Matrix Games Forums

A look through the keyhole #10!The Age of Shadows on Distant Worlds starts now!Paypal System UpdateDistant Worlds: Shadows Final Teaser!Distant Worlds: Legends gets Updated!Recruiting Testers for Commander: the Great War on Mac!Armageddon invasion starts in 2014Command Rommels Panzers in Battle Academy!Servers UpdateThe Deal goes Fourth!		 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

TAIYOs

 
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 >> TAIYOs Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
TAIYOs - 10/1/2011 10:22:44 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1214
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline 		Not much informations in TROMs, but...
All were converted from civilian transports, Chuyo even began conversion AFTER the war start (20 August 1942), so obviously it should not be in construction queue at the game beginning (same as Kaiyo, which was converted from Argentina Maru, in December 1942, the same conversion was planned for Brazil Maru, and same as Shinyo, which began conversion at September 1942

Anyway, they are listed as having:

Armor: 2.5 cm (0.98 in) side belt over machinery spaces and magazines

8 × Type 95 depth charges in 1945 coversion,

and their cruise speed is 18.


The most interesting part are flight decks:
Wikipedia says, that neither have catapults, or arresting gears, and their strips were 150 meters long, however Hosho, at 168.25 meters:
quote:

A later investigation determined on 23 December 1940 that she could not operate the latest aircraft types like the Mitsubishi A6M Zero, the Aichi D3A "Val", or the Nakajima B5N "Kate" in combat

at longer deck could not operate aircrafts which are listed as standard for TAIYOs. I can understand, that they could lift-off with rockets assistance (according to TMJ AT A-II AERONAUTICS TARGETS, Aircraft arrangements and handling facilities in Japanese naval vessels), but how could they land? Being caught in nets?

It seems additional landing equipment was not needed for pre-war planes:
quote:

Fifteen different types of landing equipment were evaluated before the British longitudinal wire system was adopted. Low landing speeds of the time meant that aircraft had little difficulty in stopping, but their light weight made them vulnerable to wind gusts that could blow them over the side of the carrier, and the longitudinal wires helped to prevent that.


The most interesting informations are on this page:
First, it claims, that Depth Charges were installed from the beginning, it also shows, that not only flight decks were longer, but Chuyo had actually full 172 meters deck, and the rest get it upgraded in 1944 (no word about additional flying equipment). All carriers have D3A as standard equipment, and Chuyo have even D4Y (only TAIYO lists CLAUDEs, and SUSIEs).
And, with situation similar to YAMATOs, RADAR is listed, as being installed during first upgrades in mid-1943 (plus they got some 13.2 mm AAMGs).




Attachment (1)
Post #: 1
RE: TAIYOs - 10/2/2011 12:16:54 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 7049
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline 		I believe the CVEs in the IJN were primarily used for aircraft ferries.  I don't think they had air groups.

Bill


_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 2
RE: TAIYOs - 10/2/2011 1:12:07 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 39925
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		They had no organic air groups, and certainly didn't commission with any, but the 931st Air Group deployed small detachments aboard the Unyo, Kaiyo and Shinyo between August and October 1944, for convoy escort. This is nothing new, and certainly doesn't warrant changing anything.

Source is Monograph no 116.

_____________________________

There is no version of this where you come out on top - Tony Stark


(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 3
RE: TAIYOs - 10/8/2011 8:26:57 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1214
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

I believe the CVEs in the IJN were primarily used for aircraft ferries.  I don't think they had air groups.

Actually, it seems they were used mainly as ASW convoy escorts, with additional airplanes transport duties. For example take a look at first Hosho assigment:

quote:

Hosho sortied from the Inland Sea on 7 December 1941 to provide distant cover for the carrier forces under Chuichi Nagumo which were attacking Pearl Harbor. The battleship force turned back 300 nautical miles (556 km) east of Japan, but Hosho became separated on 10 December due to radio silence restrictions while conducting anti-submarine air operations.


I have document, about Japanese WWII ASW warfare, but it is late-war US manual, assembled mainly from interrogations, so not very useful for early/mid-war. It clearly states, that the only planes used for ASW duty were KATEs, and some types of Float-Planes. But if those CVEs had too short decks for KATEs, how could they operate them?

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 4
RE: TAIYOs - 10/8/2011 12:22:11 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 13698
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline 		The Hosho was a class of it's own and is known to have carried TBs, Jeans at the outbreak of the war and Kates during the Midway operation.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 5
RE: TAIYOs - 10/9/2011 8:42:48 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1214
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

The Hosho was a class of it's own and is known to have carried TBs, Jeans at the outbreak of the war and Kates during the Midway operation.

