Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units

[Ron Saueracker]

Are/should we add the Soviet Pacific Fleet? Not sure how it would affect game vs AI.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Are/should we add the Soviet Pacific Fleet? Not sure how it would affect game vs AI.

I've seen some pretty strong comments against the Soviet Pacific Fleet by forum moderators. It would surely unbalance the game and put the Japanese in a difficult position.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Are/should we add the Soviet Pacific Fleet? Not sure how it would affect game vs AI.

I've seen some pretty strong comments against the Soviet Pacific Fleet by forum moderators. It would surely unbalance the game and put the Japanese in a difficult position.

But for those who only play PBEM it should be in. I'm just wondering why they were so against adding it in the first place. Perhaps game won't recognize the ships as neutral.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Are/should we add the Soviet Pacific Fleet? Not sure how it would affect game vs AI.

I've seen some pretty strong comments against the Soviet Pacific Fleet by forum moderators. It would surely unbalance the game and put the Japanese in a difficult position.

How would it unbalance the game? It would be historical. One of several reasons that so many invade the soviet union in the game is because there is no soviet navy to worry about. In real life the japanese WERE in a difficult position deciding what to do about the soviets. If anything I think it will bring more balance to the game IMHO.....

[Tanaka]

Have you guys seen this new link at Nihon Kaigun: Operational histories of Japanese Auxiliaries in WW II.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/Tokusetsu%20Kansen!.htm

[Tanaka]

Any thoughts comments about adding some of the missing japanese army ships to yalls mod???

the missing Japanese Army AV/CVE (merchant carriers) type aircraft transports:

Kumano Maru
Shimane Maru
Daikyu Maru
Otakisan Maru
Shimane Maru
Taisha Maru
Yamashiro Maru
Chigusa Maru
Yamashio Maru


Japanese Army aircraft Transports Akitsu Maru 11,800t 20 kts 1/42 Nigitsu Maru3/43 2x 75mmAA 10 75mm[field guns} able to carry 20 planes, which could take off but not land on these transports.

Kumano Maru army aircraft transport to be operated by IJN 10,800t 19kt 3/45 8x75mmAA 6x25mmAA 37 aircraft they could take off but not land on transport.

Merchant aircraft carriers Shimane Maru 14,500t 18.5kt 2/45 Otakisan Maru 1/45 2x120mmHA 52x25mmAA 12 aircraft. Aircraft could land on these sm cv's

Yamashiro Maru 15,900t 15kt 1/45 16x25mmAA 8 a/c 1 asw projecter 120 DC's
Aircraft could land on this sm cv..

All these cv's could only operate sm planes f's and db's

Converting Supply Ships to Aircraft Carriers and Amphibious Assault Ships:

Contrary to popular misinformation from the USMC ego PR machine, the first amphibious assault aircraft carriers were Japanese not American. The U.S. amphibious ships in use today are also the fruits of the U.S. Navy, not the marines. The concept of converting a RO-RO Ship to a Commando Aircraft Carrier is sound and proven. Even having it operated by someone other than the Navy is also sound. The Japanese ARMY, that's right--the ARMY operated combination aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships converted from merchant ships in WWII. This idea that we can only have an aircraft carrier if its a huge multi-billion-dollar Nimitz class with 6,000 men is another lie foisted upon us by the current U.S. Navy brass.

Escort Aircraft Carriers

Units of the Class Characteristic

History

(a) Akitsu Maru
(b) Nigitsu Maru

Displacement: 11,800 tons
(a) Length 480 feet
(b) Length 498 ft 8 in

Beam 64 ft
Draught 25 ft 9 in
Machinery Turbines: 4 Boilers and 1 shaft
Performance: 8,600 SHP; 20 knots
Flight Deck: 404 feet x 74 feet, 1 Lift
Aircraft: 20
Guns 10 x 75mm; 2 x 77mm primarily for Anti-Aircraft

Imperial Japanese Navy was not the only service to operate with carriers. In early 1941, the Imperial Army projected to convert some merchant ships into assault ships under their command. These vessels could be used both as troop transports and aircraft's transports

Reconstruction was limited to redirecting boiler uptakes to the starboard side to emerge in a single funnel. A small flight deck was fitted over the superstructure. JAAF aircrafts could not only be transported, but also flown off to assist landing forces in the rapid establishment of a land-based air defense unit. Twenty standard landing crafts could be carried.

Details of wartime operations not known. Both ships, Akitsu Maru and Nigitsu Maru, were sunk by submarines during 1944.

