Matrix Games Forums

Torpedo tubes and torpedos are cheap though...If some destroyers did not get built/missed out that would be an issue.

Actually, they're anything but cheap, especially Long Lances. Both of the torpedo cruiser conversions couldn't get 40 tubes, exactly because of a shortage of weapons.

Besides, you have to actually hit with the torpedo, which was very hard at best when both fleets are maneuvering. Kitikami and Oi were a waste of resources, better converted to CLAA or left in their destroyer leader role.

Some other observations:

1. Mogami: When left in its commisioning configuration what you have is a slightly better armored Boise. And we all know about Boise. [;)] I've actually put this configuation in game and watched the 4 Mogami's drive off 2 older British BBs while escaping virtually undamaged....in game, they are awesome. It's simply the number of mid sized gun tubes available, each Mogami can lay down withering fire when it has 15 6.1" guns.

2. Shimakaze: The most armed to the teeth DD of the war. This is the class off DDs that should have been used as the destroyer leaders. Too bad Japan lacked the resources to build the 16 they had planned.

3. Oyodo: really a waste of resources. Too few guns and the entire aft is a floatplane deck. Additional Agano's or finishing the Ibuki class would have been better.

4. Agano: While the initial batch was under-armed with only 6 6.1" guns, the planned Agano-kai would have had 8 and been quite respectable in the battle line. A further improvement of making the turrets triples instead of doubles would have made these ships quite useful in fleet engagements.

5. Akizuki: Again a very good destroyer design with even better AAA capability than Shimakaze. Another class that had a large number of boats cancelled and never saw its full potential.

6. Shinano: Colossal waste of resources, 'nuff said.

Overall, I'd have left the Mogami's with the 6 inch guns, built a few more Takao's to take their place in the CA line-up. Scrap Shinano and build either the Shimakaze/Akizuki's or more Unryu or Taiho class Carriers. But then, I wasn't in charge. [:D]

The Shimakaze was a dead-end. She was too big, and her machinery was too complex and resource-intensive to build and maintain. Bad move for the Japs.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The Shimakaze was a dead-end. She was too big, and her machinery was too complex and resource-intensive to build and maintain. Bad move for the Japs.

Worse than that is she probably put the Akizuki class behind and another 4-5 destroyers these would have been very usefull in 42.

Biggest bottleneck for the Akizukis was probably the 10cm mounts and tubes. The Japs never really got going with those.

True but most of the gun development teams were on the 18" ... big opportunity cost.

1. The Mogami , its an interesting tactic but the beauty of the 8" guns and her speed is she can theretically keep the ships like Boise at distance so they cant hurt her and she can hurt them and run away from battleships. Sure at point blank range you can penetrate CAs and BBs but not at normal distance which includes later night fighting when radar picks up.

Note 8" guns penentrations vs BR PP Steel 6"(16K Yards) - 8.8" ( 10K yards ) - 16.6" (0 K) , 6" guns are 6.4" - 3.8" (16k) - 6.4( 10K) - 14" ( 0 k) . The performance in the critical 10-20K yard range is very poor. This may not be modelled in the game ( which included the poor firing arc of the 5th Turret) , i dont like modding for gamieness and the engine may change.

For short range combat a dedicated night fighter CA could be built ( maybe a CL in terms of cost but with a wide beam and massive bulges it would weight as much as a CA) see above. With massive short barreled guns which are cheap ( 8" were fitted to a lot of merchants) and can do massive damage at close range.

2. Agree with Terminus here while i would love a few squadrons of these they were a 1 of and squadrons puts it into fantasy lands rather than the possible ( unless your willing to put in Yamato resources) . She was smaller than the Akitzuki ( which was 2700/3700) . However the power plant was a one off with precision time consuming machinary. Considering Japan had an excellent 50kshp standard set of destroyer machinanry and 150K for the Cruisers putting the efforts into mass producing these would have served them better power plants were one of the major bottle necks in Japanese shipping . Its worth noting the parallels with the DB601 where they could have put more effort and mass produced the later Kensei.

3. Agree outside of Destroyer leaders and gunnery control im a firm beliver in Aux float plane carriers. Which as Terminas stated were converted to Cvs

4. The Agano at 9*6.1" is quite viable at 6Ktons and comparible to some other Cruisers. This is what this thread has been about . However historically the Yamatos snapped up the turrets and most of the guns with these ships being built from the waste of the 111 ( which is why they were built late also) . Considering you can add torpedo bulges cheaply upgrade to 10-12K and carry 5 turrets on a cheap ship ( say 25% more cost) why would you still build the 9*6.1 CL ? The only case is as a Destroyer leader but you could use the Oi unrefitted or a cheaper ship for this.

