Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units

Don Bowen · Post by **Don Bowen** » Mon Jan 03, 2005 3:07 pm

Several Forum members are combining their efforts to produce a new scenario for War In the Pacific. This will be a full war scenario, based on the standard Scenario 15, with a possible extension into 1946. Attention will be paid to historical accuracy and detail. It has previously been referred to as “Ron Saueracker/Tankerace/Don Bowen's Mod“.

The scenario will be based on two “released” modified scenarios (Lemurs, Andrew Brown) and several others that have been completed for earlier WITP versions. It will feature a new map (Andrew Brown), tons of new artwork, many new ship classes and aircraft types, expanded Orders of Battle, and adjusted land unit Table of Organizations. We hope to merge the best of everyone’s work to produce an accurate and playable scenario.

A number of threads are being opened to group comments in different areas (devices, aircraft, artwork, etc). Please post in the most applicable one.

Please post comments on ship disposition and arrival in this thread.

bstarr · Post by **bstarr** » Mon Jan 03, 2005 9:48 pm

Lemurs changed the converted Momi class APDs to DEs. You might want to consider changing them back. DEs can't carry troops and there are accounts of these vessels being used as fast transports (example: Numbers 34 and 35 were used to transport SNLF assault detachments for the aborted Midway landing). I like Lemurs' names better, though; since Morison also refered to them as PB# rather than APD#.
bs

Lemurs! · Post by **Lemurs!** » Mon Jan 03, 2005 10:09 pm

The Japanese have enough destroyers already to carry troops if they needed them. The Momi's should stay DEs since the Japanese knew they were not large enough to carry much.
The game can not tell the difference between a large destroyer and Momi so the Momi's could carry the full load any other destroyer can carry, which is incorrect.

The Momi's were officially PB's or DE's.

Mike

Lemurs! · Post by **Lemurs!** » Mon Jan 03, 2005 10:12 pm

Also, many Japanese Tankers were in fact Oilers.
Should we cange them to Oilers?

Mike

Tankerace · Post by **Tankerace** » Mon Jan 03, 2005 10:41 pm

Yes. Oilers can replenish at sea, while Tankers (unless forced into a replenishment TF by the scen designer) can't.

Although it was originaly in mine and Ron's design (the originator of the project), I feel it should be restated here. All classes should be seperated, i.e.:

The Tench class should be seperated from the Balao and the Rudderow DE from the J.C. Butler.

Also, the Gearing class should have an extra refit, as a Radar Picket. The difference from the regular class is they shall receive the Emergency AA refit (The final Gearing fit), but wil add in an APS-1 Radar for the loss of all TT.

I have more things, but this is what should be done for sure.

CobraAus · Post by **CobraAus** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 3:19 am

while doing the 3D art I found 2 well known landing craft the Army Duck and the LVT's
are these worth consideration

Cobra Aus

CobraAus · Post by **CobraAus** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 3:21 am

LVT's both the duck and the lvt could be used for small raiding parties
Cobra Aus

Tankerace · Post by **Tankerace** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:01 am

They are already in the game, as Devices. They aren't like landing craft, as they have a range of about 30-40 miles. They are like tanks, and are listed as such in the device section of the game, assigned to amphib Units.

Also Cobra, photos should go in the artwork to keep these threads uncluttered. Also, I'd be willing to bet 75% of the guys that play WitP know what a Duck and a Buffalo are.

Ron Saueracker · Post by **Ron Saueracker** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 5:25 am

Heeeeeeeeeyyyyyy....wait a minute! Those are not REAL! This is a historical mod folks...get a grip.[:-][:)]

Don Bowen · Post by **Don Bowen** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 5:52 am

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Also, many Japanese Tankers were in fact Oilers.
Should we cange them to Oilers?

Mike

This is the only one I can find that specifically states: fitted for fueling at sea. Do you know of any others??

CobraAus · Post by **CobraAus** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 9:13 am

They are already in the game, as Devices. They aren't like landing craft, as they have a range of about 30-40 miles. They are like tanks, and are listed as such in the device section of the game, assigned to amphib Units.

sorry mate Devices is one area I have'nt looked at yet

Don Bowen · Post by **Don Bowen** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 9:23 pm

Here is some excellent data from Marc Urban (marc):

Whoops, should have gone in Ship Data!

