Matrix Games Forums

Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm version 2.08 is now available!Command gets huge update!Order of Battle: Pacific Featured on Weekly Streaming SessionA new fight for Battle Academy!Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager is out for Mac!The definitive wargame of the Western Front is out now! War in the West gets teaser trailer and Twitch Stream!New Preview AAR for War in the West!War in the West Manual previewThe fight for Armageddon begins!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Built or Building Japanese Cruisers

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> Built or Building Japanese Cruisers Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Built or Building Japanese Cruisers - 8/4/2011 4:06:29 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11378
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Moving to the next category: CAs and CLs

CAs
1st Div: (Myoko-Class) Myoko, Nachi, Haguro, Ashigara
2nd Div: (Takao-Class) Takao, Atago, Maya, Chokai
3rd Div: (Improved Takao) Mogami, Mikuma, Suzuya, Kumano----These are built as CAs from square one and they don't need refitting/reconstruction saving money.
4th Div: (Improved Takao) Iwaki, Hikaru in 3rd Circle and ???/??? in 4th Circle

Total of 16 CA for the war. IRL they had 18 (4 Aoba and 2 Tone)

CLs
1st Div: Tenryu, Tatsuta

These old ships get converted to fast, large ML.

2nd Div: Kuma, Tama, Kitakami, Oi

These ships become Training Cruisers.

3rd Div: Nagara, Isuzu, Yura, Natori, Kinu, Abukuma
4th Div: Naka, Sendai, Jintsu
5th Div: (Converted to 3x3 6" gun CL) Aoba, Kako, Kinugasa, Furutaka
6th Div: (Allowed with higher tonnage of London Treaty) Oyodo-Class: Oyodo, Niyodo with two more (Oyodo-Kai) in 3rd Circle Plan: Ishikari, Gokaze
7th Div: (4th Circle Plan with further refined Oyodo-Kai) Agano, Yahagi, Noshiro, Sakawa, Tokoro, Shokatsu

At war's start the Japanese have the 9 elderly CL Destroyer Leaders, the 4 strong Aoba's (transition CL Class), 4 Scout/CLAA CLs, and 6 more being built when the war begins. They also have the 4 Training Cruisers who would be of marginal value. TOTAL: 23+4. IRL the Japanese had 22+3 so not much gain here in terms of numbers.

Proposals:
Aoba-Class CL: 3x3 6", 4x2 Secondary, 12 24" TT, 7,500T, and 2 Floatplanes
Oyodo-Class: 3x3 6", 4x2 Secondary, 8 24" TT, 7,000T, and 4 Floatplanes
Oyodo-Kai Class: 3x2 6", 6x2 Secondary, 8 24" TT, 8,000T and 6 Floatplanes

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 8/4/2011 4:08:45 PM >


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 91
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/4/2011 4:52:44 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2517
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

The 'normal' 8 BBs would start at PH.

Yes: that was the Nine Power Pact signed as part of the Washington Conference. When that was signed Japan agreed to the 5:5:3 ratio.

THAT provokes the idea! What if the Nine Power Pact wasn't signed? Japan won't join the Treaty due to this unless she gets the 3.5. In not signing, the USA is allowed the option to build-up her bases in the Pacific.

There is enough time for buildup after treaties. Which were rather unfavorable for Japan in this area anyway, allowing Western powers to fortify their major ports in the theatre, but restricting Japanese from building up defenses of Formosa.


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rdDoes this sound OK and look right?

Yes.

On cruisers - I think suggestions in the thread above to only build heavy cruisers, whether with 203mm or 155mm armament are correct. If we started talking about cruisers... OK, let's finish with artillery ships first. I'll post my considerations as soon as I have time.


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 92
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/4/2011 5:22:38 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2517
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
So, on cruisers.

Pre-London, no changes.

Past London, light cruisers:
1)Convert Tenryu and Tatsuta into fast minelayers, as you've proposed. They will replace Okinoshima and Tsugaru.
2)Convert Kuma and Tama into fast submarine leaders/replenishment ships with scout aircrafts. They will replace Taigei in this role.
3)Convert Oi, Kiso and Kitakami into training ships.
4)Mildly modify four Sendai-class cruisers so that they can continue serving as destroyer leaders. Remove four 140mm turrets installed on submarine depot ships of Jingei-class and install them instead of two forward 140mm guns on Sendais, make necessary modifications for using oxygen torpedoes, so on.
5)Disarm and mothball six remaining 5500-ton cruisers and draw plans beforehand, to modify them as as ships with heavy torpedo or heavy anti-air armament in case of imminent war or treaties' breakdown.

To continue with the proposal, can you confirm, John, if the London treaty actually allowed dowgrading CAs to CLs, moving tonnage from one category to another? If so, what tonnage exactly Japanese will have in both categories, assuming that the training cruisers will still count as CLs?

< Message edited by FatR -- 8/4/2011 5:24:16 PM >

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 93
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/4/2011 5:24:32 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2517
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie


It's an old artwork, that I did back when I first got into playing around with pictures, but if nothing else it can be used as a placeholder until you get something better made up.

Fuso, from the WPO era.

Thanks! Just what we needed.


(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 94
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/4/2011 5:39:53 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11378
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Let me check the books regarding the CA to CL question!


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 95
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/4/2011 7:17:34 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11378
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

So, on cruisers.