Yet, it does not mean, that it have some exclusively different duty, than other CVEs, because it was hardly any different, than later models.

I am not sure, what exactly those 4 CVEs used were, but surely Hosho was used only for airplanes training then.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 6
RE: TAIYOs - 10/9/2011 9:32:21 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 13698
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline 		Hosho was an operational carrier at the start of the war through the Midway operation. At some point after Midway (soon after I think, but I'm not sure), she was relegated to training duties and did that for the remainder of the war.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 7
RE: TAIYOs - 10/15/2011 7:05:07 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1214
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Hosho was an operational carrier at the start of the war through the Midway operation. At some point after Midway (soon after I think, but I'm not sure), she was relegated to training duties and did that for the remainder of the war.


And this bring two possible explanations:

1) Its ASW duty was either a failure, or no longer needed

2) There was some other vessel, to take over ASW duty

IIRC in-game TAIYOs get KATE in late 1943, so either there was a gap in Japanese ASW warfare, or they should get their planes earlier (or something else fullfilled this duty)

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 8
RE: TAIYOs - 10/15/2011 7:29:32 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 7049
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline 		They may not have been flying ASW armed.  They may have been working as spotting aircraft directing escorts to depth charge any subs spotted.

Though I'm not sure about the claim that only Kates were used for ASW.  It doesn't take much lift ability to mount a depth bomb.  On the other side, Kingfishers were used for ASW.

Bill


_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 9
RE: TAIYOs - 10/15/2011 3:12:52 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 4432
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

They may not have been flying ASW armed.  They may have been working as spotting aircraft directing escorts to depth charge any subs spotted.

Though I'm not sure about the claim that only Kates were used for ASW.  It doesn't take much lift ability to mount a depth bomb.  On the other side, Kingfishers were used for ASW.

Bill


Seems I recall a passage in Hara's book about Kate's spotting subs for him ...

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 10
RE: TAIYOs - 10/16/2011 9:57:00 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1214
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

They may not have been flying ASW armed.  They may have been working as spotting aircraft directing escorts to depth charge any subs spotted.

Though I'm not sure about the claim that only Kates were used for ASW.  It doesn't take much lift ability to mount a depth bomb.  On the other side, Kingfishers were used for ASW.

According to document TMJ SRT S-24 "SHIP AND RELATED TARGETS, JAPANESE ANTI-SUBMARINE WARFARE"
dated February 1946

only those types of planes were used in ASW duty:
JAKE
PETE
KATE
Patrol Planes (MAVIS is named)
LILY
and there is mention, that ZEROs were making short patrol duty at Coral Sea.

250 kg bomb do not weight that much, in comparison with whole plane, so I doubt getting rid of it would help with lift-off. They would probably need to pump out half of AVGAS to operate from short deck, but I do not see reason, to send unarmed KATE, with half fuel, if you can send wholly armed, and fuelled JEAN.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 11
RE: TAIYOs - 10/17/2011 5:24:11 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 4432
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

250 kg bomb do not weight that much, in comparison with whole plane, so I doubt getting rid of it would help with lift-off. They would probably need to pump out half of AVGAS to operate from short deck, but I do not see reason, to send unarmed KATE, with half fuel ...


If we are still referring to the CVE launching ASW/Seach missions, I can see them launching unarmed ... or relatively so. My understanding is that both launch and recovery of the Kates on those ships was dicey*, jettisoning ordnance would have been best policy on recovery ... but wasting ordnance wasn't well tolerated in the IJN. Hence, launch them with no ordnance would have been the result ...

*Narrow decks, not great seaworthiness (plunging), difficulty attaining speed even in moderate seas, etc.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 12
RE: TAIYOs - 10/19/2011 3:26:07 PM   
Omat


Posts: 537
Joined: 8/18/2004
Status: offline 		Hello

I am not sure but wasn`t here posted a photo with a D3a Val taking off from a carrier for ASW patrol (from 1942)? I can`t find it but maybe someone else remembers it.

Omat

_____________________________

"All changes, even the most longed for, have their melancholy; for what we leave behind us is part of ourselves; we must die to one life before we can enter another."
Anatole France

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 13
RE: TAIYOs - 10/19/2011 3:44:49 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 6231
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Hosho was an operational carrier at the start of the war through the Midway operation. At some point after Midway (soon after I think, but I'm not sure), she was relegated to training duties and did that for the remainder of the war.


Hosho spend the majority of the war in the Inland Sea training up new carrier pilots flying Jill and Judy. Her flight deck was extended to allow these aircraft to land and take off, but she was never capable of carrying them inside here own hangars, the elevators and hangars being to small to handle the larger aircraft.

