Australian corvettes

[m10bob]

Amongst other things, I wonder if these fine ships might be given a better troop-carrying capacity?
Why do we not catogorize them and the Flower class as DE's?
(Honestly I did not realize they had produced so many of these ships in their own yards.)

"Tough and adaptable, though not fast, the corvettes became the RAN's work horses or 'maids of all work'. As one naval authority put it, these vessels, "conceived as substitutes for trawlers, finished up in many respects as substitutes, If not for battleships, certainly for destroyers". Noted for their handling characteristic of rolling dramatically in rough weather - it was popularly said that they would "roll on wet grass" - they were not designed for crew comfort. Apart from their principal ocean mine-sweeping role, they served as convoy escorts and troop carriers (they were capable of carrying 300 troops in an emergency, 400 in a ship-to-shore role). As well, they were used on sea rescue, anti-submarine and coastal survey duties.

Each costing about one-third to half the cost of a destroyer, corvettes were about 57 metres in length with a beam of less than ten metres, and displaced between 660 and 965 tonnes. At first fitted with asdic devices for the underwater detection of submarines, they later carried radar, along with equipment for sweeping acoustic and magnetic mines as well as contact mines. Initially each ship's complement ranged from 62 to 80, but this later increased with the installation of radar and sound echoing gear.

Throughout 1941 corvettes were being launched in Australian shipyards at the rate of almost two a month, this pace continuing into 1942. In August 1941 no fewer than five vessels were launched, matched by a further four in the space of Just eight days in October. This effort ensured that when war came to the Pacific in December, there were more than 20 of this type in service with the RAN."


http://www.diggerhistory3.info/ran/page ... vettes.htm

Royal Australian Navy

HMAS Ararat
HMAS Armidale
HMAS Benalla
HMAS Bendigo
HMAS Bowen
HMAS Bunbury
HMAS Bundaberg
HMAS Castlemaine
HMAS Colac
HMAS Cootamundra
HMAS Cowra
HMAS Deloraine
HMAS Dubbo
HMAS Echuca
HMAS Fremantle
HMAS Geelong
HMAS Gladstone
HMAS Glenelg
HMAS Gympie
HMAS Horsham
HMAS Inverell
HMAS Junee
HMAS Kapunda
HMAS Katoomba
HMAS Kiama
HMAS Latrobe
HMAS Lithgow
HMAS Mildura
HMAS Parkes
HMAS Rockhampton
HMAS Shepparton
HMAS Stawell
HMAS Strahan
HMAS Townsville
HMAS Wagga
HMAS Wallaroo
HMAS Warrnambool
Admiralty (later RAN)

HMAS Ballarat
HMAS Bathurst
HMAS Burnie
HMAS Broome
HMAS Cairns
HMAS Cessnock
HMAS Gawler
HMAS Geraldton
HMAS Goulburn
HMAS Ipswich
HMAS Kalgoorlie
HMAS Launceston
HMAS Lismore
HMAS Maryborough
HMAS Pirie
HMAS Tamworth
HMAS Toowoomba
HMAS Whyalla
HMAS Wollongong
Indian Navy

HMIS Bengal
HMIS Bombay
HMIS Madras
HMIS Punjab

[DuckofTindalos]

Problem is, of course, that we can't differentiate between troops and bulk cargo at the moment...

[saj42]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Amongst other things, I wonder if these fine ships might be given a better troop-carrying capacity?
Why do we not catogorize them and the Flower class as DE's?
(Honestly I did not realize they had produced so many of these ships in their own yards.)

I'm a complete noob when it comes to Modding, so I hope I got this right -

If they where classified as a DMS then they could be included in
1. Minesweeper TFs
2. Fast-Transport TFs (I know they are not fast but how else to load troops)
3. ASW TFs
4. As escorts in any other TF type

This would then address their use in any of the roles they where designed/used for. In their current PG classification they are role-restricted.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Tallyho!

