Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units

Please post here for questions and discussion about scenario design and the game editor for WITP.

Moderators: wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

Post Reply
User avatar
Don Bowen
Posts: 5190
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Georgetown, Texas, USA

RE: REPOSTED NOTES

Post by Don Bowen »

ORIGINAL: Subchaser
Part 2. Minelayers

Sokuten

Hirashima, Sokuten and Ajiro types were in fact one ML class – Sokuten. In wartime Japanese classification table they were all listed as Sokuten class ships (different replacement programs 3,4,5), multipurpose kaidai auxiliaries, capable to lay mines and nets of all types. If Hirashima class vessels are supposed to be refitted in game, why Sokuten class refit is not modeled? Sokutens were refitted in the same time as Hirashima class. In 9/43 configuration these ships should not have mines and instead should be equipped with 2 DTC (36 depth charges type 2).
I find the Hirashima listed as "improved Sokuten" with a 3in gun instead of 40mmm to facilitate their use as escorts. Otherwise identical performance, except for a degaussing cable. Matrix separated them and I guess I'll leave it that way. I already had Ajiro - as an improved Hirashima.
Kamishima Class

Simplified version of Ajiro/Sakuten type, only 1 was built, order for 18 additional ships under 43/44 replacement program, was canceled.

Kamishima – commissioned 06/12/1945, Sasebo Arsenal K
I have a second one, named Awashima, completed 1945 (probably late). Ceeded to USA in 1947.
Transport-minelayers

Two standard transports completed as minelayers.

Eijo - (2-DRS class conversion) - commissioned 3/45, Kiangnan Dock, Shanghai
Mino - (2-DT class conversion) - commissioned 8/45, Naniwa Dock, Osaka

3224 / 5118 tons, 12 knots, 1 x 120mm/40 gun, 14 x 25mm AA cannons; 380 mines type 93.

I'll add them as minelayers. Found a line drawing on the site you referenced and made an icon:

Image
Attachments
Mino.jpg
Mino.jpg (3.18 KiB) Viewed 331 times
User avatar
Subchaser
Posts: 1015
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2002 1:16 pm

RE: REPOSTED NOTES

Post by Subchaser »

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
I have a second one, named Awashima, completed 1945 (probably late). Ceeded to USA in 1947.

She was completed in april ’46 in “demilitarized configuration”, so she's out
Image
User avatar
Philbass
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: London, UK

British research

Post by Philbass »

Don/anyone working on the Combined Scenario,

As requested, I’ve been working on the Eastern Fleet/East Indies Fleet/British Pacific Fleet (going rather slow due to work and ill-health). I’m basically looking at all vessels that were serving or were slated to serve with a cut-off of arrival in theatre of December 1945.

Please have a look at the random comments below, and let me know if I’m going along the right lines. Any advice/instructions/comments are welcome so that I don’t end up wasting anyone time.

You asked for the auxiliaries/minor war vessels in particular, but I’m unsure to what level you would want including.

I’ve assumed that you are particularly interested in:

• Destroyer depot ships (HMS Woolwich, Montclare, Tyne) ;
• Submarine depot ships (HMS Adamant, Maidstone, Wolfe, Montclare);
• “Large” repair ships (HMS Resource, Wayland, Ausonia, Artifex, Alaunia);
• Hull repair ships (HMS Mullion Cove, Dullisk Cove)
• Mine issuing ship (Prome)

I’ve ignored destroyer and submarine tenders, accommodation ships, escort depot ships, minesweeper/motorcraft/escort maintenance ships, assorted specialised repair ships (such as air component, radar, electronics etc). I’ve also excluded the X-craft (midget sub) depot ship, HMS Bonaventure.

