Matrix Games Forums

Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!Piercing Fortress Europa Gets UpdatedBattle Academy Mega Pack is now availableClose Combat: Gateway to Caen Teaser TrailerDeal of the Week Alea Jacta Est
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: More whacky ideas for a one of a kind mod

 
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 >> RE: More whacky ideas for a one of a kind mod Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: More whacky ideas for a one of a kind mod - 7/23/2012 10:55:49 PM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 5436
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: offline
Option 2 sounds probably best.

Here's a lineup of the cruiser building program for each navy. Again, not all these ships will be stationed in the Pacific. Not sure yet which ones to feature in the mod but probably at least one or two from each class.

The Free French will control Indochina. I plan on having a Saigon naval squadron and a smaller Noumea naval squadron for the French.

The Germans and Italians will start operations from two bases, one in Italian East Africa and the other Socotra.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Gary Childress -- 7/26/2012 6:14:18 AM >


_____________________________

My WitP webpage: https://sites.google.com/site/garyswitpsite/


(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 31
RE: More whacky ideas for a one of a kind mod - 7/23/2012 11:52:58 PM   
Gridley380


Posts: 245
Joined: 12/20/2011
Status: offline
Why would the US have halted construction from 1927 to 1941?

Suggest you fill the hole with the states that haven't had a BB in a while and don't get one under your program:

Illinois (you list her as the class leader, but she's not in the list and you say only 8 are built), Alabama, Wisconsin, Maine, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Hampshire.

If we assume no Great Depression, there's no reason the US couldn't manage a rate of just under 1/year and build all of these - figure three classes of four ships each (or pick eight of them and add two more as extra South Dakotas).

With no Washington Naval Treaty, USS Wyoming might well have been kept around. If she isn't, she and Arkansas will almost certainly be scrapped together in favor of new construction (being the only 12" guns in the fleet). Arkansas was kept around as a singleton solely because of the treaties.

Also, note that your CV build rate is lower than the Essex class, despite the USN building fewer BBs than OTL. Need to kick that up a notch, too!

(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 32
RE: More whacky ideas for a one of a kind mod - 7/24/2012 12:17:42 AM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 5436
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gridley380

Why would the US have halted construction from 1927 to 1941?

Suggest you fill the hole with the states that haven't had a BB in a while and don't get one under your program:

Illinois (you list her as the class leader, but she's not in the list and you say only 8 are built), Alabama, Wisconsin, Maine, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Hampshire.

If we assume no Great Depression, there's no reason the US couldn't manage a rate of just under 1/year and build all of these - figure three classes of four ships each (or pick eight of them and add two more as extra South Dakotas).

With no Washington Naval Treaty, USS Wyoming might well have been kept around. If she isn't, she and Arkansas will almost certainly be scrapped together in favor of new construction (being the only 12" guns in the fleet). Arkansas was kept around as a singleton solely because of the treaties.

Also, note that your CV build rate is lower than the Essex class, despite the USN building fewer BBs than OTL. Need to kick that up a notch, too!


Hi Gridley 380, Thanks for the feedback.

I guess I could kick CVs up a notch for the US (and even Britain maybe)

Probably what I need to do with BBs is stretch out the ones I have over a more fluid band of time. Instead of all the S. Dakota class being done by 1927 I could probably stretch them out a few more years so that the Next class of ships picks up shortly afterward. I just don't want overkill on BBs. (Not that the mod doesn't already have overkill on BBs).

What I may do is have the first 4 S. Dakotas and first 4 Lexingtons built to original specs and then have the 5th and 6th ships "improved" versions. Or else the US simply decides to can the series after 4 ships each and decides to move on to bigger and better things.

_____________________________

My WitP webpage: https://sites.google.com/site/garyswitpsite/


(in reply to Gridley380)
Post #: 33
RE: More whacky ideas for a one of a kind mod - 7/24/2012 12:55:45 AM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 5436
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: offline
So far my mod has been largely driven by what art work I can come up with and the OOB being built around that. I think what would be much better is to come up with a logical building program for the various combatants based upon what the evolution of ships would have looked like without any treaties nor a Great Depression. I can create almost any ship art on my own to correspond to what I need. I just need ideas on what logical building programs for various ship types would be:

1. What would carrier construction have looked like without the early conversions of Akagi, Kaga, Lexington and Saratoga, etc.? Would more nations have utilized armored flight decks without tonnage restrictions?

2. What would Battleship construction have looked like if it had gone through the technological accelleration of the 1920s dream ships? Would all navies have been building 18" or even 20" guns by the late 1930s?

