Ex Battleships

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

[The Utah and another US battleship (Wyoming) were armed as AA training ships. Utah had 5 inch 38s on one side and 5 inch 25s on the other side! And also a strange set of 40mm mountings - apparently two quads, a twin and a single (to train gun crews).

Okay, where did the Utah get 40mm's when the first shipboard mounting was not unitl mid-42? I think she had at least one quad 1.1's, being the test ship for this gun and mount, and some .50cals, along eith 4 5"/38's and 4 5"/25's.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Yeah I am a Heinlien fan, I have read over 40 of his books, most more than once. So in neither Scenario you bring Utah back if she isn't sunk? I was wonderign what you woudl do with her if she survives PH attack.

I don't think Utah will be sunk most of the time. If she is not, she will "repair" back to her gunnery training form. This is a useful ship as a sort of "convoy tanker" - she can feed minor escorts fuel for long distance movements - or even blimps for that matter! And she can provide some AA cover. The Wyoming does not appear in RHSCVO, but the proposal to restore her to service is adopted for RHSBBO.

I actually corresponded with RAH - which is impossible because it was his policy NOT to correspond! He would write to say "you are the only one who gives me lots of data and does not ask for anything in return but I just had to say how useful it is" - stuff like that. Once he also had his wife send a note about a game I sent him. I used to read all his stuff.

This is exactly why Utah remains unarmed and with no propulsion in CHS...so that players don't use the ship ahistorically. It was a gunnery training ship and unmanned target vessel. It assists in crew training so that they show up with some level of expertise. It was not "free" to go on these blimp jaunts etc.[:-][8|][8D]

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Yeah I am a Heinlien fan, I have read over 40 of his books, most more than once. So in neither Scenario you bring Utah back if she isn't sunk? I was wonderign what you woudl do with her if she survives PH attack.

I don't think Utah will be sunk most of the time. If she is not, she will "repair" back to her gunnery training form. This is a useful ship as a sort of "convoy tanker" - she can feed minor escorts fuel for long distance movements - or even blimps for that matter! And she can provide some AA cover. The Wyoming does not appear in RHSCVO, but the proposal to restore her to service is adopted for RHSBBO.

I actually corresponded with RAH - which is impossible because it was his policy NOT to correspond! He would write to say "you are the only one who gives me lots of data and does not ask for anything in return but I just had to say how useful it is" - stuff like that. Once he also had his wife send a note about a game I sent him. I used to read all his stuff.

This is exactly why Utah remains unarmed and with no propulsion in CHS...so that players don't use the ship ahistorically. It was a gunnery training ship and unmanned target vessel. It assists in crew training so that they show up with some level of expertise. It was not "free" to go on these blimp jaunts etc.[:-][8|][8D]

Oh come on Ron, this is about giving the players the ability to choose, none of this historical perogative crap. If players really feely this way then they can easily edit out the ship before the game begins by ginving it an arrival date of 9999. Otherwise lets go on a few excursions.

[el cid again]

This is exactly why Utah remains unarmed and with no propulsion in CHS...so that players don't use the ship ahistorically. It was a gunnery training ship and unmanned target vessel. It assists in crew training so that they show up with some level of expertise. It was not "free" to go on these blimp jaunts etc

Presumably the ship reference records the most standard armament during the war. It does elaborate a bit:

1) Utah had PREVIOUSLY been an unmanned, radio controlled target vessel BEFORE being turned into a manned gunnery training ship - and it was no longer able to function in the former role by the time the war began;

2) Utah "apparently" rotated smaller gun mountings "as required". Presumably as the associated training facility required. And so, if we had unlimted interest and slots, we could have her go through several upgrades of these.

I am not sure why you bother to play a war game at all? If EVERY decision MUST be made EXACTLY the same by players as it was historically, why not just read history books and watch films about those decisions - which are set in concrete? Maybe historical commanders didn't make the best choices? Maybe a different strategy by a player justifies a different choice? Maybe different game events justify a different choice? Players are ALWAYS free to ignore and not use a ship - and if they think Utah should stay in the gunnery training role - just put it in port and ignore it - and no harm done - its only role is that of an extra target if the port is attacked (something it really was in the real attacks on Pearl too). [Plural because there was more than one attack: two air raids by Kiddo Butai and one by Emilies - she could have been hit in any of them and actually was in one of them.] Using all the resources really available is the real preogrative of an operational commander - and taking resources away from them is not my idea of being historical. Anyway - someone else put Utah in - I just outfitted her with guns - which I then disabled. Players may not use them on Dec 6 Tokyo time - and if they elect to use them later it is their choice, not mine. I note some Japanese ships worth more in scrap value than operational terms are also included in CHS - so fair is fair.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

