Combined Historical Scenario - Ship Data

[Don Bowen]

Here is a sample of the Takao class. This is the 6/44 upgrade, with all of marc's data in and my typos out. Had to compress the 25mm into groups to reduce number of weapons slots - anything over about 16 slots forces a scroll bar on the ship data display.

Actual 25mm on each side was two triples, three twins, nine singles - 21 total - represented as if it were seven triples.

[Lemurs!]

The range figures for the Japanese cruisers at 15nm are:

Furutaka/Aoba: 6000nm
Takao/Myoko: 8000nm
Mogami: 8100nm
Tone: 11000nm
Agano: 8000nm
Oyodo: 13000nm

Remember, except for merchant ships, subs, and a few specialized craft we are working with a default cruise speed of 15knots.
Adjust accordingly.

Most ships built in the 30's or early 40's could develop 15kts with 20% power.

Mike

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

The range figures for the Japanese cruisers at 15nm are:

Furutaka/Aoba: 6000nm
Takao/Myoko: 8000nm
Mogami: 8100nm
Tone: 11000nm
Agano: 8000nm
Oyodo: 13000nm

Remember, except for merchant ships, subs, and a few specialized craft we are working with a default cruise speed of 15knots.
Adjust accordingly.

Most ships built in the 30's or early 40's could develop 15kts with 20% power.

Mike

Thanks Mike - We've been looking for these. The only figure Marc had for Takao was at 18 knots (from "Japanese Cruisers of World War II"). Quite a difference!

Here's what I currently have for other Japanese Cruisers (also from "Japanese Cruisers of World War II"):

Furutaka-class: 1,858 t oil 7,000nm at 14 kts (designed), 7,900nm at 14 kts (effective)
Aoba-class: 2,040 t oil 8,000nm at 14 kts (designed), 8,223nm at 14 kts (effective)
Myoko-class: 2,214 t oil 8,500nm at 14 kts (planned), 7,463nm at 14 kts (effective) and 5,000nm at 18 kts.
Myoko after first reconstruction: only 4,000nm at 16 kts !!!!!
Mogami/Mikuma: 2,215 t oil 8,000nm at 14 kts (designed), 7,000 - 7,500nm at 14 kts (effective)
Suzuya/Kumano: 2,302 t oil 8,000nm at 14 kts (designed), 7,000 - 7,500nm at 14 kts (effective)
Tone-class: 2,690 t oil 12,000nm at 14 kts (designed), 8,000 nm at 18 kts (designed), no effective data
Agano-class: 1,420 t oil 6,000nm at 18 kts (designed)
Oyodo: 2,445 t oil 8,700nm at 18 kts (designed), 10,315nm at 18 kts (effective)!!!!
Katori-class: 600 t oil 9,900nm at 12 kts at full load (designed)
Yubari-class: 916 t oil 5,000nm at 14 kts (designed), 3,310nm at 14 kts (effective)!!!!! because of 15% higher weight than expected.

Don

[Marc]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

The range figures for the Japanese cruisers at 15nm are:

Furutaka/Aoba: 6000nm
Takao/Myoko: 8000nm
Mogami: 8100nm
Tone: 11000nm
Agano: 8000nm
Oyodo: 13000nm

Remember, except for merchant ships, subs, and a few specialized craft we are working with a default cruise speed of 15knots.
Adjust accordingly.

Most ships built in the 30's or early 40's could develop 15kts with 20% power.

Mike

Lemurs! What is the source of these values?

Compared to the data from "Japanese Cruisers Of The Pacific War":
- Furutaka/Aoba: 2000 nm less with only 1 knot difference isn't possible.
- Myoko: also one value is wrong
- Takao: 5049/18 - 8000/15 -> Again one must be wrong
- Mogami: again one is wrong
- Tone: this is absolutely possible.
- Agano: Hm. Maybe.
- Oyodo: Maybe too.

So. The question is which data to trust. I must admit that "Japanese Cruisers Of The Pacific War" is so detailed that I find it hard to believe that any other source (that I can read) is more reliable.