3. What would cruiser construction have looked like without the artificial influence of the gun size and tonnage limitations of the naval treaties? Would nations have gone hog wild designing bigger and bigger cruisers until the distinction between BB--BC--CB--CA--CL was almost a perfect continuum?

4. What about destroyers? What effects did treaty and budget limitations have on DDs? This is one area I'm just about completely ignorant on (not that I'm a wealth of info on the other areas either).

_____________________________

My WitP webpage: https://sites.google.com/site/garyswitpsite/


(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 34
RE: More whacky ideas for a one of a kind mod - 7/24/2012 6:17:55 PM   
House Stark

 

Posts: 181
Joined: 4/30/2011
Status: offline
This mod looks pretty cool, especially the battleship and cruiser parts. I take it this is primarily a surface warfare mod, since the carrier lineup looks a little weaker. Only 13 CVs for the Japanese vs 16 historically, and 72 plane CVs for the US vs 90 capacity ones historically. Do you think you might alter the capacities some for a little variety? Or does this all work fine with the conversions and such, and it's just hard to visualize.

All in all, I'm definitely keeping an eye on this one. Keep up the good work!

< Message edited by House Stark -- 7/24/2012 6:18:25 PM >

(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 35
RE: More whacky ideas for a one of a kind mod - 7/24/2012 8:51:11 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 6739
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
Having recently finished reading, "Kaigun," the Japanese mindset was to have the ability to outrange the other naval powers (British, USA, Russia, etc.) since the Russo-Japanese War of 1904. From about 1907, the Navy turned its target on the USA as a reason to be able to justify getting more warships built. They knew they couldn't build more than the USA, but they wanted more and more offensive weapons on their ships. And later on their CV. So, I can see Japan going for bigger and bigger guns on all their warships. They loved the potential of the torpedo, even back against Russia, when they numbers did not get the hit percentage they were looking for. Like the Mogami Class CL, they would go with a larger gun on a smaller hull as a way to have a bigger offensive punch. They thought very little about defensive weapons and potential countermeasures.

_____________________________


(in reply to House Stark)
Post #: 36
RE: More whacky ideas for a one of a kind mod - 7/24/2012 8:57:10 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 6739
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
For your next mod, a 'what if' on CVs. What if the bombing of the German warship by Billy Mitchell had an early knock out hit by one of those 2000 lb bombs. Say the first or second bomb sunk the ship. Kind of like what happened to BB North Carolina in my learning game vs the AI back in the old WITP days. That would have been in early 2005 for me. She was sunk by a single torpedo from a Betty off of G'canal. One of those critical hits that was less than 2% chance. The various naval powers take notice and the idea of a CV able to sink a ship with a single bomb or torpedo overrules the BB admirals.

< Message edited by ny59giants -- 7/24/2012 8:58:07 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 37
RE: More whacky ideas for a one of a kind mod - 7/25/2012 2:24:42 AM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 5436
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: House Stark

This mod looks pretty cool, especially the battleship and cruiser parts. I take it this is primarily a surface warfare mod, since the carrier lineup looks a little weaker. Only 13 CVs for the Japanese vs 16 historically, and 72 plane CVs for the US vs 90 capacity ones historically. Do you think you might alter the capacities some for a little variety? Or does this all work fine with the conversions and such, and it's just hard to visualize.

All in all, I'm definitely keeping an eye on this one. Keep up the good work!


Hi House Stark, Thanks for your comments. Now that you mention it maybe I will revisit the CV part of the mod.

I was planning on creating a PBEM version where there would be plenty of opportunities to convert ships to CVLs and CVEs. I might then do separate AI only versions where the AI doesn't need to convert anything to have lots of CVs. Not 100% sure yet.

@ny59giants: I like your Billy Mitchell premise. What if CV tactics were better refined and understood before the war so that CV construction would be taken more seriously? Like I say, I think I'll revisit the CV part of the mod to see if I can beef things up a bit.

_____________________________

My WitP webpage: https://sites.google.com/site/garyswitpsite/


(in reply to House Stark)
Post #: 38
RE: More whacky ideas for a one of a kind mod - 7/26/2012 3:49:46 AM   
derhexer


Posts: 216
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
Hey, Gary, who is your avatar a picture of - Thales of Miletus?

_____________________________

Chris
(Madness takes it's toll. Exact change required.)

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 39
RE: More whacky ideas for a one of a kind mod - 7/26/2012 4:44:21 AM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 5436
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: derhexer

Hey, Gary, who is your avatar a picture of - Thales of Miletus?