This is exactly why Utah remains unarmed and with no propulsion in CHS...so that players don't use the ship ahistorically. It was a gunnery training ship and unmanned target vessel. It assists in crew training so that they show up with some level of expertise. It was not "free" to go on these blimp jaunts etc

Presumably the ship reference records the most standard armament during the war. It does elaborate a bit:

1) Utah had PREVIOUSLY been an unmanned, radio controlled target vessel BEFORE being turned into a manned gunnery training ship - and it was no longer able to function in the former role by the time the war began;

2) Utah "apparently" rotated smaller gun mountings "as required". Presumably as the associated training facility required. And so, if we had unlimted interest and slots, we could have her go through several upgrades of these.

I am not sure why you bother to play a war game at all? If EVERY decision MUST be made EXACTLY the same by players as it was historically, why not just read history books and watch films about those decisions - which are set in concrete? Maybe historical commanders didn't make the best choices? Maybe a different strategy by a player justifies a different choice? Maybe different game events justify a different choice? Players are ALWAYS free to ignore and not use a ship - and if they think Utah should stay in the gunnery training role - just put it in port and ignore it - and no harm done - its only role is that of an extra target if the port is attacked (something it really was in the real attacks on Pearl too). [Plural because there was more than one attack: two air raids by Kiddo Butai and one by Emilies - she could have been hit in any of them and actually was in one of them.] Using all the resources really available is the real preogrative of an operational commander - and taking resources away from them is not my idea of being historical. Anyway - someone else put Utah in - I just outfitted her with guns - which I then disabled. Players may not use them on Dec 6 Tokyo time - and if they elect to use them later it is their choice, not mine. I note some Japanese ships worth more in scrap value than operational terms are also included in CHS - so fair is fair.

Question for Alaskan and Cid. Got any examples of say, Wyoming, operating during WW2 as a bomb soaker, decoy, mobile flak battery escort for convoys etc as players will surely use her for?[:D] I realise Centurion was used in this manner during Halberd or some such Malta convoy but this is one extreme and rare example which occured in another theatre of war. Not something which should really instigate widespread use of baroque technology.

As for Utah, that was my doing as she had a definite role in the Pearl Harbor attack.

I play wargames for the historical immersion and competitiveness, the longer the game the better. But I stop when a historical game becomes a series of ahistorical meanderings utilizing assets for all sorts of BS tactics. Utah, or Wyoming, or Settsu etc were exactly that...resources, but training resources. They were not shoved into the breach because they were not combat worthy and to sacrifice everything like players are wont to do (ie using merchants as early warning decoys![8|]) makes their inclusion (Utah excepted as explained already) a bad idea. Hey, it's just my opinion but unless their actual role has an impact on the game (ie, if Wyoming actually was important to any crew training model in the game I doubt it would be viewed as just more cannon fodder) the unit will be abused.

[Nikademus]

Question for Alaskan and Cid. Got any examples of say, Wyoming, operating during WW2 as a bomb soaker, decoy, mobile flak battery escort for convoys etc as players will surely use her for?

Wyoming was used as a gunnery training ship throughout the war. Eventually her remaining heavy batteries were landed in favor of more light guns to further complement her role as a trainer (BB gun training wasn't needed at this point....AA gunnery was)

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Question for Alaskan and Cid. Got any examples of say, Wyoming, operating during WW2 as a bomb soaker, decoy, mobile flak battery escort for convoys etc as players will surely use her for?

Wyoming was used as a gunnery training ship throughout the war. Eventually her remaining heavy batteries were landed in favor of more light guns to further complement her role as a trainer (BB gun training wasn't needed at this point....AA gunnery was)

Exactly my point Steve. Without an actual role in the game for which she was designed for and is a vital part of the Wyoming or any other non combatant will end up leading some wild charge on the front lines.

