Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units

[CobraAus]

I am trying to find additional information on a late-war modification made to some Yugomo class DDs. It was performed on ships that had already had #2 twin 5/40 removed and replaced with 25mm. According to Conway the #3 5/50 and the 25mm AA in the old #2 gun location were removed and replaced with a twin 5/40 mount. Watts agrees but says a twin 4.7in mount.

check out this site done has large amount of detail on all ships ww2 pacific

http://navalhistory.flixco.info/H/139977/8330/a0.htm

cobra Aus

[CobraAus]

another site dealing in detail (fitouts) on canadian ships in WW2

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/canada/ww2/

Cobra Aus

[Don Bowen]

Thanks - that site is on my favorites list. It has a lot of data - where else can you find concise service histories - but nothing to support late war upgrades.

I have a confusing mass of data on the Yugumo, much of it contradictory. I may just use best guess/best feel and move on.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Thanks - that site is on my favorites list. It has a lot of data - where else can you find concise service histories - but nothing to support late war upgrades.

I have a confusing mass of data on the Yugumo, much of it contradictory. I may just use best guess/best feel and move on.

For upgrades, if they are confusing because only a few managed them, allow the whole class the option. As they enter yards, they upgrade. Like with the Childs/Ballard class...some were converted to APDs so why not allow the upgrade and let player decide.

[WhoCares]

Just found this page, might be of some use for this project:
Link: Imperial Japanese Navy
Also nice, if you are interested in the career of japanese Admirals [:'(]

[Herrbear]

I agree. i think that is a good suggestion.

[Herrbear]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

I am trying to find additional information on a late-war modification made to some Yugomo class DDs. It was performed on ships that had already had #2 twin 5/40 removed and replaced with 25mm. According to Conway the #3 5/50 and the 25mm AA in the old #2 gun location were removed and replaced with a twin 5/40 mount. Watts agrees but says a twin 4.7in mount.

To confuse it even more: http://www.combinedfleet.com/yugumo_n.htm

Does anyone have anything on this??

Can't shed much light. In Whitley, "Destroyers of WWII", he says that some kept the the 3x2 5/50 and "It is reported that a few units landed the after 5" and received a 5/40 Type 89 AA mounting."

[akdreemer]

Has anyone looked at an upgrade path for the various Japanese Minelayers? Most, if not all of them were designed to be converted over to escort work, and indeed many of the surviving ones were. If needed I can give specs on these.

RM

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

Has anyone looked at an upgrade path for the various Japanese Minelayers? Most, if not all of them were designed to be converted over to escort work, and indeed many of the surviving ones were. If needed I can give specs on these.

RM

I have this data from Watts but would appreciate anything else you might have. MLs do upgrade to escorts in our scenario. Also, Ron and Justin have proved that non-escort vessels can drop DC so the MLs that retained minelaying capability when DC were added will be implemented that way - ML with depth charges.

I could use endurance figures for these ships, both before and after conversion.

Don

[Herrbear]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

I have this data from Watts but would appreciate anything else you might have. MLs do upgrade to escorts in our scenario. Also, Ron and Justin have proved that non-escort vessels can drop DC so the MLs that retained minelaying capability when DC were added will be implemented that way - ML with depth charges.

I could use endurance figures for these ships, both before and after conversion.

Don

Is this a design decision by you guys in order to aid the Japanese (AI). In Watts and Gordon, "The Imperial Japanese Navy" indicate that many (not all) minesweepers and minelayers had these abilities deleted and added depth charges as conversion to ASW vessels. Is this information refuted in other sources?

MWS 1 thru 4: Towards the end of the war these vessels were used mainly as escorts and the minesweeping gear was removed and replaced by 36 DCs.

MWS 5 & 6: ...then in 1944 being modified for escort work, having the minesweeping gear removed and replaced by 36 DCs.

MWS 13 thru 16: The minesweeping gear was replaced by 36 DCs...

MWS 7 thru 12: ...By 1944...the "X" 4.7 and the minesweeping gear removed and replaced by ... 7 25mm guns and 36 DCs to make them into escort vessels.