5.Akizuki is Japan's CLAA no need to build one. If you accept the 100/65 earlier you would have had these destroyers earlier. If you want a better one put more and better directors on her. Put 10% of the 18" gun team to work on the 100/65 and you iwll have it much earlier.

6. All the Yamatos were wasteful who here woudnt take 6-8 32 knot Battle Cruisers or Fleet CVs . The biggest issue with Shinano was like a lot of Japanese ships ( Taiho !) there were arguments what to do with no clear direction so she sat there with no work done for long periods and work redirected to the other Yamato ships. The lack of steel must have been chronic considering the 111 which was ready to launch you got a massive hull ready to launch , why didnt they just finish the hull , add a cruiser Power plant ( the main expense) add a cheap even wood flight deck and use her say mid 43 ( and Shinano the start of 43) , i can only think lack of steel , note her steel ( over 20K tons) was used in a number of conversions.

The Shimakaze would have been best used as a Destoyer Leader with its massive torpedo battery. And granted the machinery it used was complex, but this was also the same machinery that went into several of the late war carriers (which was the main reason more Shimakaze's weren't built). If one was willing to ditch Shinano and #111 early, concetrate on perfecting the machinery production it would be a longshot but possible to get a few more Shimakaze.

Obviously, the Akizuki is the best choice for a DD, its AAA battery was far better than any other Japanese DD (or CL for that matter) at the time. Again a simple decision to concentrate production into a single usable piece of equipment (the 100mm/65 Type 98) would not only have allowed the construction, but also would have allowed a major upgrade to most of the IJN in terms of AAA capability (the 100mm/65 Type 98 was an excellent weapon).

The Agano-kai would have had 4 turrets, which combined with triple 6.1" guns would have given you 12 tubes per ship, very useful had the Japanese only made this decision. In its 8 gun configuration its not quite as good and placing 8 inch guns on the same hull might have made more sense. Scrapping the Shinano and #111 earlier (which eventually happened anyway) would have freed some 6.1" triple turrets earlier. Again its a production decision that wasn't made either direction.

As I write this, I am realizing that most of the major problems with the IJN build schedule was simply a failure to: 1) Pool resources into 1 or 2 systems instead of many and 2) Constant indecisiveness on which direction to go with the build queues. A more focused build and R&D program could have overcome many of the problems.

The Shimakaze would have been best used as a Destoyer Leader with its massive torpedo battery. And granted the machinery it used was complex, but this was also the same machinery that went into several of the late war carriers (which was the main reason more Shimakaze's weren't built).

It makes a poor leader since it has little space for command ,carries no float plane and outruns the rest of the Squadron. Historically she didnt even lead because she could use her speed better alone. It was intended that she lead a slighly cheaper varient ( the other 20 ordered) which would have been slightly slower ie a 40knots flotilla. The late war machinary on CVs makes little sense , machinary on larger ships tends to be more reliable , more fuel efficient and costly but weigh more. In the 150kshp impulse engines that powered the Tones and Mogamis they had an excellent power plant for 30+ knot 30K ton carriers ( excellent power to weight , reliable , bedded down, fuel efficient) . Unfortunately 1941 is no time to be wasting time developing new power plants and they should be shelved to focus on building more plants. They could do with a simple mass prodiced plant in 41 though say 30K shp or even 40K to build more destroyers, by the time they did for the Mutsu they were runnoing into all sorts of difficulties.

If one was willing to ditch Shinano and #111 early, concetrate on perfecting the machinery production it would be a longshot but possible to get a few more Shimakaze.

No question the Shinao would be worth at least 5-6.

Obviously, the Akizuki is the best choice for a DD, its AAA battery was far better than any other Japanese DD (or CL for that matter) at the time. Again a simple decision to concentrate production into a single usable piece of equipment (the 100mm/65 Type 98) would not only have allowed the construction, but also would have allowed a major upgrade to most of the IJN in terms of AAA capability (the 100mm/65 Type 98 was an excellent weapon).

Agreed , it needs to be mass produced . It makes a nice CD gun as well.

The Agano-kai would have had 4 turrets, which combined with triple 6.1" guns would have given you 12 tubes per ship, very useful had the Japanese only made this decision.

It would have gone up in tonnage a fair bit...Why not build Mogamis ? In which case why not 8" ..

In its 8 gun configuration its not quite as good and placing 8 inch guns on the same hull might have made more sense.

Scrapping the Shinano and #111 earlier (which eventually happened anyway) would have freed some 6.1" triple turrets earlier. Again its a production decision that wasn't made either direction.

Yes they would be freed earlier , but im leaning to using them as CD batteries or on night fighting ships . Note not building or earlier scrapping of 111 does not buy you any tonnage , though it does make a35K slip available . The steel was used for a number of CV conversions.

