Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Have been thinking on the upgrade for old Japanese CLs to CLAAs and had an interesting thought. The Torpedo Cruisers were designed with a long platform running down their starboard and port decks. On these platforms they mounted 5x4 Long Lance Torpedo Mounts. These had to be able to take a bunch of weight and be structurally secure.

Could we use the Torp-Cruiser as a model for the CLAAs except replace the Long Lance Mounts with 3.9" AA Mounts instead. One would have to think about magazine space for these guns. Perhaps one could pull all the Torps and any Aircraft and replace with four 3.9" guns mounts on either side?

Armament:
4 5.5" Single Guns
8x2 3.9" AA Guns

Would that be a realistic possibility? What do you think?

The Torpedo Cruisers had their conversion done in about 6-8 months of time. Might be semi-realistic to look at the same thing here...

16x100mm in all, plus some 140mm? I agree with Terminus, this is way too badass for their weight. I'd say no more than half of that number of 100mm guns for Kitakami/Oi, converted pre-war. Even then, just four twin 100/65 turrets will weight about as much as all 7 140mm guns installed before the conversion, making the top weight even bigger problem. Also, why keep any 140mm armament, as the ship will be too undergunned to go against anything bigger than a destroyer in surface combat anyway? Just place two more twin 100/65 mounts, one on the bow and one on the stern (a stern twin DP mount was supposed to be installed there in the initial projects of the torpedo version, so there should be enough place for it). This will a bit of stretch, but not too big one, as removal of torpedo tubes will save some weight as well.

CLs convesions during the war won't have the time for any serious work on the hull, and probably will be required to be done on cheap, so, as I said before, total armament around 6x127/40 + 4x76/60 + 45-60 25mm (fewer immediately after conversion, full complement in 1944) (+ depth charge rails) will be closer to the truth, again judging by what was done to Isuzu in RL. If I remember cor, that any DP gun mounts were far heavier than 140mm gun mounts originally carried by these cruisers.

ORIGINAL: FatR

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Have decided to copy the old RA Folder of AE and created a new one so the newest version cannot be confused with previous RA copies/variants.

Am excited about adding a new book to my research library. Bought Jentschura's Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1869-1945. It cost a pretty penny but the tome lists EVERY warship built, designs and specs, a small service history, and names of ships planned but not constructed. Very COOL!

I looked this book up, and it made me drool. Did you order in on the net somewhere?

I would really recommend the book. It is an excellent resource. Got it off amazon for $65.00.

One of the biggest advantages I got out of it were the names for all cancelled ships. We'll be more correct with our deployment in late-42/early-43.

Where have you been Stanislav? Felt like I was fumbling around without the Design Team. Hope things are OK.

Responses:

1. Will change Sho-Kai Air Groups to older planes.

2. Will leave Mini-KB--no speed bonus--at Palau.

3. PTs I have no clue about.

4. I felt that the CLAAs were TOO much but had no clue as to what to do with them. How about a 100MM Turret on the bow, one where the Seaplane Catapult was, and one on the stern? Add two sets of the 76MM/60 plus 25MM and we have something a bit more useful for Carrier Combat. Pull off all TTs and Search Planes to save some weight and we're there.

Better?

Just to put things into perspective, 8 twin 10cm mounts where what the IJN envisioned for the B-65 "Super A" cruiser, a ship about 7 times heavier.

If you're going to do include the old 3000-tonners in the mix, they'll need an seperate design scheme. The original plan for them called for three twin 10cm mounts, or six guns. For the 5000-tonners, you can probably squeeze in another turret. 25mm to taste.

Like that idea. How about:

Tenryu, Tatsuta, Kuma, Tama, Kiso: 3x2 100/65 and a pair of 76/60 with then 25MM?

Nagara's and Naka's (9 Ships): 4x2 100/65, two pairs of 76/60 and 20MM?

As said no Torps and no Search Planes.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Just to put things into perspective, 8 twin 10cm mounts where what the IJN envisioned for the B-65 "Super A" cruiser, a ship about 7 times heavier.

If you're going to do include the old 3000-tonners in the mix, they'll need an seperate design scheme. The original plan for them called for three twin 10cm mounts, or six guns. For the 5000-tonners, you can probably squeeze in another turret. 25mm to taste.

Wouldn't the 5in/40 be a more suitable choice for the older cruisers? Weighs less and more numerous.