Pre-London, no changes.

Past London, light cruisers:
1)Convert Tenryu and Tatsuta into fast minelayers, as you've proposed. They will replace Okinoshima and Tsugaru.
2)Convert Kuma and Tama into fast submarine leaders/replenishment ships with scout aircrafts. They will replace Taigei in this role.
3)Convert Oi, Kiso and Kitakami into training ships.
4)Mildly modify four Sendai-class cruisers so that they can continue serving as destroyer leaders. Remove four 140mm turrets installed on submarine depot ships of Jingei-class and install them instead of two forward 140mm guns on Sendais, make necessary modifications for using oxygen torpedoes, so on.
5)Disarm and mothball six remaining 5500-ton cruisers and draw plans beforehand, to modify them as as ships with heavy torpedo or heavy anti-air armament in case of imminent war or treaties' breakdown.

To continue with the proposal, can you confirm, John, if the London treaty actually allowed dowgrading CAs to CLs, moving tonnage from one category to another? If so, what tonnage exactly Japanese will have in both categories, assuming that the training cruisers will still count as CLs?


I am good with 1-4 of your thoughts here:
1. Can you provide some sort of Spec idea for 1 (ML) and 2 Sub Leader/Repennishment?

2. Three we already have done with RA so that is simple.

3. What additional changes would you make to the Sendai's beyond the gun change?

4. The six remaining ships could be set to upgrade/convert as of 12/41 OR we begin the conversion process at some point in 1941. What do you think? Are you thinking they either get built as the Torpedo Cruisers (4 Kitakami essentially) or a CLAA build like what we created for the Omaha's in RA?

As to the CL to CA and CA to CL question this is my read from the Treaties and simple common sense. We are pulling 4 8,000T and replacing them with--essentially--4 10,000T. We all know the fudging involved but that is how they were listed. This change could be done and still leave tonnage for the pair of proto-Oyodo's PRIOR to 3rd Circle. There is probably MORE then that but we can simply call it good.


< Message edited by John 3rd -- 8/4/2011 7:18:10 PM >


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 96
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/4/2011 8:54:15 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11378
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
To be certain of things I am going to re-read the pertinent sections of the London Treaty.

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 97
RE: Built or Building Japanese Cruisers - 8/5/2011 4:31:35 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2517
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
While I'm waiting, one more fundamental thing: fleet armament.

1)Instead of bothering with reverse-engineering captured flak guns, and rushing them into production when it is already too late, Army and Fleet will pool their money around 38-39 and buy license to Flak 37 88mm gun (and its fire control system as well) in Germany. The production will be limited and this gun will be useless against high-flying B-29s, but leagues better that either old 75mm guns or their improvised replacements.
Unfortunaly this gun and any its derivatives probably will be too heavy for use on small ships, so they will serve on land only.

2)Do not research either 76/60 or 100/65. Japanese research abilities are limited, and they should not be wasted by wavering between calibres or designing guns with narrow practical application. Concentrate on 127/50 DP gun. Here I'm making an assumption that this project will be successful... but without losing several years due to temporarily deciding in favor of 100/65 it might have been. Still, the first guns suited for use on ships probably will not be ready before 1943, and the production will remain limited, with few of the older ships upgraded to it.
Use remaining free resources to develop enhancements for 127/40 mounts and the second generation of high-angle turrets for 127/50 Type 3 gun earlier.

3)Also, phase out 120/45 guns wherever possible, replacing them with 127/40, mostly to streamline ammunition production (127/40 and 127/50 Type 2 already used very similar shells, exept for the former they came attached to unitary rounds - not interchangeable in the field, but uniform for production purposes). Do not build any new 120/45 guns.

4)Around 1940, after seeing what the new generation of divebombers can do, the carrier admirals should raise an alarm, warning, that while the AA system based on 127/40 + 25/60 and their fire directors is currently the best in the world, it is of limited usefulness against divebombing attacks by modern planes. As a stopgap measure, install a handful of 25/60 singles on all major warships before the war, to give them some weapons capable of aiming rapidly. Accounts about real combat qualities and flaws of 25/60 guns are directly contradictory, so I won't pretend like I know more about them than RL Japanese designers and won't propose any other inprovements (except for "more and earlier", pay close attention to events in Europe, particularly the role of aviation in the battle for Norway). IJN needs a bigger automatic gun anyway, for the reason described above, so upscaling Hotchkiss design to 37mm (as Russians did with 25mm Bofors at that time). It is very important to start the project and advance it far enough to see the possible results before the war, otherwise it is unlikely to see completion. Mass production to the point of ever starting to replace 25/60 is still very unlikely. A few powered twin mounts will make it on the most valuable (and biggest) warships during upgrades of 1944 and later. Single-hand operated mounts probably can serve to replace 76mm guns on small ships constructed late in the war.
Development of a lead-calculating fire director should begin at the same time, but I'm not sure if Japanese have technical capabilities to create and produce anything useful in this area.