[Nikademus]

since no human element is involved, players naturally will throw in ships that in RL would never be risked in a combat zone. Personally i wouldn't bother adding her anymore than i would Utah or Settsu

[el cid again]

Question for Alaskan and Cid. Got any examples of say, Wyoming, operating during WW2 as a bomb soaker, decoy, mobile flak battery escort for convoys etc as players will surely use her for? I realise Centurion was used in this manner during Halberd or some such Malta convoy but this is one extreme and rare example which occured in another theatre of war. Not something which should really instigate widespread use of baroque technology.

First of all, Centurian spent a good deal of time in the Eastern Fleet, and the critical early months of the war with Japan actually stationed at Bombay. While she did a number of calls at Aden before the Pacific War began, and afterwards, she was part of the theater itself - not just on the periphery - in a critical period. Our scenario says "once a ship enters the PTO proper - not just a peripheral port - she is in and stays in as long as the player wants." IF I could force her to withdraw, I would, but I can't, so I must wait for another day to do that. Eventually, she serves in two other roles: first an AA vessel in Egypt, and then she is expended at Normandy. Quite a remarkable ship. But her FIRST role was DECEPTION - and that is not really a fighting role - although it can be. It is to cause a misunderstanding of where the namesake ship (in this case Anson) or some sister (if misidentified) really is? And I have programmed this ship - which really operated in theater - to report AS Anson - not as some dummy ship. The OWNING player will know otherwise, but the enemy will not - except she won't shoot very much if cornered! I bet many players never even notice this strange dummy ship.
And I bet many others pretty much ignore her. Those who like her and use her - successfully or not - are the ones I created her for. This is a ship for the BBO scenario - presumably some battleship oriented players will like having an old battleship with ANY role. And it is perfectly legitimate to send her to Aden - or even off the map if you want - to satisfy British withdrawall requirements at some point.

[el cid again]

Question for Alaskan and Cid. Got any examples of say, Wyoming, operating during WW2 as a bomb soaker, decoy, mobile flak battery escort for convoys etc as players will surely use her for? I realise Centurion was used in this manner during Halberd or some such Malta convoy but this is one extreme and rare example which occured in another theatre of war. Not something which should really instigate widespread use of baroque technology.

Wyoming was not used in PTO at all during WWII. But in 1942 it was PROPOSED to send her there, two ways:

1) As a "gunfire support ship" - presumably still armed with six 12 inch

2) As a completely reborn battleship - presumably with all 12 heavy guns.

Both proposals did not survive the changes made in naval planning after Coral Sea and Midway - with their carrier focus. But in RHSBBO we assume those decisions were NOT made in time. You get Wyoming instead of some Essex - probably - and it is not an ideal trade - but had we not had early enough experience we might well have been stuck with her. This is not something I made up and it properly belongs in BBO - you DO get SOMETHING when you keep the old plans in exchange for the carriers not laid down or converted. The two Iowas are much more significant, I admit - but she is another example of the same, writ small.

[el cid again]

I play wargames for the historical immersion and competitiveness, the longer the game the better. But I stop when a historical game becomes a series of ahistorical meanderings utilizing assets for all sorts of BS tactics. Utah, or Wyoming, or Settsu etc were exactly that...resources, but training resources. They were not shoved into the breach because they were not combat worthy and to sacrifice everything like players are wont to do

I note you didn't add Centurion to the list - since she WAS "shoveled into the breach" - no less than three different ways in more than half a dozen operations extending over years of time. Utah may not have been intentionally an enemy target, but she died as one nonetheless - so saying she was not in the war zone is hardly correct - and saying a ship really there could not (had it survived Pearl Harbor Day) been used seems incorrect as well. Wyoming is NOT for CVO - that is for you Ron - and all those who think the fairly radical changes in thinking which occurred are appropriate for simulation all scenarios. I personally think those changes might well have occurred later in time - and that a failed Pearl Harbor attack (preserving the battlefleet and Kimmel as boss) would likely have given us a very different war. If you don't want Wyoming - and want all those Essex's - play CVO - not BBO. That is why there is a choice.

BUT IF we give the Allies Centurion in her real role - and Wyoming as proposed in the non-carrier oriented scenario - and Utah (in both - because she was really at Pearl) - is it not appropriate to add the one Japanese captial ship that was still sailing and might have had other roles?
Note this is a genuine question and I have NOT done any work on that option. I am collecting opinion.