Here my conclusions to the endurance values.

1. Looked in 'Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy from Jentschura'
and there are roughly the same values as in the cruiser book (my first
source).
2. I compared the endurance values from CVs, BBs and DDs in WitP with
Jentuschra and they are roughly the same with a few obvious errors but
quite correct.
-> the endurance values in WitP for IJN CAs are absolutely wrong.

Here are the ones from 'Japanese Cuisers of the Pacific War' (All after
latest reconstruction):

Furutaka-class: 1,858 t oil 7,000nm at 14 kts (designed), 7,900nm at 14
kts (effective)
Aoba-class: 2,040 t oil 8,000nm at 14 kts (designed), 8,223nm at 14 kts
(effective)
Myoko-class: 2,214 t oil 8,500nm at 14 kts (planned), 7,463nm at 14 kts
(effective) and 5,000nm at 18 kts.
Myoko after first reconstruction: only 4,000nm at 16 kts !!!!!
Mogami/Mikuma: 2,215 t oil 8,000nm at 14 kts (designed), 7,000 -
7,500nm at 14 kts (effective)
Suzuya/Kumano: 2,302 t oil 8,000nm at 14 kts (designed), 7,000 -
7,500nm at 14 kts (effective)
Tone-class: 2,690 t oil 12,000nm at 14 kts (designed), 8,000 nm at 18
kts (designed), no effective data

Agano-class: 1,420 t oil 6,000nm at 18 kts (designed)
Oyodo: 2,445 t oil 8,700nm at 18 kts (designed), 10,315nm at 18 kts
(effective)!!!!
Katori-class: 600 t oil 9,900nm at 12 kts at full load (designed)

Yubari-class: 916 t oil 5,000nm at 14 kts (designed), 3,310nm at 14 kts
(effective)!!!!! because of 15% higher weight than expected.
The 5,500t CLs to follow later.

I will put together the data for the other cruisers in the next days as
time permits.

Lemurs! · Post by **Lemurs!** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 10:04 pm

Don,

These are the Oilers that are capable of at sea refueling according to documents held in the National Archives.

Akibono Maru
Erimo
Notoro
Goyo Maru
Hishi Maru #2
Hishi Maru
Kenyo Maru
Kirishima Maru
Kokuyo Maru
Koryu Maru
Kurashio Maru
Kyoei Maru
Kyoei Maru #2
Kyokuto Maru
Matsumato Maru
Naruto
Nichiei Maru
Nippon Maru
San Clemente Maru
Shinkoku Maru
Shiriya Maru
Soyo Maru
Teiyo Maru
Toei Maru
Toho Maru
Tsururni Maru
Yodogawa Maru

A couple of the old converted AVs i am unsure of.

Mike

Philbass · Post by **Philbass** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 10:06 pm

Don Bowen,

You mentioned that work was going on regarding the British Pacific Fleet train.

Do you have good sources for that? I have listings for the state of the BPF fleet train as at January 1945, March to May 1945, July to August 1945 and those earmarked for/in transit for the BPF as of VJ day. If you need these, please let me know and I can type them up (with details of speed, tonnage and armament) and send them over (alas no artwork). These are drawn from the Naval Staff histories and the official reports of Admiral Bruce Fraser as published in the London Gazette (where all official stuff such as medals and dispatches are promulgated).

I can also hit the British National Archives/Public Record Office if time permits and a specific question is posed.

Phil Bass

Ron Saueracker · Post by **Ron Saueracker** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 10:12 pm

ORIGINAL: Philbass

Don Bowen,

You mentioned that work was going on regarding the British Pacific Fleet train.

Do you have good sources for that? I have listings for the state of the BPF fleet train as at January 1945, March to May 1945, July to August 1945 and those earmarked for/in transit for the BPF as of VJ day. If you need these, please let me know and I can type them up (with details of speed, tonnage and armament) and send them over (alas no artwork). These are drawn from the Naval Staff histories and the official reports of Admiral Bruce Fraser as published in the London Gazette (where all official stuff such as medals and dispatches are promulgated).

I can also hit the British National Archives/Public Record Office if time permits and a specific question is posed.

