USN/ISN Classifaction of ship names

[tanjman]

LTCMTS,

Do you mean the Scenario 17 OOB? If so I'm the one who compiled it. I obtained the data for this OOB from the editor and from the UV ship, aircraft & weapons data screens. BTW I just checked my copy of the OOB and it show 18,000 yds for the 5in/38 Mk 22 Gun. So I'm not sure which file you see the 31,000 yds listed.

BTW I'm slowly updating the scenario 17 OOB to version 2.20 of the UV database, as well as correcting any errors I made while entering the data, so feedback is appreciated.

[GunRange]

To root out superstition among sailors, RN named one of their destroyers as Friday. They eaven launched her on Friday the 13th.

[Feinder]

And I heard the tale that the HMS Friday went on her maiden voyage, and was ne'r seen again!

-F-

[GunRange]

I heard she sunk in Channel, on Firday.

[LTCMTS]

No, it wasn't the Scenario 17 OOB. It was the series of files posted by Juliet7Bravo as tables extracted from UV 1.10. The reason why I wondered about the accuracy or whether the download or extraction was corrupt, was that I haven't seen any rthreads about complaints of ahistorical weapons effectiveness for the 1850 ton DDs.
Actually I am most interested in the data editor. The Novastar Pacific War editor was constrained by the "hardwired" equipment and organizational trees in the DOS based program, which also constrained the numbers of data entrees and fields. From what I've seen so far from the unsupported data editor, the translation to a Win32 app has expanded the supported data elements. It should allow the inclusion of lesser known weapons, such as the 36cm Type 41 gun in twin turrets with a maximum elevation of 33 degrees mounted aft in the Ise and Hyuga and the lessor nations in the Pacific, such as the Dutch, French, Chinese, Soviets and Thais with more accuracy. It would also support more coastal artillery, ahistorical ships, weapons, aircraft, etc. based on alternate historical scenarios, such as the ending of the "BB Holiday" in 1931, or in creating "Plan Orange", US-Japanese only scenarios that you couldn't create in Pacific War. This could still apply to UV. Remember that the US could have taken the Caroline Islands (and Truk) from the Spanish in 1898 or accepted them in trade from the Germans for a base in the Philippines in 1905. Imagine the Pacific campaigns with the main US fleet base at Truk ( the "Pacific Gibralter" or "Great Western Base" the USN sought for almost 30 years in the Philippines or Guam, before giving up on the concept and adopting the strategy envisioned by the "cautionaries"). Or the completion of the NAVOIL (Hydrogen peroxide) powered torpedo program in 1941-42 for the USN.

[tanjman]

LTCMTS,

I have good news and bad news concerning the UV Editor.

Bad news first:

1) The editor as it now stands is not supported by Matrix/2by3. I am hoping that once WitP is released with a (from what I've read on the WitP forum) much better editor, it will be back fitted to UV.

2) If the weapon, ship or aircraft are not already in the UV data base you cann't use/add it.

3) Modifying a current ship class's weapons suite can cause those weapons to become permenantly disabled/damaged.

4) There is no official help file.

5) The only official word from Matrix/2by3 is do not edit any scenario but # 17, all others have hardwired OOBs that will not transfer if copied to another scenario slot.

Good news:

1) You can create/delete ships (using current ship classes), air groups, ground units, bases/beaches, leaders & pilots.

2) You can modify the start date and number of turns in a scenario.

3) You can modifiy to limited extent AI behavoir. This is mainly limited to which bases to target, which to expand and which to use as barge hubs.

4) There is a tool available (Scenario 17 OOB on Spooky's UV site) that explains what a lot of what the editable fields do and can be used to plan a new scenario's OOB.

I have been working on a Editor FAQ but I keep getting side tracked by other things. If you have any question about the editor I'll be glad to answer what I can. Good luck.

BTW there have been a lot of OOB changes since ver 1.10 of UV. So many in fact that I think thats why Juliet7Bravo gave up on keeping those files updated.

[LTCMTS]

Thanks

As another question. Has anyone tried to push an AVP or AVD to Tulagi as a temp seaplane base once the Marines are ashore and then tried to trnasfer the cruiser VSO flights to the AVP/D? I'm trying to do this as this should give you about 20 short range floatplanes for local recon and security and get them off the cruisers so you don't get a repeat of what happened on the Quincy and Astoria at Savo Island?

[panda124c]

Originally posted by Ron Saueracker
Whats more arrogant than shoving your country in someones yard with 12 to 16" guns?:D

Shoving your country in someones yard with 6 to 8" guns? :rolleyes:

[EUBanana]

Bit late now, but I think the BB meaning "battleship" came from World War 1 originally. B meant a pre-dreadnought battleship, BB was used for dreadnought battleships.

Least I assume so, as I noticed that the order of battle for the Battle of Jutland in WW1 had battleships as BBs, except for some of the older pre-dreadnought battleships of the High Seas Fleet, which were just B.

for example...

BB Iron Duke (dreadnought battleship)
B Pommern (pre-dreadnought)

[Pascal_slith]

I can confirm that the "V" in CV is for "heavier than air" aircraft, ie. not blimp.

And an "AC" is Auxillary : Collier. The "AK" I believe is for any dry cargo. The "AC" class probably had the ability to "refuel" ships at sea (with coal). Can someone confirm/refute this? While the AK class would need to use it's cranes and such to unload it's cargo.

It might be that aircraft-carrier units adopted the first letter of "C", because they were often built on converted Cruiser and BattleCruise hulls.

-F-

An excellent book on the history of naval replenishment in the US Navy is titled 'Gray Steel and Black Oil' by Thomas Wildenberg. The Navy did try a couple of systems for transfering coal at sea in the pre-WWI era. One was quite satisfactory, but the sea had to be almost dead calm. As of 1909, the US Navy sought to either build new ships using oil or convert older ships to using oil.

One of the first officers involved in the construction of ship oilers was then Lt. Chester Nimitz, because he was a diesel engine specialist and the oiler Maumee was to be built with large diesel engines. This was in 1913. In the years before the US's entry into WWI, Nimitz was involved in the development of equipment and methods for underway refueling. Right before WWII, as commander of Battleship Division 1 (USS Arizona, flagship), Rear Admiral Nimitz was again involved in the testing of underway refueling from capital ships to destroyers.

The book is an excellent read, well worth having, though it is difficult to find.