Chigusa Maru
Yamashiro Maru

Displacement: 11,800 tons
Length: 151 meters
Length 157 meters

Beam 20 meters
Draught 9 meters
Machinery Turbines: 2 boilers and 1 shaft
Performance: 4,500 SHP; 15 knots
Range: 9,000 NM; 13 knots
Flight Deck: 152m x 23m; no lift
Aircraft: 8
Artillery 16 x 25mm Anti-Aircraft guns


Yamashiro Maru commissioned: 27 January 1945

Imperial Japanese Army acquired two tankers in 1944 to convert into escort carriers for army convoys. These carriers operated with Japanese Army's fighters Ki-44 in a limited air and ASW defense role over troop convoys. Only Yamashiro Maru was commissioned.

Yamashiro Maru was the only ship of this class which was commissioned. She was sunk by U.S. aircraft in February 1945.

Kumano Maru

Displacement: 8,000 tons
Length 480 ft or 501 ft
Beam 64 ft 3 in
Draught 23 feet
Flight Deck: 361 ft x 60 ft 6 in; no lifts
Machinery Turbines: 4 boilers and 2 shaft
Performance: 10,000 SHP; 15 kts
Range: 6,000 NM a 17 knots
Aircraft: 37
Artillery: 8 x 75mm, 6 x 25mm
Commissioned: 30 March 1945

According to concept of amphibious assault ship, Imperial Japanese Army acquired a small transport ship for conversion with a similar scheme to Akitsu Maru class.

The army aircrafts could be deployed to assist landing forces in the rapid establishment of a land-based air defense unit but not could be recovered. 13 standard or 40 smaller landing crafts could be carried.

Kumanu Maru was not employed in operational services. After the war, she was used as transport.

[Don Bowen]

Here is my long-delayed response to the second part of Ron's AG posting.

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I mentioned earlier that many AGs (such as Argonne AG-31) and ASs, ADs, AVs, be included in game if not and given a cargo/troop capacity.

At present AGs not in OOB at first glance are:

AG 11 Procyon (ex Hog Islander)
AG 12 Gold Star
AG 27 Robert L Barnes (ex AO 14) *Don Bowen has this in OOB I believe
AG 31 Argonne (ex Hog Islander)
AG 32 Sumner (ex Holland Class AS)
AG 33 Kaula
AG 34 Alcor (became AD 34 and arrives San Diego Jan 45)
AG 37 Manomet (became AK 51 Aries and is available Feb 44 at San Diego)
AG 38 Mantinicus (became AP 75 Gimini and is available Nov 43 at San Diego)
AG 41 Panay (ex Midway avail April 42 at Seattle)
AG 42 Camanga (became AK Oliver Olson April 42 on West Coast)

Covered in previous post.

AG 43 Majaba (available May 42)

Cargo ship approximately equal to a West Coaster - to be added.

AG 44 Malanao (available June 42)

Cargo ship approximately equal to a Lake Type - to be added.

AG 45 Taganak (available May 42)

Approximately equal to a Hog Islander Type A. Used as a mine carrier in WWI and an Ammo Ship in WWII. Will be added as a small MLE (new class)

AG 46 Tuluran (available Dec 42)

Cargo Ship approximately equal to a Hog Islander A, will be added.

AG 49 Anacapa (available Sept 42) Q-ship for a time

Interesting little ship. Q-ship on West Coast with 4in (and smaller) guns and some depth charges. Will be added as new class.

AG 50 Kopara (available Sept 42)

Name duplication to an Australian freighter that was more active - skip this one.

AG 66 Besboro (available Sept 42)

Approximate Lake Type AK used Seattle to Alaska - will be added.

AG 68 Basilan (AR actually, avail Nov 44)
AG 69 Burias (AR, avail Feb 45)
AG 70 Zaniah (AR, avail Sept 44)

First two are ARG, which are not applicable to WITP. Third was an electronics repair ship, also not applicable.

AG 71 Baham (AR, avail Aug 44)

Liberty ship converted to an AR - will be added.

[Tankerace]

While I am thinking about it, do we want to include the old armored cruiser Rochester (CA-2)? She was Laid up at Olongapo, in the Philippinnes in 1933, and was scuttled on Dec. 24, 1941 to prevent capture. Ater all, if we are including the Utah we should include her, and thanks to War Plan Orange I have data and a graphic already.

I would reccommend giving her a starting damage of 50, to force her not to be used in a combat role, possibly enable scuttling on day 1, and, should the player try, he can evacuate her to Australia (at a VERY slow speed, to represent towing).

Assuming she survived the initial onslought, she wouldn't be good for first line duties, but would make a good bombardment ship.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

While I am thinking about it, do we want to include the old armored cruiser Rochester (CA-2)? She was Laid up at Olongapo, in the Philippinnes in 1933, and was scuttled on Dec. 24, 1941 to prevent capture. Ater all, if we are including the Utah we should include her, and thanks to War Plan Orange I have data and a graphic already.