5)Do not expand 13.2 MGs production so much during the war. Using the postulated greater Army-Navy cooperation, take the Army's Ho-1 automatic cannon design (meant for aircraft IRL), based on their existing anti-tank rifle, which has about the same weight, and use it to equip various small ships and boats, which are too small or too insignificant for the more powerful 25/60 singles. The main effect will be boosting crews' confidence anyway, but hopefully with a few more Allied aircraft shot down in the process, particularly during strafing attacks.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 98
Built or Building Japanese Cruisers - 8/5/2011 5:31:20 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11378
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Sorry about the delay but this stuff takes a bit of time to get through. I had managed to blank that out in the 15+ years since I wrote Masters Thesis!

OK. Let us start with little things:

1. CL Yubari must be built. IT is the experimental transition ship from the old 5,500T CLs and the creation of the Type A--Heavy Cruiser. Hiraga's transitional design must be done for moving to newer ships.
2. Whitley states that there were two improved-Takao's not built due the London Treaty. WE need to build them. They would eat up the remaining tonnage added in going to 70%.

Statistics at the time of London:
A. Japan got 108,400T in CAs at a 60.23% ratio to USA/GB
B. 70.00% at 100,450 in CLs
C. I've got the DD and SS figures as well, however, we'll save them for a bit.

The classes are set by type with then the tonnage maximum. Any ship converted to a differing purpose or mothballed/scrapped could be replaced with new construction. Shifting from CA--CL or vice-versa was allowed as long as the tonnage numbers held firm.

CA Development Ideas:
1. If we convert the 4 Aoba's (7,500T) into 3x3 6" CLs this frees up 30,000T for CAs.
2. Take the extra tonnage allowed to CAs by the Treaty (roughly 20,000T) and apply it to CA construction.

WE now could add--realistically--5 CAs of the Improved Takao-Class. These would be the Mogami's plus one more. They start as CAs and are not converted saving $$$.

By this, the Japanese gain one CA.

CL Development:
1. The Kaigun gets the 4 Aoba's as CLs.
2. Roughly 10,000T left over for additional construction by comparing Aoba's to Mogami's.
3. If we changeover the 7 CLs as noted above to ML, Trainers, and Tenders then this frees up another 37,500T for building.

Total available in 1930 is then 47,500T.

Building Options: The Japanese elect to go with the twin 8" turret for their CAs and the triple 6" turret for their CLs. It would appear reasonable to me to stick with the 3x3 6" arrangement because it allows for considerable deck space to be devoted for 24" TT, Planes, and a small secondary.

Circle 1: Build 4 Agano-Class (7,000T) CLs.
Circle 2: Build 2 Agano-Kai (8,500T) with a larger plane handling ability (say 5 instead of 3 FP).

The Japanese see a net gain of 3 CLs (4 Aoba, 4 Agano, 2 Agano-Kai for 7 old CLs).

When the Japanese leave the Treaty System in 1935 they are then set to continue building along their twin established lines for the cruisers. Anything built for 3rd and then 4th Circle simple follows as refinements to the Takao-Kai and Agano-Kai. Fairly simple, logical, and backed by research...

Thoughts?

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 99
RE: Built or Building Japanese Cruisers - 8/5/2011 5:50:37 PM   
House Stark

 

Posts: 184
Joined: 4/30/2011
Status: offline
So, if I'm reading this correctly, the Japanese would get -1 CA and +2-3 CL compared to the real war, but they would be better ships overall (no old, weak CAs and fewer old CLs) so the cruiser fleet would still be superior to the real life IJN cruiser fleet during the war?

Battleship fleet looks good though-a few more good battleships compared to the real war, at the cost of super battleships. Seems a good war to improve Japan battleship OOB while staying reasonable.

Looking forward to when you summarize the carrier ideas into one of these posts (unless I missed it further up the thread?).

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 100
RE: Built or Building Japanese Cruisers - 8/5/2011 5:57:39 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2517
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
I'd say - if we plan the building programs from 1930s, then why build any Aganos? Use Aobas and Furutakas with 155mm armament as the leaders of the night fighting force.

In the treaty period - for administrative and tactical convenience build four Mogamis starting with 203mm guns, as you propose. If there is enough money (which is a big if) - add two more of the same with 155mm guns, never rearm them. In this case we're going above the historcial budget for cruisers. This is somewhat compensated by not building three fairly large ships replaced with 5500 CL conversions in the same period, but not entirely. Using the same hull should help to mitigate the cost further, making building them possible.

In the post-treaty period - build four Mogami-derivatives with the same 203mm armament. Build two light cruisers meant to support the carrier force in search, AA defence and command center roles. Basically, smaller versions of Oyodos, following a more realistic doctrine (sub doctrine should be different by that time anyway). They should be big enough to carry four floatplanes. Armament should consist only of 127/50 DP guns now in development (8-12 of them), which will delay availability to 1943, at best late 1942 (see my suggestions on armament above). Hopefully this could be placed in 6500-7000 tons. So instead of seven cruisers each of which is impaired in some aspect, we'll build six more useful ones.

Instead of Shimakaze, develop a big leader/small CL with slightly reduced torpedo battery, the same speed as normal DDs, and 8 new DP guns.

As about remaining 6 5500-ton CLs - how about placing them in ports at damaged state (reflecting removal of their old armament) at the beginning, with the options for either CLAA or torpedo cruisers conversion?

