67% more firepower , torpedo bulges , better armour and an existing design. Or better yet build HNLMS Tromp 4000 tons destroyer leader for 6 * 6" ( 3*2) , you have 2/3 the fire power but half the cost and the fire power is enough for the Destroyer leader roll. Is it possible to use the existing tripple turrets on a 4000 ton design ?

What were the Agano and Oyodo ( And katori) class going to do ? They were too expensive ( or slow) as destroyer leaders yet couldnt stand up to a US heavy cruiser.

They were HQ ships.

[DuckofTindalos]

The Oyodo and the Katoris were meant as submarine squadron leaders. Not sure what the intent with the Aganos was.

[bklooste]

Why cant an AS or an AV leads subs ? Im not sure you need a cruiser or warship for that. I supose its a pet peeve of mine waating valueable armoured warships on scouting float planes ( which is a dangerous occupation and the armour wont help much).

[bklooste]

HQ for what ? Destroyer leaders ? I know in 44-45 some of these shipts became command ships as all bigger ships were sunk or being repaired.

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: bklooste

Why cant an AS or an AV leads subs ? Im not sure you need a cruiser or warship for that. I supose its a pet peeve of mine waating valueable armoured warships on scouting float planes ( which is a dangerous occupation and the armour wont help much).

We agree completely, but the IJN didn't.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The Oyodo and the Katoris were meant as submarine squadron leaders. Not sure what the intent with the Aganos was.

The Katori class I knew about, but the Oyodo? Dang, awfully big sub leader ...

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The Oyodo and the Katoris were meant as submarine squadron leaders. Not sure what the intent with the Aganos was.

The Katori class I knew about, but the Oyodo? Dang, awfully big sub leader ...

Fleet flagship.

[bklooste]

Was it actually built to become a flagship ? It was prob designed in 42 wouldnt all the BBs , CAs and CVs be ahead ? It ended up as flagship because all the others were sunk.

[DuckofTindalos]

The Oyodo was intended as a submarine squadron flagship and scout with its floatplanes, not a "fleet flagship". She was laid down in February 1941, so probably designed in or before 1940.

EDIT: final plans for the Oyodo were submitted in early October 1939.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The Oyodo was intended as a submarine squadron flagship and scout with its floatplanes, not a "fleet flagship". She was laid down in February 1941, so probably designed in or before 1940.

EDIT: final plans for the Oyodo were submitted in early October 1939.

Yes, submarine squadron flagship. The Aganos were destroyer/submarine squadron flagships, while the Katoris were training ships and administrative fleet flagships used on detached duty. The Japanese seemed to think 5,000-8,000 tons was a handy size for a command cruiser.

[bklooste]

Expensive ships for both rolls. Most players just use a leader with Glenns.


Q why couldn't you use a Yubari style ship or converted AS/civilian float plane carrier for a sub leader/tenderer and a Tromp/Yubari style cruiser for destroyer leader ?

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: bklooste

Expensive ships for both rolls. Most players just use a leader with Glenns.


Q why couldn't you use a Yubari style ship or converted AS/civilian float plane carrier for a sub leader/tenderer and a Tromp/Yubari style cruiser for destroyer leader ?

So commanders can go to sea in comfort. The Japanese found their old light cruisers handy ships, and these were the replacements.

[DuckofTindalos]

Besides, the Japs turned their sub tenders into carriers. Good move there...[8|]

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Besides, the Japs turned their sub tenders into carriers. Good move there...[8|]

Yep build over priced expensive ships that are too valueable too lose which need to sit near enemy ships and tie your ship yards up converting. Good way to lose the war [:)] .

I think the comments on Japanese ship building are not correct , I have plotted every single ship and noted they
- Made a 5th 20K + slip available at short notice , there were at least another 7+ 10k slips.
- The shipyards/dry docks are full of ships in refits /conversions which took much LONGER than a new ship .
- There Merchant production quickly rose to 4M tons in 44 when it was needed.
- When needed to make way for a new order like a liner ( but infrequently) ships were quickly released from the slip and finished at a pier eg Suzuya was launched in 11 months , Mogami a leasurely 2.5 years.
- The Yamatos were rushed ,new design 70K tons , new yards , new technology a bit over 4 years is pretty good . I can only imagine how many workers were involved on these 4 ships , their new guns and the turret carrier.

I can only conclude either it was completely mis managed ( a strong possability) , they took even minor things away to rush the Yamatos ( wheres the rivot machines ah the Navy number 1 team took them all this morning), or the limiting resource was steel ( I note when they quickly ramp up production in 44 they used substandard steel , they scrapped 111 whent the hull was built) . There is a strong possability that re-equiping steel yards to make the huge amount plate the 4 Yamatos really hindered there abbility to expand their steel production.

Instead of Agano and the conversion build 2 * Tromp style 3000 tons CLs in a Destroyer yard , build a quick Soryu class CV in the Aganos yard with short slip time and have an AS in use when you need it. I thnk the ship bulding resources for this is about the same or less ( but you need 10K more steel , with similar plate but get to us the AS yard which was used for conversions for tying up 2 Destroyer yards)

[DuckofTindalos]

Why even bother with light cruisers for destroyer leaders? The RN used dedicated destroyers for this, and the Japs could too.

[bklooste]

The float plane is very usefull ( the UK didnt have to worry about scouting as much) , though i dont think the armour is . These ships cary like 1 and a maximum of 2" belt which i dont think is proof against a 5"/38 if it is i would argue they significantly help in a destoryer vs destroyer shoot out and the 6'1" guns are free.

You may be right though put the guns in as CD's everywhere and spend the entire light cruiser budget on CAs ( if they come before mid 43) and DDs.
2.5DD Vs 1 4K CL is pretty close anyway when you add the torpedos in.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Why even bother with light cruisers for destroyer leaders? The RN used dedicated destroyers for this, and the Japs could too.

[DuckofTindalos]

And the IJN saw the mass torpedo attack as the main reason for having destroyers in the first place. Take the ol' CL's and make them CLAA's, like they planned to do anyway.

[bklooste]

With regard to the Oi are you questioning there value as torpedo platforms ? I Note the conversion to "Torpedo Cruiser" was cheap ( pull of a turret and add some deck tubes), changing guns would be a much more expensive operation and the Japanese do not need conversions to tie up more ship yards. Second would they be more effective that focusing on the existing CLAA the Akizuki ( they are of similar tonnage to the Yubari) and carry 4*2 * 3.9" and just build more/build them faster and improve them with better directors etc ?

Still trying to find a use for the 60 (20*3) 6.1" tubes the idea of them sitting in CDs is a bit anti climatic though they may be usefull in such a role with high max elevation for a range better than most 8" . Since you can go back to 65 degrees make them DP guns at least they can theoretically hit B29s

What about a night fighting , CA 35-36 knots , armour for close fighting , 12 (4 *3) *6.1" + 4(2 * 2) short 8-12" + 4 ( 2*2) 3.9"/100 DP , Takao style torps , prototype radar , lots of search lights etc. Since even 5" guns will penetrate at short range you dont need a thick belt ( 2" is enough) you just need to asume the hits get through so extra thick Barbette protection , supreme compartmentalization , Mutsu style independent machinary to shafts , little/thin super structure with backup bridge beneath deck , first rate DR ( cough cough) etc. Need a decent deck for air protection for the run in and out.

[DuckofTindalos]

I most certainly question their value as torpedo platforms, as did more than a few contemporary IJN officers. You're packing the torpedo tubes of 8 or 9 destroyers into two cruisers. Those 8 or 9 DD's are far more versatile than 2 one-trick ponies.