AE Kashino

[Shark7]

Having done quite a bit of research on this vessel, I'm confident in saying that this ship is vastly under-rated. IIRC, in the database (I don't have it here at work), she is rated at around 5500 tons total displacement...this is half of her true displacement of 10,360 tons.

What's more, this ship was built to transport the Yamato class main turrets to the build site. This included all 3 assemblies, the mechanism inside the barbette, and the armor shell. After Delivery of Mushashi's turrets, she was converted into an ammunition transport.

The ship itself would certainly have been large enough to carry the 18" rounds (actually any ships could have carried the rounds) for Yamato/Mushashi, and have plenty of capacity. The question is, if an AE/AKE has the capacity, could Yamato/Mushashi be loaded by one in game? Is it a hard code restriction, or simply due to having no ships of adequate capacity?

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Shark7
Having done quite a bit of research on this vessel, I'm confident in saying that this ship is vastly under-rated. IIRC, in the database (I don't have it here at work), she is rated at around 5500 tons total displacement...this is half of her true displacement of 10,360 tons.

Said before, but worth repeating. "Tonnage" of merchant, service, auxiliary ships is a function of Lt (empty) displacement and their size (box ratios). It has nothing to do with loaded, gross, deadweight, or any other kind of displacement or tonnage value. 5500 for Kashino is correct in terms of how the game uses tonnage for port, floating dock, and other considerations.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Shark7
Having done quite a bit of research on this vessel, I'm confident in saying that this ship is vastly under-rated. IIRC, in the database (I don't have it here at work), she is rated at around 5500 tons total displacement...this is half of her true displacement of 10,360 tons.

Said before, but worth repeating. "Tonnage" of merchant, service, auxiliary ships is a function of Lt (empty) displacement and their size (box ratios). It has nothing to do with loaded, gross, deadweight, or any other kind of displacement or tonnage value. 5500 for Kashino is correct in terms of how the game uses tonnage for port, floating dock, and other considerations.

JWE,

I think you also have said in the past, that reported "tonnage" often is a tax/port dues "dodge".[:)]

I apologise if I have misrepresent your views.

Alfred

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Alfred
JWE,

I think you also have said in the past, that reported "tonnage" often is a tax/port dues "dodge".[:)]

I apologise if I have misrepresent your views.

Alfred

Yep. Tonnage is a rat's nest.
Gross/Net Register Tons is what's in Lloyds and is the tax and fee basis. A kinda/sorta swag in units of 100 cu feet, but definitely "dodge able". A ship built full scantling will have a GRT 15-20% higher than an identical ship built shelter deck. Brits liked shelter deck types because of the Suez fees.
Then there's the bale/grain cubic. Actual hold capacity in cubic feet.
Then there's Measurement Tons. Rough hold capacity in units of 40 cu feet (why, I don't know).
Then there's 3 different kinds of light displacement (Navy, MC, Yard).
Then there's Deadweight Tonnage. Everything a ship can hold (including the cat litter) from Lt Dspl to Load Dspl.
Then there's Net Deadweight Tonnage which is just the cargo; no fuel, water, crew, food, ammo, guns, cat litter.
And then Full Load Displacement, at the Atlantic, Summer, Plimsol.
Woof !!
And, of course, one could overload - insurance regs didn't mean a whole lot when getting shot at.

So the same ship will show up in different places as being 5000t, 7200t, 10000t, and displacing 12600t. Go figure.

Ciao. J

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: JWE

...Then there's Measurement Tons. Rough hold capacity in units of 40 cu feet (why, I don't know)...

Ciao. J

Oh, the cu bit is easy. Think of the Bill Cosby skit where he is Moses and the Lord tells him to build an ark, 40 (?) cubits by ...[:D]

Alfred

[Shark7]

I can accept that, however it still leaves my one question unanswered...

If an AE/AKE were given enough load 'tonnage' (and we'll just leave that a loose term), would Yamato be able to load from it? Basically, is the inability to load Yamato from an AE a hard-coded thing or is it simply due to not having a ship big enough?

[Local Yokel]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Having done quite a bit of research on this vessel, I'm confident in saying that this ship is vastly under-rated.

Interested to learn what your research has revealed, especially if it touches upon Kashino's machinery. It appears that a pair of 5000 shp reaction turbines were specially purchased for this ship from Brown Boveri. These turbines were fitted with stainless steel blades which gave no trouble and were consequently the subject of favourable Japanese comment. Evidently the Japanese were unable to manufacture adequately trouble-free turbine blades and for this reason felt obliged to fit only impulse turbines to their later warships rather than reaction turbines. They seem to have looked with envy upon the Brown Boveri product but could not emulate it.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Shark7
I can accept that, however it still leaves my one question unanswered...

If an AE/AKE were given enough load 'tonnage' (and we'll just leave that a loose term), would Yamato be able to load from it? Basically, is the inability to load Yamato from an AE a hard-coded thing or is it simply due to not having a ship big enough?