If one wants to use Hosho in game as a carrier with an organic group, they should limit the ship to carrying nothing more than A5Ms or B4Ys (with no upgrades), and no more than 18 total (she historically had only a capacity of 22).

_____________________________

aka- Akula

Larry Bond's Harpoon - Commander's Edition

Development Team Member

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 14
RE: TAIYOs - 10/22/2011 8:23:58 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1214
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

250 kg bomb do not weight that much, in comparison with whole plane, so I doubt getting rid of it would help with lift-off. They would probably need to pump out half of AVGAS to operate from short deck, but I do not see reason, to send unarmed KATE, with half fuel ...


If we are still referring to the CVE launching ASW/Seach missions, I can see them launching unarmed ... or relatively so. My understanding is that both launch and recovery of the Kates on those ships was dicey*, jettisoning ordnance would have been best policy on recovery ... but wasting ordnance wasn't well tolerated in the IJN. Hence, launch them with no ordnance would have been the result ...

*Narrow decks, not great seaworthiness (plunging), difficulty attaining speed even in moderate seas, etc.

I was thinking the same thing - that they would circle around dropping fuel, until almost empty, and then try to land, and be caught in nets.
Obviously total waste of everything, so either they did NOT operated KATEs, or they get their decks modified.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Omat

I am not sure but wasn`t here posted a photo with a D3a Val taking off from a carrier for ASW patrol (from 1942)? I can`t find it but maybe someone else remembers it.

What is interesting in-game terms, there is no reason to use KATEs for ASW (until they get MAD), because pilots need there 2-3 skills (NavT, and bombing), while DBs need only bombing.

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 15
RE: TAIYOs - 10/22/2011 9:57:56 AM   
Puhis


Posts: 1627
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline 		Japanese CVEs had arrester gears, all internet sources claiming otherwise are fairy tales. CVEs could and did operate Kates, but what about Vals? Vals didn't have folding wings, so they required much more space in hangar. And could they even fit the elevators?

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 16
RE: TAIYOs - 10/23/2011 10:55:07 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1214
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

Japanese CVEs had arrester gears, all internet sources claiming otherwise are fairy tales.

But were they already build with arrestor gear, or got them after some upgrade? I would say, if they were build as CVEs with decks, it was for purpose of operating aircrafts. If there was no arrestor gear, they were supposed to operate smaller aircrafts.

quote:

CVEs could and did operate Kates, but what about Vals? Vals didn't have folding wings, so they required much more space in hangar. And could they even fit the elevators?

You can always keep planes on deck, through whole trip. If they were too large for elevator, SUSIE would probably fit. Question is what exactly they operated, and why.

Whole LSD project assumed, that ship would carry planes, to immediately put them on conquered airfield. So, if CVEs were also operated in that role, does they carried fighters or bombers (maybe even not DB, but some light 1E bombers)?

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 17
RE: TAIYOs - 10/24/2011 7:30:59 AM   
Puhis


Posts: 1627
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis



quote:

CVEs could and did operate Kates, but what about Vals? Vals didn't have folding wings, so they required much more space in hangar. And could they even fit the elevators?

You can always keep planes on deck, through whole trip. If they were too large for elevator, SUSIE would probably fit. Question is what exactly they operated, and why.



I doubt they kept planes on deck, at least if they wanted to operate them. I think many times transported planes were not totally assembled, so that planes did not take much space in hangar and one ship could carry more planes than just 20-30.

< Message edited by Puhis -- 10/24/2011 7:33:06 AM >

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 18
RE: TAIYOs - 10/25/2011 12:44:55 PM   
elcid

 

Posts: 226
Joined: 11/20/2002
From: Lakewood Washington
Status: offline 		On both sides, carriers used to transport aircraft would do so with assembled planes on deck -
often land planes. This duty was not compatable with operational uses in most instances -
and carriers in the USN and even RN often had no actual air groups at all for that reason.
On the other hand, some carriers operated aircrat that were not from air groups assigned to
them - sometimes quite often. But at such times they were not being used as transports.

The concept of a maintenance carrier is not unique to IJN either. Some were in RN - and the
first of these - Unicorn if memory serves - often played as a real carrier - but she never did have
an actual air group (again if my memory is correct).

It is my impression you can use game carriers as transports - and in that case they do not fly any
missions. They can be 'overloaded' - with "too many planes' - too. Just as IRL. One might
quibble with the numbers - but the basic system is pretty good - better than most games.

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 19
RE: TAIYOs - 10/29/2011 7:49:10 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1214
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline 		Keeping planes on deck is similar to operating from field airfield. Storm can be a problem, but operating CV during storm is impossible anyway, so ships should avoid such weather by definition.