Other changes I’d suggest (when I’ve worked out the exact details):

• Reduce the number of escort carriers that have full airgroups (many were used as replenishment and ferrying carriers only)
• Add in the cruiser minelayers (HMS Apollo, Adriane and Manxman) – useful as fast transports
• Remove the submarines Vigorous and Vivid as these were used for ASW training only
• Change the submarines Clyde, Rorqual and Porpoise to their correct classes (Clyde was a high speed ‘Thames’ class boat, and the other two were minelayers of the ‘Porpoise’ class)

More suggestions as and when I get to think about them.

But I have some questions:

1) What about the Aircraft Maintenance carriers – HMS Unicorn, Perseus and Pioneer? I would probably argue for including Unicorn, as she operated a full air group during the Salerno landings (AVALANCHE) in September 1943 (and bizarrely conducted NGS during the Korean War). On the other hand we probably want to exclude Perseus and Pioneer, as:
‘all flying arrangements were deleted, making space available for the new equipment and the men to man it...Aircraft were embarked by crane from lighters and an extra crane was fitted for that purpose.’ Source: Brown, David (2000) Nelson to Vanguard: Warship Development 1923-1945 (London; Chatham Publishing) pp147-149.

2) What about the Fleet Train? I suggest limiting the BPF Fleet Train (the AEs) to what the British called ‘Armament Stores Issuing Ships’. Perhaps we only want a selection of these, as I can identify 16 of these that either reached the theatre, or were on route/nominated. Perhaps limit this to only 5 or so, to reflect the taut logistics that the BPF operated under. I suggest ignoring the ‘Naval Store Issuing Ships’ and the ‘Victualling Stores Issuing Ships’ for the purposes of the game.
As for oilers (AO), again I suggest that we only include a selection of these, to reflect the difficulties the Brits had in at sea refuelling.

3) What about the large numbers of frigates and sloops either on the way to, or nominated for the Pacific? These would take up a lot of slots, and I can’t imagine there would be many Jap subs to hunt. So I suggest we exclude most of these (although a lot of them were Canadian).

4) Alas, I suggest we also exclude,
‘that uniquely British contribution’ to the Fleet Train concept, the amenity ship Menestheus. She had a theatre seating 350, quiet rooms, a large NAAFI, a chapel and bars. The latter needed a brewery and one was designed which could brew 250 barrels a week. Source: Brown (2000) Nelson to Vanguard p149.

Of course we could include this floating brewery and have some house rules for it. Every time a ship is in port with the Menestheus roll a D6 and apply:

Result 1-2: The stars of ENSA perform all the contemporary music hall hits, the cinema show the latest Ingrid Bergman films and CPOs John Smith, Whitbread and Tetleys brew a particular potent batch of beer. Add +10 to morale of all crews.

Result 3-4: The Royal Artillery Concert Party play the theatre, Errol Flynn reruns grace the silver screen and a bunch of Aussies and Canadians brew up Dominion beers. No change to morale.

Result 5-6: The Royal Marines of ‘X’ turret perform the Ballet Nonsense in drag, In Which We Serve is on constantly in the cinema and Lt (jg) Brewski the USN liason officer has persuaded the brewery to produce American beers. Lose -10 morale from all crews.

Please give me a steer as to how you want to proceed with the research.
Regards,
Philip Bass
Plan followed plan in swift procession,
Commanders went; commanders came,
While telegrams in quick succession
Arrived to douse or fan the flame
User avatar
Don Bowen
Posts: 5190
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Georgetown, Texas, USA

RE: British research

Post by Don Bowen »

ORIGINAL: Philbass

Don/anyone working on the Combined Scenario,

As requested, I’ve been working on the Eastern Fleet/East Indies Fleet/British Pacific Fleet (going rather slow due to work and ill-health). I’m basically looking at all vessels that were serving or were slated to serve with a cut-off of arrival in theatre of December 1945.
Wow, Thanks - this is great!
Please have a look at the random comments below, and let me know if I’m going along the right lines. Any advice/instructions/comments are welcome so that I don’t end up wasting anyone time.