No it's a bust of Socrates, about 6 inches in height. Me mum brought it home from a trip to Greece once upon a time. It's one of my favorite knick knacks. I took a photo of it with the light hitting it thus and sort of like my photographic handiwork. It looks like something taken at a museum doesn't it?

EDIT: BTW who is your avatar picture of. I've seen the pic around the net a couple times and am curious. Also are you of any relation to a guy over at Civ Fanatics who goes by "Formaldehyde". He used to have the same avatar.

< Message edited by Gary Childress -- 7/26/2012 4:47:04 AM >


_____________________________

My WitP webpage: https://sites.google.com/site/garyswitpsite/


(in reply to derhexer)
Post #: 40
RE: More whacky ideas for a one of a kind mod - 7/26/2012 6:31:23 AM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 5436
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: House Stark

This mod looks pretty cool, especially the battleship and cruiser parts. I take it this is primarily a surface warfare mod, since the carrier lineup looks a little weaker. Only 13 CVs for the Japanese vs 16 historically, and 72 plane CVs for the US vs 90 capacity ones historically. Do you think you might alter the capacities some for a little variety? Or does this all work fine with the conversions and such, and it's just hard to visualize.

All in all, I'm definitely keeping an eye on this one. Keep up the good work!


Quick answer to your question about aircraft capacity. The reason my carriers have smaller aircraft capacities is due to smaller hangar deck size and greater flight deck armor. Protection is emphasized.

_____________________________

My WitP webpage: https://sites.google.com/site/garyswitpsite/


(in reply to House Stark)
Post #: 41
Alternative Destroyer Design Theory - 7/26/2012 7:15:04 AM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 5436
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: offline
Here's where I could really use some input--in trying to design an alternative fleet from scratch based upon what is realistically possilbe and what missions need to be fulfilled.

First off Destroyers...Under my alternative building programs in this alternative reality, DDs will come in two basic types:

1. First class fleet DDs of 2000-4000 tons with 3" - 6" main guns & 6 or more TTs.
Mission types: Fleet anti-sub escort
Fleet anti-aircraft support
Fleet surface combat/harrassment

2. Second class escort DDs of 1000-2000 tons with 3" - 5" main guns & 5 or less TTs.
Mission types: Convoy anti-sub escort
Convoy anti-aircraft support
Convoy surface combat/defense

Thoughts? Comments?

_____________________________

My WitP webpage: https://sites.google.com/site/garyswitpsite/


(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 42
RE: Alternative Destroyer Design Theory - 7/26/2012 1:00:33 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2140
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
Everybody knows "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb"

Dr Stangelove pictures

The picture is Peter Sellers.



_____________________________


(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 43
RE: Alternative Destroyer Design Theory - 7/26/2012 1:05:55 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2140
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
About the destroyers, Maybe the US, UK and France make "fleet" and "escort" DD's based on their experience in WWI. While Japan, Germany and Italy have the fleet DD's.

_____________________________


(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 44
RE: Alternative Destroyer Design Theory - 7/26/2012 4:16:29 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 790
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
Some comments on the new stuff;

Battleships and building schedules
As was mentioned before, spreading out the US builds might make more sense. Personally I would suggest cutting the South Dakota and Lexington classes to 4 ships each, and then build a new class of battleship or battlecruiser in the late 20s or early 30s, based upon one of the many design proposals from the time.

Cruisers and guns
I like the cruiser lineups, apart from the fact that the gun calibers are all over the place. Every nation seems to jump back and forth between 8", 10" and occasionally larger weapons, with no regard for standardization. Likewise, the 'heavy' light cruisers like the Brooklyn and Mogami probably would not have taken shape in this reality, being something of a product of the treaties (though admittedly one that turned out rather well as a nightfighter and bombardment platform). Lastly, the Italian Zara class with a mixed main battery seems like something more appropriate for 1902 than 1942.

I would suggest redoing the cruisers somewhat; in a reality like the one you propose I can see 3 'sizes' of cruisers emerge;
'Escort' cruisers, around the 4000-6000ton mark, with 5-7in guns; intended for convoy duty, warding off destroyers and later in the war maybe AA work.
'Light' cruisers around the 10000ton mark, with 7-10in guns, intended as cruiser hunters, and leaders of smaller cruiser groups.
'Heavy' cruisers around the 14-18000ton mark, with 10-12in guns, intended as general purpose vessels also capable of taking part in the battleline.

Obviously, each nation will build things suited to their requirements, and put their own 'spin' on these categories, such as German raiders, etc.