MWS 19 thru 88 (about 1/2 cancelled): ...while in 1944...their minesweeping gear was removed...fitted with DC throwers and 36 DCs. (By the way, endurance for these and "7 class above was doubled, "making them most effective escorts")

ML[ Shirataka: During the later stages of the war, she was adapted as an escort and carried 36 DCs together with rails and throwers at the expense of her minelaying equipment.

ML Kamome & Tsubame: ...in 1943-44 they were adapted for use as escorts on local convoys, the ML gear being removed and 36 DCs being fitted.

ML Yaeyam: ...refitted towards the end of 1943 as an escort, the mine gear being removed and 36 DCs being carried.

ML Natsushima class: In 1943-44 she was fitted to cary 36 DCs at the expense of her ML rails...

As I said above, a number had both capabilities, but many had the MSW or ML capability removed as Japan needed more escorts. I think this should be a choice./color]

[Herrbear]

Great job Subchaser.

My two sources:
Watts and Gordon - "The Imperial Japanese Navy"
Whitley - Destroyers of WWII"

Given for consideration to what you have disclosed.

Fubuki - Increase of the 6/44 refit to 6-10 13mm.

Akatsuki - Show the 4/43 and 4/44 refits with 4x13mm and the 1/45 refit increase to 10x13mm.

Shiratsuyu - I am not sure if the initial configuration didn't carry the 4x13mm. I did not see that they were deleted during the 6/43 nor 5/44 refit.

Asashio, Kageo and Yugumo - While the 22x25mm is within the range my sources indicate up to 28x25mm. That would be a significant increase. Also, I show that the 5/44 refit should include 4x13mm.

Shimakaze - Not sure that the 11/44 refit is needed as this class only has one ship. Make the 11/44 in the 6/44 refit figure. Source say by mid 44 or in 1944...Also include 4x13mm.

Akizuki - I show that in 44 or 45 type 22 radar added. I am not sure if that replaced the type 21 or is an addition.

Thanks for all your work on these destroyers.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

I have this data from Watts but would appreciate anything else you might have. MLs do upgrade to escorts in our scenario. Also, Ron and Justin have proved that non-escort vessels can drop DC so the MLs that retained minelaying capability when DC were added will be implemented that way - ML with depth charges.

I could use endurance figures for these ships, both before and after conversion.

Don

Is this a design decision by you guys in order to aid the Japanese (AI). In Watts and Gordon, "The Imperial Japanese Navy" indicate that many (not all) minesweepers and minelayers had these abilities deleted and added depth charges as conversion to ASW vessels. Is this information refuted in other sources?

MWS 1 thru 4: Towards the end of the war these vessels were used mainly as escorts and the minesweeping gear was removed and replaced by 36 DCs.

MWS 5 & 6: ...then in 1944 being modified for escort work, having the minesweeping gear removed and replaced by 36 DCs.

MWS 13 thru 16: The minesweeping gear was replaced by 36 DCs...

MWS 7 thru 12: ...By 1944...the "X" 4.7 and the minesweeping gear removed and replaced by ... 7 25mm guns and 36 DCs to make them into escort vessels.

MWS 19 thru 88 (about 1/2 cancelled): ...while in 1944...their minesweeping gear was removed...fitted with DC throwers and 36 DCs. (By the way, endurance for these and "7 class above was doubled, "making them most effective escorts")

ML[ Shirataka: During the later stages of the war, she was adapted as an escort and carried 36 DCs together with rails and throwers at the expense of her minelaying equipment.

ML Kamome & Tsubame: ...in 1943-44 they were adapted for use as escorts on local convoys, the ML gear being removed and 36 DCs being fitted.

ML Yaeyam: ...refitted towards the end of 1943 as an escort, the mine gear being removed and 36 DCs being carried.

ML Natsushima class: In 1943-44 she was fitted to cary 36 DCs at the expense of her ML rails...

