Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Is it really a problem building a slipway?
I mean, what is a slipway? Just a flat area in the right angle that the ship slips to the water with a massive fundament to allow thousands of tons on it. It can't be THAT problem building slips within a year or even faster. I think the biggest problem is (beside the money) to get enough skilled worker, no?

I don't see any great technical knowledge that's needed to build a slipway, especially as the Dutch really should have enough experience with weak ground and such things as they are the masters of building dikes.

I guess you've read what I've written in the other thread that I think it should be possible concerning all data, that even (or at least?) two BCs are completed or at least able to flee to England in 1940, so that they are ready for service in 12/41.

Peter the Great learnd shipbuilding in Holland - so knowledge per se is an old thing there. But the Dutch did not prefer slipways - and in their low country dry docks are not particularly hard to build either. Either way - for a captial ship - it is a big deal. More so in a place where land is very rare and expensive. I am not saying it is a technical challenge though - but rather an indication of intent and also time. Since no such dry dock existed, there was no fast option to use it. You had to build it first. And no one expected war before 1940. But we know they only had until 1938. I suspect they would want to do what they really did try to do - the 3 battlecruisers - and since that COULD be done fast once the drydock was available - they just might have got the first one far enough along to mattter for WWII. I was sharing my reasoning - which was not based so much on technical challenge as what would have been an option in the available time.

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Would the pride of the Durch navy really only get the name of a city?
AFAIK, the Netherlands have more than just this three provinces, no?

de zeven provenzien implies seven - so I suspect you are right

ORIGINAL: Terminus

BTW, Sid, the battlecruisers weren't meant to carry the 5.9in guns. They were projected to carry this:

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNSwede ... _m1924.htm

I used the British 4.7in QF gun to save a slot in the device database.

I was using German material - by Siegfried Breyer (available in English translation by USNI)

Schlachtshiffe und Schlachtkreuzer (Battleships and Battlecruisers)

he lists 150 mm - which I consider to be a 5.9 and has them in pairs - only four twin in the first design - six in later designs

Well, Conways says 120mm (4.7-inch) and so does Naval Weapons of WWII (which is what navweaps.com uses as a source). Four dual mounts in the initial design, six dual mounts in the revised.

The Scharnhorst and Project 1047 were not armed identically, aside from main battery.

My edition of Schlachtschiffe und Schlachtkreuzer says 12X120mm in stabilized twin mounts for the final design; a new model from Bofors that was finished only in 1943. Breyer also says that Nederlandsche Scheepsbouw in Amsterdam constructed a 220 m slipway in preparation for the order.

Names for cruisers and destroyers:

* Philips van Almonde
* Adriaen Banckert
* Joost Banckert
* Jan van Brakel
* Gerard Callenburgh
* Cornelius Cruys
* Cornelis Evertsen
* Johan van Galen
* Hendrik Gravé
* Jacob van Heemskerk
* Piet Pieterszoon Hein
* Abraham van der Hulst
* Willem Janszoon
* Cornelis Jol
* Egbert Bartholomeusz Kortenaer
* Moy Lambert
* Cornelis Matelief de Jonge
* Laurens Reael
* Michiel de Ruyter
* Joachim Swartenhondt
* Maarten Tromp
* Tjerk Hiddes de Vries
* Jacob van Wassenaer Obdam
* Sebald de Weert
* Witte Corneliszoon de With
* Willem van der Zaan

De Zeven Provincien would be a good name for a BC, it was the famous flagship of de Ruyter

Except that name was already taken by a CL.

Yes - and unfortunately it is impossible to rename ships, nore was it ever done in history...

Very constructive comment, that...[8|]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Very constructive comment, that...[8|]

I just try to imitate you [:D]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Except that name was already taken by a CL.

None of the CL's had been officially christened come the German occupation, they were both still on the stocks, and the name of the other unit had already been changed from Kijkduin to Eendracht (a further two potential BC names). De Zeven Provincien was launched by the Germans in 1944 for use as blockship, and was renamed as De Ruyter in 1947 by the Dutch. Eendracht was renamed first De Ruyter by the Germans in 1944, and then De Zeven Provincien in 1947 by the Dutch. We're in fantasy land anyway, so I don't see another rename as that much of an obstacle.