As I write this, I am realizing that most of the major problems with the IJN build schedule was simply a failure to: 1) Pool resources into 1 or 2 systems instead of many and 2) Constant indecisiveness on which direction to go with the build queues. A more focused build and R&D program could have overcome many of the problems.

Yes Japan seesm to be significantly worse in this respect than say the US who held the Montanas for the ships that were quicker to build Essex and Iowa or Germany or Russia .
Note the Naval R&D program was pretty much busy with the Yamatos there were many obstacles to overcome even 5 years later 42 the guns still had issues. Please note the desire for conversions obviously came from a lack of steel and machinery. They wasted a lot of yard time with time consuming rebuilds. I knid of like the idea of going for top heavy mass produced 1000-1500 ton destroyers , who cares if one roles because it empties the tanks without balast their life expectancy is short anyway and once you take a torp or shells and counter flood your not going to worry ...

Im leaning towards no Yamatos laid down till 42 ( and the plans scrapped before the war)
AS with float planes stay AS , player may convert if there is a midway.
Katoris ,Agano and Oyodo not build resources focused on DD.
Tones and Ibukis ( early) replaced by 4 Night fighting CAs as above.
Introduce 2 new destroyer classes
1 ) Same as the Akizuki but will preceed her and carry 2 * 2 * 6.1" guns and 2 small float planes to act as a destroyer leader. Later a 3.9" turret is added and 1 float plane removed . Later can carry 6 * 3.9" + Float plane.
2) A Ootori or Momi style top heavy 2nd class destoryer . Japan tradditionally had these but had not build many for a while. ~950-1000 tons standard , 31 knots ,4000nm range , 4 (2 * 2) 4.7" DP guns , 4 21" torpedo tubes ( not the 24") , Depth Charges. Cheap and dirty use as escorts for high value or squadrons.

ORIGINAL: bklooste




2) A Ootori or Momi style top heavy 2nd class destoryer . Japan tradditionally had these but had not build many for a while. ~950-1000 tons standard , 31 knots ,4000nm range , 4 (2 * 2) 4.7" DP guns , 4 21" torpedo tubes ( not the 24") , Depth Charges. Cheap and dirty use as escorts for high value or squadrons.

Honestly, for escort the real threat came from USN Subs with air coming in second, not so much from surface threats. I'd ditch the torpedo tubes completely for more AAA and depth charges. And find a decent replacement for the 25mm AAA...a good place to place research or buy from Germany (the 3.7cm/57 M43, the 3.7cm/69 M42 or the 20mm/70 Flak 28 comes to mind).

I find myself becoming more convinced that with warships you are better off to design it for a purpose rather than trying to be a jack of all trades...jack of all trades excels at nothing.

The 20mm is a bad idea. Its throw weight was even smaller, and it was also magazine fed, so had low RoF.

All things being equal, the 25mm mount was unweildy, so the 20mm might have been a slight improvement, plus it was available from 1939 so it could have been used as a stop-gap until the 3.7cm was ready.

Ideally you'd want the 20mm Oerlikon and the 40mm Bofors, but that seems a stretch given the development time available to reverse engineer these weapons systems.

As for ASW escorts, in my personal mod, I have what I call the Bushi class. I see it as an IJN Flower-class corvette, designed for the sole purpose of getting the convoys from the Southern Resource Area and to the Home Islands.

One 102mm gun, two double 25mm mounts, a Y-Gun and a pair of depth charge rails, speed of 20 knots. ASW rating of 4 is pretty good, and certainly better than a lot of the junk the Japs fielded historically.

Take the Y-Gun off and the ship can be converted into a minesweeper if need be, and put it back on if you need (circular conversion).

The IJN builds nothing but this for ASW escort of convoys.

Realistic? Nope, but I like it.

ORIGINAL: Shark7


All things being equal, the 25mm mount was unweildy, so the 20mm might have been a slight improvement, plus it was available from 1939 so it could have been used as a stop-gap until the 3.7cm was ready.

Ideally you'd want the 20mm Oerlikon and the 40mm Bofors, but that seems a stretch given the development time available to reverse engineer these weapons systems.

If you can get th 37mm at prototype state its worth doing . I dont think the 25mm is significantly inferior to the Oerlikon and the existing 20mm AT/AA gun used by the army is equivalent and was well regarded.

The Bofors was a nuetral country design you could just boy a new AK from Sweden in 40 and you would get it in 41. You could even licence it. However i think the Bofor is cheese. I preffer a natural Japanese route to the 40mm baseed on the 37mm and 40mm if teh Japanese though 25mm is enough ( which is quite likely if the Cinese air force had better planes and launched some attacks in 40 which is the case in my scenario as they have more US aid) . Maybe a new 35mm influenced by the German 37mm prototype and the Bofors. Need to look at some options.