I would reccommend giving her a starting damage of 50, to force her not to be used in a combat role, possibly enable scuttling on day 1, and, should the player try, he can evacuate her to Australia (at a VERY slow speed, to represent towing).

Assuming she survived the initial onslought, she wouldn't be good for first line duties, but would make a good bombardment ship.

I disagree. I wanted Utah due to her undeniable role at PH. Rochester on the other hand has no historical significance and, as you said, players would abuse it and use it as a naval unit, something that never would have been done IRL.

[Tankerace]

I can see with that argument, but I am a little confused. Why is it a Japanese sailboat has criteria to get in, but a broken down US Spanish American war era cruiser doesn't? Im not being an ass, I am just trying to figure out what the exact criteriea for ships getting in is.

[Bradley7735]

I think that the unit should have some military significance. The Utah sucked up some torps in the PH attack. Japanese sailboats can transport supplies (I think).

I don't know the history of the Rochester, but I'm guessing it was a pile of steel that couldn't ever be useful (like the Utah, except the PH notes).

I suppose, if I were the Japanese player, I'd say "Hey, I could get some points for Rochester. Put her in!!"

If you could put her in and not allow either player to game the system, then do it. But, if by putting her in, the allies get another BB or the Japanese player gets 50 points for sinking her, then leave her out.

my 2 cents.

[Tankerace]

Im not necessarily saying put her in, nad her be useful. First off, she is an old, beat up armored cruiser with 4 8" guns, and a max speed of 18 knots. If we give her say 60 or so damage, that's about 1 hex a day. What I was fully suggesting is put her in for the fact she was the last armored cruiser, and when she was scuttled and ended an era. Its not like she'll be of great combat value, I mean honestly, Rochester vs Nachi, 4 OLD 8"/45 guns vs 10 8"/50s. The Nachis can do what, about 30 knots, Rochester 18 fully repaired. And should the Allies be gamey and repair her, it would take until about June, assuming she doesn't get hit again or make it to San Fran.

Plus, odds are if she were to have been towed out of the PI, she would have either been scrapped like Oregon, or made into a submarine or DD depot ship.

Hey, Oregon! What about adding her in? In 1942 there were plans to refit her to a convoy escort ship, as she was faster than a liberty (In this case retain the 13"/35s), or we can go historical, and in 1943 convert her to an ammunition barge (AE). This would be historical, as players could use her at a forward base to replenish ammunition.

While I would be in favor of allowing the option to use her as a convoy escort (Its not like she is gonna be in the front line with a 16 knot speed and short barreled, short range 13" guns), I feel that adding her in as an ammunition barge at least would round out the historical ability we are going for.

[Tankerace]

LOL, I just did some reading on Oregon. Turns out what happened is after Pearl Harbor, the ignorant Gov. of Oregon, in a political move, offered her back to the navy as a replacement for the BBs lost at Pearl. Apparently, he thought that she would be used in the frontline as an escort ship or something, then after the war returned as a memorial.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

Any thoughts comments about adding some of the missing japanese army ships to yalls mod???

the missing Japanese Army AV/CVE (merchant carriers) type aircraft transports:

Kumano Maru
Shimane Maru
Daikyu Maru
Otakisan Maru
Shimane Maru
Taisha Maru
Yamashiro Maru
Chigusa Maru
Yamashio Maru


Japanese Army aircraft Transports Akitsu Maru 11,800t 20 kts 1/42 Nigitsu Maru3/43 2x 75mmAA 10 75mm[field guns} able to carry 20 planes, which could take off but not land on these transports.

Kumano Maru army aircraft transport to be operated by IJN 10,800t 19kt 3/45 8x75mmAA 6x25mmAA 37 aircraft they could take off but not land on transport.

Several people have looked at these Japanese Army landing ships. A few of them had the ability to launch aircraft, with the intent of flying them off to newly captured airbases. However, WITP can not handle the combination of Transport and Aircraft carrier and the only way they can go into the game is as Transports. I personally would rather leave them out then include them in a gelding format.

Merchant aircraft carriers Shimane Maru 14,500t 18.5kt 2/45 Otakisan Maru 1/45 2x120mmHA 52x25mmAA 12 aircraft. Aircraft could land on these sm cv's

Yamashiro Maru 15,900t 15kt 1/45 16x25mmAA 8 a/c 1 asw projecter 120 DC's
Aircraft could land on this sm cv..

All these cv's could only operate sm planes f's and db's

These were in the standard Matrix Scenario 15 and are retained in our scenario. They have no airgroups.