< Message edited by FatR -- 8/5/2011 6:48:51 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 101
RE: Built or Building Japanese Cruisers - 8/5/2011 6:02:29 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11378
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: House Stark

So, if I'm reading this correctly, the Japanese would get -1 CA and +2-3 CL compared to the real war, but they would be better ships overall (no old, weak CAs and fewer old CLs) so the cruiser fleet would still be superior to the real life IJN cruiser fleet during the war?

Battleship fleet looks good though-a few more good battleships compared to the real war, at the cost of super battleships. Seems a good war to improve Japan battleship OOB while staying reasonable.

Looking forward to when you summarize the carrier ideas into one of these posts (unless I missed it further up the thread?).


Am working on a CV proposal.

As of the end of Circle One:
The Japanese would start with 4 Myoko, 4 Takao, and 5 Takao-Kai: 13 CA. Going by RL they started with 4 Aoba, 4 Myoko, 4 Takao, and 4 converted Mogami: 16 CA.

CLs at start: 9 Old 5,500T, Yubari, 4 Aoba, and 4 Agano: 18 CL. By the end of Circle 1 IRL the Japanese had 18 as well.



_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to House Stark)
Post #: 102
RE: Built or Building Japanese Cruisers - 8/5/2011 6:03:45 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11378
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Got to run errands for a bit. Toss ideas and I'll jump back in when I get home.

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 103
RE: Built or Building Japanese Cruisers - 8/5/2011 7:06:08 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2517
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
Final count by my proposal above, assuming the best case:

CAs: 4 Myoko, 4 Takao, 4 Mogami, 4 Mogami-Kai (about 2 should still be in construction at the beginning of the war) - 14 ready, 2 in construction. (Instead of 16 ready IRL, but ours are a bit better armed)

1-st class CLs: 2 Mogami, 4 Aoba - 6 ready, 0 in construction. (5 in construction IRL, but ours are significantly larger and better-armed.)

2-nd class CLs and CLAAs: 5 ready, 2 in consruction, 6 in reconstruction (18 ready IRL, quality is roughly the same on December of 1941, but newly constructed and reconstructed ships are much superior).

3-rd class CLs (trainers): 3 ready. (3 ready IRL).

As you can see, the first cruiser line is considerably more numerous and packs a bigger punch at the beginning of hostilities.
This is bought at the expense of second-line cruisers. Destroyer flotillas are quite short on flagships from RL standpoint, although Aobas probably can fill this role, while still leaving 16 best cruisers for other assignments. From the game perspective, 5500-ton cruisers serve as very useful fleet warhorses and convoy escorts during the initial expansion, so the trade-off will be felt as well. Later in the game, though, the situation will improve with arrival of new CLAAs and converted ships.

Any further pre-war expansion, if a scheme to get more money for cruiser building can be plausibly concocted, should consist of producing improved variants of Mogami design, saving money through unification and building the cheapest possible type that still dominates any cruiser of the probable enemy one-on-one.

EDIT: Actually, considering 6 ships not built and replaced by converted CLs instead (AS Taigei, CM Okinoshima, CM Tsugaru, three training cruisers), I think in the long run we might even be saving a bit of money here, compared to reality. Not nearly enough for another pair of first-rate cruisers, but maybe enough to pay for some extra DDs.

You might notice that I like Mogami design... well, yeah. Despite accusations of being overloaded and unfortunate vulnerability of the torpedo banks*, sinking all of them but unlucky Suzuya required massive amounts of damage, they were quite well-armed and not quite as big and expensive as their precedessors, which is important here.

*In fact, it is pretty interesting that 3 out of 3 Long Lance detonation accidents that resulted in loss of ships that might have survived otherwise happened during the Battle of Leyte Gulf. Bad luck or maybe problems with late-war produced torpedoes?

< Message edited by FatR -- 8/5/2011 9:05:33 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 104
RE: Built or Building Japanese Cruisers - 8/5/2011 11:59:12 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11378
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I was using the Agano as a class reference to a new group of CLs prior to and then going into the war armed with a main battery of 3x3, solid secondary, strong TT battery, aircraft, and displacement of around 8,500T. This is what you mean by the Aoba's?

I assume you are saying to build any further CLs with 3rd and 4th Circle to be along the size and layout of these converted ships? If so, it makes sense to me. What could be built in 3rd and 4th? My thoughts would be two more in 3rd and 4 in 4th. Essentially we recreate the budget for the 4 Agano and 2 Oyodo from the war but in a far more useful hull.

The CAs seem to work through 3rd and 4th Circle. 12 CA built through 2nd Circle and then orders placed for 2 CA in 3rd and 2 CA in 4th. The last pair are building when the war begins. Sounds good.

Do we have consensus?


< Message edited by John 3rd -- 8/6/2011 12:06:36 AM >


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 105
RE: Built or Building Japanese Cruisers - 8/6/2011 12:17:27 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2517
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
We're in consensus about CAs.

I mean old cruisers of Aoba and Furutaka classes refitted to 9x155mm armament, so around the specs you've described. With sharply limited resources, I see no purpose in constructing more ships of this size. They can match new Allied cruisers in night combat, but not during day, and their size realistically leaves too little space for DP armament. Plus, as was mentioned above, high-power engines are a bottleneck. As you can see above, in my proposal I tried to avoid going significantly above the cost of the existing shipbuilding program (to the extent allowed by my limited knowledge).
Even if we postulate extra money for the navy (from the war in China starting later, or something else), a significant expansion to light forces and auxialiries is necessary in accordance with the postulated shift in priorities, so money better be spent there. Also, on expansion of aviation training program, aircraft industty expansion and AAA armament production.
I also wanted to avoid buffing Japanese too much at the start. That's one of the reasons (besides providing the player with options) why the reconstruction of the older 5500-ton CLs should happen during the game.

