Matrix Games Forums

Ignore the post. Different books say different things. According to Whitley's "Cruisers of WWII", the 5" guns that Watts says are DP are not even though the angle was 70 degrees. He indicates that they couldn't traverse fast enough besides other stuff.

What about the 2nd group of Fubuki's? Their 5/50 seems to be a DP type gun and the 5/50 3YT (device type 18) gun is not. In addition, during 41-42 the 1st group 5/50 elevation was raised to 70 degrees thus making them DP as well.

Same type of 5/50 as in the 2nd Fubuki group and the 41-42 revision of the 1st group. It should be a DP 5/50 (Device type 17)

Same for the Hatsuharu, SHIRATSUYU, Asashio, Kagero and Yugomo

Source: Watts and Gordon "The Imperial Japanese Navy"

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

In reality any ship could, in an emergency, carry some troops or supplies.

Mike,
(whoops; I missed this one and only responded to the earlier post)

Anyway . . .

Not any ship. The whole point is that a DE is one of the only units in the game which can't transport troops in a fast transport task force. Try it. They can join the task force, but they have 0 capacity.

If possible within the game, a ship should be available for a player to use as it was historically in the war. It would be different if they were only used in emergency situations, but these ships carried crucial landing teams for one of Yamamoto's boldest undertakings - the Midway invasion. I would certainly think keeping ships close to their historic function would be important.

What we are doing is classing ships on their planned role when built or rebuilt.

If that was the case you would be labeling them PGs or PCs. They were designated Patrol Boats.

I'm beginning to think you just want to use the DE designation. [;)]
bs

ps. I love a good friendly debate. If I didn't respect your opinion and think you have a good head on your shoulders I wouldn't bother with you.

Damn you Bstarr! I hate people that make sense! Bastard!

I don't know, i will think about it. I don't know what will fit best. I don't like them being APDs because they were not APDs. I guess just putting them back to destroyers would be good.

The reason in my mod i made them DEs is so players who maybe don't know as much about Jap ships would know what they were for.

I tried recategorizing several classes for ease of use.

Mike

Should we do as Mike did and add some belt armor to DDs so that they don't blow up under MG fire? I think this is a must.

I also would like to reduce the durability ratings of subs to a more appropriate level. In conjuction with this, I'd like to add belt armour based on their test depth. For EG, armor rating of 2 for 200 ft;3 for 300 ft; etc. This needs testing of course.

Ron,

From page 14 of the editor manual

Durability represents the size and toughness of the ship in terms of how difficult it is to sink. For submarines, this also represents the maximum dive depth of the submarine (in tens of feet, i.e. 30 represents a 300 feet max dive depth).

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Should we do as Mike did and add some belt armor to DDs so that they don't blow up under MG fire? I think this is a must.

I also would like to reduce the durability ratings of subs to a more appropriate level. In conjuction with this, I'd like to add belt armour based on their test depth. For EG, armor rating of 2 for 200 ft;3 for 300 ft; etc. This needs testing of course.

ORIGINAL: tanjman

Ron,

From page 14 of the editor manual

Durability represents the size and toughness of the ship in terms of how difficult it is to sink. For submarines, this also represents the maximum dive depth of the submarine (in tens of feet, i.e. 30 represents a 300 feet max dive depth).

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Should we do as Mike did and add some belt armor to DDs so that they don't blow up under MG fire? I think this is a must.

I also would like to reduce the durability ratings of subs to a more appropriate level. In conjuction with this, I'd like to add belt armour based on their test depth. For EG, armor rating of 2 for 200 ft;3 for 300 ft; etc. This needs testing of course.

I'm completely aware of that. But a few have experimented with armor on subs to alleviate the BS accuracy of DCs and it appears to help...not always a penetration when hit. So, I want to try lowering durability and adding armor to subs relative to their test depth. Lowering the durability of subs will lower the exorbitant production cost of subs at the moment.

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: tanjman

Ron,

From page 14 of the editor manual

Durability represents the size and toughness of the ship in terms of how difficult it is to sink. For submarines, this also represents the maximum dive depth of the submarine (in tens of feet, i.e. 30 represents a 300 feet max dive depth).

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Should we do as Mike did and add some belt armor to DDs so that they don't blow up under MG fire? I think this is a must.

I also would like to reduce the durability ratings of subs to a more appropriate level. In conjuction with this, I'd like to add belt armour based on their test depth. For EG, armor rating of 2 for 200 ft;3 for 300 ft; etc. This needs testing of course.

I'm completely aware of that. But a few have experimented with armor on subs to alleviate the BS accuracy of DCs and it appears to help...not always a penetration when hit. So, I want to try lowering durability and adding armor to subs relative to their test depth. Lowering the durability of subs will lower the exorbitant production cost of subs at the moment.

I dunno. Someone already mentioned that they were reducing the accuracy and effectiveness of the depth charges in this mod. If we try too many fixes at once, we may well end up with supersubs. Maybe test out the DC changes first, then go from there.

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Damn you Bstarr! I hate people that make sense! Bastard!

I don't know, i will think about it. I don't know what will fit best. I don't like them being APDs because they were not APDs. I guess just putting them back to destroyers would be good.

The reason in my mod i made them DEs is so players who maybe don't know as much about Jap ships would know what they were for.

I tried recategorizing several classes for ease of use.

Mike

I'm about to leave to go over to a friend's house. About six or seven beers from now I promice I won't make any sense whatsoever. [:D]

ORIGINAL: bstarr

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: tanjman

Ron,

From page 14 of the editor manual

Durability represents the size and toughness of the ship in terms of how difficult it is to sink. For submarines, this also represents the maximum dive depth of the submarine (in tens of feet, i.e. 30 represents a 300 feet max dive depth).