What I find interesting, that last page, not only shows permanent airgroups:
quote:

Year fighters torpedo bombers
1942 11 A6M2 16 B5N


But this page, lists both TAIYO, and UNYO, as operating JUDYs, while first link lists only CHUYO:
quote:

Taiyo: 6 x 1 - 120/45 10-shiki, 2 x 2 - 25/60 96-shiki, 2 DCR(8), 27 aircraft (A5M, A6M fighters, D1A, D3A diving bombers, B5N torpedo bombers)

Unyo: 4 x 2 - 127/40 89-shiki, 2 x 2 - 25/60 96-shiki, 2 DCR(8), 30 aircraft (A6M fighters, D3A diving bombers, B5N torpedo bombers)

Chuyo: 4 x 2 - 127/40 89-shiki, 2 x 2 - 25/60 96-shiki, 2 DCR(8), 30 aircraft (A6M fighters, D3A, D4Y diving bombers, B5N torpedo bombers)


So, were they operated in sense of "trained", or as permanent CVEs airgroups?

(in reply to elcid)
Post #: 20
RE: TAIYOs - 10/29/2011 5:32:25 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 6231
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline 		I've found you get much better info on the individual ships by reading their TROM (Tabular Record of Movement). You can find them for the Taiyo's here: http://www.combinedfleet.com/cvlist.htm

Reading through it seems Taiyo never actually carried an organic air group, but was rather used as an aircraft ferry or troop transport through out the war, for example.

_____________________________

aka- Akula

Larry Bond's Harpoon - Commander's Edition

Development Team Member

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 21
RE: TAIYOs - 10/29/2011 8:59:49 PM   
Puhis


Posts: 1627
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

Keeping planes on deck is similar to operating from field airfield.


No, it really is NOT similar...


quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

What I find interesting, that last page, not only shows permanent airgroups:
quote:

Year fighters torpedo bombers
1942 11 A6M2 16 B5N


Most of those airgroups seems to be hogwash (like Hosho carrying B5Ns in 6/1942), so I wouldn't refer that page...

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 22
RE: TAIYOs - 10/30/2011 4:22:29 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 6231
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis


quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

Keeping planes on deck is similar to operating from field airfield.


No, it really is NOT similar...


quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

What I find interesting, that last page, not only shows permanent airgroups:
quote:

Year fighters torpedo bombers
1942 11 A6M2 16 B5N


Most of those airgroups seems to be hogwash (like Hosho carrying B5Ns in 6/1942), so I wouldn't refer that page...


Exactly, during the Midway operation, Hosho carried 8 B4Y Jean, it never carried Kates.

_____________________________

aka- Akula

Larry Bond's Harpoon - Commander's Edition

Development Team Member

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 23
RE: TAIYOs - 10/30/2011 11:20:22 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1214
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline 		Well, I hope they got their data somewhere, not guessed it. TROMs have different details for different ships. YAMATO lists every upgrade, but for TAIYOs there is not even information what type of mission they were under, during trips. They constantly traveled to Truk, but only in few cases there is explicit mention, that they transported planes.

Anyway, I forgot that I have document about Japanese CVs. It shows TAIYO Flight Deck at 172 meters, and its elevators at 12x13m, so it was lengthened (or already build longer, than 150m), and elevator size is pretty standard. Also, there is part about transporting planes on deck, and arresting gear (again, if they were converted without it, it was added later):




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 24
RE: TAIYOs - 11/5/2011 9:07:49 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1214
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline 		Not exactly TAIYOs, but interesting part in the KAIYO TROM:

quote:

21 April 1944:
At 0700, departs Singapore with kaibokan ETOFORU, IKI, SHIMUSHU, CD-8 and CD-9 escorting convoy HI-58 consisting of oilers ITSUKUSHIMA, RYOEI, OMUROSAN and OTOWASAN MARUs, troop transport SHINSHU MARU, and probably ZUIHO and MAYASAN MARUs.

That same day, one of KAIYO's attack planes sights LtCdr Manning M. Kimmel's (son of former CINCPAC, ADM H. E. Kimmel) USS ROBALO (SS-273) on the surface about 15 miles behind the convoy. The plane drops two bombs on ROBALO and calls for assistance. IKI and CD-9 arrive and drop depth charges. ROBALO is damaged, but escapes.

No mention earlier, that it had airgroups, or loaded any planes NOT for transport, and suddenly it seems it operated attack planes in ASW duty.

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 25
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> TAIYOs Page: [1]
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

0.281