And to serve as torpedo division leaders, as I said above, a destroyer leader/light cruiser (classification should depend on whether it will be decided to make these ships armored, or not), designed to carry new DP armament, should be created and built during the war, instead of economically non-viable Shimakaze.

< Message edited by FatR -- 8/6/2011 12:27:05 AM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 106
RE: Built or Building Japanese Cruisers - 8/6/2011 12:35:52 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11378
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Ahhhhhh...now I understand the vision you are being governed by. OK. This makes sense.

The only CLs added would be a pair in 3rd Circle as you described in this note: In the post-treaty period - build four Mogami-derivatives with the same 203mm armament. Build two light cruisers meant to support the carrier force in search, AA defence and command center roles. Basically, smaller versions of Oyodos, following a more realistic doctrine (sub doctrine should be different by that time anyway). They should be big enough to carry four floatplanes. Armament should consist only of 127/50 DP guns now in development (8-12 of them), which will delay availability to 1943, at best late 1942 (see my suggestions on armament above). Hopefully this could be placed in 6500-7000 tons. So instead of seven cruisers each of which is impaired in some aspect, we'll build six more useful ones.

There is no issue with this and me due the ability of the player to choose conversion of the mothballed CLs to either a Kitakami-syle torpedo cruiser OR a CLAA. As with RA, this leave it up to the PLAYER to make choices and I do so love that.

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 107
RE: Built or Building Japanese Cruisers - 8/6/2011 12:40:28 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11378
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I think I've got a Japanese design for a CL--Air Search type ship in my books. Will try to find it.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 108
RE: Built or Building Japanese Cruisers - 8/6/2011 11:32:36 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2517
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
I take it, you approve my proposal about armaments above?

Meanwhile, a quick recap on carriers:

- Early Japanese carriers: Akagi, Atago, Hosho, 12.5k ton Ryujo (the plane complement will remain the same as it is in the game currently, as in practice it was lower, the third pair of medium AA mounts will remain installed and some protection will be added) reclassified as CV.
- As you might have noticed, I'm against building any dedicated shadow fleet ships. Taigei, Takasaki and Tsurugisaki are not built. Taigei is replaced in its initial role, which is also necessary, by two converted CLs, and others were laid down past treaties breakdown, when the naval arms race is already inevitable, so what's the point. Instead, build two repeat Hiryu* carriers.
- Once the war with the Western powers becomes highly probable, in second half of 1940, start laying down repeat Shokaku carriers, with the plan of completing two per year, the first pair available in late 1942-early 1943, the second pair in late 1943-early 1944 and so on. Build nothing else, certainly no Taiho. As initially the threat of war is yet uncertain, and funding limited (so are the plane and pilot pools), part of the money for buildig the first pair will be obtained by pausing conversion of less valuable merchant ships to CVEs until 1943, when they will be needed as aircraft transports and ASW ships. Taiyo, Unyo and Chuyo arrive in 1943. Junyo and Hiyo are converted as IRL.

So, how do you like this plan?

* By the way, I've just noticed that Unryu class has wastly reduced armor compared to Hiryu in the game. ???

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 109
RE: Built or Building Japanese Cruisers - 8/6/2011 4:49:12 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11378
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Cruisers are now good.

BBs good.

ON CVs we still have a some issues. Hosho did not count against tonnage whatsoever since it was used as a Training Ship--like Langley. Akagi and Atago are good, however, there is now substantial tonnage available for something different. My vote is the Japanese move smaller just like the US (Ranger) but opt for WAY smaller and build a true CVL at about 10,000T. It would not need to be reconstructed several times as did Ryujo (Saving $$$). The dollars saved here and elsewhere then could be spent on building a proto-Soryu. Specific plans and proposals to follow later today once my son's 5TH B-Day Party is over.

What about DDs and SS?

I'd say hold on auxiliary ships until we've settled all the warships.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 110
RE: Built or Building Japanese Cruisers - 8/6/2011 6:07:15 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2517
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
Why not build a proto-Soryu right away, then, in according to your previous proposal? Alternatively, what is going to be sacrificed to get money for an extra light carrier?

I have no real ideas about the sub fleet. About DDs, will post a plan a bit later.

< Message edited by FatR -- 8/6/2011 6:15:05 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 111
RE: Built or Building Japanese Cruisers - 8/6/2011 6:13:45 PM   
Cyber Me

 

Posts: 73
Joined: 1/21/2010
From: the Cloud
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

Final count by my proposal above, assuming the best case:

CAs: 4 Myoko, 4 Takao, 4 Mogami, 4 Mogami-Kai (about 2 should still be in construction at the beginning of the war) - 14 ready, 2 in construction. (Instead of 16 ready IRL, but ours are a bit better armed)

1-st class CLs: 2 Mogami, 4 Aoba - 6 ready, 0 in construction. (5 in construction IRL, but ours are significantly larger and better-armed.)