As I said above, a number had both capabilities, but many had the MSW or ML capability removed as Japan needed more escorts. I think this should be a choice./color]

Thanks - I have similar data from Watts. I'll put it all together and come up with some good upgrade paths.

Don

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Herrbear


Is this a design decision by you guys in order to aid the Japanese (AI). In Watts and Gordon, "The Imperial Japanese Navy" indicate that many (not all) minesweepers and minelayers had these abilities deleted and added depth charges as conversion to ASW vessels. Is this information refuted in other sources?

MWS 19 thru 88 (about 1/2 cancelled): ...while in 1944...their minesweeping gear was removed...fitted with DC throwers and 36 DCs. (By the way, endurance for these and "7 class above was doubled, "making them most effective escorts")

(snipped)

I have only two sources on Japanese Minesweepers: Japanese Warships of WWII by Watts and Conway's All The World's Fighting Ships series. Both of these generally agree with most of your data. There are two things on which I need more information (or advice).

1. I can find no reference to support the inclusion of Depth Charges on the 12/41 versions of any of the "W" series minesweepers. Matrix has included them (classses 124-126). I do have documentation for DC on the "WA 1" class. Also, major U.S. classes of Minesweeper also carried DC. Should I delete the Depth Charges from the "W" series until they are refitted mid-war?

2. I also can not find any data for endurance increases on the W 19 or any other classes. Do you have details?

Don

[Subchaser]

Naganami was the only Yugumo destroyer to have 4,7” gun and for very short time. 11 november 43 near Rabaul Naganami was attacked and badly damaged by USN aircraft from Essex, (500lb bomb hit her stern, rear turret and all ASW installations were destroyed, rudder control mechanism damaged). Next day ship arrived to Rabaul (towed by Makinami) where some basic repairs were done, it’s strange but navy specialists from 101st repair section (highly skilled guys transferred from Seletar base) did not fix rudder control system, instead they decided to replace wrecked rear turret with the new one – single mount 120/45 (4,7in) type 10 mod E, guess there were no 5in guns at Rabaul at that time. 27 november 43. Naganami was already in Truk (towed there by Yubari), where her 4.7in gun was removed, which was installed only 16 days ago(!) several days later former Naganami’s 4,7in gun was installed on Yubari, since there were not enough guns of this type on Truk. In march 44, at Maizuru Naganami got new turret #3, 5in/40 type 89 mod A1 twin mount, she was the only Yugumo to carry combination of standard 5/50 type 13 and 5/40 guns. Naganami’s TROM of this period (11/43 – 6/44) sometimes confuses researches and some of them say that 4,7in gun was officially approved refit. I think none of Naganami’s refits should be modeled in the game.

Here is Naganami drawing, the way she looked like in November 43.

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

I am trying to find additional information on a late-war modification made to some Yugomo class DDs. It was performed on ships that had already had #2 twin 5/40 removed and replaced with 25mm. According to Conway the #3 5/50 and the 25mm AA in the old #2 gun location were removed and replaced with a twin 5/40 mount. Watts agrees but says a twin 4.7in mount.

To confuse it even more: http://www.combinedfleet.com/yugumo_n.htm

Does anyone have anything on this??

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Subchaser
I think none of Naganami’s refits should be modeled in the game.

Thanks and will do. What is the source of this excellent information??

Don

[Herrbear]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


I have only two sources on Japanese Minesweepers: Japanese Warships of WWII by Watts and Conway's All The World's Fighting Ships series. Both of these generally agree with most of your data. There are two things on which I need more information (or advice).

1. I can find no reference to support the inclusion of Depth Charges on the 12/41 versions of any of the "W" series minesweepers. Matrix has included them (classses 124-126). I do have documentation for DC on the "WA 1" class. Also, major U.S. classes of Minesweeper also carried DC. Should I delete the Depth Charges from the "W" series until they are refitted mid-war?

I would not equip them with DCs until they were refitted for escort work except where known.

