Page 4 of 6
RE: Tinkering with Treaties...Again
Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 11:22 pm
by mikemike
ORIGINAL: Terminus
The Type KRK is a more modern minelaying type; I'm assuming that the elderly KRS boats have been relegated to training duties.
You might take the German Type XB minelayers as model for your fictional KRK boats. They were first ordered in 1938 and some actually reached Japanese controlled waters late in the war converted to transport subs. They carried 66 SMA mines (moored mines with 350 kg of explosive). Alternatively there was the Type VIID which was essentially a Type VIIC with an additional section inserted behind the conning tower containing five mine shafts with 15 SMA mines; they don't have the range of the XB's, but should be rather more maneuvrable and survivable.
This would make a nice symmetry with RL, as the KRS subs as well as the J1 type were built to plans bought from Germany (the U118 and U140 types respectively). Several top German sub designers worked at Kawasaki Kobe to supervise detail construction and building of these submarines, and a German submarine veteran of WWI supervised their sea trials.
RE: Tinkering with Treaties...Again
Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 11:26 pm
by DuckofTindalos
I know. Here's my KRK boat:
RE: Tinkering with Treaties...Again
Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 11:33 pm
by mikemike
ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Gary,
... and Great Britain complete her set of Hoods.
Great Britain wouldn't have completed her set of Hoods, because they found the design unsatisfactory after the Jutland experience. Hood itself only barely survived, there were serious considerations to have "the hull scrapped on the stocks and replace it with something more useful", but was allowed to continue as a short-term hedge against the new German battlecruisers. The other three units of the class were cancelled in 1917 AFAIK when it became clear that the German ships had been put on the back burner and were unlikely to materialize. Britain would probably have wanted to build something on the lines of the G3 design, showing the Lexingtons up as the tin cans they were.
RE: Tinkering with Treaties...Again
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 12:00 am
by GaryChildress
ORIGINAL: Terminus
To change the subject, have you considered eliminating the worst light cruiser class in USN history, the Atlantas?
I didn't realize the Atlantas were the worst. I thought they were simply misused in surface engagements when they were far superior as AA cruisers in support of carriers. If the Atlantas were the worst, then what will that make the Yoshinos of Alt_Naval? They appear to be little more than IJN "Atlantas". [&:]
RE: Tinkering with Treaties...Again
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 12:03 am
by DuckofTindalos
They were structurally unsound, overloaded and undergunned. I played around with the Yoshinos for a bit, but decided to remove them in favour of changing the older IJN cruisers into CLAA's, similar to what the British did.
RE: Tinkering with Treaties...Again
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 12:04 am
by GaryChildress
ORIGINAL: Dixie
In another changing the subject post [:D] what would you replace the Royal Navy's Hawkins cruisers with? The three cancelled York class? The two cancelled Counties?
I forget now what I was thinking of replacing them with. I think I was going to throw in a few extra counties and a small cruiser to round out the left over tonnage. I've pretty much given up on my first idea of scrapping old cruisers early though. I think I'm going to stick to the Washington and London treaties and just build around them with better ships if I can.
RE: Tinkering with Treaties...Again
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 12:10 am
by GaryChildress
ORIGINAL: Terminus
They were structurally unsound, overloaded and undergunned. I played around with the Yoshinos for a bit, but decided to remove them in favour of changing the older IJN cruisers into CLAA's, similar to what the British did.
I think the whole idea of the Yoshinos, though, is to give AA support to the fleet, not to engage in surface combat. I would think that would make them of some value to the IJN.
RE: Tinkering with Treaties...Again
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 12:20 am
by DuckofTindalos
The CLAA idea in and of itself is not bad, but the Atlantas were bad overall...
RE: Tinkering with Treaties...Again
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 12:49 am
by GaryChildress
ORIGINAL: Terminus
The CLAA idea in and of itself is not bad, but the Atlantas were bad overall...
In that case perhaps I"ll give them the axe and replace them with something more practical. Perhaps some DDs. The US could probably use some more DDs to start off the war.
RE: Tinkering with Treaties...Again
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 12:57 am
by DuckofTindalos
ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
ORIGINAL: Terminus
They were structurally unsound, overloaded and undergunned. I played around with the Yoshinos for a bit, but decided to remove them in favour of changing the older IJN cruisers into CLAA's, similar to what the British did.
I think the whole idea of the Yoshinos, though, is to give AA support to the fleet, not to engage in surface combat. I would think that would make them of some value to the IJN.
The problem with that is similar to the problem with having separate anti-infantry and anti-tank tanks; you end up having to fight with them in a role they weren't meant for.
RE: Tinkering with Treaties...Again
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 1:03 am
by GaryChildress
ORIGINAL: Terminus
I played around with the Yoshinos for a bit, but decided to remove them in favour of changing the older IJN cruisers into CLAA's, similar to what the British did.
What did you replace them with? Larger cruisers?
RE: Tinkering with Treaties...Again
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 2:58 am
by Nomad
Interesting that you consider the CLAA Atlanta class to be the worst in the USN. Dunnigan and Nofi in "Victory at Sea" do speak of it as "A highly successfull design, ..." It was not designed to be a surface combat ship, but its 16 fast firing 5"/38 guns did prove to be very usefull.
