AE Naval and OOB Issues [OUTDATED]

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Gilbert

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

Looking at the Chidoris and the follow-on class of Otoris in the database, I was surprised to note that they start the war with no ASW weaponry whatsoever.  My sources aren't particularly comprehensive, but they suggest that both these classes were, in fact, equipped with depth charge throwers before the war's outbreak.  Looking at the Chidori drawings in Jentschura et al, I'm confident I can discern a thrower and associated ready-use ammunition rack abaft the monstrous twin 5" mount of the pre-Tomozuru Incident configuration, suggesting that a thrower was carried from the outset.

So I just wondered, are these ships sold a bit short on equipment at the war's outbreak, or do you have data suggesting that depth charge gear was actually not fitted until 1942?

Both Class ships were indeed fitted with 2 depth charge throwers (1Starboard, 1Port) from their completion date. During the war (in 1943-ish), this gear was increased to two or three DC throwers and the addition of 2 stern DC racks for a total of 48DC.
As you have stated, this can be clearly noticed in Jentschura's book and similar drawings can be found in the Japanese publication "Kojinsha's, warships of the IJN" #21.

Regards
Gilbert

The data we have, including Jentschura and Watts indicate the torpedo boat acquisition of depth charges was AFTER the start of the war, some time in 1942. As to exactly when, anyone's guess. Game includes ability to refit all these vessels with depth charges in 1942. If anyone has a source that indicates otherwise please post.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Not sure if this was reported already;

Scenario 1 & 2;
DD Kamikaze (#1422-1425) updares twice on 02/42, gaining a T13 radar set on the second update. I assume the update to #1424 should have been in 02/43 or something.

Yup T13 shouldn't exist in either 42 or 43 ... this will get fixed one day ... applies to 1429-1430 group as well ...

[Local Yokel]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: Gilbert

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

Looking at the Chidoris and the follow-on class of Otoris in the database, I was surprised to note that they start the war with no ASW weaponry whatsoever.  My sources aren't particularly comprehensive, but they suggest that both these classes were, in fact, equipped with depth charge throwers before the war's outbreak.  Looking at the Chidori drawings in Jentschura et al, I'm confident I can discern a thrower and associated ready-use ammunition rack abaft the monstrous twin 5" mount of the pre-Tomozuru Incident configuration, suggesting that a thrower was carried from the outset.

So I just wondered, are these ships sold a bit short on equipment at the war's outbreak, or do you have data suggesting that depth charge gear was actually not fitted until 1942?

Both Class ships were indeed fitted with 2 depth charge throwers (1Starboard, 1Port) from their completion date. During the war (in 1943-ish), this gear was increased to two or three DC throwers and the addition of 2 stern DC racks for a total of 48DC.
As you have stated, this can be clearly noticed in Jentschura's book and similar drawings can be found in the Japanese publication "Kojinsha's, warships of the IJN" #21.

Regards
Gilbert

The data we have, including Jentschura and Watts indicate the torpedo boat acquisition of depth charges was AFTER the start of the war, some time in 1942. As to exactly when, anyone's guess. Game includes ability to refit all these vessels with depth charges in 1942. If anyone has a source that indicates otherwise please post.

I was relying primarily on Jentschura and Watts, and I can see nothing in that work to suggest that the first fitting of depth charge equipment to either class took place after the war's start, whether in 1942 or otherwise. So I would be interested to learn what other data you have to suggest that the first such installation took place in 1942.

The Jentschura and Watts drawings indicate to me that both classes were equipped from the outset with a single Type 94 Y-gun on the quarterdeck. The drawing of Hatsukari given a 1945 date indicates that the Type 94 device has been replaced by Type 81 single depth charge throwers, probably 3 on each side. The Kiji drawing also given a 1945 date suggests that the original Type 94 has been retained and supplemented either by a second device of the same type, or a pair of Type 81 throwers. Both drawings having a 1945 date also show the presence of depth charge rails at the stern. These rails do seem to have been a later addition, and would probably account for a total outfit of 48 depth charges by the end of the war.

The presence both of the depth charge rails and of the Type 81 throwers is borne out by the drawing of Hatsukari in Fukui Shizuo's 'Japanese Naval Vessels at the End of War', at page 83, and is also indicated by the Pit Road/Skywave drawing of Kiji that accompanies that company's kit of the vessel. The Pit Road drawing also shows the Type 94 Y-gun on Kiji's quarterdeck in 1937.

Unfortunately I couldn't find any photographs that help to resolve the issue. Nearly all pre-war photographs (including those in ONI 41-42) show something in the position of the ready use d/c rack that can be clearly seen in the ONI drawing (and also those in Jentschura and Watts), but unfortunately it's sheeted over. I'm fairly confident I can see that rack in the 1934 photo of Chidori on trials in Jentschura, and if the rack is present it seems inconceivable that the associated Type 94 thrower is not.