Lemurs! ?

[Marc]

I already asked Don. Does anybody know if the endurance values in WitP are nautical miles or just miles?
It is quite important since a nautical mile is 1.1508 miles.
One hex is 60 miles, isn't it? So perhaps Matrix is always calculating with miles?

Anybody?

[bstarr]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: bstarr

Well, I've found a site that has a lot of merch ship data.

classes
C1-A - 5028 gt, 6440 dt, 14 k, 412 l
C1-B - 6750 gt, 8015 dt, 14 k, 417 l
C1-M (Alamosa Class, USN) - 3805 gt, 5032 dt, 11kt, 378
C2 (varies greatly) - @7200 gt, 15 k, 459 l
C3 (ditto) - @7800 gt, 16 kt, 492 l
C4&C5 - troopships; I still havent figured out how to translate their tonnage.

and these are just the civilian prewar designs!

I even have a list of what ships belong to what class. The question is, if I come up with all this info, who is the poor sucker who is going to get stuck with the tedious job of sifting through all those damn US AKs and APs in the game, checking their name against a monster list of ships, then changing them? Should we just leave them alone?

That would be me. Post or send me the link, I'll check it out. As far as I know the C5 was not used for troopships but the refrigerated cargo version was used for Navy AFs.

Here's what I have so far:

Standard C1 and C1-M-AV1
Standard C2 and C2-S-A1
Standard C3 and C3-P

There is a reasonable representation of a C4-P in the base icon set.

I'm on it. I'll post any major finds and questions but, if it's okay, I'll just PM you or Mike on minor questions rather than clutter the thread.

Oh! One Important item! While researching merchant ships, I noticed that the speeds are generally faster than those given in WITP. However, keep in mind that the speed of a Merchant convoy is much slower than the max speed of it's slowest vessel. In fact, it was often as slow as 6 knots. I think the max speed of merchant ships in the game may have lowered to reflect this. If this is the case, you need to lower the Jap Merchant ships that you've found. Note how C1s and C2s (which are basically S. AKs and L. AKs) are rated much slower in the game. And the generic jap AKs are slower than the average historic jap AKs.

(and if I'm getting all excited about something you guys figured out two weeks ago, just nod, pat me on the head, give me a doggy biscuit, and I'll blissfully go on my way thinking I've saved the day [:D])

[Marc]

ORIGINAL: Marc

I already asked Don. Does anybody know if the endurance values in WitP are nautical miles or just miles?
It is quite important since a nautical mile is 1.1508 miles.
One hex is 60 miles, isn't it? So perhaps Matrix is always calculating with miles?

Anybody?

From the manual:
6.1.17 Ship Endurance
Ships use fuel whenever they move. In War in the Pacific - The Struggle Against Japan, 1941-
45™, each ship is rated for how much fuel it can hold as well as its maximum endurance, which is
the number of miles the ship can travel at cruising speed. The TF display shows the amount of
endurance remaining for each ship in the TF. A ship with no endurance left will cause its TF to
have a maximum movement speed of one hex per naval movement phase.


Is it possible that we have to multiply all endurance values with 1.1508 because we searched for nautical miles ?????

[bstarr]

Check this out:

type / Morison / USMM.org / HazeGrey
C2-S-AJ3 (Tolland)/ 6318-6456 gt / 8160 gt / 6350 gt
C2-S-B1 (Andromeda) / 6556-7132 gt / 6230 gt / 6458 gt
Liberty / 4023-4674 gt / *see below* /4023 gt /

*no listing but says a liberty can hold over 9000 tons!*

See what I’m getting at here. Most sources say the Liberty holds 7200, but even at that lesser amount, if we increase the C2s by the same gross ton to cargo capacity ratio you come up with L. AKs that carry around 11000 tons. Hell, the Libertys are actually closer to the C1s in gross tonnage ( but the overall dimensions suggest the Liberty’s capacity would be almost exactly in between)

Any ideas? Should we reduce the cargo capacity of the Liberty ships accordingly? I’d hate to since they are the best researched merchant vessels in the game, but if we increase the other classes in proportion to them we’ll end up doubling the allied shipping capacity!