I'm completely aware of that. But a few have experimented with armor on subs to alleviate the BS accuracy of DCs and it appears to help...not always a penetration when hit. So, I want to try lowering durability and adding armor to subs relative to their test depth. Lowering the durability of subs will lower the exorbitant production cost of subs at the moment.

I dunno. Someone already mentioned that they were reducing the accuracy and effectiveness of the depth charges in this mod. If we try too many fixes at once, we may well end up with supersubs. Maybe test out the DC changes first, then go from there.

The accuracy and effect test is a success. Now I'm going to try the armor.

Hi Ron,

If you reduce the durability of subs, you'll reduce the victory points for killing them. (I think). So, fixing the production cost problem will potentially make subs worth the same as a PT or minesweeper.

(I think)

bc

One of the problems the sub durability method is causing is that the I-400 costs the same as a B-2 class. In reality the I-400 cost 3.5 times as much to build as the B-2's.

Mike

The Japanese Patrol Boats No.1 and No.2 (ex-Minekaze) and No.31 through No.39 (ex-Momi) were specifically equiped to carry troops. Patrol Boat No. 46 (ex-Wakatake Class Yugao) was not.

The ex-Minekazes could carry two daihatsu landing craft and 250 troops. They had their sterns raked down to the waterline to allow launch of the daihatsu. WHEN NO TROOPS OR LANDING CRAFT WERE CARRIED they could operate as ASW vessels, carrying a total of 60 depth charges. When carrying troops, the depth charge capacity was 18.

The ex-Momi class were originally configured as patrol craft but all except No.31 were modifed pre-war similarl to the ex-Minekazes, with cut down stern and a capacity of one daihatsu and 150 troops. Normal depth charge load was 60, reduced to 18 when carrying troops.

Though not specifically clear, it appears that No. 31 was never equipped to carry troops. However, we will probably fold her into the rest of the class in our scenario.

All data from Japanese Warships of World War II by A.J.Watts - Page 273.

We are going to place a"static" Utah, AG-16 at PH, correct? Given it's significance on turn 1 I think it's inclusion of value. I tested it's presence with PH attacks and it performs historically, usually drawing a bit of attention. Tanker made an excellent pic.

Don,

My sources disagree with yours; In mine the Momi's were looked at for conversion to APD but the conversion was not done due to small size.

Mike

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Don,

My sources disagree with yours; In mine the Momi's were looked at for conversion to APD but the conversion was not done due to small size.

Mike

All I have is Watts and Conway - both agree with my previous post (in fact, the language is disturbingly similar). A little Googling found this interesting site:

http://smmlonline.com/articles/momi/momi.html

Lots of artwork, including:

Here's the link for Minekaze and similar. Excellent sources for WITP artwork for these DDs and their modifications - should anyone want to do some.

http://smmlonline.com/articles/minekaze/minekaze.html

It looks like the Momi PBs are really two sub-classes. 31-33 as DE and 34 on as APD. Perhaps we could merge the 31-33 with the other surviving Momi.

Hi all,

That is what really ticks me off about Japanese operational planning. Why, when you have many purpose built APD's sitting around Japan, would you use 2 NON-APD's as troop transports at Wake and just run them aground?
WTF?

There were half a dozen or so unused Minekazes sitting around Japan. WTF?

Anyway, my source does not mention the 6 units converted to semi APD's. It just mentions the PB conversion. We probably need a new freaking class. The 3 destroyers, 3 PBs(DEs), & 6 APDs with a small capacity.

Whydidn't they just convert all of the small Momis and Wakatakes to PBs and convert a few Kamikazes to APDs? That would have been so much more intelligent.

Mike

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Hi all,

That is what really ticks me off about Japanese operational planning. Why, when you have many purpose built APD's sitting around Japan, would you use 2 NON-APD's as troop transports at Wake and just run them aground?
WTF?

There were half a dozen or so unused Minekazes sitting around Japan. WTF?

Anyway, my source does not mention the 6 units converted to semi APD's. It just mentions the PB conversion. We probably need a new freaking class. The 3 destroyers, 3 PBs(DEs), & 6 APDs with a small capacity.

Whydidn't they just convert all of the small Momis and Wakatakes to PBs and convert a few Kamikazes to APDs? That would have been so much more intelligent.

Mike

You want intelligent, look at the 3 ex-flush deck destroyers that became US Army Transports. These were sold by the Navy pre-war and purchased by a fruit company to run bananas. Even with some boilers removed they were fairly fast and could deliver bananas before they rotted. Anyway, once the war began the Army snapped them up for conversion to blockade runners (to try and get supplies to the Philippines). Military conversion was incomplete by the time the Philippines fell so they became general service transports. Very useful around New Guinea. One was lost there and another somewhere (Alaska maybe). Away from my library so I don't have the names.

Anyway, we can set up a couple of classes for the Momi - one APD and one (or two) DE, maybe one DD. Depends on how many classes we end up with - considering upgrades this could be a lot of classes for a class of obsolete small DD.

Here is what I have:

Source: Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy 1869-1945, Jentschura, Jung, Mickel

I am trying to find additional information on a late-war modification made to some Yugomo class DDs. It was performed on ships that had already had #2 twin 5/40 removed and replaced with 25mm. According to Conway the #3 5/50 and the 25mm AA in the old #2 gun location were removed and replaced with a twin 5/40 mount. Watts agrees but says a twin 4.7in mount.

To confuse it even more: http://www.combinedfleet.com/yugumo_n.htm

Does anyone have anything on this??