2-nd class CLs and CLAAs: 5 ready, 2 in consruction, 6 in reconstruction (18 ready IRL, quality is roughly the same on December of 1941, but newly constructed and reconstructed ships are much superior).

3-rd class CLs (trainers): 3 ready. (3 ready IRL).

As you can see, the first cruiser line is considerably more numerous and packs a bigger punch at the beginning of hostilities.
This is bought at the expense of second-line cruisers. Destroyer flotillas are quite short on flagships from RL standpoint, although Aobas probably can fill this role, while still leaving 16 best cruisers for other assignments. From the game perspective, 5500-ton cruisers serve as very useful fleet warhorses and convoy escorts during the initial expansion, so the trade-off will be felt as well. Later in the game, though, the situation will improve with arrival of new CLAAs and converted ships.

Any further pre-war expansion, if a scheme to get more money for cruiser building can be plausibly concocted, should consist of producing improved variants of Mogami design, saving money through unification and building the cheapest possible type that still dominates any cruiser of the probable enemy one-on-one.

EDIT: Actually, considering 6 ships not built and replaced by converted CLs instead (AS Taigei, CM Okinoshima, CM Tsugaru, three training cruisers), I think in the long run we might even be saving a bit of money here, compared to reality. Not nearly enough for another pair of first-rate cruisers, but maybe enough to pay for some extra DDs.

You might notice that I like Mogami design... well, yeah. Despite accusations of being overloaded and unfortunate vulnerability of the torpedo banks*, sinking all of them but unlucky Suzuya required massive amounts of damage, they were quite well-armed and not quite as big and expensive as their precedessors, which is important here.

*In fact, it is pretty interesting that 3 out of 3 Long Lance detonation accidents that resulted in loss of ships that might have survived otherwise happened during the Battle of Leyte Gulf. Bad luck or maybe problems with late-war produced torpedoes?



The Long Lance torpedo was a danger for any ship carrying them due to their extremely volatile oxygen fuel system: six of Japanese CAs were sunk as a direct result of damage to the Long Lance torpedoes.
Suzuya: Was sunk by a near-miss bomb!!! that caused the long lance torpedoes to detonate, within two hours she sank.(not even hit)
Chokai: was hit by a single 5inch shell in the Battle of Samar that caused a sympathetic explosion among the torpedoes that damaged the rudder and engines- causing her to fall out of formation. A 500lb aerial bomb then hit her and Chokai became dead in the water and scuttled next day.
Abukuma: was struck by two 500lb bombs dropped by B24s on 26th Oct 1944. A fire started in the engine room and spread to the torpedo room where 4 torpedoes exploded. 5 mins later she sank.
Furutaka: was struck by over 90 shells during the Battle of Cape Esperance- some of her torpedoes exploded too- she sank over night.
Mikuma: damaged after colliding with the Mogani during the opening day of the Battle of Midway, Mikuma was hit by five bombs while returning to Wake Is- one bomb landed among the torpedo tubes- the resulting explosion sank the ship.
Mogami: Having received damage after ramming Mikuma, Mogani was returning to Wake Is when attacked planes that scored a single hit near the torpedo tubes- but luckily the ship's crew had jettisoned their torpedoes minutes before the planes arrived. Mogani made it back to Wake. During the Battle of Surigao Strait Mogani was hit by four 8in shells that damaged the bridge- but didn't start any fires. While trying to leave formation she collided with Nachi which started a fire which quickly spread to the torpedo tubes... soon five torpedoes exploded- leaving the ship dead in the water, and sunk by USN cruisers shortly afterwards.


Aoba: A single bomb hit dropped by a B-17 on April 3, 1943. Two long lance torpedoes exploded and the ship had to beached to prevent sinking. She had to be tow to Truk for repairs. Aoba Had to be towed to Kure- arriving on Aug 1. She returned to the fleet on 24th Dec 1943- but had her max speed permanently reduced to 25kn due to engine damage. Not sunk though.

The Japanese CA were sunk by their own torpedoes when they were hit or fires spread to them. Some CA were saved by jettisoning their torpedoes before an attack, but as the war continued munitions would become scarce and probably the skippers were reluctant to jettison them if they were not assured replenishment.

The other navies had rejected the compressed oxygen fuel systems for their torpedoes as too dangerous.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 112
RE: Built or Building Japanese Cruisers - 8/6/2011 7:02:09 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2517
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cyber Me
The Long Lance torpedo was a danger for any ship carrying them due to their extremely volatile oxygen fuel system: six of Japanese CAs were sunk as a direct result of damage to the Long Lance torpedoes.

Two actually - Suzuya and Chokai. For that matter we don't actually know what happened on Chokai, although the torpedo detonation is the most likely culprit.