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Amongst other things, I wonder if these fine ships might be given a better troop-carrying capacity?
Why do we not catogorize them and the Flower class as DE's?
(Honestly I did not realize they had produced so many of these ships in their own yards.)

I'm a complete noob when it comes to Modding, so I hope I got this right -

If they where classified as a DMS then they could be included in
1. Minesweeper TFs
2. Fast-Transport TFs (I know they are not fast but how else to load troops)
3. ASW TFs
4. As escorts in any other TF type

This would then address their use in any of the roles they where designed/used for. In their current PG classification they are role-restricted.

You are correct..

[el cid again]

BUT you lose their "sonar." DE classification gives them the best ASW rating. They still can be in a fast transport TF.

The "frigates" are classified as DE in RHS. But the Flower's are not frigates, they are PCs. That means ocean going submarine chasers. [A coastal or short range submarine chaser is a SC] If you believe these vessels had the very best ASW sensors and specialist ASW crews, they can be classified as DEs (to help code with the ASW). Their guns won't change, so they will still function at the same level no matter how we classify them. Almost any vessel can carry mines, but a small vessel like this generally carried mines OR DC - and if both - reduced numbers of both. This game system discriminates against minelaying (they say those who want real minelaying capabilities want "mines in the Pacific" - that was a formal Matrix post when this was discussed on the UV site three years ago). We have no air minelaying mission for most aircraft - never mind they really can carry a mine in leiu of a bomb. We have no magnetic mines or acoustic influence mines. Don't get me started.
Nevertheless, we also could classify some of them as DML or even ML - if some were focused on that mission - and they would still hunt submarines - but not as effectively. It appears that there are three or four levels of ASW in code: DE is best; DD in the middle; PC is worst - and everything else with ASW probably = PC - or there is a fourth level below PC for them. But even a cruiser will drop a DC sometimes.

[spence]

even a cruiser will drop a DC sometimes

NAGARA apparently attacked USS NAUTILUS with several DC runs on 4 June 42 at Midway. I believe some other IJN CLs carried DCs but it was not universal. I do not know whether NAGARA carried SONAR though. I think it sighted NAUTILUS' periscope.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

BUT you lose their "sonar." DE classification gives them the best ASW rating. They still can be in a fast transport TF.

The "frigates" are classified as DE in RHS. But the Flower's are not frigates, they are PCs. That means ocean going submarine chasers. [A coastal or short range submarine chaser is a SC] If you believe these vessels had the very best ASW sensors and specialist ASW crews, they can be classified as DEs (to help code with the ASW). Their guns won't change, so they will still function at the same level no matter how we classify them. Almost any vessel can carry mines, but a small vessel like this generally carried mines OR DC - and if both - reduced numbers of both. This game system discriminates against minelaying (they say those who want real minelaying capabilities want "mines in the Pacific" - that was a formal Matrix post when this was discussed on the UV site three years ago). We have no air minelaying mission for most aircraft - never mind they really can carry a mine in leiu of a bomb. We have no magnetic mines or acoustic influence mines. Don't get me started.
Nevertheless, we also could classify some of them as DML or even ML - if some were focused on that mission - and they would still hunt submarines - but not as effectively. It appears that there are three or four levels of ASW in code: DE is best; DD in the middle; PC is worst - and everything else with ASW probably = PC - or there is a fourth level below PC for them. But even a cruiser will drop a DC sometimes.

I am all for whatever is closest to their historical function, and have not looked to see if these Aussie ships have the same arms as the corvettes of other nations,(like the Flower class)..
The info on the Australian link of my first post has info that made me scratch my simeon-like pate..
Be it cargo or people, I blv these ships need their "capacity" upped (according to that orig post.)

[DuckofTindalos]

Interesting that the website terms them "corvettes", when every single reference I can find terms them "minesweepers".

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Interesting that the website terms them "corvettes", when every single reference I can find terms them "minesweepers".