So for example, with regards to Japan, I might suggest something like this, beginning with Furutaka;

4x CL Furutaka (4x2 8in) ~9500t / 32knts
4x CL Myoko (4x2 9.2in) ~10500t / 34knts
2x CL Chokai (3x3 9.2in) ~12000t / 34knts
2x CA Maya (2x2 12.2in) ~14500t / 34knts
4x CE Agano (4x2 6in) ~6000t / 29knts
4x CL Mogami (3x3 9.2in) ~12000t / 35knts
4x CA Tone (2x2 12.2in) ~15000t / 34knts
2x CE Oyodo (3x3 6in) ~6500t / 30knts
2x CA Kasuga (3x2 12.2in) ~16500t / 34knts

Destroyers
The same applies here, though you're likely to see more variation in gun caliber simply because of the easier logistics. Most likely national design philosophy will determine the majority of things here. However, some general categories I can see arising;

Destroyer 'Leaders', as a replacement to that role being fulfilled by CLs in certain navies historically. Larger than regular DDs by some 25-50% (so 2500-3000t for a 2000t flotilla), possibly with larger caliber weapons or more of them (latter makes more sense to me) and/or more torpedoes.

'Large' Destroyers, built mainly for anti-surface work; high speed (35knts+), heavy gun or torpedo batteries, probably in the 2500-3500t range (think Shimakaze or Sumner historically). Possibly later designs split into torpedo based ones for ASuW, and gun based with DP guns into an AA escort role.

'Fleet' Destroyers, built as an all purpose platform with good range; moderate-high speed (~32knts), decent weaponry possibly with a focus on guns over torpedoes, tonnage 1500-2500t. Probably the first type to mount DP weapons.

'Escort' Destroyers, built for anti-sub and (later) anti-air work; moderate speed (~30knts), mixed weaponry though possibly lighter on the torpedoes. Tonnage around 1000-2000t.

In addition, specialist designs like lighter torpedo destroyers (something of a souped up TB), dedicated ASW escorts, etc. might appear depending on how development goes. Once again, national preferences are a big influence here.

Designs and numbers
Lastly, if you would like any help with estimates/design stuff for any of these, I can help out (from stuff like 'if it has these guns, this protection and this speed, then how heavy is it gonna be' to 'if it needs these guns and this speed but cant exceed x tonnage, how much armour can you put on?'). Let me know here or in PM, I can post examples if needed.

< Message edited by JuanG -- 7/26/2012 4:23:10 PM >


_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 45
RE: More whacky ideas for a one of a kind mod - 7/26/2012 6:04:38 PM   
derhexer


Posts: 216
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
quote:

No it's a bust of Socrates, about 6 inches in height. Me mum brought it home from a trip to Greece once upon a time. It's one of my favorite knick knacks. I took a photo of it with the light hitting it thus and sort of like my photographic handiwork. It looks like something taken at a museum doesn't it?

EDIT: BTW who is your avatar picture of. I've seen the pic around the net a couple times and am curious. Also are you of any relation to a guy over at Civ Fanatics who goes by "Formaldehyde". He used to have the same avatar.


It is a picture of Dr. Strangelove from the movie Dr. Strangelove, a classic movie from 1964 by Stanley Kubrick.

No relation to Formaldehyde.

_____________________________

Chris
(Madness takes it's toll. Exact change required.)

(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 46
RE: Alternative Destroyer Design Theory - 7/26/2012 10:37:55 PM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 5436
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Some comments on the new stuff;

Battleships and building schedules
As was mentioned before, spreading out the US builds might make more sense. Personally I would suggest cutting the South Dakota and Lexington classes to 4 ships each, and then build a new class of battleship or battlecruiser in the late 20s or early 30s, based upon one of the many design proposals from the time.

Cruisers and guns
I like the cruiser lineups, apart from the fact that the gun calibers are all over the place. Every nation seems to jump back and forth between 8", 10" and occasionally larger weapons, with no regard for standardization. Likewise, the 'heavy' light cruisers like the Brooklyn and Mogami probably would not have taken shape in this reality, being something of a product of the treaties (though admittedly one that turned out rather well as a nightfighter and bombardment platform). Lastly, the Italian Zara class with a mixed main battery seems like something more appropriate for 1902 than 1942.