All of which still suggests to me that both the Chidori's and the Otori's were equipped with Type 94 Y-guns at the outbreak of the war, and that this equipment was supplemented or changed as the war progressed. Sorry I can't come up with sources that are any more authoritative than those mentioned but, as I said in my original post, my own sources are not comprehensive.

[Don Bowen]

I've looked at the entry in Jentschura and also in Watts. The entry in Jentschura is open to some confusion:

Between August and December, 1936, Maizuru DY carrier out various alterations .... After reconstruction the armament was: 3 x 4.7in 50-cal DP; 1 x 7.7mm MG; 2 x 21in TT. In 1942 they had 2 x 4.7in 50-cal; 10 x 25mm AA; 2 x 21in TT; 48 DC.

Other works, primarily Watts, confirm the rearmament in 1942. I can find no reason to believe that DC were fitted prior to 1942.

[Local Yokel]

With reference to both the Chidori/Tomozuru and the Otori classes, Watts says that in 1942 the 'X' turret was removed and replaced with a 25mm AA mount. These gunnery alterations constitute the rearmament to which he is referring. He says nothing about a change to the depth charge fit taking place in 1942, but merely that these ships carried 48 d/c's 'as rearmed'.

I have seen several references to these ships having an earlier outfit of 9 d/c's, although the source of this information is not clear to me - Whitley, perhaps, or Fukui. I don't know about Whitley, but I would treat Fukui as a fairly impeccable source.

What seems clear to me is that there are drawings of these classes that show a Type 94 Y-gun on the quarterdeck, and that the drawings in Jentschura indicate that this was present on Tomozuru in original form prior to her capsize in 1934. I'm open to persuasion that the drawings show something other than a Y-gun (and if it's not that, then what is it?), but otherwise I suggest that the drawings and the other indicators mentioned in post #1003 provide strong reasons for a belief that these ships were indeed equipped with depth charges before 1942.

[JWE]

Well, that's the witch with sources, yeah? There's a photo of Kiji floating about, 'purportedly' from 1937, that shows her with a clean foredeck abaft the gun. I have line drawings of Kiji (profile and plan), 'purportedly' from 1941, that also show her with a clean foredeck abaft the gun. Ok, she was an Otori, not a Chidori, but I am very comfy with the proposition of her not having a T-94 Y-gun anywhere forward. And while the drawings (the '41 drawings follow the '37 photo very well) do show her paravanes, travel rails, and signal guns, there's nothing that looks like a T-94 anywhere midships or aft.

As to the Chidori's, I'm trying to get the rebuild plans to see what was done. Her commissioning photos (1933) show a clean foredeck (no T-94), it's possible they were aft, but ... Her post-rebuild photos show a foredeck installation (between gun and superstructure) with a shape and size very unlike a T-94. It's possible they had "something" when built, but it was removed during rebuild. Think it's pretty clear Otori didn't, so the implication is that Chidori didn't, either.

Really hard to get definitive answers from sources that didn't take AE into account when they wrote their books. I'm not even sure getting the rebuild specs will settle it one way or the other. Oh, well ...

[Local Yokel]

Hello, John, thank you for taking a look at this.

I couldn't agree more about the difficulty in getting definitive answers to issues like this. The more so when research may well get baulked by destruction of records or the difficulty of researching in a language not your own. Provenance of secondary sources can be quite a cause for concern.

Leaving aside spigot mortar a/s weapons, I can't think of any ASW ship that mounted depth charge throwers ahead of the bridge, so I certainly would not have expected you to find signs of such an arrangement on either the Chidori's or the Otori's. The only place where I think you will see what I take to be a Type 94 thrower on them is abaft the No.3 main battery mount. To illustrate this, I am attaching a couple of annotated drawings I have come across, in this case from W. Daszjan, 'Ships of the Second World War. Japanese Navy Part 2' and a photograph of Otori taken prior to replacement of the No.3 mount with additional 25mm AA. (Those irritating Japanese sailors insisted in sheeting down all the interesting detail!) Daszjan is one of those who talks of both classes having carried two throwers from the outset, and these being supplemented during the war years, but I do not know his source for this.

Possible additional sources of information are Maru Special, Japanese Naval Vessels No.39: Japanese Torpedo Boats (pub. May 1980) and Collected Writings by Fukui Shizuo Vol.5: Stories of Japanese Destroyers, pub. Kojinsha 1993, neither of which I have, regrettably. I've read somewhere that Fukui has published much the most comprehensive and highest quality sets of Japanese warship photographs, but second hand bookshop searches suggest some of these works command eye-watering prices. If you can lay hands on authentic copies of rebuild drawings then that would be really helpful - provided they distinguish between what was added and what was already there!