Indeed, the very first line on the site ref this particular class:
"Shortly before war began in 1939 the British government approved funding for admiralty plans for a new type of small escort vessel. Because these ships, essentially submarine chasers, were based on a civilian whaler design, it was proposed calling them 'whalers'.
But before the type entered service Prime Minister Winston Churchill expressed the view that this description was an "entire misnomer, as they are not going to catch whales".

As a result the term 'corvette' - referring to a warship smaller than a frigate from the days of sail - was revived and applied to this type. Designed to be relatively cheap and simple to build, orders for corvettes were placed in large numbers with shipyards in Canada, as well as Britain. "

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: el cid again

BUT you lose their "sonar." DE classification gives them the best ASW rating. They still can be in a fast transport TF.

The "frigates" are classified as DE in RHS. But the Flower's are not frigates, they are PCs. That means ocean going submarine chasers. [A coastal or short range submarine chaser is a SC] If you believe these vessels had the very best ASW sensors and specialist ASW crews, they can be classified as DEs (to help code with the ASW). Their guns won't change, so they will still function at the same level no matter how we classify them. Almost any vessel can carry mines, but a small vessel like this generally carried mines OR DC - and if both - reduced numbers of both. This game system discriminates against minelaying (they say those who want real minelaying capabilities want "mines in the Pacific" - that was a formal Matrix post when this was discussed on the UV site three years ago). We have no air minelaying mission for most aircraft - never mind they really can carry a mine in leiu of a bomb. We have no magnetic mines or acoustic influence mines. Don't get me started.
Nevertheless, we also could classify some of them as DML or even ML - if some were focused on that mission - and they would still hunt submarines - but not as effectively. It appears that there are three or four levels of ASW in code: DE is best; DD in the middle; PC is worst - and everything else with ASW probably = PC - or there is a fourth level below PC for them. But even a cruiser will drop a DC sometimes.

I am all for whatever is closest to their historical function, and have not looked to see if these Aussie ships have the same arms as the corvettes of other nations,(like the Flower class)..
The info on the Australian link of my first post has info that made me scratch my simeon-like pate..
Be it cargo or people, I blv these ships need their "capacity" upped (according to that orig post.)

I don't think we get to choose their cargo capacity - except indirectly: a ship gets a certain cargo rating by type, and a PC I think gets none at all. If we called them DE they will get a destroyer cargo load - I think.

[m10bob]

If they do get a troop capacity, I don't feel it necessary to make it too much. In fact, (and this might be the "gamey part") we might think to make a few of them APD's and the rest regular DE's???

BTW, I checked and the other class,(Flowers), are listed as Corvettes in JANES/WWII
Suggest they be DE's?

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Interesting that the website terms them "corvettes", when every single reference I can find terms them "minesweepers".

Indeed, the very first line on the site ref this particular class:
"Shortly before war began in 1939 the British government approved funding for admiralty plans for a new type of small escort vessel. Because these ships, essentially submarine chasers, were based on a civilian whaler design, it was proposed calling them 'whalers'.
But before the type entered service Prime Minister Winston Churchill expressed the view that this description was an "entire misnomer, as they are not going to catch whales".

As a result the term 'corvette' - referring to a warship smaller than a frigate from the days of sail - was revived and applied to this type. Designed to be relatively cheap and simple to build, orders for corvettes were placed in large numbers with shipyards in Canada, as well as Britain. "

Yes, I read that too... They're still minesweepers...

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Terminus
Yes, I read that too... They're still minesweepers...

Indeed they were. What about the earlier suggestion for making them DMS's?

Andrew

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Terminus
Yes, I read that too... They're still minesweepers...

Indeed they were. What about the earlier suggestion for making them DMS's?

Andrew

Certainly better than calling them standard MSW's, in light of what they were used for.
I had never considered (or known) of their actual versatility till I saw this AUSTRALIAN site!

