Porter class

[Central Blue]

ORIGINAL: JWE

Porters guns are the 5"/38 "SP" EBR which is supposed to represent the Single Purpose version, on the Mk22 mount. There is a typo in the Device file. Device 1627 points to Type = 17-DP Gun. It should point to Type = 18-Naval Gun.

I was wondering what happened to the AA ratings when I fired up the Babes Lite scenario.

Now I know.

[:)]

[tanksone]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Johnny is that a patch item?

I truly wish I could say yes or no, but I can’t. There’s a bunch of nits and grits that point to all the different data files, for land, sea, and air. Some will update nicely, some will not. Some of the past data updates didn’t update as expected for everybody, so the current thinking is only code stuff for updates.

There may be a scenario update, with all the nits and grits, but if that actually transpires, I expect it to be a ‘restart’ update.

In the meantime, ya’ll just gonna have to do those onsey twosey things on your own nickel.

Sorry, Bro, but ... woof!

Hi, thanks for the input and either way JWE I'm having a blast with this game. You and the crew did an outstanding job on the game. Sends JWE an e-bottle of Murray McDavid 28yr old single malt.... I believe your a single cask guy but you've got to try this if you can get your hands one.

[BigDuke66]

Well I'm also wondering what values I get of my Porters in December 1941:
62 Gun, 320 AA, 8 Torpedo & 2 ASW
compared to a Bagley class:
62 Gun, 130 AA, 16 Torpedo & 2 ASW
I real don't get it, why does a ship with 8 5" SP has 62 just like a ship with 4 5", furthermore the ones on the Bagley seem to have DP and Porter SP and that makes me wonder about the high AA too as it seems to count the 5" too even if they were only for surface action.

Looking here:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-38_mk12.htm
I see Bagley with 2 Mark 30 Mods 0 and 2 [bow mounts] & 2 Mark 21 [stern mounts] and Porter with 4 Mark 22.

Also see these two notes:
16) Destroyers of the Gridley (DD-380), Dunlap (DD-384) and Bagley (DD-386) classes had something of a mixed battery, as they had enclosed base ring mountings on the bow, but open pedestal mountings on the stern. USS Benham (DD-397) was the first destroyer with a uniform battery of base ring single mountings, although the stern mounts were still of the open type. It was not until the larger Fletcher (DD-445) class that destroyers had all of their guns in enclosed mountings.

3) The Mark 22 twin mount used on the Porter (DD-356) and Somers (DD-381) destroyer classes was the only SP mounting ever developed for these weapons. Their low maximum elevation of +35 degrees of elevation was adopted mainly as a weight savings, as it was calculated that these ships would only be able to carry six DP guns rather than the eight SP guns that they actually did carry. The Mark 22 mounting used a 15 hp training motor and a 5 hp elevating motor. Most of the destroyers with these mountings lost their No. 3 mount as weight compensation for growth in other areas and those destroyers modernized during World War II had all of their SP mountings replaced with two twin Mark 38 DP mountings and one single Mark 30 DP mounting.


But it isn't like JWE pointed out early that it should be in type "18 - Naval Gun" and not "17 - DP Gun", we already have a devices with ID 23 called "5in/38 Mk 22 Gun" I guess those are the correct ones and should be used on the Porter class.

If that is correct is it something that can be patched or how do I get rid of it?

[JWE]

Devices 001 - 088, 103 - 144, and 256 - 517 are holdovers from WiTP. They should not be used.

Device 1627 - 5in/38 Mk12 SP EBR should be changed from Type 17 - DP Gun to Type 18 - Naval Gun.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Interesting, the wiki entry states they should be on MK 22 mounts and not be DP guns, surface action only.

IIRC, as originally built, they carried 6" mounts in the Destroyer Leader roll, optimized for surface combat.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Nomad
Interesting, the wiki entry states they should be on MK 22 mounts and not be DP guns, surface action only.

Yepper. Same gun, Mk12, but on a gazillion of different mounts. What the original NavOOB folks tried to do was break it down in terms of "function", so you get open pedistals (OP), open base rings (OBR), enclosed base rings (EBR). Allowed for only 6 Device slots vs 37 if every weapon was listed with its specific techincal mount.

The game "SP EBR" is equivalent to the Mk22 mount. It was just a simple data entry error that made them DP Guns instead of Naval Guns.

[BigDuke66]

ORIGINAL: JWE

Devices 001 - 088, 103 - 144, and 256 - 517 are holdovers from WiTP. They should not be used.

Device 1627 - 5in/38 Mk12 SP EBR should be changed from Type 17 - DP Gun to Type 18 - Naval Gun.

Oh didn't know that, why are they still in the database?


So than I vote for changing the type too.
Would editing the scenario file have an effect on a running game?

Oh and what about the gun value, is it a bug or why has a DD with 8x 5" the same gun value as one with 4x 5", I was hoping I can rely on these values to pick ships for specific tasks.

[Tiornu]

Porter class = best-looking destroyers of WWII.

[Cavalry Corp]

Except fo the Shimakaze !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[anarchyintheuk]

Imo Tribal class were the best looking destroyers of ww2.

[BigDuke66]

Who cares about the look as long as she has "big guns"! [:D]

[Nomad]

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Who cares about the look as long as she has "big guns"! [:D]

Are you talking about Jane Russel? [8D]

[BigDuke66]

Well not specifically but yea it's all about the loadout: [:D]

[SargeantTex]

thats one lucky bomb[:D][:-]

[rockmedic109]

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Well not specifically but yea it's all about the loadout: [:D]

Just about the best recruitment poster I've ever seen.

Must be from a Marine unit. I don't think the army has Flotation Devices, Personal, Mk I and a handfull listed in any TO&Es.