You asked for the auxiliaries/minor war vessels in particular, but I’m unsure to what level you would want including.

I’ve assumed that you are particularly interested in:

• Destroyer depot ships (HMS Woolwich, Montclare, Tyne) ;
• Submarine depot ships (HMS Adamant, Maidstone, Wolfe, Montclare);
• “Large” repair ships (HMS Resource, Wayland, Ausonia, Artifex, Alaunia);
• Hull repair ships (HMS Mullion Cove, Dullisk Cove)
• Mine issuing ship (Prome)

I’ve ignored destroyer and submarine tenders, accommodation ships, escort depot ships, minesweeper/motorcraft/escort maintenance ships, assorted specialised repair ships (such as air component, radar, electronics etc). I’ve also excluded the X-craft (midget sub) depot ship, HMS Bonaventure.
A little confused, as AD and AS are in both the include and exclude lists (we do want them). Plus all the ships Woolwich thru Prome in your list.

Other changes I’d suggest (when I’ve worked out the exact details):

• Reduce the number of escort carriers that have full airgroups (many were used as replenishment and ferrying carriers only)
I have a pretty decent book on Escort Carriers which gives use, arrival, and air group of all British CVE in the pacific. Should be good to go but could always stand correctons.
• Add in the cruiser minelayers (HMS Apollo, Adriane and Manxman) – useful as fast transports
Got them - Platoonist worked up an icon for us.
• Remove the submarines Vigorous and Vivid as these were used for ASW training only
Will do
• Change the submarines Clyde, Rorqual and Porpoise to their correct classes (Clyde was a high speed ‘Thames’ class boat, and the other two were minelayers of the ‘Porpoise’ class)
Done.

More suggestions as and when I get to think about them.

But I have some questions:

1) What about the Aircraft Maintenance carriers – HMS Unicorn, Perseus and Pioneer? I would probably argue for including Unicorn, as she operated a full air group during the Salerno landings (AVALANCHE) in September 1943 (and bizarrely conducted NGS during the Korean War). On the other hand we probably want to exclude Perseus and Pioneer, as:
‘all flying arrangements were deleted, making space available for the new equipment and the men to man it...Aircraft were embarked by crane from lighters and an extra crane was fitted for that purpose.’ Source: Brown, David (2000) Nelson to Vanguard: Warship Development 1923-1945 (London; Chatham Publishing) pp147-149.
Agree - we've included Unicorn as an operational unit, excluded the others.
2) What about the Fleet Train? I suggest limiting the BPF Fleet Train (the AEs) to what the British called ‘Armament Stores Issuing Ships’. Perhaps we only want a selection of these, as I can identify 16 of these that either reached the theatre, or were on route/nominated. Perhaps limit this to only 5 or so, to reflect the taut logistics that the BPF operated under. I suggest ignoring the ‘Naval Store Issuing Ships’ and the ‘Victualling Stores Issuing Ships’ for the purposes of the game.
As for oilers (AO), again I suggest that we only include a selection of these, to reflect the difficulties the Brits had in at sea refuelling.
Oh yes please. More data the better. We may pare it down for the scenario but I'd personally love to have this data.
3) What about the large numbers of frigates and sloops either on the way to, or nominated for the Pacific? These would take up a lot of slots, and I can’t imagine there would be many Jap subs to hunt. So I suggest we exclude most of these (although a lot of them were Canadian).
Again, the more data the better.
4) Alas, I suggest we also exclude,
‘that uniquely British contribution’ to the Fleet Train concept, the amenity ship Menestheus. She had a theatre seating 350, quiet rooms, a large NAAFI, a chapel and bars. The latter needed a brewery and one was designed which could brew 250 barrels a week. Source: Brown (2000) Nelson to Vanguard p149.