In fairness, I was first exposed to naval operations during a strange fleet training exercise. One Lt Col Breckenridge (USMC), son of a WWII era general, led two companies of "token opposition" marines to capture more than two regiments of 2nd Marine Division = there were vast "POW camps" on Vieagus. This was AFTER a similarly imaginative Rear Admiral had taken a de facto merchant ship (the converted Prarie Mariner in her APA form) and sunk virtually the ENTIRE division AT SEA - by trickery and getting the USN to do it for him! [Now that APA - USS Francis Marion - was itself sunk in the effort. But there were so few "surviving" marines the naval exercise had to be reversed in order for the Marines to play the invasion. Both commanders had a detachment of Beachjumpers - naval deception specialists - helping - and there were also two swift boat teams. I learned deception that year (1965) and never forgot to use it whenever possible ever after. YOU may consider such things "gamey" but I consider them professional.

[el cid again]

since no human element is involved, players naturally will throw in ships that in RL would never be risked in a combat zone. Personally i wouldn't bother adding her anymore than i would Utah or Settsu

Utah is already added - and properly so since she was sunk at Pearl.
NOT having her present HELPS the Japanese by causing them to have no chance to waste bombs and torpedoes. Centurion SHOULD be added since she really was in theater - and may have decieved the enemy - all you get is a chance anyway - no certainties. Wyoming is NOT going to be added in the CVO version - since the historical decision NOT to honer the proposals to convert her are implemented in that version. It properly should be added for BBO - since that assumes the carrier oriented decisions were not taken in time. But Settsu - that is really questionable. She is a training ship, as such, and generally we aren't doing training assets that had no operational role. I only propose it due to play balance and for fun. I will try once again to point out that no one forces anyone to use anything - and most players have some kinds of ships they NEVER use.

[el cid again]

(ie using merchants as early warning decoys! )

Please help me with this.

Small fishing vessels - each had a single naval petty officer aboard as a recognition expert and radio operator - really detected the Hornet task force and forced premature launch of the Doolittle Raiders (and a 100% loss of planes due to insufficient range to reach base). They were important in other operations, large and small. Exactly why are you citing it as an example of player "misuse" of assets? I regard players who do NOT use small merchants for early warning as poor players not doing a good job of simulating what professionals really did. Why do you regard them as "gamey" and working the technicalities of the system? I will NEVER take advantage of what I regard as "gamey" tactics - but what in the world is wrong with using something as it could have been - and even was - used?

[el cid again]

Exactly my point Steve. Without an actual role in the game for which she was designed for and is a vital part of the Wyoming or any other non combatant will end up leading some wild charge on the front lines.

I fail to follow this: IF Wyoming were refitted as a modern battleship, or alternatively, if she were sent in almost as is as a fire support ship for landing operations, would she not really have been used as a battleship (or as a fire support ship)? And why would players send her on a "wild charge"? She is too slow to be very effective as a raider. Almost the same armament as an Alaska, but only 20 knots or so? Anyway, clearly if this bothers you so will Shinano as a battleship, two more Iowas, Lions and such: don't do BBO.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Question for Alaskan and Cid. Got any examples of say, Wyoming, operating during WW2 as a bomb soaker, decoy, mobile flak battery escort for convoys etc as players will surely use her for?[:D] I realise Centurion was used in this manner during Halberd or some such Malta convoy but this is one extreme and rare example which occured in another theatre of war. Not something which should really instigate widespread use of baroque technology.

Well at first I decided not to answer, but what the heck. Got any examples of the Japanese KB patrolling the Hawaiian Islands after Dec 7th 1941? In many games being played the Japanese player does indeed do this, although it is ahistorical. The point is it should be up to the players to decide. Who is to say what the Utah might, or might not, have been used for if she had survived? It is possible that with most of the BB's out of commission and other major units stretched thin that she could have been used in roles not envisioned before the war. Indeed, before the war the battleship was not seen cheifly as a shore bombardment ship, but instead as the chief arbitrator of naval battles and the aircraft carrier was yet unproven.

As far as the Wyoming goes if she never entered the Pacific during WWII then she will never be in my historical mod, but including her would be an interesting "what if", which BTW, is precisely why I play historical simulations.

[el cid again]

Well at first I decided not to answer, but what the heck. Got any examples of the Japanese KB patrolling the Hawaiian Islands after Dec 7th 1941? In many games being played the Japanese player does indeed do this, although it is ahistorical. The point is it should be up to the players to decide.