For Mogami the torpedo detonation probably was the critical blow, but let's not forget that she was rammed, hit by 2 227-kg bombs and 14-24 6- and 8-inch shells, and even then she only eventually lost propulsion due to engine breakdown and needed to be scuttled by Akebono - most cruisers would have been in dangerous situation from gunfire alone. And she still almost certainly would have survived after a victorious battle.
Mikuma was dead in the water with massive fires before the torpedo detonations (which happened several minutes after a bomb exploded right above torpedo tubes - not exactly). Before talking about Long Lance danger or something, kindly direct us to an Allied heavy cruiser that survived 5 hits and 2 close near-misses by bombs above 250 kg, preferably one which had all engines knocked out by those hits.
Abukuma took 1 torpedo hit and 3 direct bomb hits (by all rights, already enough to sink a small and old ship), which caused loss of power and steering. If you have an idea how a ship in such condition could have possibly survived in enemy waters, please enlighten us. Torpedo detonation was caused by uncontrollable fires, 17 minutes after the fatal bomb hits.
Furutaka... blaming her loss on torpedo detonations is extremely bizarre, as she took a torpedo and over 90 shells of various calibres. By comparison, Canberra was dead in the water and sinking from no more than 24 large-calibre hits, Astoria from 65 hits of various calibres, and both were larger ships.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cyber Me
The Japanese CA were sunk by their own torpedoes when they were hit or fires spread to them.

Well, about up to three of them were, either by bad luck or decreasing quality of late-war torpedoes (as earlier in the war torpedo detonations followed direct bomb hits or uncontrollable fires). Not that their survival particularly mattered in October of 1944. So, did you have an actual proposal here?



(in reply to Cyber Me)
Post #: 113
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/6/2011 7:25:57 PM   
bigred


Posts: 2908
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

That is some solid thinking. Let me mull it over some before responding.

Anybody else got thoughts or reactions to what we've been chatting about?


Hi John. I am reading the thread from the beginning. What do u think about incorporation of the RHS varient where the USSR starts the game at war w/ japan, is in a neutral state unless the IJA pulls too many units out of marchuria? Instead of a Jap garrison requirement it is more of a real life type situation!

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 114
RE: Built or Building Japanese Cruisers - 8/6/2011 11:00:38 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2517
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
So, on destroyers. Let's keep things as they are until the middle of thirties, including Tomozuru Incident and Fourth Fleet Incident, to keep the link to political realities and perception of the Japanese fleet by foreigners.

After that:

- Stop building of torpedo boats after the Tomozuru class. Don't build 8 torpedo boats of Otori class.

- Instead, use money to thoroughly modify all destroyers of Minekaze and Kamikaze classes in late thirties, replacing their old armament. The newer ships (all 11 ships of Kamikaze class - it will include 11 ships, not 9, because 2 were cancelled due to Washington treaty - and 3 latest Minekazes, starting with Nokaze) will be rearmed to 1x1+1x2 127/40,1x4 610mm torpedo laucher,4x2 25/60 standard. The older ships (12 remaining Minekazes) will retain parts of their old torpedo armament and weapons removed from upgraded ships will be used for bringing them all to 1x1+1x2 120x45, 2x2 533mm torpedo launchers,5x2 25/60 standard. All these ships will carry 2 depth charge racks and 2 depth charge throwers (36 DCs). Of course, modern fire directors and so on will be installed. One of the boilers will be removed, and extra fuel tanks istalled, reducing speed to 31 knots (a bit less by the wartime, due to wear and tear) and increasing range.

- Use the rest of the money to modify all 20 Momi-class and 6 Wakatake-class torpedo boats into escort destroyers, meant primarily for anti-submarine warfare. Use primarily various old guns removed from newer ships as their armament, to achieve maximum economy. Again, remove a boiler, add fuel. Armament standard - 1x120/45, 1x2 533mm TT (will be removed during the war to increase small-calibre flak armament), 1x2 40/40, 2x4 13.2, 60 DCs, again with 2 racks and 2 throwers.

Thus IJN will receive 26 second-class destroyers with modern AA/ASW armament and 26 long-range escorts in addition to its modern destroyers.

- Rearm six Hatsuharu-class DDs to 3x2 127/40, as I described before, during their reconstruction. Add 3x3 + 2x1 25/60 as well in the process and increase ASW armament to at least 36 DCs. These will be attached to the carrier divisions.

- Build the first six Shiratsuyu-class DDs with the same cannon armament as Hatsuharus (but 2x4 TTs, as Shiratsuyus carried IRL), as an experiment in creation of a dedicated night fighting ship. Build the last four as Asashio-class DDs, bringing their total production to 14.

- By the time the Asashio production run is complete, the carrier faction strongly urges against construction of more destroyers with non-DP armament, and, owing to removal of research distractions, the new version of high-angle 127/50 turrets is completed 1.5 years earlier, allowing its installation on Kagero-class DDs, effectively uniting Kageros and Yugumos into one class. It is not a very satifsying compromize, as the new guns (thanks to the new dual-stat model) remain mostly inadequate against aircraft. Lay down 20 of these ships until second half of 1940.


Until this moment I haven't tinkered with production and the number of ships. Is everyone OK with these ideas? If so, I'll finish the proposal for immediate pre-war and wartime production tomorrow

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 115
RE: Built or Building Japanese Cruisers - 8/6/2011 11:17:08 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41361
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Where will all these extra weapons come from? Japan couldn't produce enough IRL.

A few of her older capital ships had to go to war without receiving the 12.7cm AA guns, because there weren't enough to be had.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 116
RE: Built or Building Japanese Cruisers - 8/7/2011 12:03:20 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2517
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
As far as I know 470 127/40 guns were produced before the war. 104 to arm all carriers, 104 to arm all battleships (including Yamatos), 96 to arm all cruisers that can use Type 89, 18 to seaplane tenders. Even including a few ships I cannot be bothered to count, production exceeds demand by over 100 units. Extra 127/40s in the proposal above, not counting those ordered in place of other modern guns, number only 42 (counting those, 102).

