Combined Historical Scenario - Ship Data

[Lemurs!]

Marc,

I can live with the 7500mile range figure. I think it might be a little low, but then again it might not!

mike

[Don Bowen]

How's this? Note that the figures in the two middle columsn are a varying speeds, two outer columns at 15 knots.

[Herrbear]

Agree

[Lemurs!]

Sure Dad. Sounds good. Can i borrow the car tonight?


Mike[:D]

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Sure Dad. Sounds good. Can i borrow the car tonight?

Mike[:D]

Sure - as soon as you mow the lawn and clean the gutters.

[mlees]

The Takao carried 2571 tons of fuel oil. What kind of tons? I don't know. Don? Marc? What is naval fuel measured in? I am American so i made it 2000lbs per ton.

Iwas reading a book on the Japanese Merchant Marine, and "tonnage" is also used to describe space volume as well, on cargo ships. Tonnage of fuel may be the same. If your still interested, I can post the measurements when I get home later...

Ok. Looked up "ton" in my desk dictionary:
1) 2000lb weight measurement (short ton) in US, 2240lb in UK (long ton), and 2204.62 lbs (for metric ton).
2) unit of volume for freight that weighs one ton which varies with the type of freight measured, as 40 cubic feet of timber, or 20 bushels of wheat. Called a freight ton.
3)displacement ton used for weight of ships, is also equal to 35 cubic feet of sea water and 2240 lbs (long ton again).
4)unit of volume used in sea cargo transport, commonly equal to 40 cubic feet, also called shipping ton or measurement ton.
5)unit of internal capacity of ships equal to 100 cubic feet (register ton).

Well, I'm gonna guess fuel tonnage is number 4 or 5. Don't know how much feul oil actually weighs per gallon or whatever.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Matrix included depth charges in the original (12/41) armament of all of the "W" series minesweepers. However I can find no historical reference for their inclusion until the late-war ASW upgrades.

I am about to remove DC from all original "W" Series Minesweepers! This appears to be the historically correct thing to do but I am a little worried about the reduction in Japanese early-war ASW.

Comments appreciated.

Don

OK, it's done. Cruiser endurances adjusted too. Some more work on half-a-dozen classes of DD and then use up any remaining slots for additional merchants.

Last chance to recommend a new Japanese ship for inclusion!

Don

[bstarr]

Did anyone ever find any info on early war Merchant ship armament upgrades? The only tidbits I've found have apparently been based on optimal armament, basically listing the ships with the strongest armament they had available dring the war. This actually could have a big effect on the game since an early '42 L. AK had a much better chance of reaching Port Moresby with 4 .50s, a 5 inch and a 3 inch than a vessel with only a single .50 . . . or worse, unarmed.

[Don Bowen]

I have finished with the Japanes classes and ships. Thanks to all who gave me input. I apologize to subchaser as I fear I did not do justice to all the detailed data that he gave me. It is surprisingly difficult to take a dozen detailed upgrades for individual ships and produce a concise class upgrade path.

After duplicate checks I have about 20 empty slots so a little more tweaking is possible.

At this point: devices, Japanese Classes, and Japanese Ships are done. Allied classes and ships, aircraft, airgroups, leaders, and pilots are untouched. I did notice that allied airgroup-to-ship associations are broken - I'll fix them as I review allied ships. Also, the location file has been overlaid with the location file from Andrew Brown's Scenario 115.

If anyone would like a copy of the scenario at this point, for review and correction, please let me know and I'll email you one. This is really for scenario contributors, as the scenario is NOT playable at this time.

A rather tired Don

[Philbass]

Don,

Does radar/electronics have any impact in this game? (I know they should, but don't know if they do). I have the trials data (against a bunch of different sized targets) for the RN in WW2, as well as detailed technical discussions on fire control and fighter direction, is it worth working up new devices for the RN radars?