Of course we could include this floating brewery and have some house rules for it. Every time a ship is in port with the Menestheus roll a D6 and apply:

Result 1-2: The stars of ENSA perform all the contemporary music hall hits, the cinema show the latest Ingrid Bergman films and CPOs John Smith, Whitbread and Tetleys brew a particular potent batch of beer. Add +10 to morale of all crews.

Result 3-4: The Royal Artillery Concert Party play the theatre, Errol Flynn reruns grace the silver screen and a bunch of Aussies and Canadians brew up Dominion beers. No change to morale.

Result 5-6: The Royal Marines of ‘X’ turret perform the Ballet Nonsense in drag, In Which We Serve is on constantly in the cinema and Lt (jg) Brewski the USN liason officer has persuaded the brewery to produce American beers. Lose -10 morale from all crews.
Ah, er.. - was there a massage parlour??
Please give me a steer as to how you want to proceed with the research.
Regards,
Philip Bass
Just send anything you can find - PM or email or post. Love to have it all.

Thanks again.

Don
User avatar
Lemurs!
Posts: 788
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:27 pm

RE: British research

Post by Lemurs! »

Hi Philbass,

It sounds like you are doing great work; I will leave it to Don & Ron to figure out what we still need on RN support ships as i know Ron did some excellent work on that subject a few months ago.

I would like to mention one thing though; I am of the feeling that a portion of the frigates should not be added as a number of the ships were only used in the Gulf/Red sea/West Indian Ocean.

Thanks for the work!

Mike
Image
User avatar
Philbass
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: London, UK

RE: British research

Post by Philbass »

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

A little confused, as AD and AS are in both the include and exclude lists (we do want them). Plus all the ships Woolwich thru Prome in your list.

Don
Sorry for the confusion. What I meant was that there are a bunch of base, depot, accommodation and maintenance ships that are on station in the East Indies. I assume that these are factored into the port ratings of Colombo and Trincomalee (otherwise they are probably way too high - at least for the early years. Don't forget that once Singapore falls, there is no British dock capable of taking a battleship or fleet carrier closer than Durban in South Africa, until one is completed in Sydney in 1945). These ships tended to be static. Therefore I assumed we could disregard these in order to save ship slots. These ships are rather a rag-bag of ex-WW1, merchantile conversion and new build. Of course, I think that India as a base is overrated, but that's another story.

The named ships from the list are ones that moved around (at least as far as I can identify), and therefore are additional capacity. I was trying to simplify, but I'll include everything if wanted.

Regards

Philip Bass
Plan followed plan in swift procession,
Commanders went; commanders came,
While telegrams in quick succession
Arrived to douse or fan the flame
User avatar
Subchaser
Posts: 1015
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2002 1:16 pm

RE: REPOSTED NOTES

Post by Subchaser »

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: Subchaser

Part 2. Minelayers

Toshima

These ships represented in their 1944 configuration but without DTCs. In 1941 they should have 1x 3in/40 type 88 gun and 60 mines type 93, after refit in 1944 they should have 1x 3in/40 type 88 gun, 120 mines type 4, 4 DTC (18 depth charges type 2) and one twin 13,2mm AA mg.

Watts indicates that the Toshima (actually Natsushima) class carried depth charges PRIOR to the 1942 (or so) removal of the after 3" - perhaps as early as world war I. Matrix gives an armament of 1 3in, mines, no DC. I suspect they may have started the war with 2 3in, mines (60 on rails and 60 more stored below) and "a number" of depth charges.

Could you please check your sources for this.

By summer ’44 Kurosaki, Washizaki, Ninoshima and Katashima had 4 DCT (18 dc), but it’s unclear when this equipment was added, perhaps 2 DCT were installed before the war. I can’t find anything about the rest of the class.
Image
User avatar
Subchaser
Posts: 1015
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2002 1:16 pm

RE: REPOSTED NOTES

Post by Subchaser »

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: Subchaser

34th DesRon destroyers (Akikaze, Hakaze Tachikaze) were used as fast transports for the first time only after their APD refit, when sqn. was transferred to the South fleet in late june ‘42, before that, these ships were used for crew training, supplying destroyers of 1st and 2nd fleets with qualified navy specialists, their organic crews were only 30-50 men big. The lack of combat experience and skeleton crews were the main reasons why these ships were chosen for the conversion. They should start as ordinary destroyers, not APDs.
I like the idea of splitting these three off as a separate class with an upgrade path to APD - perhaps for convenience sake to merge with PB 1/2.