As about the reason why Japanese failed to reequip all their capital ships to 127/40 before the war (besides space and weight limitations on some ships), the most plausible explanation I've heard is lack of funds for upgrade works. Well, the proposal includes cancelling 8 ships to provide funds and extensive use of tubes removed from more valuable ships.

< Message edited by FatR -- 8/7/2011 12:04:20 AM >

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 117
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/7/2011 12:24:57 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11378
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigred


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

That is some solid thinking. Let me mull it over some before responding.

Anybody else got thoughts or reactions to what we've been chatting about?


Hi John. I am reading the thread from the beginning. What do u think about incorporation of the RHS varient where the USSR starts the game at war w/ japan, is in a neutral state unless the IJA pulls too many units out of marchuria? Instead of a Jap garrison requirement it is more of a real life type situation!


Hey BigRed!

My standard reaction is "I HATE China and USSR!" What do people think of this thought?



_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to bigred)
Post #: 118
RE: Built or Building Japanese Cruisers - 8/7/2011 12:27:41 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11378
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

So, on destroyers. Let's keep things as they are until the middle of thirties, including Tomozuru Incident and Fourth Fleet Incident, to keep the link to political realities and perception of the Japanese fleet by foreigners.

After that:

- Stop building of torpedo boats after the Tomozuru class. Don't build 8 torpedo boats of Otori class.

- Instead, use money to thoroughly modify all destroyers of Minekaze and Kamikaze classes in late thirties, replacing their old armament. The newer ships (all 11 ships of Kamikaze class - it will include 11 ships, not 9, because 2 were cancelled due to Washington treaty - and 3 latest Minekazes, starting with Nokaze) will be rearmed to 1x1+1x2 127/40,1x4 610mm torpedo laucher,4x2 25/60 standard. The older ships (12 remaining Minekazes) will retain parts of their old torpedo armament and weapons removed from upgraded ships will be used for bringing them all to 1x1+1x2 120x45, 2x2 533mm torpedo launchers,5x2 25/60 standard. All these ships will carry 2 depth charge racks and 2 depth charge throwers (36 DCs). Of course, modern fire directors and so on will be installed. One of the boilers will be removed, and extra fuel tanks istalled, reducing speed to 31 knots (a bit less by the wartime, due to wear and tear) and increasing range.

- Use the rest of the money to modify all 20 Momi-class and 6 Wakatake-class torpedo boats into escort destroyers, meant primarily for anti-submarine warfare. Use primarily various old guns removed from newer ships as their armament, to achieve maximum economy. Again, remove a boiler, add fuel. Armament standard - 1x120/45, 1x2 533mm TT (will be removed during the war to increase small-calibre flak armament), 1x2 40/40, 2x4 13.2, 60 DCs, again with 2 racks and 2 throwers.

Thus IJN will receive 26 second-class destroyers with modern AA/ASW armament and 26 long-range escorts in addition to its modern destroyers.

- Rearm six Hatsuharu-class DDs to 3x2 127/40, as I described before, during their reconstruction. Add 3x3 + 2x1 25/60 as well in the process and increase ASW armament to at least 36 DCs. These will be attached to the carrier divisions.

- Build the first six Shiratsuyu-class DDs with the same cannon armament as Hatsuharus (but 2x4 TTs, as Shiratsuyus carried IRL), as an experiment in creation of a dedicated night fighting ship. Build the last four as Asashio-class DDs, bringing their total production to 14.

- By the time the Asashio production run is complete, the carrier faction strongly urges against construction of more destroyers with non-DP armament, and, owing to removal of research distractions, the new version of high-angle 127/50 turrets is completed 1.5 years earlier, allowing its installation on Kagero-class DDs, effectively uniting Kageros and Yugumos into one class. It is not a very satifsying compromize, as the new guns (thanks to the new dual-stat model) remain mostly inadequate against aircraft. Lay down 20 of these ships until second half of 1940.


Until this moment I haven't tinkered with production and the number of ships. Is everyone OK with these ideas? If so, I'll finish the proposal for immediate pre-war and wartime production tomorrow



Converting the older DDs into DE is EXCELLENT. We've decided that the Japanese will pay attention to ASW. This will begin a serious attempt at that without costing the Japanese too much of their DD Force at the war's start. One might make an argument that these ship conversion could serve as the research platforms for wartime escorts of better effectiveness.

You had highly specific stats regarding those guns. Where did you get the info? Would love that source!


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 119
Proto-Shokaku - 8/7/2011 3:29:11 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11378
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Keep mulling around ideas for the replacement of Ryujo. Have, perhaps, a semi-radical idea. How about the Japanese follow their tendency of quality over quantity? The Kaingun has 25,000T of carrier building left after Akagi and Atago are completed. How about--instead of building Proto-Soryu--they elect instead to build a proto-Shokaku? They certainly have the tonnage available and it is only ONE hull taking the place of Ryujo. Yes--it would be more expensive but it would also serve as a great reason why the Japanese reduce size to a pair of Hiryus with Circle Two and then decide to bounce back to the the Shokaku-Class with Circle 3.

It is a very different idea to think about...

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> Built or Building Japanese Cruisers Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.146