Good Point... De Zeven Provincien does sound appropriate for a capital ship...

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Well, Conways says 120mm (4.7-inch) and so does Naval Weapons of WWII (which is what navweaps.com uses as a source). Four dual mounts in the initial design, six dual mounts in the revised.

The Scharnhorst and Project 1047 were not armed identically, aside from main battery.

Breeyer might be right. Dutch cruisers had no secondaries - but DP primaries and 40 mm entirely. Putting the DP 5.9s on the BC makes some sense.

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Yes - and unfortunately it is impossible to rename ships, nore was it ever done in history...

I like de Zeven Provencien for a BC - and it might have been had she been laid - but what would the sisters
then have been planned to be called? Once we know that, we can figure what is left for CLs - and cities
seem appropriate there.
OR in the Dutch case - famous naval leaders.

As far as I know, the 5.9in guns were not DP. They probably could have been used as such, with their mounts capable of 60 degrees of max elevation, but I can't see anything in any of my available sources that indicates they were used against aircraft.

Besides, what use would a 6-inch gun with a ROF of 5 RPM be against aircraft, in a pre-VT era?

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Yes - and unfortunately it is impossible to rename ships, nore was it ever done in history...

I like de Zeven Provencien for a BC - and it might have been had she been laid - but what would the sisters
then have been planned to be called? Once we know that, we can figure what is left for CLs - and cities
seem appropriate there.
OR in the Dutch case - famous naval leaders.

Akte van Verlatinge (1581; the seven provinces declared their independance and asked Wilhelm to be their stadtholder)
Willem van Oranje (Leader)
Jacob van Heemskerk (admiral in the Battle of Gibraltar in 4/25/1607 where the spainish fleet was totally destroyed with nearly no losses)
All names of the same theme...

ORIGINAL: Terminus

As far as I know, the 5.9in guns were not DP. They probably could have been used as such, with their mounts capable of 60 degrees of max elevation, but I can't see anything in any of my available sources that indicates they were used against aircraft.

Besides, what use would a 6-inch gun with a ROF of 5 RPM be against aircraft, in a pre-VT era?

first - a retraction - the guns are 4.7s after all - I should not attempt to read fine print without reading glasses

second - not only are the Dutch 5.9s DP - they are DP in RHS - so are French 5.9s on a battleship - but the Dutch ones are more
effective - sort of like the Worcester type only sooner

ORIGINAL: Historiker

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Yes - and unfortunately it is impossible to rename ships, nore was it ever done in history...

I like de Zeven Provencien for a BC - and it might have been had she been laid - but what would the sisters
then have been planned to be called? Once we know that, we can figure what is left for CLs - and cities
seem appropriate there.
OR in the Dutch case - famous naval leaders.

Akte van Verlatinge (1581; the seven provinces declared their independance and asked Wilhelm to be their stadtholder)
Willem van Oranje (Leader)
Jacob van Heemskerk (admiral in the Battle of Gibraltar in 4/25/1607 where the spainish fleet was totally destroyed with nearly no losses)
All names of the same theme...

nice work - if we can get art - we will go this way -

Did you ever check out the Iron Storm mod?

http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~tgh4635/manual/

I think it has some of the ships you are talking about in it.

Iron Storm was great. A similar concept based on RHS (or the later version of CHS in Gary's case) would be most welcome.

OK - I read it. RHS does have something of an "Iron Storm" variation - although not with most of the ships that never were.
RHS BBO family (which includes RHSRPO for those who want passive Russians and RHSPPO for those who want to control the war instead of having units arrive for theaters that might not makes sense in their game world) - is the war as it was planned - both before the war and through the first part of 1942. It also features some ships in BB or cruiser form which appear in CV or CVL form in CVO family.

It would not be difficult to create a more elaborate form of this - and RHSEBO might be the right way to go with it. Japan has no ship slots, but old vessels could be traded. I can whip this out in a couple of days - but I want a sense of what people are looking for before I attempt it - if I attempt it. It is curious: RHSMAIO may be a very fine mod - but it may not end up being able to cure AI of its ills. I want to know what the goal is here? I was just trying to find a way to put in the Dutch BC - and I think I did that.