Japanese ship ID

[akdreemer]

Can someone tell me the name of this ship, what its class is, and if it is in the CHS scenerio?

[el cid again]

This is the Shinshu Maru. The is a very important ship in naval history - although she is not a Navy ship at all! She is the precursor of a modern LHA. Technically she is a "landing craft carrier" - the first specialized amphibious ship in history - she was used at Shanghai in the 1930s - when IJN mounted out a naval infantry division - something it is usually said they could not do. She is an Army ship, an assault ship, designed and manned by the Navy in the sort of cooperation we are told didn't happen. She carries landing craft, which can unload via a stern ramp (down RR rails) AND/OR she carries aircraft AND/OR she carries vehicles in a RO RO sense - OR she can load/unload via cranes (or some combination). She was the flagship of Gen Yamashita during the landings on Malaya. Her movements and operations are almost entirely unknown. She carries 26 small aircraft - if floatplanes she can operate them - and 20 landing craft - but other combinations are possible. She has a battery of Army AAA guns manned by something akin to the US Naval Protective Service - military gunners who serve on ships. Similar to the USN today, many crew are actually civilians, specialists. She has many searchlights to facilitate night operations. She has good communications for the era, and barracks and staff plotting rooms, and a hospital. Unlike other ships her landing craft are carried LOADED - no loading required -
and they disembark fast - 2 at a time from the stern WHILE MOVING - or in greater numbers if not moving (a crane forward also lifts some over the side). Two similar ships were built during the war.

[treespider]

Googled it and came up with these websites:

http://www3.plala.or.jp/takihome/Shinshu.html

http://www3.plala.or.jp/takihome/Tokushusen.html

http://www.navweaps.com/index_oob/OOB_W ... Strait.htm

http://warships.web4u.cz/lode.php?langu ... inshu+Maru (this one has a list of reference websites on the bottom)

[akdreemer]

Actually I knew some basics of the vessel since it is described in Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1869-1945, authors Hansgeorg Jentscgura, Dieter Jung, and Peter Micket, a more thourough work on the Japanese naval vesssels than Watts, although both of these sources correctly identify these vessels. My point in all this is there is a vessel in the CHS databsase named Shinshu Maru and is a AK, but no Shinsu Maru as an amphibious warfare vessel (LSD?). This vessel was commissioned in 1935 and must be correctly included.

Maybe el cid could come up with the stats for this and for three other classes of ships: Takatsu Maru (1), Mayasan Maru (2 vessels), and Tamatsu Maru (4 vessels). All of these classes are properly in the LSD catagory.

Takatsu Maru

Mayasan Maru
Tamatsu Maru

Kibitsu Maru
Hyuga Maru
Settsu Maru
Tokitsu Maru

[CobraAus]

Hi guys Shinshu Maru (Ryujo-Maru) is in CHS but when I looked at database it is listed as an AK
which is wrong and needs change in the data base + the profile (bitmap) art is also wrong so I have created a
new image based ona composite of 2 images
the class uses bitmap 255 and is class 051 the ship is listed as 1332

I will send image to Rouge's site for pickup

Cobra Aus

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: CobraAus

Hi guys Shinshu Maru (Ryujo-Maru) is in CHS but when I looked at database it is listed as an AK
which is wrong and needs change in the data base + the profile (bitmap) art is also wrong so I have created a
new image based ona composite of 2 images
the class uses bitmap 255 and is class 051 the ship is listed as 1332

I will send image to Rouge's site for pickup

Cobra Aus

Thanks Cobra

A closer examination of ship class 51 in CHS 1.06 reveals two more specialized JA vessel classes. Thus it appears that this class in the database is not homogenous and instead should be a total of 5 distinct classes, as well as one not represented. In addition to the ones discussed previously the Akitsu Maru (2) and the Kumano Maru (1) were Army Aircraft Transports with flight decks and carrying landing craft. So it appears in this case that there needs to be some revision in the IJN classes (6) to reflect an historical amphibious capability.

[Don Bowen]

The Shinshu Maru and subsequent ships were Japanese Army Landing Ships. They were standard transports with the ability to launch landing craft and sometimes carry aircraft.

Shinshu Maru could launch loaded landing craft from a stern chute and could carry 20 aircraft as cargo. The aircraft would be unloaded once an airfield had been captured by the troops.

The next pair, Akitsu Maru and Nigitsu Maru, added a short flight deck so that the carried aircraft could be launched to land ashore instead of being unloaded as cargo.