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: bklooste




2) A Ootori or Momi style top heavy 2nd class destoryer . Japan tradditionally had these but had not build many for a while. ~950-1000 tons standard , 31 knots ,4000nm range , 4 (2 * 2) 4.7" DP guns , 4 21" torpedo tubes ( not the 24") , Depth Charges. Cheap and dirty use as escorts for high value or squadrons.

Honestly, for escort the real threat came from USN Subs with air coming in second, not so much from surface threats. I'd ditch the torpedo tubes completely for more AAA and depth charges. And find a decent replacement for the 25mm AAA...a good place to place research or buy from Germany (the 3.7cm/57 M43, the 3.7cm/69 M42 or the 20mm/70 Flak 28 comes to mind).

I find myself becoming more convinced that with warships you are better off to design it for a purpose rather than trying to be a jack of all trades...jack of all trades excels at nothing.

You can use dedicated cheaper escorts for this , these guys are destroyers they escort troop convoys and can go raiding ,think Solomons. AA is good enough they have some 25mm and the DP which is more than enough for a light and maneuvarable ship the bigger ships are the ones who need better AAA.

Adding torps and depth charges adds a lot of punch , without the torps these class ships are very vulnerable to cruisers and 1st class destroyers as they cant get away.

Not so sure about specialised vs generalized it depends on the cost in terms of weight. Most modern ships and WWII destroyers were mutl role though they often did one roll better. If your going to be specialized you need to fight on your terms so you would want at least 33-35 knots ( which is expensive in terms of machinary) , for this reason cruisers are prob heavily specialised ( we got torp Cruisers, gun cruisers , Cruisers converted to CVE , AA cruisers etc) but cruiser are in the too valuable too loose category . The other alternative is to accept loss which you can with dedicated ASW escorts

ORIGINAL: Terminus

As for ASW escorts, in my personal mod, I have what I call the Bushi class. I see it as an IJN Flower-class corvette, designed for the sole purpose of getting the convoys from the Southern Resource Area and to the Home Islands.

One 102mm gun, two double 25mm mounts, a Y-Gun and a pair of depth charge rails, speed of 20 knots. ASW rating of 4 is pretty good, and certainly better than a lot of the junk the Japs fielded historically.

Take the Y-Gun off and the ship can be converted into a minesweeper if need be, and put it back on if you need (circular conversion).

The IJN builds nothing but this for ASW escort of convoys.

Realistic? Nope, but I like it.

What sort of tonnage and range ? Shimushu Class Escort carried 3 120mm guns late in the war. Agree with your mix MSW into the mix.

You can start with a 400 ton and 600 ton hull. Swap between diesel/ Turbines and bunkarage according to roll. The PBs provide high speed escorts and stay as historical.
eg

400 ton 16 knot Medium Range Diesel Sub chaser
400 ton 20-22 knot Short Range boiler Sub chaser
400 ton 14-16 knot Diesel long range

600 ton 16-17 Knot Boiler Medium Range Escort/Mine Sweeper
600 ton 20 knot Diesel long range Escort ( Expensive)


Base fit outs.
400 tons
1 x 80-mm (3-inch)/40 cal HA gun ( can be upgraded to 127mm/40), 3 x 25-mm Type 96 AA gun, 3 x Type 94 depth charge thrower, 2 depth charge rails, 36 depth charges, Type 93 hydrophones and Type 93 sonar.

600 tons
1 * 127mm/40 ( could carry 2 but not standard), 3 x 25-mm Type 96 AA gun, 3 x Type 94 depth charge thrower, 2 depth charge rails, 36 depth charges, Type 93 hydrophones and Type 93 sonar.


All 1939+ Escorts and Sub chasers and Mine sweepers use the new hulls.



Japan lacked escorts ( though they had ok PBs /SC its just a pain joining convoys and spliting off when low on fuel at choke points)

ORIGINAL: Terminus

As for ASW escorts, in my personal mod, I have what I call the Bushi class. I see it as an IJN Flower-class corvette, designed for the sole purpose of getting the convoys from the Southern Resource Area and to the Home Islands.

One 102mm gun, two double 25mm mounts, a Y-Gun and a pair of depth charge rails, speed of 20 knots. ASW rating of 4 is pretty good, and certainly better than a lot of the junk the Japs fielded historically.

Take the Y-Gun off and the ship can be converted into a minesweeper if need be, and put it back on if you need (circular conversion).

The IJN builds nothing but this for ASW escort of convoys.

Realistic? Nope, but I like it.

So how big is this? 500 ton, Dur=4, END= 5000?

I ask as I would agree. IJN needed this and why/how they did not develop one is funny. Certainly within their capability. Trying to pick through what they did have and you always run up against the END limit on the escorts.

They built bigger 800 tons ones with Ds and the Es but by the time they started building them they had trouble making engines....

About 900 tons for the Bushi, and yeah, about 5K miles in range.