So be it. What about arrival dates? right from the start or they should arrive by summer ‘42? I think the latter is more reasonable.
Image
User avatar
Don Bowen
Posts: 5190
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Georgetown, Texas, USA

Toshima minelayers

Post by Don Bowen »

Here's the relevant paragraph from Watts (my best source on these little guys):

Built just before and during the First World War this class of auxiliary minelayers gave sterling service in both world wars. Originally designed for harbour defense and use around the coast as escorts, they were armed with 2-3 in guns and a number of depth charges. 60 mines were stowed on the rails on the upper deck and the rest were stowed below. By about 1942-43 the after 3 in gun had been removed.

(omitted paragraph concerning fates)

Displacement: 450 tons
Dimensions: 150 (pp), ? (oa) x 25 x 7 1/2 ft
Machinery: 2-shft reciprocating VTE, I.H.P. 600 = 12.5 knots
Armament: 1-3 in, 1 to 2-13 mm, 120 mines


More than a little confusion as the armament in the table shows only 1 3 in gun and does not mention depth charges. And, as they say, any statement that contains a single falsehood must be considered entirely false. Let's just go with the data from Subchaser's original post.

Don
User avatar
Don Bowen
Posts: 5190
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Georgetown, Texas, USA

RE: REPOSTED NOTES

Post by Don Bowen »

ORIGINAL: Subchaser
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
I have a second one, named Awashima, completed 1945 (probably late). Ceeded to USA in 1947.

She was completed in april ’46 in “demilitarized configuration”, so she's out

Gone and already fading from my memory.
User avatar
Don Bowen
Posts: 5190
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Georgetown, Texas, USA

RE: REPOSTED NOTES

Post by Don Bowen »

ORIGINAL: Subchaser
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: Subchaser

34th DesRon destroyers (Akikaze, Hakaze Tachikaze) were used as fast transports for the first time only after their APD refit, when sqn. was transferred to the South fleet in late june ‘42, before that, these ships were used for crew training, supplying destroyers of 1st and 2nd fleets with qualified navy specialists, their organic crews were only 30-50 men big. The lack of combat experience and skeleton crews were the main reasons why these ships were chosen for the conversion. They should start as ordinary destroyers, not APDs.
I like the idea of splitting these three off as a separate class with an upgrade path to APD - perhaps for convenience sake to merge with PB 1/2.

So be it. What about arrival dates? right from the start or they should arrive by summer ‘42? I think the latter is more reasonable.

I agree - consider them non-available as training ships until converted.
User avatar
Don Bowen
Posts: 5190
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Georgetown, Texas, USA

RE: British research

Post by Don Bowen »

ORIGINAL: Philbass
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

A little confused, as AD and AS are in both the include and exclude lists (we do want them). Plus all the ships Woolwich thru Prome in your list.

Don
Sorry for the confusion. What I meant was that there are a bunch of base, depot, accommodation and maintenance ships that are on station in the East Indies. I assume that these are factored into the port ratings of Colombo and Trincomalee (otherwise they are probably way too high - at least for the early years. Don't forget that once Singapore falls, there is no British dock capable of taking a battleship or fleet carrier closer than Durban in South Africa, until one is completed in Sydney in 1945). These ships tended to be static. Therefore I assumed we could disregard these in order to save ship slots. These ships are rather a rag-bag of ex-WW1, merchantile conversion and new build. Of course, I think that India as a base is overrated, but that's another story.