2. I also can not find any data for endurance increases on the W 19 or any other classes. Do you have details?

Watts and Gordon says MWS #7-12 radius 2000m @ 14knts and indicates by 1944 when the MS gear was removed "The radius of action was increased to 4000m at 14knts by using some of the ballast tanks for fuel oil.

For the MSW 19 class they show the initial radius the same as in the #7 class and state that "as in the #7 class their radius was doubled up to 4000 miles making them most effective escorts.

That is all the information I have abount expanding their radius of action.

Don

[Subchaser]

Sources:
1- Warships of Imperial Japanese Navy, volume 4
Superb book, it was not published in US, not sure about EU. All existing information on Japanese warships gathered in 12 volumes research, unfortunately I have only 4 volumes so far. I was told that only members of some naval history clubs can get these without problems
Saino Kaishiba #89 (Yugumo part.1)
Saino Kaishiba #92 (Yugumo part.2)

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Subchaser
I think none of Naganami’s refits should be modeled in the game.

Thanks and will do. What is the source of this excellent information??

Don

[Subchaser]

Hi Herrbar, thanks for your input.

Refits that I suggest to model not always 100% historically accurate, they represent most typical armament configuration of a particular class during taken period, it’s impossible to reflect all changes, many ships of one class passed thru absolutely different modernization lines, sometimes ship had 30 pieces of one armament type onboard while her sister had none. I don’t think we should take maximum meanings as standard ones,

Fubuki - Increase of the 6/44 refit to 6-10 13mm.

I can be wrong but according my sources none of Fubuki class had more than 4 13mm MGs by june ’44, there was tendency to remove them and increase number of 25mm guns.

Akatsuki - Show the 4/43 and 4/44 refits with 4x13mm and the 1/45 refit increase to 10x13mm.

Maximum number of 13mm MG had Hibiki – 6 (3 twin mounts), one twin 13mm mount was removed on Ikazuchi and Inazuma after their last refit in 44, both ships followed Akatsuki (sunk in 42) before 45, so Hibiki was the only representative of the class in 45, don’t think her configuration should be taken into account here

Shiratsuyu - I am not sure if the initial configuration didn't carry the 4x13mm. I did not see that they were deleted during the 6/43 nor 5/44 refit.

Initial configuration did not carry MGs, only 4 ships received them Kawakaze and Umikaze in 12/42, Samidare in 1/43 and Suzukaze in 3/43 and they were removed later, I did not check all my sources but I can guarantee that at least Samidare had no MGs during her last refit in Sasebo in june 44, I belive the other three also did not carry them by that time. I’ll check this later.

Asashio, Kageo and Yugumo - While the 22x25mm is within the range my sources indicate up to 28x25mm. That would be a significant increase. Also, I show that the 5/44 refit should include 4x13mm.

Only Kasumi and Yukikaze carried 28 guns, all other of these classes had less, some only 18, but I think that 24 would be just fine. More checking needed.

Shimakaze - Not sure that the 11/44 refit is needed as this class only has one ship. Make the 11/44 in the 6/44 refit figure. Source say by mid 44 or in 1944...Also include 4x13mm.

There is only one ship and she has a luxury to follow her historical upgrade path, is it worth the slot? I don’t know…may be not. Don will decide… She had no MGs in nov.44, those 25mm took all locations.

[mikemike]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

There are spare nationality slots in the data, but I have no idea if they would be treated as Axis or Allied.

I just tested that under 1.40, for a similar reason. I´d done that already under 1.21, but the results are subtly different. There are three unassigned nationalities, N3, N17 and N19. I assigned those nationalities to several LCU´s with random leaders. Using N19 will crash the game as it loads the data. N17 is Communist Chinese; appropriate leaders will be assigned. N3, under 1.21, seems to have been neutral, at least its units were colored yellow, and the leaders were all WO´s with names that sounded Hungarian. Now, under 1.4, N3 units are red (Japanese) and have Staff Officers as leaders. The nationality is simply omitted in all texts (Nationality name is a Null string). Hope this helps.

[Andrew Brown]

Very useful and interesting information MikeMike. Thanks!!