<edit> I'll also take the opportunity to mention the drawings of Tomozuru in Evans and Peattie's 'Kaigun' in both pre- and post-capsize configuration, on both of which the rack and Type 94 device appear to be visible. These drawings were provided by Ito Naokazu, the curator of Tokyo's Museum of Maritime Science, who I would expect to have had access to the best sources of information available when he drew them. </edit>

[jwilkerson]

You guys are certainly welcome to discuss things till the cows come home - but just to be clear - regarding the IJN surface combatants - it is and was my call. I made the call based on the sources I've seen. I haven't seen anything - yet to make me change my mind. The historical process I was taught basically runs as follows:

01 - Ask the questions.

02 - Find the sources.

03 - Answer the questions - while being true to the sources.

Sometimes historians disagree over the INTERPRETATION of the data - but rarely over the data itself.

Most of the sources we have for the items in question ultimately tie back to Fukui Shizuo notes and drawings - this data may be recapitulated in 100s of secondary sources (it is) but in reality F.S. is one of the few primary sources.

[Local Yokel]

Well, you seemed to rely on Jentschura and Watts and asked for sources indicating that depth charges were first fitted otherwise than in 1942, so I did my best to oblige!

I take it that from you say about Fukui's notes and drawings that it was on his data that you ultimately relied, so what information does he actually give on the subject?

[redcoat]

These Japanese model kits look interesting …

Manazura (Chidori class) in 1945 (foreground) and 1936.



and Hayabusa (Otori class) in 1936 (foreground) and 1944.



Source

If they are accurate they suggest that Suiraitei had Y-guns at the start of the war. They then received additional DCs during the war: Chidori class in 1942 and Otori class in 1942 or 1944.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

Well, you seemed to rely on Jentschura and Watts and asked for sources indicating that depth charges were first fitted otherwise than in 1942, so I did my best to oblige!

I take it that from you say about Fukui's notes and drawings that it was on his data that you ultimately relied, so what information does he actually give on the subject?

The perface of the Jenschura (and Jung) work describes Groner's "exthusiastic exchange of material with Shizuo Fukui" from which we deduce that Groner's primary source material comes from Fukui. Further the preface continues with the explanation that Jenschura and Jung relied on "the information forwarded to Groner by Fukui" and "the writings of Professor Dr. E. Lacroix" which are stated to be available in The Begian Shiplover. So our reliance is upon on Jenschura who is reliant upon Groner who is reliant upon Fukui. That is our known link to Fukui as tenuous as it is. For the classes in question, Watts concurs with the Jenschura data. Watts (like Conways) is sparse in terms of providing illumination to sources.

[Local Yokel]

Joe, I wonder whether I can persuade you to review your conclusion?

If I have followed you correctly, you have relied on Jentschura, etc as one of your sources and Watts as the other. Jentschura etc derive their information from Fukui via Groner, as you say.

I assume, therefore, that you have not been able to consult any of Fukui’s original works, such as that mentioned in post #1007. Another of his works, Nihon no gunkan, may also shed light on the Chidoris. Evans and Peattie cite it in Kaigun, and say, incidentally, that ‘the Chidori class was intended to take over the routine patrol and antisubmarine duties of larger destroyers.’ (My emphasis)

So, it seems you have to rely on a derivative of Fukui’s work rather than his original text, in which case I assume you are taking into account not only Jentschura’s and Watts’ text but also their drawings. I assume the Jentschura drawings accurately reflect information passed on from Fukui. I know of no reason to think they misrepresent Fukui’s data by including equipment he did not mention.

For Chidori, Jentschura shows drawings of Tomozuru in 1934 and 1935 (pre-and post-reconstruction) and Hatsukari in 1945 (No.3 4.7” mount replaced by 25mm). If that 25mm took the place of No.3 mount during the war, then the drawing of Tomozuru in 1935 shows her appearance before that change. Both Tomozuru drawings show a depth charge thrower and rack for 6 d/c's. They are also visible on both Jentschura drawings of Otori class boats.

The text in Jentschura gives a snapshot of Chidori armament in 1942. The text in Watts gives a similar snapshot and says that 1942 was the date when No.3 mount was replaced by a 25mm AA gun. Neither work says, in terms, that the class first received depth charges in 1942. The drawings show d/c throwers on Tomozuru from date of first construction.

Looking at both the text and the drawings in the sources on which you rely, I conclude that the Chidori and Otori classes carried depth charges before the war. Is there something I have missed?

[Moss Orleni]

Not sure if this can help, but I'm actually related to Eric Lacroix. At the occasional BBQ, I usually take the opportunity to talk to him about... well, the IJN of course [;)]. He's already in his eighties, but still full of enthousiasm when it comes to this topic (only recently ago, he did a 'causerie' (short presentation) at the University of Ghent on the early development of the Imperial battlefleet). BTW, I'm pretty sure he's not aware that his publications are still being used so frequently...