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Just to put things into perspective, 8 twin 10cm mounts where what the IJN envisioned for the B-65 "Super A" cruiser, a ship about 7 times heavier.

If you're going to do include the old 3000-tonners in the mix, they'll need an seperate design scheme. The original plan for them called for three twin 10cm mounts, or six guns. For the 5000-tonners, you can probably squeeze in another turret. 25mm to taste.

Wouldn't the 5in/40 be a more suitable choice for the older cruisers? Weighs less and more numerous.

Obviously, which is what the Japs ended up using in real life. The scheme for the Tenryus I mentioned was pre-war, and shot down in favour of the Akizuki program. There's really no plausible reason for a wartime conversion program like this.

Went through and made the changes as described above.

Not sure as to time so as a ballpark starting point I listed for the main conversion (100MM Guns) the following:

Conversion Delay--30
Upgrade Damage--15
Upgrade Delay--30

Minimum pullout of the fight is 2 1/2 months. This seems pretty fast.

Would it be better to change the Conversion Delay up to 60 or even 90?

I fear that Terminus is correct. There is no realistic reason to try and cram top-of-the line modern weapons into these old hulls (that were mostly used as fast transports in the real war, anyway). The logistically correct answer to weakness of fleet AAA is "Build more farm... eh, Akizukis". Alternatively, scrap the idea of training cruisers, leave Kitakami/Oi as they were (i.e., no torpedo cruiser conversion) and use the saved money and workforce to try putting a couple of brand-new CLAAs in the service before the war, or early in the war, if the shipyard capability at all allows. I respect IJN's dedication to crew quality, but these same old CLs should serve as training ships just fine (heck, downgrade armament a bit on a pair of them you don't like, to reflect increased crew space for training duties).

I'd like the option of wartime conversion only because it gives a player options to play with, not because it was a winning solution in RL. And options are a good thing, even if they are not very great by themselves. The scheme I propose at least has the justification of primarily using older gun mounts removed from first-line ships (or from hypothetical cancelled continuation of Agano series) and so on. The results won't be that great too, making these ships basically oversized and armored escorts, so the player will have to weight, if having more flak justifies that.

Thanks Stanislav, you guys are going to make a JFB out of me yet, if anyone ever writes JFB for Dummies I'll be first in line to buy it.[;)]

Thanks for the encouragement, I came up with a few additional ideas this morning for the Admirals screen , I'll spend the afternoon cutting objects out and post the update some time tonight. Which should be two screens if you guys are satisfied, I can always add another later if that's what you guys want. After I get done with John 3rds requests I have some ideas going on for a surface combat screen that would hopefully appeal to the japanese players of this mod still working through everything but have some objects cut out already, we'll see how things go.

ORIGINAL: Terminus
Obviously, which is what the Japs ended up using in real life. The scheme for the Tenryus I mentioned was pre-war, and shot down in favour of the Akizuki program. There's really no plausible reason for a wartime conversion program like this.

Ouch. Was thumbing through Jentschura and Lacroix and found the plans to initially convert Kitakami and Oii to an AA config - long before the Kitakami conversion to a Kami Carrier. Also found the detailed plans for the Isuzu conversion. Lots of interesting background material, and ship architectural studies, before and after.

Are you interested? Can reply with some jpg's of relevant pages of this & that. But basically, I think Terminus has it wired in pretty well.

Ciao. John

I am more then willing to throw this open for a good discussion and debate. How about a list of "options" regarding Old CLs, Training Cruisers, Agano's, and a CLAA?

Option 1:
Do what we have proposed: build 6 Improved Agano's and allow conversion of the old CLs into a CLAA configuration as detailed previously.

Option 2:
Scrap the four proposed Training Cruisers AND the Torpedo Cruiser conversions, while leaving the Agano's, to make room for NEW construction.

What might that be?
a. Simply bring forward the Azizuki AA DD earlier where several would already be in service at war's start with more on the slips. Figure adding another 6-8 to the expanded construction program.

b. Replace the Training Cruisers with a true CLAA to run as an escort to the CVs. Figure 4-6 new ships here. Keep the Akizuki's moving at their present building pace.

Figure we could reduce the weapons on Tenryu/Tatsuta to convert them into 'Training Cruisers.' Heck their fairly useless anyway...

There are other possibilities but these strike me as most simple.

Okay guys here's act two of the first screen I posted.