I would suggest redoing the cruisers somewhat; in a reality like the one you propose I can see 3 'sizes' of cruisers emerge;
'Escort' cruisers, around the 4000-6000ton mark, with 5-7in guns; intended for convoy duty, warding off destroyers and later in the war maybe AA work.
'Light' cruisers around the 10000ton mark, with 7-10in guns, intended as cruiser hunters, and leaders of smaller cruiser groups.
'Heavy' cruisers around the 14-18000ton mark, with 10-12in guns, intended as general purpose vessels also capable of taking part in the battleline.

Obviously, each nation will build things suited to their requirements, and put their own 'spin' on these categories, such as German raiders, etc.

So for example, with regards to Japan, I might suggest something like this, beginning with Furutaka;

4x CL Furutaka (4x2 8in) ~9500t / 32knts
4x CL Myoko (4x2 9.2in) ~10500t / 34knts
2x CL Chokai (3x3 9.2in) ~12000t / 34knts
2x CA Maya (2x2 12.2in) ~14500t / 34knts
4x CE Agano (4x2 6in) ~6000t / 29knts
4x CL Mogami (3x3 9.2in) ~12000t / 35knts
4x CA Tone (2x2 12.2in) ~15000t / 34knts
2x CE Oyodo (3x3 6in) ~6500t / 30knts
2x CA Kasuga (3x2 12.2in) ~16500t / 34knts

Destroyers
The same applies here, though you're likely to see more variation in gun caliber simply because of the easier logistics. Most likely national design philosophy will determine the majority of things here. However, some general categories I can see arising;

Destroyer 'Leaders', as a replacement to that role being fulfilled by CLs in certain navies historically. Larger than regular DDs by some 25-50% (so 2500-3000t for a 2000t flotilla), possibly with larger caliber weapons or more of them (latter makes more sense to me) and/or more torpedoes.

'Large' Destroyers, built mainly for anti-surface work; high speed (35knts+), heavy gun or torpedo batteries, probably in the 2500-3500t range (think Shimakaze or Sumner historically). Possibly later designs split into torpedo based ones for ASuW, and gun based with DP guns into an AA escort role.

'Fleet' Destroyers, built as an all purpose platform with good range; moderate-high speed (~32knts), decent weaponry possibly with a focus on guns over torpedoes, tonnage 1500-2500t. Probably the first type to mount DP weapons.

'Escort' Destroyers, built for anti-sub and (later) anti-air work; moderate speed (~30knts), mixed weaponry though possibly lighter on the torpedoes. Tonnage around 1000-2000t.

In addition, specialist designs like lighter torpedo destroyers (something of a souped up TB), dedicated ASW escorts, etc. might appear depending on how development goes. Once again, national preferences are a big influence here.

Designs and numbers
Lastly, if you would like any help with estimates/design stuff for any of these, I can help out (from stuff like 'if it has these guns, this protection and this speed, then how heavy is it gonna be' to 'if it needs these guns and this speed but cant exceed x tonnage, how much armour can you put on?'). Let me know here or in PM, I can post examples if needed.


Hi Juan G, Thanks for your input. I'll try to come up with some new designs based upon your theories and send the specs to you for final ironing out. I take it you have Springsharp and know how to use it? I have the program stashed around somewhere on my computer but never got around to learning it.

I also picked up a list of Japanese ship construction slipways which JWE posted some time back. I'm currenlty toying around with some production schemes based upon slightly better than average build times, taking into account that the same slipways might also be used for refits and reconstruction of existing ships. Lots of data and ideas. Just have to put them all together in a logical way.

Here's a sample of the ship building chart I'm creating:






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

My WitP webpage: https://sites.google.com/site/garyswitpsite/


(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 47
RE: Alternative Destroyer Design Theory - 7/27/2012 2:40:00 AM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 5436
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: offline
Question for anyone who may have an answer: What is the earliest date that the Americans could utilize a 5"/38 in a twin turret on a DD along the lines of a Sumner class? Also, given an alternative DD arms race where each side tries to out do the other with bigger and better DDs, what is the earliest one could project the Japanese developing the 3.9"/65 Twin, type 98, DP gun for an Akizuki type?

_____________________________

My WitP webpage: https://sites.google.com/site/garyswitpsite/


(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 48
RE: Alternative Destroyer Design Theory - 7/27/2012 5:19:17 AM   
JuanG


Posts: 790
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Question for anyone who may have an answer: What is the earliest date that the Americans could utilize a 5"/38 in a twin turret on a DD along the lines of a Sumner class? Also, given an alternative DD arms race where each side tries to out do the other with bigger and better DDs, what is the earliest one could project the Japanese developing the 3.9"/65 Twin, type 98, DP gun for an Akizuki type?