The named ships from the list are ones that moved around (at least as far as I can identify), and therefore are additional capacity. I was trying to simplify, but I'll include everything if wanted.

Regards

Philip Bass

Good point and I don't know. I am pristinely ignorant on port facilities in the Indian Ocean. I had assumed that all tenders should be included in addition to port facilties. Given my 'druthers I'd take correct port ratings and all support ships. Value your opinion on this.

Don
User avatar
Herrbear
Posts: 883
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2004 9:17 pm
Location: Glendora, CA

RE: REPOSTED NOTES

Post by Herrbear »

Where is japanese transport submarine fleet?

28 IJN transport submarines are missing, (since IJA vessels are completely ignored there is no wonder why 26 army transport submarines also weren’t included).

The number of transport submarines Japanese built during the war and the number of subs converted ito undersea transports actually deserves additional ship type – SST, transport submarine.
I considered adding these (or at least the larger ones) but did not as I always play against the AI and I did not know if the AI could handle transport subs. Thought it might send them om patrol with no weapons. Can someone comment on this.

Regarding the transport subs: Assuming the AI would not use them correctly, consider upping the capacity of the other Japanese subs to compensate for the transport subs?
User avatar
Don Bowen
Posts: 5190
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Georgetown, Texas, USA

RE: REPOSTED NOTES

Post by Don Bowen »

ORIGINAL: Herrbear
Where is japanese transport submarine fleet?

28 IJN transport submarines are missing, (since IJA vessels are completely ignored there is no wonder why 26 army transport submarines also weren’t included).

The number of transport submarines Japanese built during the war and the number of subs converted ito undersea transports actually deserves additional ship type – SST, transport submarine.
I considered adding these (or at least the larger ones) but did not as I always play against the AI and I did not know if the AI could handle transport subs. Thought it might send them on patrol with no weapons. Can someone comment on this.

Regarding the transport subs: Assuming the AI would not use them correctly, consider upping the capacity of the other Japanese subs to compensate for the transport subs?

Good point. Now that I think about it, I believe cargo capacity of subs is controlled by the program. The capacity exposed in the editor is for aircraft. Can anyone comment?? If true, it would make transport subs seem almost impossible.

Don
User avatar
Herrbear
Posts: 883
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2004 9:17 pm
Location: Glendora, CA

RE: REPOSTED NOTES

Post by Herrbear »

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: Herrbear
Where is japanese transport submarine fleet?

28 IJN transport submarines are missing, (since IJA vessels are completely ignored there is no wonder why 26 army transport submarines also weren’t included).

The number of transport submarines Japanese built during the war and the number of subs converted ito undersea transports actually deserves additional ship type – SST, transport submarine.
I considered adding these (or at least the larger ones) but did not as I always play against the AI and I did not know if the AI could handle transport subs. Thought it might send them on patrol with no weapons. Can someone comment on this.

Regarding the transport subs: Assuming the AI would not use them correctly, consider upping the capacity of the other Japanese subs to compensate for the transport subs?

Good point. Now that I think about it, I believe cargo capacity of subs is controlled by the program. The capacity exposed in the editor is for aircraft. Can anyone comment?? If true, it would make transport subs seem almost impossible.

Don

You are right about capacity controlled by the program. Capacity for warships = to number of aircraft. I should have read the manual first.
janushm
Posts: 219
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:15 am
Location: 's-Hertogenbosch, netherlands
Contact:

RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units

Post by janushm »

i actually only know stuff about the dutch so. here it goes.

quite a number of ships missing.

PG Soemba
ML willem van der zaan
ML Soemenep
ML Jan van brakel
5 ABC class aux minesweepers
6 higgins ASW boats arriving december41 january42
repairship Castor
AV poolster
the escalated quickly...
User avatar
Don Bowen
Posts: 5190
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Georgetown, Texas, USA

RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units

Post by Don Bowen »

ORIGINAL: janushm

i actually only know stuff about the dutch so. here it goes.

quite a number of ships missing.