Phil Bass

Go for it, Phil.[&o]

Don Bowen · Post by **Don Bowen** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 10:15 pm

ORIGINAL: Philbass

Don Bowen,

You mentioned that work was going on regarding the British Pacific Fleet train.

Do you have good sources for that? I have listings for the state of the BPF fleet train as at January 1945, March to May 1945, July to August 1945 and those earmarked for/in transit for the BPF as of VJ day. If you need these, please let me know and I can type them up (with details of speed, tonnage and armament) and send them over (alas no artwork). These are drawn from the Naval Staff histories and the official reports of Admiral Bruce Fraser as published in the London Gazette (where all official stuff such as medals and dispatches are promulgated).

I can also hit the British National Archives/Public Record Office if time permits and a specific question is posed.

Phil Bass

Yes Sir, we do need your resources. We are currently building the Eastern and Pacific Fleets based primarily on Lenton, Operation Pacific by Edwyn Gray, what little is in the Australian Official Histories and a few on-line resources. Luckily there is a good on-line site for sub-tenders but we badly need accurate data on RN units sent to the Indian Ocean and Pacific at anytime during the war - especially for smaller warships, transports and auxiliary ships.

Don Bowen · Post by **Don Bowen** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 10:23 pm

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Don,

These are the Oilers that are capable of at sea refueling according to documents held in the National Archives.

(snipped)

Mike

Thanks - I'll cross reference these with the data in Japanese Merchant Ships and define a couple of classes of merchant oilers.

Ron Saueracker · Post by **Ron Saueracker** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 10:33 pm

Philbass. What resources do you have access to regarding Canadian and other Dominion merchant fleets operations in the Pacific during WW2? Hopefully you can help fill a huge vacuum here.

Philbass · Post by **Philbass** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 10:54 pm

Ok Don.
Here is a random stream of near consciousness. Although we're probably approaching Europa-esque 'crome' levels here.

(1)I'll start typing up the British East Indies Fleet and British Pacific Fleet then.

The Fleet Air Arm is covered here in case you haven't seen this (I'm sure you have though), with the real numberings of the escort carrier air groups:

Link - Fleet Air Arm Archive

It may help with the Seafire issue as well.

Now, who do I have to convince around here to allow 618 Mosquito squadron (should be placed in Australia not Ceylon) to use the Highball anti-shipping weapon (it was a variant of Barnes Wallis's bouncing bomb - orginally planned to be used against the Tirpitz)? Cue the 'Dambusters March...' It could be used in port attacks as a low accuracy/high penetration skip bombing attack. The weapon did actually work (of a kind) and therefore arguably has a place in a historical scenario. It would give the Japanese fanboys a fright as they see their precious Yamato class battleships get crippled in a supposedly safe anchorage. Fun for all.

(2) Is there any thought to showing the German U-boats that turn up in Penang (Georgetown) in 1943/1944? Again, this occupied significant British air and naval resources in that time. Of course we'd probably have to have a house rule that they could only be deployed in the Indian Ocean. It would also restrict the SEAC Liberator and Catalina squadrons to ASW patrol, and force the use of Brit destroyers for convoys until this threat was dealt with (historically by mining Penang harbour).

(3) I suppose that midget submarines are out, given the coding preventing sub attacks on ports over a certain size? Otherwise we could add in the Brit X-craft (which unlike the Jap midgets did actually sink targets - TAKAO in Singapore Harbour in July 1945). Would also be fun.

(4) What about different types of Japanese barges? If you've seen: Parillo, Mark (1993) The Japanese Merchant Marine in World War II (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press) then it discusses the several different versions the Japanese built - would also be fun to model. Is this doable? I seem to remember that the allies get two types of barges when you press the 'Create Barges' button

Sorry if this all sounds like crome and detail for the sake of it...then yes it is, but I'm full of illness at the moment and am probably tripping on codeine.

Regards,

Phil Bass

Ron Saueracker · Post by **Ron Saueracker** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 11:07 pm

(4) What about different types of Japanese barges? If you've seen: Parillo, Mark (1993) The Japanese Merchant Marine in World War II (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press) then it discusses the several different versions the Japanese built - would also be fun to model. Is this doable? I seem to remember that the allies get two types of barges when you press the 'Create Barges' button

I believe Don already has this by the horns.[&o]