Sorties

[RangerJoe]

That is only if you move the maximum number of shells per transfer with nothing protecting them. I seriously doubt if they were carried with no protective packing material due to exposure to salt water.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

That is only if you move the maximum number of shells per transfer with nothing protecting them. I seriously doubt if they were carried with no protective packing material due to exposure to salt water.

And I'd not enjoy carrying that operation out in anything other than a flat calm...

[BBfanboy]

A picture of shell handling on the deck of BB New Jersey. Note the cart, the uprights from an A frame and the hatch leading to the magazine. I imagine the conveyor to be like the hoists that raise shells to the turret from the magazine - a chain with shelves to carry the shells vertically.

[BBfanboy]

And another picture below-deck showing moving of shells via windlass and loops of rope.

[mind_messing]

I note the land in the background of your first photo.

It bears repeating that we're considering the Yamato-class and the IJN, where it feels a safe bet that the mechanical aids will be significantly less.

The practicality point still stands.

[Wirraway_Ace]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


Overall, for the IJN to have been able to rearm the Yamato's, they'd
- needed to have a doctrine that felt the need for underway replenishment
- had the foresight to design and build specific ships for rearming the Yamato's with the requisite equipment (worth pointing out that the Kashino was intended to transport the turrets alone).
- develop the processes to be able to re-arm away from any port infrastructure.

None of those conditions were present.

This was true of ASW too, and mass production of 2nd and 3rd generation fighters and bombers. The game allows the Japanese the ability to develop capabilities they did not historically achieve. While I completely agree with your earlier point that the game is very generous in allowing the development of the IJN fleet train, this seems in keeping with the overall game design. And allowing for the forward rearming of the ultimate development of the Japanese battleship, the Yamatos, seems also in keeping.

[Alpha77]

I do not think bigger BB shells should be allowed to replenish "underway" w/ AE ships for the Allies.
I do not think bigger BB shells of Yamato should be allowed to replenish in small ports w/ AKEs

I try to google if there is some info on the first issue, but found not much:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=us+battleship ... era&ia=web

Perhaps someone can use better keywords to find something ?[;)]


Edit, @Trugrit:
Your links are quite old, some of the info might be outdated. IIRC I could re-arm Yamato w/ a bigger AKE. But it is a non issue, cause
a) Most players do not build the 2nd Musashi so the rule would only be for 1 singe ship not worth to make "fuss" about
b) Yamato is a one shot weapon anyways, they will fire main guns on tiny targets and are out of ammo soon.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


Overall, for the IJN to have been able to rearm the Yamato's, they'd
- needed to have a doctrine that felt the need for underway replenishment
- had the foresight to design and build specific ships for rearming the Yamato's with the requisite equipment (worth pointing out that the Kashino was intended to transport the turrets alone).
- develop the processes to be able to re-arm away from any port infrastructure.

None of those conditions were present.

This was true of ASW too, and mass production of 2nd and 3rd generation fighters and bombers. The game allows the Japanese the ability to develop capabilities they did not historically achieve. While I completely agree with your earlier point that the game is very generous in allowing the development of the IJN fleet train, this seems in keeping with the overall game design. And allowing for the forward rearming of the ultimate development of the Japanese battleship, the Yamatos, seems also in keeping.

JWE (the naval lead) would disagree - see comments in this thread:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... 2365533%3B

[RangerJoe]

Remember that this is a game and not a simulation. Besides, the Japanese player is in charge of everything and can force cooperation withing the limits of the game even though the IJA and the IJN were rather reluctant to cooperate.

[Wirraway_Ace]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


Overall, for the IJN to have been able to rearm the Yamato's, they'd
- needed to have a doctrine that felt the need for underway replenishment
- had the foresight to design and build specific ships for rearming the Yamato's with the requisite equipment (worth pointing out that the Kashino was intended to transport the turrets alone).
- develop the processes to be able to re-arm away from any port infrastructure.

None of those conditions were present.

This was true of ASW too, and mass production of 2nd and 3rd generation fighters and bombers. The game allows the Japanese the ability to develop capabilities they did not historically achieve. While I completely agree with your earlier point that the game is very generous in allowing the development of the IJN fleet train, this seems in keeping with the overall game design. And allowing for the forward rearming of the ultimate development of the Japanese battleship, the Yamatos, seems also in keeping.

JWE (the naval lead) would disagree - see comments in this thread:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... 2365533%3B

Good stuff. Nice to reread JWE's comments from 2011. I don't exactly follow his internal logic, since you can develop a decent Japanese fleet train.

[Alpha77]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Remember that this is a game and not a simulation. Besides, the Japanese player is in charge of everything and can force cooperation withing the limits of the game even though the IJA and the IJN were rather reluctant to cooperate.

Reluctant might be an understatement if one follows certain sources (eg. I beleive military history visualized made a vid about this too)...

Reluctant might be more true for the Allies, eg. so called ABDA, the Mac Arthur trouble and the Aussies also had their share of indifferences. But all these things cannot be modelled - this is way too much, remember this is a game not a simuation [;)]

But certain commanders traits are modelled eg. Tanaka might overide orders as for his high AGR value..or CV TFs might react even if you do not want them to. I guess this quite rare in the wargame world..