Then came Mayasan Maru and Tamatsu Maru, which gave up all ability to carry aircraft and then the Type "A" (Hyuga Maru, Kibitsu Maru, Settsu Maru, and Tokitsu Maru) which launched their landing craft through large hinged doors at the stern. The Type "A" as sometimes called LSDs but they did not have a floodable well deck - the landing craft being loaded on the main deck and moved to the stern via rails.

Finally there was the Type "B" Kumano Maru which had the basic features of Type "A" but added the ability to handle aircraft. Up to 37 aircraft could be carried and could be both launched and retrieved. The ship was apparently not equipped to "operate" aircraft as a carrier, merely to fly aircraft to and from airfields ashore.

There was also Takatsu Maru, a wartime conversion of a cargo ship into a landing craft carrier (I do not have details on this ship).

Note that these ships have been classified as AKs in CHS in order to allow them to carry aircraft as cargo. Changing their designation will lose this ability.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Note that these ships have been classified as AKs in CHS in order to allow them to carry aircraft as cargo. Changing their designation will lose this ability.

So you are saying that making these into amphibious warfare ships we will lose the capability to transport aircraft. I for one would rather see them used as ampibs realizing they will lose the ability to transport aircraft, since I cannot have my cake and eat it too, which again points to the limited aspect of the game as designed. However, in the very least they should have their own classes and artwork, not the homogenous class that exists now.

[Don Bowen]

So you are saying that making these into amphibious warfare ships we will lose the capability to transport aircraft. I for one would rather see them used as ampibs realizing they will lose the ability to transport aircraft, since I cannot have my cake and eat it too, which again points to the limited aspect of the game as designed. However, in the very least they should have their own classes and artwork, not the homogenous class that exists now.

I'd love to have artwork for the various classes. I have line drawings of three of them and some specs for all.

However I must point out that these were not beaching craft, they were conventional "stand off" transports with the ability to launch loaded landing craft and (for some) transport aircraft. It seems as incorrect to class them as LSD as AK.

[Bradley7735]

I remember when CHS was having discussions on these ships. At that time, I think the choice was between AP and AK. If AP, then it would be classified great as an amphib ship. If AK, then it could transport troops or aircraft, although not an efficient transport.

I think CHS has done the best they can with what they have to work with. I guess it ends up being the decision of the Mod author on how to classify them. I agree w/Don in that they are not true LSD's that the US made in 44.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

So you are saying that making these into amphibious warfare ships we will lose the capability to transport aircraft. I for one would rather see them used as ampibs realizing they will lose the ability to transport aircraft, since I cannot have my cake and eat it too, which again points to the limited aspect of the game as designed. However, in the very least they should have their own classes and artwork, not the homogenous class that exists now.

I'd love to have artwork for the various classes. I have line drawings of three of them and some specs for all.

However I must point out that these were not beaching craft, they were conventional "stand off" transports with the ability to launch loaded landing craft and (for some) transport aircraft. It seems as incorrect to class them as LSD as AK.

Indeed you are mostly correct. I might point out, however, that an LSD does not beach itself, and beaching is NOT a requirement for being an amphibious warfare vessel. I chose the LSD because it is the only amphip that Matrix provided that DOES NOT have to beach. The amphip capability also means that units are more effeciently transported for amphip operations, a capability that clearly existed historically by vertue of the existence of these vessels. Making them an AK simply ignores their primary value and purpose.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

I remember when CHS was having discussions on these ships. At that time, I think the choice was between AP and AK. If AP, then it would be classified great as an amphib ship. If AK, then it could transport troops or aircraft, although not an efficient transport.

I think CHS has done the best they can with what they have to work with. I guess it ends up being the decision of the Mod author on how to classify them. I agree w/Don in that they are not true LSD's that the US made in 44.

I am not typically any kind of "fanboy". However, I think the decision to do this might be flawed. Now for the 3 Aircraft transports you MIGHT have a valid argument, but for the others they were not, by any stretch of the imagination, AK's. Making them such you just basically threw in the towel because calling them LSD's would somehow negatively impinge on the US version. Can you deny that they were not indeed amphibious warfare ships? Given that they do not beach implies that they were were not "landing craft". Since Matrix was shortsighted and somewhat Allied biased in this regard I feel that the LSD fits them just perfect and will be so in my mod.

[Don Bowen]

Splitting the various classes in groups of AK (aircraft capable) and LSD is not a bad idea at all.

All that is needed is a bunch of icons.

[el cid again]

A closer examination of ship class 51 in CHS 1.06 reveals two more specialized JA vessel classes. Thus it appears that this class in the database is not homogenous and instead should be a total of 5 distinct classes, as well as one not represented. In addition to the ones discussed previously the Akitsu Maru (2) and the Kumano Maru (1) were Army Aircraft Transports with flight decks and carrying landing craft. So it appears in this case that there needs to be some revision in the IJN classes (6) to reflect an historical amphibious capability.