On Dec 8, 1941 (US time) IJN Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto decided the historical hit and run raid was a MISTAKE. That the Kiddo Butai should have STAYED in Hawaiian waters, hunting carriers and damaged ships fleeing to the US West Coast - and cutting the line of supply for Hawaii. Once the carriers had been neutralized, and certain land facilities as well (air bases, and open to air observation major coast guns at Fort Ruger - which could prevent landing on any coast), a follow up force should have landed three divisions on Oahu. The Battle of Midway was an attempt to correct this "mistake" - just being phase one. In this sense - that the Japanese fleet commander THOUGHT they SHOULD have stayed - and also that MANY US naval officers AT THE TIME thought they SHOULD have done - it IS a reasonable option that players do so.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Well at first I decided not to answer, but what the heck. Got any examples of the Japanese KB patrolling the Hawaiian Islands after Dec 7th 1941? In many games being played the Japanese player does indeed do this, although it is ahistorical. The point is it should be up to the players to decide.

On Dec 8, 1941 (US time) IJN Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto decided the historical hit and run raid was a MISTAKE. That the Kiddo Butai should have STAYED in Hawaiian waters, hunting carriers and damaged ships fleeing to the US West Coast - and cutting the line of supply for Hawaii. Once the carriers had been neutralized, and certain land facilities as well (air bases, and open to air observation major coast guns at Fort Ruger - which could prevent landing on any coast), a follow up force should have landed three divisions on Oahu. The Battle of Midway was an attempt to correct this "mistake" - just being phase one. In this sense - that the Japanese fleet commander THOUGHT they SHOULD have stayed - and also that MANY US naval officers AT THE TIME thought they SHOULD have done - it IS a reasonable option that players do so.

I guess anything/everything is an option. Could of, should of, is hindsight which everyone has. This is the reason we game. However, the raid on Hawaii did not, and that is history. Strange, I rememeber you discussing how there was not enough fuel to do this recently. Just where is the fuel coming from again?? The only reason the players can do this is because the tankers and the KB have full fuel tanks and the endurance of the various vessels are absurd, whereas historically they did not have enough fuel to stay there for any length of time and their endurance was much less.

[el cid again]

I guess anything/everything is an option. Could of, should of, is hindsight which everyone has. This is the reason we game. However, the raid on Hawaii did not, and that is history. Strange, I rememeber you discussing how there was not enough fuel to do this recently. Just where is the fuel coming from again?? The only reason the players can do this is because the tankers and the KB have full fuel tanks and the endurance of the various vessels are absurd, whereas historically they did not have enough fuel to stay there for any length of time and their endurance was much less.

Correct you are. Adm Yamamoto's plan envisaged a great many more ships being involved - including tankers! And of course, he hoped to capture some oil on Oahu itself - Ohau had HALF as much oil as all of Japan did! But no, the original force needed more oil to hang out.

I am unable to reduce oil in the tankers - they start the game FULL AFTER refueling Kiddo Butai. There is one missing too - should be eight. I am experimenting with forcing 4 to "disappear" until after the tanker force historically returns to Japan - thus using half the oil in the tanker force automatically. It means those tankers are not at risk - but that is a compromise. Opinion?

[witpqs]

More realistic than currently.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I am unable to reduce oil in the tankers - they start the game FULL AFTER refueling Kiddo Butai. There is one missing too - should be eight. I am experimenting with forcing 4 to "disappear" until after the tanker force historically returns to Japan - thus using half the oil in the tanker force automatically. It means those tankers are not at risk - but that is a compromise. Opinion?

Half tanker would do fine. The other half could enter as reinforcements at the time and place where historically the tankers returned to. You can, I think, reduce the fuel aboard the warships. You mentioned previously about modifying the endurance/cruise speeds. Generally, what form will/did this take?

As you are well aware I argue an 18kt cruise for the Japanese and a 20kt cruise for the Allied and base the endurance accordingly. As one of many examples, the primary reason for lengthening the Gearing class by 14 feet, according to Friedman, was to install additional fuel bunkerage to enable her to steam at least 4500nm@20kts. This need for 20kt crusing speed was due primarily to the higher crusing speeds of the new capital ships (CV, BB, CB). Likewise for the Japanese, where Lacroix and Welles state that one requirement of the late prewar cruiser designs was endurance at 18kts. Yoshimura, in his book "Battleship Musashi" indicates in at least once on the endurance of the Yamato and Musahi being "8600nm at 19kts".