Converting Supply Ships to Aircraft Carriers and Amphibious Assault Ships:

Contrary to popular misinformation from the USMC ego PR machine, the first amphibious assault aircraft carriers were Japanese not American. The U.S. amphibious ships in use today are also the fruits of the U.S. Navy, not the marines. The concept of converting a RO-RO Ship to a Commando Aircraft Carrier is sound and proven. Even having it operated by someone other than the Navy is also sound. The Japanese ARMY, that's right--the ARMY operated combination aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships converted from merchant ships in WWII. This idea that we can only have an aircraft carrier if its a huge multi-billion-dollar Nimitz class with 6,000 men is another lie foisted upon us by the current U.S. Navy brass.

The Japanese - both army and navy - were leaders in equipment for amphibious operations. The Daihatsu series were the first mass-produced landing craft with ramps and the Type A landing ships carried landing craft on deck with rails to a rear door at waterline level for launching.

The British came up with the LSD and some other smaller landing craft types. They ordered them from the U.S. which is how we got them.

The one innovation in landing craft that is purely American is the Amtrac (and perhaps the DUKW).

And - to start my rant:
No one would argue that the U.S. Marines have large egos. Belief in yourself and your unit is the only thing that gets actual human beings to run uphill into machine gun fire. The modern U.S. Amphibious Task Force is the product of years of experience by both the Navy and the Marines - it is a Navy force honed to the needs of the Marines. That sentence is improper as the Marines are part of the Navy. And there are, of course, aircraft carrying ships in the U.S. Navy that are not aircraft carriers. In fact, they carry Marine VTOL aircraft and helicopters.

There is great debate on the size and number of carriers and has been since the 1920s. A large ship has the benefit of large airgroup, ability to survive moderate battle damage, and lower cost-per-aircraft. A number of smaller ships have the ability to launch aircraft more quickly (from more decks) and the if-one-is-lost-I-still-got-one factor. Smaller ships are also more efficient for subsidiary roles - like the ASW carriers of the cold war days. This debate raged in the U.S. Navy during the 1930s, when the Midways were built, and today.

And lastly, the U.S. Army operated more ships that the U.S. Navy during World War II. True, most of them were landing craft and such but the U.S. Army operated hundreds of ocean-going vessels. The U.S. Army Transport Cynthia Olson was lost on December 7th while at sea, enroute Hawaii.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Several people have looked at these Japanese Army landing ships. A few of them had the ability to launch aircraft, with the intent of flying them off to newly captured airbases. However, WITP can not handle the combination of Transport and Aircraft carrier and the only way they can go into the game is as Transports. I personally would rather leave them out then include them in a gelding format.

Don, thanks for your response. I did not think about WITP not being able to handle these in the way they were used historically. I guess I would rather them just be transports and geld them from their aircraft role than geld the Japanese overall by taking valuable transports away from them completely. At least they could still crate aircraft and transport troops. JMHO....

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

I can see with that argument, but I am a little confused. Why is it a Japanese sailboat has criteria to get in, but a broken down US Spanish American war era cruiser doesn't? Im not being an ass, I am just trying to figure out what the exact criteriea for ships getting in is.

JAPANESE SAILBOAT? Are you talking about the schooners Don had in his original mod?

[Tankerace]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

I can see with that argument, but I am a little confused. Why is it a Japanese sailboat has criteria to get in, but a broken down US Spanish American war era cruiser doesn't? Im not being an ass, I am just trying to figure out what the exact criteriea for ships getting in is.

JAPANESE SAILBOAT? Are you talking about the schooners Don had in his original mod?

Maybe, I just saw a sailboat graphic and thought ooh, a sailboat. Well I suggest the Rochester. LOL, its been a long day for me [:D]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

I can see with that argument, but I am a little confused. Why is it a Japanese sailboat has criteria to get in, but a broken down US Spanish American war era cruiser doesn't? Im not being an ass, I am just trying to figure out what the exact criteriea for ships getting in is.

JAPANESE SAILBOAT? Are you talking about the schooners Don had in his original mod?

Maybe, I just saw a sailboat graphic and thought ooh, a sailboat. Well I suggest the Rochester. LOL, its been a long day for me [:D]

Don inserted a couple which moved Aussie assets in Solomons in early 42. I think he was getting "hard core" on us.[;)]

[Tankerace]

Well, If he gets his schooners then I get.....McHale's Navy [:D]

actually its cool. Still, what about my Oregon idea, as at least an ammo barge.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Don inserted a couple which moved Aussie assets in Solomons in early 42. I think he was getting "hard core" on us.[;)]

That's me - hard core! The schooners that I put it were either historically significant or the vessels used by the scattered Australian Garrisons north of Papua in December, 1941/January, 1942 and in the Solomons. They and a few coasters moved, evacuated or attempted to evacuate small garrisons – most notably the 2/1 Independent Company that was spread from Vila to New Ireland with detachments at Tulagi, Buka, and Manus Island.

Besides – they are neat!