[Don Bowen]

I'm used to seeing GRT for an EC2 (Liberty Ship) at around 7150. Remember, GRT is a space measurement, not a weight measurement. Technically this equates to internal space for cargo in 100 cubic feet increments (7150 X 100 cubic feet). This would make the WITP capacity just about right. 9000 tons of cargo weight is possible with heavy items (but would make for an uncomfortable ride).

I am using 90% of GRT as cargo capacity for AKs, still scratching my head on transports.

[bstarr]

check this out:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/shi ... mc.html#c2

apparently the C2s were larger than the Libertys

good source here. Lists just about everything. Apparently that low tonnage I kept finding is "Navy Light Tonnage" Any idea how they come up with that #?

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: bstarr

check this out:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/shi ... mc.html#c2

apparently the C2s were larger than the Libertys

good source here. Lists just about everything. Apparently that low tonnage I kept finding is "Navy Light Tonnage" Any idea how they come up with that #?

Good information - includes some endurance figures (it seems US Tankers might be too low in WITP). I should have remembered Clancey's site - I dealt with it back in PacWar days. I believe Navy Light Tonage is similar to standard displacement for a warship - the ship with crew and "normal" levels of fuel and stores but no cargo.

Liberty ships were designated "EC2" - for Emergency C2. They were a simplified version of the C2 for ease of construction. Incidentally the USMC designation system was based on a type ("C" = cargo) and a size ("2"). I don't remember the specifications for size by it was based on length and 1 was the smallest. There were variations within each designation based on engine type and configuration. I'll see if I can find the data again and post it.

[Herrbear]

I notice that according to Watts and Gordon, "The Imperial Japanese Navy" that a number of minelayers were modified in 43-44 to escort vessels by adding depth charges and droping the minelaying capability.

[bstarr]

Don,
Okay, now I'm getting somewhere. I noticed that when I divided the M.C. deadweight (given on the above site) of a Liberty by 70% I came up with 7200 and when I did the same with a standard C2 I came up with 7000. That's exactly WITP has for Liberty and the L. AK. I decided I had something I could work with and here are the results.

First is ship's name; The next three listings are speeds given with max then cruise in parenthesis - 1st speed is actual if going purely historical; then my 1st WITP suggestion(I subtracted one for nonAKAs and made a few other minor adjustments); third being my slower speed suggestion, bringing the ships closer to the actual speeds they traveled; next is suggested Man, based on ship's length; next is suggested durability, based on tonnage with a two or three points added for AKAs; next is capacity, based on the above formula.

Liberty
11(10) / 11(10) / 10(8) / 56 / 15 / 7200

Tolland class AKA, USN; C2-S-AJ3
15(12) / 15(12) / 14(11)/ 55 / 22 / 5800

Andromeda class AKA, USN; C2-S-B1
15(12) / 15(12) / 14(11)/ 55 / 23 / 5900

Artmetis class AKA, USN; S4-SE4-BE1
16(12) / 16(12) / 15(11)/ 58 / 18 / 2000

Alamosa class AK, USN; C1-M-AV1
11(10) / 11(10) / 10 (8)/ 62 / 15 / 3750

Generic AKA, USN; various C2 classes, only 14 historically
15(12)/ 14(11) / 13(10) / 55 / 21 / 6200

C1-A, USMM
14(12)/ 13(11) / 12(9)/ 59 / 15 / 5250

C1-B, USMM
14(12)/ 12(10) / 11(9) / 58 / 16 / 6300

C2 (generic), USMM
15(12)/ 14(11) / 12(10) / 55 / 20 / 7000

C3 (generic), USMM
16(13)/ 15(12) / 14(11) / 52 / 22/ 9000

C4 (generic), USMM
17(14)/ 16(13) / 15(12) / 50 / 24 / 4200? (the formula didn't work well on this one)

I have an index that lists which AKAs and USN AKs belong to which class, and I know of a site that lists the USMM AKs and gives their class. So I think we're in business.