Can I simply say...wow...WELL DONE!

You have his career in a nutshell with the pictures, calligraphy, and medals. Brightening the Flag really helps too...

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

Okay guys here's act two of the first screen I posted.

Holy Cow Sulu!!!!!!!! This is awesome work! You've been holding back on me! After the ship art and screens you sent me, we are going to have to make you a PERMANENT art guy here!!!!!!!!! Get it???? You just were drafted!!!!

Please email me this one (and others if you have them).

YOU NEED TO POST THIS IN THE ART MODS THREAD SO OTHERS CAN GET THESE!!!!

This is very good work!!!!!!

TOMLABEL

To steal JWE's thunder a bit, here's the drawing of the proposed Tenryu CLAA from LaCroix and Wells. I disremembered it a bit: it was supposed to have been four twin 12.7cm at first, then they considered four twin 8cm, and ended up doing neither.

Something a bit more economical was the proposal to convert some of the 5500-tonners into fast minelayers and training vessels. Goodbye, Katoris!

I like tossing the Training Cruisers and going with the above idea pulling several of the oldest CLs out and making them fill the roll.

In pulling them and NOT building the Katori's could one simply accelerate the Akizuki AA DDs and that solve the issue? Could start bringing in this fine class of DD say a year early. Seems to me to be a practical choice that would not require research on a new class, additional slips, etc...

How about starting the war with 2-3 and essentially add a total of 6-8 to the existing building program? They sure would be handy for the KB at start.

These mod threads for the JA make for fascinating reading and you guys are to be complimented for the research into the IJN shipbuilding program and technical developments, not to mention the associated industrial, aeronautical, land force upgrades.

My question is this. Why not generalize your work and permit the JA player to build ships to original design or convert to any known options while in the shipbuilding queue ? Likewise, the conversion of older ships [to CVL, CLAA, etc] could be left to the player just as one executes these in the present stock game, just with all the terrific added options you have debated. In addition, there might be a way to permit any combination of new construction [indeed all the ones you have considered to date] to go ahead or be terminated, by using the metering of the shipbuilding points and industrial overhead. Even shipyard expansions could be contemplated, albeit at enormous cost in supply and industrial points. The recognized sensitivity of the JA economy will in fact restrain the player to most RL concerns.

Back to shipbuilding, the IJN Circle programs remained hopelessly ambitious, but provide interesting food for thought. Given the realities of Japanese prewar finances and the black hole that the China War posed through 1940, there was probably little variation possible in prewar plans, but don't let that daunt you in your hypotheticals. But by recognizing the chaos of the IJN shipbuilding plans and parallel difficulties with Japanese aviation [not only limited resources, but constantly changing/cancelling orders, made worse as the war ensued], perhaps the best service of your efforts would be to place all designs in play, but let the industrial and supply penalties dictate just how much a JA player can do. Let the battleship-oriented player build the four Yamatos, B65s, cruisers and so forth, the 'costs' of which which will not allow Taihos, Unryus and onward. It is a typical gamble whether the six prewar CVs can be kept in action through 1943, the year the war is usually decided in any case. The aviation-oriented player can convert or stop all the big ships except multiple Taiho (5?) and Unryu(15?) CVs and try to build replacement task forces to replace the carnage of carrier warfare. ASW strategies can also come into play as well as the notions of better sub and reconnaissance forces. I have little doubt that similar measures can be placed in aircraft/engine construction and issue to the aircraft squadrons.

So, do keep up with what you are doing, but as an intermittent player of AE, I would welcome most the expansion of flexibility in force lists and building programs that WITP/AE seems to offer, vice more tightly scripted scenerios.

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I like tossing the Training Cruisers and going with the above idea pulling several of the oldest CLs out and making them fill the roll.

In pulling them and NOT building the Katori's could one simply accelerate the Akizuki AA DDs and that solve the issue? Could start bringing in this fine class of DD say a year early. Seems to me to be a practical choice that would not require research on a new class, additional slips, etc...

How about starting the war with 2-3 and essentially add a total of 6-8 to the existing building program? They sure would be handy for the KB at start.

That would be appropriate. Besides, building a realistic new class of CLAA would mean a ship with not much more than eight 10cm guns, ten on the outside, and the Akizuki is already there with eight 10cm tubes PLUS Long Lances. Bring forward and expand that program; it's not unrealistic to have one or two ships in commission on 12/7.