I passionately argued this from day one, but there is no charter to revise Japanese ships - even where grossly wrong (e.g. fuel, armor, sometimes type). I think the flight deck ships need to be merchant aircraft carriers. I am working on this - and an army carrier ASW squadron is in my air group list for the next CHS - because it really deployed - and there are two ARMY carrier planes!

While Shinshu Maru is best described as an LSD it may be the classification as AK was quite correct: this is the ONLY non-carrier that can carry aircraft - and that means this ship can carry land units, can land them, and can act as a transport for aircraft (crated) - which is more or less correct - they were not crated but they also could not be used from her.

[CobraAus]

Kumano Maru

Cobra Aus

[Philodraco]

ORIGINAL: CobraAus

Hi guys Shinshu Maru (Ryujo-Maru) is in CHS but when I looked at database it is listed as an AK
which is wrong and needs change in the data base + the profile (bitmap) art is also wrong so I have created a
new image based ona composite of 2 images
the class uses bitmap 255 and is class 051 the ship is listed as 1332

I will send image to Rouge's site for pickup

Cobra Aus

Hi Cobra, the information for the Shinshou Maru is wrong.
the picture post by AlaskanWarrior is right.
This ship is a special landing ship of Imperial Japanese ARMY! this ship was a topsecret ship and during the war, her name was changed lot of times. such as MT Maru, Ryojou Maru etc. In the action of landing in Java, She was torpetoed by Mogami and Mikuma, it made Gen. Imamura swam.
She was rised soon but in 1945 sunk by airraid and Aspro(SS-309).



PS, the front funnel was dummy(Former funnel of battleship Hyuga)

[el cid again]

The next pair, Akitsu Maru and Nigitsu Maru, added a short flight deck so that the carried aircraft could be launched to land ashore instead of being unloaded as cargo.

In 1943 this flight deck was extended and at least Akitsu Maru actually served as an aircraft carrier - with two different kinds of ASW squadrons on board - Ki-76 fixed wing and Ka-1 rotary wing (autogyro - the first combat rotary wing aircraft in squadron service in history). I want to rate this ship as a CVE - but if I do she no longer can carry troops or land them! Akitsu Maru class may be best represented as AKs so they can be aircraft transports, then upgrade to a CVE. There are plenty of other transports. I added the Ki-76 to the Japanese aircraft list to serve on Army carriers. Also a "carrier" Ki-44 variant which was planned but, in the event, didn't make it due to shut down of industry and shipping lanes. It was not to be a part of an offensive force, but to defend against enemy patrol planes.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Splitting the various classes in groups of AK (aircraft capable) and LSD is not a bad idea at all.

All that is needed is a bunch of icons.

This could be added to CHS, if you all can come up with a list of database changes that need to be made, and someone can provide the art.

Andrew

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
...there is no charter to revise Japanese ships - even where grossly wrong (e.g. fuel, armor, sometimes type)...

Corrections can be added, but any proposed correction must be verified and reviewed before it is added. I have already seen disagreement on Japanese CL armour, for example, without any definitive resolution it seems...

Andrew

[el cid again]

Corrections can be added, but any proposed correction must be verified and reviewed before it is added. I have already seen disagreement on Japanese CL armour, for example, without any definitive resolution it seems...

The data is conclusive. There is a massive work on Japanese cruisers. There is material from Conways. And there is weapns data. ALL of them say that (with a single exception) cruiser turrets had only 25mm of armor - and the exception is quite wierd. Katori had 50 mm - and NO OTHER armor! Even on battleships the 6.1 inch triples had 25 mm of armor. A German naval architect and author (Segfried Breyer) says this was a major flaw - a heavy shell could cause a secondary explosion in the secondary turret magazines - and that would cause the primary magazines to go up - all because in effect the 6 inch turrets were paper thin.

There is some room to debate other aspects of armor - for example do we count sloping or not? Do we add all decks together (that is the formal WITP system) or discount them? Do we count non-face hardened hulls and decks - or not - or count them at a discount? But we DO have a formal and official standard and I assume we use that until we agree on something else. The data is not consistent with that definition - and it ought to be. The data is awful - all the way from 0 when it should be something - to dead on - to grossly overstated. We can do better than that. We should adopt a base standard reference - Joe uses Conways and it is acceptable to me - and then only use other data when it is absent or clearly wrong. Anyway, I cannot play until this is addressed - it is simply not serious simulation to have grossly inconsistent data. I find the existence of the errors frustrating. But the unwillingness to give priority to fixing them even more so. It is almost to say it is OK to play with such errors.