Like I said, I prefer the third speed listed, but we should at least use the second, since merchant ships seldom could run their top rated speed in the best of conditions.

I'm still working on it but I have an idea for armament, but range is beyond me. I do think C1s should be short-legged and C2,3,4s long-legged, but other than that I have no suggestions for range as yet. I'm also tinkering with APs and APAs.

Let me know if this helps or if you'd prefer me to search in another direction.
bs

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: bstarr

Don,
Okay, now I'm getting somewhere. I noticed that when I divided the M.C. deadweight (given on the above site) of a Liberty by 70% I came up with 7200 and when I did the same with a standard C2 I came up with 7000. That's exactly WITP has for Liberty and the L. AK. I decided I had something I could work with and here are the results.

First is ship's name; The next three listings are speeds given with max then cruise in parenthesis - 1st speed is actual if going purely historical; then my 1st WITP suggestion(I subtracted one for nonAKAs and made a few other minor adjustments); third being my slower speed suggestion, bringing the ships closer to the actual speeds they traveled; next is suggested Man, based on ship's length; next is suggested durability, based on tonnage with a two or three points added for AKAs; next is capacity, based on the above formula.

Liberty
11(10) / 11(10) / 10(8) / 56 / 15 / 7200

Tolland class AKA, USN; C2-S-AJ3
15(12) / 15(12) / 14(11)/ 55 / 22 / 5800

Andromeda class AKA, USN; C2-S-B1
15(12) / 15(12) / 14(11)/ 55 / 23 / 5900

Artmetis class AKA, USN; S4-SE4-BE1
16(12) / 16(12) / 15(11)/ 58 / 18 / 2000

Alamosa class AK, USN; C1-M-AV1
11(10) / 11(10) / 10 (8)/ 62 / 15 / 3750

Generic AKA, USN; various C2 classes, only 14 historically
15(12)/ 14(11) / 13(10) / 55 / 21 / 6200

C1-A, USMM
14(12)/ 13(11) / 12(9)/ 59 / 15 / 5250

C1-B, USMM
14(12)/ 12(10) / 11(9) / 58 / 16 / 6300

C2 (generic), USMM
15(12)/ 14(11) / 12(10) / 55 / 20 / 7000

C3 (generic), USMM
16(13)/ 15(12) / 14(11) / 52 / 22/ 9000

C4 (generic), USMM
17(14)/ 16(13) / 15(12) / 50 / 24 / 4200? (the formula didn't work well on this one)

I have an index that lists which AKAs and USN AKs belong to which class, and I know of a site that lists the USMM AKs and gives their class. So I think we're in business.

Like I said, I prefer the third speed listed, but we should at least use the second, since merchant ships seldom could run their top rated speed in the best of conditions.

I'm still working on it but I have an idea for armament, but range is beyond me. I do think C1s should be short-legged and C2,3,4s long-legged, but other than that I have no suggestions for range as yet. I'm also tinkering with APs and APAs.

Let me know if this helps or if you'd prefer me to search in another direction.
bs

This helps very much. I still lean toward basing capacity on GRT though. I'll sit down and look at speeds as soon as I finish cross-referencing the Japanese Merchant Ships. Big headache - so many different spellings. I've found and fixed a few duplicates but I think there are many more. I'm just not sure enough to throw away all the research the Matrix did.

Don

[bstarr]

Don,
I would have gone with gross tonnage, but I couldn’t find a source that stayed consistant. However, I think M.C. tonnage may stand for Maximum Cargo Tonnage. Notice how the AKAs have a lower MCT in comparison to the exact same USMM vessels. This makes sense; the AKAs would have larger crews, extra landing equipment (cranes, etc, since they aren’t made to unload at readymade ports), more lifeboats, and probably more armament (and ammo), fuel, and larger engines. Another example - the USMM C1s were used most for coastal and short oceanic runs, requiring smaller crews and engines, and less fuel therefore their cargo capacity is larger in relation to their size. Last night I was completely confused by the fact that an AP sometimes had less than half the MCT of an identical AK. It just dawned on me (in fact, while writing this) that this makes sense if MCT is Maximum Cargo and “cargo” doesn’t include passengers. Not only that, but imagine the extra lifeboats and landing equipment that would be required for a fully loaded AP. I dunno, I still could be wrong, but the more I look at it, the more I think M.C. really does stand for Maximum Cargo.
bs

ps. also notice how Naval light tonnage ads up with MCtonnage to come up with a number very close to the fully loaded tonnage.