Now, just for the heck of it, I googled HMAS Whyalla and found this:

"HMAS WHYALLA was one of sixty Australian Minesweepers (commonly known as corvettes) built during World War II in Australian shipyards as part of the Commonwealth Government's wartime shipbuilding programme. Twenty (including WHYALLA) were built on Admiralty order but manned and commissioned by the Royal Australian Navy. Thirty-six were built for the Royal Australian Navy and four for the Royal Indian Navy."



http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/ships/whyalla1.html



I just opened a new thread for Australian ships' histories, have noticed the ships within the Bathurst class had different armament!

[el cid again]

DMS is sounding better and better: they seem really to be Minesweepers - and a DMS carries a small amount of cargo (which we don't get to define). Such a multipurpose ship probably does not rate classification as DE either.

[saj42]

It seems the RAN did develop them as minesweepers/escorts so a DMS classification would be appropriate.
However the British used them principly as ASW escorts in the North Atlantic (with the sonar equipment and trained crews) so the RN vessels could be classified as DEs.

If only I knew how the game code really handled the differentiation in ship types (PC/PG/DE etc).

[Ian R]

The Bathurst class were designed primarily minesweepers, with a secondary ASW and transport role.
 
Their standard displacement was only 790 tonnes, and they made 15-16 knots. They usually carried 12-40 DC, but could cram 80 on if being used as an escort.
 
The Flower class corvettes were bigger at about 1000t standard displacement, and were designed as ASW ships (using an enlarged whaler design), making about 16 knots.
 
The River, Loch and Bay class frigates were 1500t s/d, making 20 knots, with upwards of 150 DC, and hedgehogs plus a couple of 4" DP.
 
The true DE, the Hunt class, was only 1000t s/d, but was quicker at 28 knots, had more guns ( 4 x 4"), the Hunt IV had torpedo tubes and s/d had crept up to 1200t, The DC outfit ranged from 50 (max) to 70 (max), but less with TT carried.
 
I'd say the Bathursts are MSW, or maybe in game terms DMS, but not in real life terms.
 
 

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

The Bathurst class were designed primarily minesweepers, with a secondary ASW and transport role.

Their standard displacement was only 790 tonnes, and they made 15-16 knots. They usually carried 12-40 DC, but could cram 80 on if being used as an escort.

The Flower class corvettes were bigger at about 1000t standard displacement, and were designed as ASW ships (using an enlarged whaler design), making about 16 knots.

The River, Loch and Bay class frigates were 1500t s/d, making 20 knots, with upwards of 150 DC, and hedgehogs plus a couple of 4" DP.

The true DE, the Hunt class, was only 1000t s/d, but was quicker at 28 knots, had more guns ( 4 x 4"), the Hunt IV had torpedo tubes and s/d had crept up to 1200t, The DC outfit ranged from 50 (max) to 70 (max), but less with TT carried.

I'd say the Bathursts are MSW, or maybe in game terms DMS, but not in real life terms.

Correct, in game tems but also as used IRL.
Another notable example is your Avro Anson, which was a Liaison trainer, but in Australia became an effective coastal search and ASW aircraft,(whether they hit anything or not, that is certainly what the squadron histories reflect.
Too, the SNJ Harvard became a ground support plane, and finally a ground support/fighter bomber.
The Australians should be given credit for resiliance for making do with what they had, with "the wolf at the door".
How equipment was handled in "Mother England" was not necessarily how it was used in Australia.

[Ian R]

An Anson dropped sometheing ( a bomb or DC, I forget which) on a suspected submarine once but no one knows if there was really a submarine there or if it was hit. They were used well away from any possible Japanese air operations, and they removed the turrets from the Ansons so they could carry radar for patrolling.
 
At least having the pilots logging plenty of hours and navigators practising their job meant they had lots of well trained crew to transfer to the Catalina etc squadrons. Which is not to say it was not useful to have those patrols, just that it served a double purpose.