Well, the Porter class DDs from ~1935 had the SP 5"/38 twins, which aren't that different. The SP twin weighs in at 34000kg vs the DP twin at 43400kg. Likely a switch to DP guns would mean only 3 twins on a similar sized hull; also likely performance of an early DP twin might be slightly lower than the late war ones (in terms of rate of train and elevation).

So I would say you could definately do it by ~'35/'36, maybe by ~'30 if there was a serious DD race on. Remember historically the Farragut class was the first new DD design in the USN for over 10 years.

The 10cm/65 Type 98 was designed in 1938, and while I dont think there anything about the gun itself that prevents development before that, getting an acceptable mounting and rammer may be the limiting factor, as these were what set it apart as such an excellent weapon. I would say no earlier than 1936 given an accelerated timeline, but remember that this also means there needs to be a desire for a rapid-fire, lighter gun for AA work by that time.

Regarding slips; thats a very nice table, and more detailed than my own especially regarding the smaller slips, so I might have to borrow it . Just remember that often as much if not more time is taken up fitting out off the slip than on it, especially for smaller vessels, and this is often a bottleneck for production.

Springsharp; yes, that is indeed what I use (~6 year experience with it), though I run the numbers that generates through my own spreadsheets since SS tends to be a little too optimistic sometimes, and a little too pessimistic at others. Making sure numbers and performance line up with historical classes is always key.

_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 49
RE: Alternative Destroyer Design Theory - 7/27/2012 2:44:04 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 6842
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Question for anyone who may have an answer: What is the earliest date that the Americans could utilize a 5"/38 in a twin turret on a DD along the lines of a Sumner class? Also, given an alternative DD arms race where each side tries to out do the other with bigger and better DDs, what is the earliest one could project the Japanese developing the 3.9"/65 Twin, type 98, DP gun for an Akizuki type?


Well, the Porter class DDs from ~1935 had the SP 5"/38 twins, which aren't that different. The SP twin weighs in at 34000kg vs the DP twin at 43400kg. Likely a switch to DP guns would mean only 3 twins on a similar sized hull; also likely performance of an early DP twin might be slightly lower than the late war ones (in terms of rate of train and elevation).

So I would say you could definately do it by ~'35/'36, maybe by ~'30 if there was a serious DD race on. Remember historically the Farragut class was the first new DD design in the USN for over 10 years.

The 10cm/65 Type 98 was designed in 1938, and while I dont think there anything about the gun itself that prevents development before that, getting an acceptable mounting and rammer may be the limiting factor, as these were what set it apart as such an excellent weapon. I would say no earlier than 1936 given an accelerated timeline, but remember that this also means there needs to be a desire for a rapid-fire, lighter gun for AA work by that time.

Regarding slips; thats a very nice table, and more detailed than my own especially regarding the smaller slips, so I might have to borrow it . Just remember that often as much if not more time is taken up fitting out off the slip than on it, especially for smaller vessels, and this is often a bottleneck for production.

Springsharp; yes, that is indeed what I use (~6 year experience with it), though I run the numbers that generates through my own spreadsheets since SS tends to be a little too optimistic sometimes, and a little too pessimistic at others. Making sure numbers and performance line up with historical classes is always key.


I use Springsharp as well. It is good for making new 'upgrades' as it does fairly well in letting you see at what point the hull becomes overloaded and stressed.

And while you can't justify the 10cm/65 early on front line warships, it does seem to me that having it in service earlier on patrol boats and minesweepers might not be at all far fetched...it would be a superior replacement for the 12cm guns most of those carry.

Just some thoughts.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 50
RE: Alternative Destroyer Design Theory - 7/27/2012 8:05:11 PM   
Historiker


Posts: 4738
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline
Gary, you are aware that the names for your German cruisers don't make sense?

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 51
RE: Alternative Destroyer Design Theory - 7/28/2012 2:08:25 AM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 5436
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Gary, you are aware that the names for your German cruisers don't make sense?


Which ones don't make sense?

_____________________________

My WitP webpage: https://sites.google.com/site/garyswitpsite/


(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 52
RE: Alternative Destroyer Design Theory - 7/28/2012 2:42:34 AM   
Shark7


Posts: 6842
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
They look fine to me, most of those are historical ship names.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 53
RE: Alternative Destroyer Design Theory - 7/28/2012 8:21:03 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Here's where I could really use some input--in trying to design an alternative fleet from scratch based upon what is realistically possilbe and what missions need to be fulfilled.