Also, please could you send me a copy of the combined scenario (with all your marvelous modifications)? I'm happy to have a look for corrections and comments (my email is: phil@philbass.fsnet.co.uk)

Hope to post my 'vision' of RN submarines for comment/review later today.

Regards,

Philip Bass

[Lemurs!]

Hi all,

Does anyone have any hard data on the Keijo Maru PGs for Japan?

I can find essentially nothing about them except that they don't actually seem to be 1 class. It seems that they are an amalagam of several classes. I have read that one was 1022 tons and another (the Keijo Maru) was 2626 tons.

Mike

[Don Bowen]

I’m sure it is a generalized class representing all Merchant-to-Patrol Craft conversions.

I walking through the Japanese Merchant Ship Recognition PDF I found a number of disparate ships whose names matched those of a converted gunboat. Including some from the new AK classes that we put in the new scenario.

[Lemurs!]

Thus, are any of them diesels, and if so should such small, slow diesel boats deserve such low endurance?

I am not trying to be a fanboy here, it just seems low for the type of ship.

Mike

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Thus, are any of them diesels, and if so should such small, slow diesel boats deserve such low endurance?

I am not trying to be a fanboy here, it just seems low for the type of ship.

Mike

Didn't find any diesels but you're right - the endurance seems awfully low. I'll fix it. Here is the class list for the "Amakasu Maru" class. Some of the PG appear to be from this class and we have also created them as a class of AK in the scenario. Endurance is 4000 miles.

[Don Bowen]

Here's another group whose names match up with the PGs. Again, much better endurance.

[Don Bowen]

In reviewing data for the USS Saratoga I have found a major error in the 1/44 upgrade. Here is the paragraph from Friedman - US Aircraft Carriers - page 53:

Refitted at Hunters Point from 9 December 1943 through 3 January 1944, the Saratoga received two portside sponsons for twin Bofors abeam the island structure; she also received seven quadruple mounts in the former boat recesses to port, two in the boat recess to starboard, three more outboard of the island at flight deck level, and two more in the bow machine gun galleries, supplementing two guns already there.

This gives an addition of 14 quad and two twin mounts, for a total of 60 additional barrels. This is in addition to the 36 already mounted and gives a grand total of 96 (19 quad mounts and 2 twin). All but 16 of the 20mm guns were landed as weight compensation (no dispostion mentioned for those retained).

This light AA armament is shown in class 1257 - an upgrade dated 1/45. The 1/44 upgrade (class 1256) gives a total of 64 40mm and 84 20mm. I can find no data to support this upgrade. Saratoga was repaired after battle damage received in 2/45. No changes to AA are mentioned during this refit, although the flight deck elevators were re-arranged.

This means that the 1/44 refit massively understates the light AA and the 1/45 refit never took place. This is such a significant change that I would like to ask for additional input before making the change.

Does anyone have any data on this??

[Philbass]

Ok,

Here is my 'vision' for the River class (CLYDE and SEVERN) and Porpoise class (PORPOISE and RORQUAL) RN submarines.

See attachment...

I need to finish working up the T and S class submarines (there were several versions - with different endurances, torpedo configurations and radar and gun load outs), and do the new devices I think are needed (radar and mines).

Max speed is surface speed
Cruise speed is the speed for which the endurance range was given
Durability is the standard diving depth (I have the data for max recorded depth, and theoretical collapse depth if that is more relevent)

Please let me know if this is what is needed (I need to pin point exactly when these boats arrive in theatre)

Sources:
Lenton, HT & Colledge, JJ (1964) Warships of World War 2 (London; Ian Allen)
Brown, DK (2000) Nelson to Vanguard: Warship Development 1923-1945 (London: Chatham Publishing)
Brown, DK (1996) The Design and Development of British Warships 1939-1945 Volume 2: Submarines, Escorts and Coastal Forces (London; Conway)
Rippon, Commander PM (1994) Evolution of Engineering in the Royal Navy Volume 2: 1939-1992 (London; Institute of Marine Engineering)

Regards,

Philip Bass

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Philbass

Ok,

Here is my 'vision' for the River class (CLYDE and SEVERN) and Porpoise class (PORPOISE and RORQUAL) RN submarines.