Actually, it's a game balance thing. In the game Japan gets to convert a whole bunch of ships into fleet train units that they could never have done in their wildest dreams. To compensate, a couple things got cut off at the code margins. Japan can't rearm Yamatos from AEs. Heck, "technically" Japan could barely do enough AEs to rearm CruDivs, much less Fuso's, way much less Nagatos, and Yamatos were out the window. Some things have to be abstracted for other things to happen.

Kashino was never an AE. After the Yamato program was cancelled, Kashino carried ammunition and general cargo up and down the Japanese coast, in a pathetically small cargo space. She was never reconfigured or converted. Turret holds were welded over, kingposts were removed, then she was sunk. A purpose-built ship with nowhere to go.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel
Interested to learn what your research has revealed, especially if it touches upon Kashino's machinery. It appears that a pair of 5000 shp reaction turbines were specially purchased for this ship from Brown Boveri. These turbines were fitted with stainless steel blades which gave no trouble and were consequently the subject of favourable Japanese comment. Evidently the Japanese were unable to manufacture adequately trouble-free turbine blades and for this reason felt obliged to fit only impulse turbines to their later warships rather than reaction turbines. They seem to have looked with envy upon the Brown Boveri product but could not emulate it.

Brother John, you are a man after my own heart. I am helping an author (who you will be familiar with) with research on turbine development during 30s and 40s. I lust, simply lust, for any inputs from anywhere. My email is john.w.eldredge@gmail.com Anything you may wish to contribute will be acknowledged and heartilly appreciated.

Ciao. John

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

I can accept that, however it still leaves my one question unanswered...

If an AE/AKE were given enough load 'tonnage' (and we'll just leave that a loose term), would Yamato be able to load from it? Basically, is the inability to load Yamato from an AE a hard-coded thing or is it simply due to not having a ship big enough?

The determining factor is not tonnage, but bulk capacity.

[Shark7]

I think people are reading more into this than what I intended...

Firstly, I understand that it is cargo capacity, like I said, I use the term tonnage loosely...that is cargo capacity expressed in tons.

Secondly, I realize exactly what Kashino did in the war, it was at first a big gun transport built specifically to haul around Yamato, Musashi, and Shinano's main batteries from the factory to the building dock. When the decision was made to cancel Shinano as a BB, she was quickly modified and used to transport ammo. Not an AE, but an ammunition transport. And she sank long before anything else useful could be made of her. The only thing I can't seem to qualify is the displacement. While in game she displaces around 5500 tons, every source I've looked at (books, internet, etc) gives a displacement of 10,360. You might have more accurate sources, so I'm not going to argue the point (hence why I brought it up in modding section and not in general). Basically, it is irrelevant if the final question of mine is a moot point...

Can Yamato be reloaded from an adequately sized AE or not?

No matter what I have planned, it is all moot if Yamato can't be reloaded from an AE due to hard-code...now am I being clearer about where I am going with this?

[Sardaukar]

I doubt it's hard coded (I can easily be wrong in this too, tho). But it should be reasonable easy to test. Just give AE cargo capacity equal or larger than re-arm cost of Yamato's main guns. That would be 6440, according to manual. Remember to load the AE with supplies (don't ask why I choose to point this out...let's say experiences with things one can forget to do...) [:D]

Seems you guys are talking past each other a bit. [:D]

[Local Yokel]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I doubt it's hard coded (I can easily be wrong in this too, tho). But it should be reasonable easy to test. Just give AE cargo capacity equal or larger than re-arm cost of Yamato's main guns. That would be 6440, according to manual. Remember to load the AE with supplies (don't ask why I choose to point this out...let's say experiences with things one can forget to do...) [:D]

Seems you guys are talking past each other a bit. [:D]

Exactly my thoughts.

So I did the test, with the results set out below. The test was conducted with both vessels at Kagoshima (port size 4, NavSup 37). Yamato starts with empty main battery magazines. Kashino loads to only 3997 as the scenario sets up. Yamato is then formed into a single ship task force. When 'Replenish TF from port' is clicked a message appears to indicate that full re-arming could not take place, and this is borne out by the fact that only the magazines for Nos 1 and 2 main battery turrets replenish, at a cost of 696 units of supply drawn exclusively from Kashino (as one would expect, there was no reduction in Kagoshima's supply level). The magazine for No.3 main battery turret can't be replenished in the course of a single day's turn, but I see no problem with that. I winged it with Kashino's tonnage, not knowing whether a capacity greater than tonnage would have funny side effects.

Looks like a perfectly acceptable result to me.

[Shark7]

Thank you, that does answer the question. I was hoping for just a quick yes or no, rather than having to mod a scenario to find out...guess I could have done it myself though. Sorry to have put you through the trouble Local Yokel.

That also means that the G3/N3 I am putting in the mod will be able to reload from a sufficiently sized AE/AKE as well. The main thing I was worried about was a limit by weapon 'size' (again used very loosely...referring to the shell weight) and the 18" guns on N3/G3 would be very similar to Yamato.

[Local Yokel]

You're most welcome - I was interested to discover the answer anyway, and happy to set up the test since it helped me to understand how the system works. [:)]