Make it task-oriented. Something like this:
(1) Surface Combat, large ships support - good range, lots of torpedoes, larger guns, good speed, some ASW
(2) AA CV Support - good range, lots of DP guns, some ASW. Speed to match CVs
(3) Escort - lots of ASW, quick-firing guns (against PT boats), not very quick
(4) Local patrol - small range, some torpedoes, and ASW

(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 54
RE: Alternative Destroyer Design Theory - 7/28/2012 7:07:25 PM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 5436
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Here's where I could really use some input--in trying to design an alternative fleet from scratch based upon what is realistically possilbe and what missions need to be fulfilled.

Make it task-oriented. Something like this:
(1) Surface Combat, large ships support - good range, lots of torpedoes, larger guns, good speed, some ASW
(2) AA CV Support - good range, lots of DP guns, some ASW. Speed to match CVs
(3) Escort - lots of ASW, quick-firing guns (against PT boats), not very quick
(4) Local patrol - small range, some torpedoes, and ASW


Makes good sense. Although tailoring DDs too much for specific roles runs the risk of having the wrong DD type handy when you need to perform a different type of task. What happens if you need a surface combat force and all you have available locally are AA CV support DDs? I'm more in favor of large mutli-role 1st class fleet DDs augmented by smaller/cheaper multi-role 2nd class escort DDs. Multi-role DDs of course wouldn't be as adept in specific roles but that way you don't get caught as bad with your pants down when the enemy suddenly throws you a curve ball. Of course this wouldn't necessarily preclude the creation of a FEW special single role DDs. But on the aggregate I think multi-role is better, especially for pre-war navies that have no idea what the next war's tactics will look like.

_____________________________

My WitP webpage: https://sites.google.com/site/garyswitpsite/


(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 55
RE: Alternative Destroyer Design Theory - 7/28/2012 7:23:02 PM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 5436
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Regarding slips; thats a very nice table, and more detailed than my own especially regarding the smaller slips, so I might have to borrow it . Just remember that often as much if not more time is taken up fitting out off the slip than on it, especially for smaller vessels, and this is often a bottleneck for production.


Hi JuanG,

I can zip up my ship yard table and send it to you if you want.

I have taken into account that fitting out is typically done off the slip. Basically I've been collecting data on when ships are laid down, when launched and when commissioned. The Ship Yard table takes into account the period of time between laid down and launched. I might have to put together a second table for fitting out times. Basically I'll have to coordinate the second table with launch dates and with data I collect on commission dates. So the fitting out table will more or less be an aggregate of fitting out time and sea trials.

_____________________________

My WitP webpage: https://sites.google.com/site/garyswitpsite/


(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 56
RE: Alternative Destroyer Design Theory - 7/28/2012 9:15:48 PM   
Historiker


Posts: 4738
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress


quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Gary, you are aware that the names for your German cruisers don't make sense?


Which ones don't make sense?

Deutschland class:
Lützow originally was a Admiral Hipper as you will know quite well. It was only used for this class to avoid keeping a ship with the name "Deutschland" for psychological reasons to avoid "Deutschland is sunk". Ludwig Adolf WIlhelm von Lützow was a land commander in the liberation war against Napoleon. This specific name was chosen to hide the sale of the "real" Lützow to the Soviet Union, so that the expected warship "Lützow" was still in use.
Reinhard Scheer and Graf Maximilian von Spee were admirals in WW1. So a fourth ship would likely have the name of another admiral (perferably from WW1), not a land commander. In fact, Admiral Hipper makes absolute sense for a 4th ship of that class.


Admiral Hipper class:
Prinz Regent Luitpold would correctly be written "Prinzregent Luitpold". If Germany had the historic political development, this name is very unlikely. NS-Germany wouldn't name a ship after a member of a royal family, especially if he hasn't been of such military significance to ignore that.
Kronprinz - the same. "Crown Prince" isn't an appropriate name for a nacional socialist Germany.

Königsberg class:
Why should Germany use English names for their cruisers? To be able to give the name "Köln" to two ships of the same class? Cologne = Köln! Also: Munich = München.
This class was also called the "K-class", because all of its ships were named after cities with starting with a K.
The Emden wasn't of that class as you know fore sure. It was given that name, as the first new ship after WW1 was supposed to have the name of the famous SMS Emden from WW1. So depending on WHEN your ships are built, Emden is a suitable name for the bigger classes as well.
Other K-Cities would be for instance:
- Krakau
- Konstanz
- Krefeld
- Kassel
- Kiel
- Koblenz
- Kaiserslautern
- Kleve

Also: If you can't write an Umlaut (ä,ö,ü) in Germany, the correct way to spell the letter is ae, oe, ue. So it is appropriate to write "Köln" "Koeln" - not "Koln"

< Message edited by Historiker -- 7/28/2012 10:57:53 PM >


_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 57
RE: Alternative Destroyer Design Theory - 7/28/2012 10:41:05 PM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 5436
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress


quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Gary, you are aware that the names for your German cruisers don't make sense?