See attachment...

I need to finish working up the T and S class submarines (there were several versions - with different endurances, torpedo configurations and radar and gun load outs), and do the new devices I think are needed (radar and mines).

We have a real problem adding ship devices. These must sit in device slots 1-255, which are nearly full. In addition, this set of slots may actually be several smaller sets - for guns, mines, torpedoes, etc. The Locations are broken up this way - some for HQ, some for TOE, etc.

Devices 1-85: Ships Guns
Device 86: Empty
Devices 87-103: Torpedoes
Device 104: Empty
Devices 105-117: ASW weapons
Device 118: Empty
Devices 119-130: Mines
Devices 131-143: Radars
Devices 144-145: Empty
Devices 146 and up: Aircraft Weapons, Aircraft Engines, Land Unit Types, Land Unit weapons - probably not usable for ship weapons.

I fear we have at the most 5 available ship weapon slots. Assuming like weapons must be grouped together (as they are), we must also figure out what the empties can be used for. Is slot 104 a torpedo? an ASW weapon?? Is it even usable.

Until we figure this out, I don't think we can safely add any ship's weapons. Unfortuantely, the only way I can figure to test this would be to create weapons in these slots, assign them (and only them) to new ships, then run the game until a situation can be forced in which each weapon should be used. It's on my list of things to do but it's quite far down on page 209874378.

[Philbass]

Okay Don,

Forget creating a new device for the Mk 16 British sub laid mine - use the US Mk10 (although that is about 20% more powerful) to save the slot. I won't say anything about the US sublayers using the Mk 11 which was 10% more powerful than the Mk 10. Alas, the only source I have on mines at the moment is the Data Annexes for Command at Sea the tactical minatures wargame rules (hugely detailed, but full of errors and typos), so not necessarily reliable.

What about radar? Does this matter? How does radar work in this game? I mean the UK listing are really out of wack...There are only the 279 which was a air warning ('search' in USN speak) radar fitted to large warships/auxillaries (not for destroyers and below) and the 271 which was a surface warning fitted to all types of vessels large and small. It wasn't an either or as the database suggests, but a question of having both types (and their follow ups). But does it matter? I don't know, as I can't fathom the impact (beyond having radar is good). I'd like to rework this, but if it is broken in the game, then I won't bother.

If we do have to reserve slots then I suggest we pencil one in for the Squid ahead thrown ASW weapon. This represented a step change in submarine killing capability as it was linked to a depth finding sonar (Type 147Q ASDIC) which automatically set the depth on the fuses of the projectiles. I have the data that analyses the relative success of Squid/Hedgehog/Depth Charges, and Squid is a killer...Of course, I haven't yet looked to see if it was deployed in the Pacific.

Many thanks.

Philip Bass

(back to the 3 volumes on RN radar/electronic warfare at sea)

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Matrix included depth charges in the original (12/41) armament of all of the "W" series minesweepers. However I can find no historical reference for their inclusion until the late-war ASW upgrades.

I am about to remove DC from all original "W" Series Minesweepers! This appears to be the historically correct thing to do but I am a little worried about the reduction in Japanese early-war ASW.

Comments appreciated.

Don

Strange, in Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy the authors state quite clarly, and I quote:
" 1922 Programme (W1-4) and 1927 Programme (W.5 and W.6). Armed with DC's and throwers to enable ships to be used as escorts. W.5 and W.6 were slightly larger and had minor differences in appearences as well as stepping a tripod mast. Alternate coal/oil."

This is as built, not the 1944 modifications. I think it would be a mistake to remove the asw capability of these vessels, as they were clearly designed for start with them.

rm