As for specific ship details, I'm not the purist that some of you guys are, but if the AE project team is interested, I can always take a list of questions and ask him directly. I think he will be quite happy to help out. Could take some time though, I don't see him that often and I know he has the equivalent of a public library on the subject...

Anyway, just let me know if anybody is interested.
Cheers,

Moss

[JeffroK]

I was looking up some info on the Royal Australian Navy and had a number of differences of the IRL state versus what AE provides.

Many ships have clearly incorrect arrival dates, ships arriving before they are laid down or many months (up to 2 years) after their commission date.

In addition, 7 of the Bathurst class AM are missing (More than 10% of the class, I looked hard, tell me if they are there!)
In lieu of an excel table, the info is below.
I used the commission date, this seems to be the date used for the Bathurst class in AE but is about 2-3mths earlier than for the River class which is reasonable , especially for those commissioned after the end of hostilities.

I used http://www.navy.gov.au/History as my main source and still have a few which need clarifying. Some based on the east coast of Australia on 8/12/41 were at sea with convoys or minesweeping.


BUGGER, i'LL GET BACK TO THIS!!![&:]

[JohnDillworth]

I set my carriers to react up to 4 hexes. Often, they ignore this command and react to something 6 hexes away, often plowing right into heavy enemy air or a enemy trap. Is this a bug or do carriers sometimes just "do this" due to the commanders aggressiveness rating?
thanks

[Alekks]

I've seen this as well and tend to think this is due to agressiveness rating of the TasK Force Commander "overriding" or adding an amount to the max react distance that the player sets. In particular, while playing as the Allies, I have to keep a particularly short leash on Admiral Halsey as he has shown a willingness to dive into harm's way. In early '42, that's usually a bad thing. [:D]

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth
I set my carriers to react up to 4 hexes. Often, they ignore this command and react to something 6 hexes away, often plowing right into heavy enemy air or a enemy trap. Is this a bug or do carriers sometimes just "do this" due to the commanders aggressiveness rating?
thanks

Short answer - yes, they just do it sometimes.
Longer answer - react depends on detect level and conditions. A SurfCom TF at a base will react different from a CV TF in open ocean. And "react" doesn't mean "react". It's sorta dumb to expect CV TFs to do nothing if the other guy is 180 +1 nm away. React just means that a TF is oriented to do something, somewhere. So "react" means "what to do - if" and the number is how close. And it all depends on the other puke.

[JohnDillworth]

Thanks,
my experience is that it happens somewhere between "most-times" and "always". Problem is LBA. I want to keep my carriers just outside of LBA and my opponent can always exploit this weakness and draw me in. Anyway to absolutely set the react range (4 hexs, not 1 hex more, ever!!!)?
thanks

[Canoerebel]

What's wrong with this picture:

In AE I can:

1. Select the commanders for every TF (and that means every ship if I really wanted to) on the map
2. Set the training for every aircraft squadron on the map down to height and mission (NavT, NavG, Nav-You-Name-It)
3. Assign or reassign pilots or send them home for 180 days
4. Set range limits for aircraft, which will comply with that directive even if the juiciest, most vulnerable target is just 1 hex further
5. Assign a route for a ship to sale from San Diego to Brisbane and it will stick to that route (if I set it to "Direct" and "Absolute")
6. Set search arcs for every patrol plane
7. Set patrol boundaries for subs and ships
8. Prep a unit in Ceylon for Manila
9. Manage ship repair
10. Select different loading routines so that my men or supplies are better able to come ashore (whether amphibious or strategic)

But in AE - a game about a war spanning an ocean - a game in which carriers are by far the most important assets - I cannot prevent my CVs from reacting against orders...at least not if i wish to give them competent commanders. If I select Halsey (or some other bright and capable commander) to command a CV TF, order that TF to follow a combat TF or transport TF, order it to "do not react," position it so that it benefits from LRCAP and the presence of combat TFs and offers protection to critical amphibious TFs...the carriers will react against orders, leave the transports unprotected, sail out from the protection of LRCAP and combat escorts, and sail right into the teeth of anywhere from 1 to 52,000 enemy LBA in order to close with enemy CVs.

I am told that the only way to avoid this is to place non-aggressive commanders in command of my CVs. That usually means finding commanders that have far lower ratings in most of the important carrier command aspects.

So, in the one are of the game that is the most important and most exciting, the player cannot manage his carriers - heck, he really can't even control them. But in a myriad other ways - ways that are far less significant - the player can micromanage from now until eternity.

"Do not react" should mean "do not react."

[JWE]

JohnDillworth asked a question. I gave him an answer. That is what this thread is here for. It is not here for people to ventilate their wants/desires.

You don't "like" the answer? Take it somewhere else and whine about it there. You all do this again and we just won't bother to respond at all.