Which ones don't make sense?

Deutschland class:
Lützow originally was a Admiral Hipper as you will know quite well. It was only used for this class to avoid keeping a ship with the name "Deutschland" for psychological reasons to avoid "Deutschland is sunk". Ludwig Adolf WIlhelm von Lützow was a land commander in the liberation war against Napoleon. This specific name was chosen to hide the sale of the "real" Lützow to the Soviet Union, so that the expected warship "Lützow" was still in use.
Reinhard Scheer and Graf Maximilian von Speed were admirals in WW1. So a fourth ship would likely have the name of another admiral (perferably from WW1), not a land commander. In fact, Admiral Hipper makes absolute sense for a 4th ship of that class.


Admiral Hipper class:
Prinz Regent Luitpold would correctly be written "Prinzregent Luitpold". If Germany had the historic political development, this name is very unlikely. NS-Germany wouldn't name a ship after a member of a royal family, especially if he hasn't been of such military significance to ignore that.
Kronprinz - the same. "Crown Prince" isn't an appropriate name for a nacional socialist Germany.

Königsberg class:
Why should Germany use English names for their cruisers? To be able to give the name "Köln" to two ships of the same class? Cologne = Köln! Also: Munich = München.
This class was also called the "K-class", because all of its ships were named after cities with starting with a K.
The Emden wasn't of that class as you know fore sure. It was given that name, as the first new ship after WW1 was supposed to have the name of the famous SMS Emden from WW1. So depending on WHEN your ships are built, Emden is a suitable name for the bigger classes as well.
Other K-Cities would be for instance:
- Krakau
- Konstanz
- Krefeld
- Kassel
- Kiel
- Koblenz
- Kaiserslautern
- Kleve

Also: If you can't write an Umlaut (ä,ö,ü) in Germany, the correct way to spell the letter is ae, oe, ue. So it is appropriate to write "Köln" "Koeln" - not "Koln"


OK. Thanks.

_____________________________

My WitP webpage: https://sites.google.com/site/garyswitpsite/


(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 58
RE: Alternative Destroyer Design Theory - 7/29/2012 8:02:43 AM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 5436
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: offline
Here's what I currently have in mind for some Japanese DDs. Most stats are ballpark estimates.

Top: 1st Class Fleet DD
Length AO: 442 ft
Displacement: 3500 (approx.)
Armament: 4 x 2 5"/50 DP
6 x MG
2 x 4 TTs
Speed: 37 kts



Middle: 2nd Class DD
Length AO: 375 ft
Displacement: 2000 (approx.)
Armament: 3 x 2 5"/50 DP
4 x MG
2 x 4 TTs
Speed: 33 kts



Bottom: 3rd Class Escort DD
Length AO: 327 ft
Displacement: 1500 (approx.)
Armament: 2 x 2 5" DP
4 x MG
1 x 4 TTs
Speed: 27 kts






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Gary Childress -- 7/29/2012 8:03:52 AM >


_____________________________

My WitP webpage: https://sites.google.com/site/garyswitpsite/


(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 59
RE: Alternative Destroyer Design Theory - 7/30/2012 8:10:12 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
If you would get into in-game player decision process, about choosing DD, you would get something like this:
(1) RANGE - short range is out of the question most time
(2) ASW - most time DD is just ASW platform for TF
(3) TORPEDOES - if you plan to use it in combat, only torpedo tubes can deal damage to armored ships
(4) here actually I can not think about anything else. Japanese AA weapons are so weak, that adding DDs will not change outcome, and number of actual guns could be important only against unarmored ships (PTs, and transports), so number of guns is like of tertiary importance.

So... your main problem would be calculation of range (and how much fuel they take), and ASW strength.
There is also interesting thing about Japanese 5". It had like 6 mountings, of which not all were DP (too low elevation). Also there were some problems with number of ammunition (one of the ships capsized), so it was reduced, but thinking of it - could extra space be used for extra fuel (and extending range)? Obviously, when ships would met storm, all extra fuel would be already used, in most cases.

(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: More whacky ideas for a one of a kind mod Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   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

0.114