pps. No, wait. Wasn't M.C. Tonnage an overweight rapper in the late ninties? [:D]

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen



This helps very much. I still lean toward basing capacity on GRT though. I'll sit down and look at speeds as soon as I finish cross-referencing the Japanese Merchant Ships. Big headache - so many different spellings. I've found and fixed a few duplicates but I think there are many more. I'm just not sure enough to throw away all the research the Matrix did.

Don

Don Deadweight Tonnage is probably as accurate a reflection of varying ships as is
going to be readily available. A DW ton is simply 100 cubic feet of cargo space. As
cargos and usages and designs varied widely, comparing how much useable space
was available to put stuff in is at least a consistant standard for which lots of figures
are published.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen



This helps very much. I still lean toward basing capacity on GRT though. I'll sit down and look at speeds as soon as I finish cross-referencing the Japanese Merchant Ships. Big headache - so many different spellings. I've found and fixed a few duplicates but I think there are many more. I'm just not sure enough to throw away all the research the Matrix did.

Don

Don Deadweight Tonnage is probably as accurate a reflection of varying ships as is
going to be readily available. A DW ton is simply 100 cubic feet of cargo space. As
cargos and usages and designs varied widely, comparing how much useable space
was available to put stuff in is at least a consistant standard for which lots of figures
are published.

I think that is the definition of Gross Registered Tons. Here is a concise definition of DWT and GRT:

http://members.tripod.com/~merchantship ... ition.html

[bstarr]

the two should work out to be six on one hand and a halfdozen on the other. They won't be the same result, of course, but knowing one measurement will pretty much tell us what the other one will be - a ship with a large gross tonnage will have a comparatively large deadweight tonnage. I think the only time we'll come up with a situation where using one or the other one makes significant difference would be barges, due to their long, flat body. I'm pretty sure gross tons is going to be what is represented in the game, but 70% of M.C. deadweight is very close to the gross tonnage of every ship I've been able to research, so it should be an accurate translation into WITP terms. Not perfect, but very close. Anyway, I'm having fun doing this, so if you decide not to use what I come up with it won't bother me in the least.
bs

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: bstarr

the two should work out to be six on one hand and a halfdozen on the other. They won't be the same result, of course, but knowing one measurement will pretty much tell us what the other one will be - a ship with a large gross tonnage will have a comparatively large deadweight tonnage. I think the only time we'll come up with a situation where using one or the other one makes significant difference would be barges, due to their long, flat body. I'm pretty sure gross tons is going to be what is represented in the game, but 70% of M.C. deadweight is very close to the gross tonnage of every ship I've been able to research, so it should be an accurate translation into WITP terms. Not perfect, but very close. Anyway, I'm having fun doing this, so if you decide not to use what I come up with it won't bother me in the least.
bs

Glad for your help. Allied merchants will be coming up in a little while - nearly finished with Japanese. I have GRT for all the Japanese ships and have used 90% of GRT (rounded) as capacity.

I wonder if M.C. Tons might be Maritime Commision Tons??

Don

[bstarr]

I just did a little researching on other allied merchant ships. Y'all reckon the Liberty was based on the British North Sands class? They're about the same size and their grt is almost identical.

Oh, and I may have figured a possible reason for the differences in some ship's grt within the same class. If fuel stores aren't included in grt then coal burning ships would have a lower tonnage since coal takes up more space than normal fuel. I noticed that Canadian built "Fort" class ships were often rated for lower grt, and then read somewhere that early canadian built merchships were coal burners.