PG Soemba
ML willem van der zaan
ML Soemenep
ML Jan van brakel
5 ABC class aux minesweepers
6 higgins ASW boats arriving december41 january42
repairship Castor
AV poolster

Got most of them. Instead of the ABCD minesweepers we used the Alor class (6 units) as they were actually completed.
In addition to Soemenep we also have Bangkalan. All six of the Higgins OJR class (arriving in pairs). Also Valk, Wega, Albatros, Aldebaren, Bellatrix, Canopus, Beneb, Eridanus as PC and Arend, Reiger, Sirius, Fazant, Mercel as aux Seaplane tenders. Plus Serdang (as AGP), small repair ships Roogeveen and Van Waerwijck, and a bunch of KPM ships.

If you have any more, or more data on these, I'd appreciate it if you'd let me know.

Don
janushm
Posts: 219
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:15 am
Location: 's-Hertogenbosch, netherlands
Contact:

RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units

Post by janushm »

would there be the possibility to give all dutch subs upgrades?
or Java [sumatra was put out of service origionally in 1940 iirc but taken back] maybe the possibility to convert em into AA Ships for convoy duties. replacing most/all guns and putting on alot of 40mm's 20mm's.


ive found another ship.

Soerabaja.
pre dreadnought ship used as an traning ship/ AA battery in ...soerabaja. until 1933 know as the zeven provincien.

smeroe class aux minesweepers 2 escaped to australia. 2 destroyed and not recovered 1 recovered and used by the japs

repair ship barentz

supply ship janssens.

btw i thought serdang was a torpedo repair ship? it also served as an MTB and Seaplane depot ship.
the escalated quickly...
User avatar
Don Bowen
Posts: 5190
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Georgetown, Texas, USA

RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units

Post by Don Bowen »

ORIGINAL: janushm

would there be the possibility to give all dutch subs upgrades?
or Java [sumatra was put out of service origionally in 1940 iirc but taken back] maybe the possibility to convert em into AA Ships for convoy duties. replacing most/all guns and putting on alot of 40mm's 20mm's.


ive found another ship.

Soerabaja.
pre dreadnought ship used as an traning ship/ AA battery in ...soerabaja. until 1933 know as the zeven provincien.

smeroe class aux minesweepers 2 escaped to australia. 2 destroyed and not recovered 1 recovered and used by the japs

repair ship barentz

supply ship janssens.

btw i thought serdang was a torpedo repair ship? it also served as an MTB and Seaplane depot ship.

We have Barentz and Janssens plus another tender that arrived at Ceylon, Plancius.

The three ships in the Merbaboe class (Smeroe, Merbaboe, Rindjani) and the three similar Merapi class (Merapi, Slamat, Tjerimei) were all a little small, so we left them out.

Yes, Serdang was used in many roles. We picked PT tender (AGP), at least partly because we had the five gouvernesmentsmarine PC/AVD and didn't need any more. Torpedo repair doesn't translate to Destroyer Tender, which is too bad - the Dutch could have used one.

I'd like to put in Soerabaja but there are two problems.
1-what to make her. There is no coast defense ship category and she is out of step as a cruiser.
2-(the real reason). I don't have an icon for her.
janushm
Posts: 219
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:15 am
Location: 's-Hertogenbosch, netherlands
Contact:

RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units

Post by janushm »

soerabaja isnt a problem...then just list her as a PG..i think im able to get a couple of sideshots of it.. otherwise. i think you could use the old jacob van heemskerck class...[the ingame one is just atromp class but was armed differntly when the uncompleted ship sailed to england in may 1940].

anyway the soerabaja was just an upgunned and up armoured Jacob van Heemskerck class coastal defence ship. so i think you could use its side view.
the escalated quickly...
Post Reply

Return to “Scenario Design”