RE: Tinkering with Treaties...Again
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 4:33 am
by witpqs
I forget the details or which battle, but I recall reading that in one of the Solomons battles an Atlanta kicked butt.
RE: Tinkering with Treaties...Again
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 5:01 am
by John 3rd
Going back to the subject of the Hoods, there were plans on the British books to build 4 'super-Hoods' to compete with the American and Japanese building plans. I blieve that they retained her BC lines and speed but packed more gunpower and armor. Will have to find the citation in my Thesis for which book I got the specifics from.
RE: Tinkering with Treaties...Again
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 10:05 am
by el cid again
ORIGINAL: mikemike
ORIGINAL: Terminus
The Type KRK is a more modern minelaying type; I'm assuming that the elderly KRS boats have been relegated to training duties.
You might take the German Type XB minelayers as model for your fictional KRK boats. They were first ordered in 1938 and some actually reached Japanese controlled waters late in the war converted to transport subs. They carried 66 SMA mines (moored mines with 350 kg of explosive). Alternatively there was the Type VIID which was essentially a Type VIIC with an additional section inserted behind the conning tower containing five mine shafts with 15 SMA mines; they don't have the range of the XB's, but should be rather more maneuvrable and survivable.
This would make a nice symmetry with RL, as the KRS subs as well as the J1 type were built to plans bought from Germany (the U118 and U140 types respectively). Several top German sub designers worked at Kawasaki Kobe to supervise detail construction and building of these submarines, and a German submarine veteran of WWI supervised their sea trials.
If IJN contemplated a minelaying sub per se (instead of tube laid mines as it did) - it would have kept the same mines already used by the KRS and it would have used the same hulls and engines as other types. The best candidate is a variation of the Kaidai - the Type C is one of those - with a minelaying system similar to the KRS aft (two tubes). It would work in game technical terms. But I do not detect any advocacy of this IRL and I do not see what advantage it would confer over using sub divisions in the ML role? [I send four subs to a single point, lay mines, then break them up into individual attack TFs - and rearm locally to continue to harass the enemy. ]
RE: Tinkering with Treaties...Again
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 11:14 am
by DuckofTindalos
ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
ORIGINAL: Terminus
I played around with the Yoshinos for a bit, but decided to remove them in favour of changing the older IJN cruisers into CLAA's, similar to what the British did.
What did you replace them with? Larger cruisers?
Like I said, I replaced them with CLAA modifications of the older IJN light cruisers.
RE: Tinkering with Treaties...Again
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 1:03 pm
by DuckofTindalos
ORIGINAL: Nomad
Interesting that you consider the CLAA Atlanta class to be the worst in the USN. Dunnigan and Nofi in "Victory at Sea" do speak of it as "A highly successfull design, ..." It was not designed to be a surface combat ship, but its 16 fast firing 5"/38 guns did prove to be very usefull.
Conway's describes the Atlantas as the "most overrated US cruiser class", and says that operational commanders found little use for them, and had no interest in an enlarged version with 5"/54 main battery. They
were designed for surface combat, BTW, to provide anti-destroyer protection on the edge of the battleline, as well as AA escort.
They were a classic example of not knowing what to do with a ship class. You think the IJN was the only service to put depth charges on their CL's? The Atlantas were constructed with sonar and depth charges, but lacked the maneuverability to use them properly, and they were quickly landed again.
The Atlantas were super-sized destroyers, which the US had more than enough of already. The resources should have been spent on more Clevelands; these shared many of Atlanta's weight problems, but at least they had a better main battery and an attempt at armour protection.
RE: Tinkering with Treaties...Again
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 1:44 pm
by DuckofTindalos
More ragging on the Atlantas...[:D] This comparative data is based on the stock DB and a snapshot taken on 3/3/44. Both classes have their 4/44 upgrades to go, but still:
The Clevelands obviously had their flaws too (no design can ever be "perfect") but at least they were proper cruisers. The only thing the Atlantas had that the Clevelands didn't were torpedo tubes.
RE: Tinkering with Treaties...Again
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 2:10 pm
by DuckofTindalos
ORIGINAL: witpqs
I forget the details or which battle, but I recall reading that in one of the Solomons battles an Atlanta kicked butt.
The Atlanta and the Juneau sank a Jap destroyer between them (that's about all the 5-inchers were good for)...
RE: Tinkering with Treaties...Again
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 2:49 pm
by herwin
ORIGINAL: Nomad
Interesting that you consider the CLAA Atlanta class to be the worst in the USN. Dunnigan and Nofi in "Victory at Sea" do speak of it as "A highly successfull design, ..." It was not designed to be a surface combat ship, but its 16 fast firing 5"/38 guns did prove to be very usefull.
If it was a bad class, why did the USN continue to build it? It was originally intended to work with the DD squadrons, thickening their firepower. It was actually overarmed for the number of controllers it had, which meant the later ships in the class were built with less gunhouses.