RE: CVL-1 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding



Message


Terminus -> RE: CVL-1 (8/16/2015 10:16:18 PM)

With dozens of more modern CVE's in the fleet, there'd be very little reason for these ships to go into battle come late-war. The Omaha cruisers saw very limited upgrades because they were relegated to second-line duties. No reason to think the Kitty Hawks would be different.

As for deck park, I actually think the dozen planes would have to incorporate deck parking. The Kitty Hawk is not a large ship, and 1930s and 1940s aircraft would only get bigger.




Terminus -> RE: CVL-1 (8/16/2015 10:46:39 PM)

This discussion makes me remember HMS Audacity. She was a very dirty conversion, without hangar facilities, but could carry about 6 Martlets. If we posit a simple hangar installation with a single elevator for the Kitty Hawk, a ship only about 100 feet longer, and needing far more powerful machinery (boilers and turbines, instead of just a single marine diesel) and more bunkerage, we might be able to justify a 12-plane air group with permanent deck park for 1/3 to 1/2 of the aircraft.

Also also, I'm wondering at the feasibility of doing this in the first place. The Omaha class was not a well designed ship. As a scout, it was built for speed ONLY, which meant that corners had been cut in the design stage, including structural integrity, wetness and habitability.

How about this? The Kitty Hawk and her sister are converted from the first two Omahas, once the Navy figures out that they're not worth building more of, and turns to an improved, slightly larger scout cruiser. Nothing wrong with her general hull shape (although the freeboard was too low), so the Navy designs the Huntington class, an Omaha+ with properly turreted 6in guns instead of the casemate crap and a bit more displacement to improve structure and habitability. Learn from your mistakes and whatnot.




DOCUP -> RE: CVL-1 (8/16/2015 11:41:04 PM)

Terminus: nice work. I like it.

John: I like one with CA Houston. You could say that CLV Charlotte was coming to relieve it after its escorting dutys are over.




Admiral DadMan -> RE: CVL-1 (8/19/2015 4:01:50 PM)

This thread (and another one) got me into modding Omaha into 3 different conversion paths: CLAA, CVE, and CVL. Although probably not terribly realistic, it's been a fun mental exercise (and I got to create a silhouette for a CVL with an island...)

In the course of doing this, I discovered that there's a db error for CL Omaha class in all of the stock scenarios. 2 of the 6in/53 Mk 12 are missing from the single casemates. It should be:

2x2 Front
4x1 Right Side
4x1 Left Side
2x2 Rear

CVL Kitty Hawk (4/43 Conversion from CVE)
{Edit: Corrected issue with stern}

[image]local://upfiles/5778/D7C184365B3749EDADC13F82F6EFDD7B.jpg[/image]




Terminus -> RE: CVL-1 (8/19/2015 6:24:54 PM)

Huh, so it is... That's mildly embarrassing, but it also shows the Omaha's second-line status quite neatly. If they'd been a primary USN cruiser, somebody would have picked up on this YEARS ago...[:D]




Lecivius -> RE: CVL-1 (8/19/2015 7:03:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Huh, so it is... That's mildly embarrassing, but it also shows the Omaha's second-line status quite neatly. If they'd been a primary USN cruiser, somebody would have picked up on this YEARS ago...[:D]



140 bazillion details in this program, and you missed this?!? [:'(]




John 3rd -> RE: CVL-1 (8/19/2015 11:07:58 PM)

Thank You Terminus for the work. I am officially going to add them to Treaty Mod, Between the Storms, and BTS--Lite. Will Post when complete. be nice to add something to the Allied side even if they are old...

Should I stay with USS Langley and USS Ely?




Terminus -> RE: CVL-1 (8/19/2015 11:24:55 PM)

Your call. I just called it Kitty Hawk because that's what it was called when I put an Omaha CVL in my own mod ages ago.




Admiral DadMan -> RE: CVL-1 (8/20/2015 12:10:57 AM)

Check that: My bad. I just found this RE: Omaha's "missing" 6in/53 guns

quote:

Due to the large topweight lasting on these ships, compounded by the high-mounted catapults, the Navy removed the two lower aft firing casemate-mounted 6-inch guns in 1939, fairing over the casemates port and starboard.




John 3rd -> RE: CVL-1 (8/20/2015 3:33:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

Terminus: nice work. I like it.

John: I like one with CA Houston. You could say that CLV Charlotte was coming to relieve it after its escorting dutys are over.



Putting one of these ships in the Philippines would probably be an immediate death sentence.

In the Mods we have traditionally placed the 'Pensacola TF' in Darwin on Dec 7th. What about move it to the western tip of New Guinea near Sorong where the Allied player would have a choice of immediately heading south (Ambon, Darwin, Koepang) or SW (towards Soerabaja)?

With the heightened war tensions one could easily see this old warship added to 'beef up' the defense without taking too much of a risk. Current RA/BTS deployment has the Convoy of 1 AGP, 1 AP, 3 xAP, and 3 AK with DD Rathburne embedded in the Task Force. Cover is provided by CLV Charlotte, CA Pensacola, and 3 DD. If one added CVL Langley then this would become a pretty interesting unit. Charlotte has 12 Buffalo and 6 SBD while Langley would have 8 Buffalo and 4 SBD. A combined 20 Fighters and 10 SBD would be a nice small--RUDE--package to play with.

The USS Ely could arrive from the Atlantic (as per our good Moderator's suggestion) with CV Yorktown or Hornet.

I'm just playing within what we already have established. Thoughts?




Admiral DadMan -> RE: CVL-1 (8/21/2015 3:21:05 AM)

Ok, thanks to you guys, I have now wasted 3 days on this that I should have been producing video content:


(Edit: CLAA images corrected, and some wording fleshed out.)




[image]local://upfiles/5778/70B56356133B45E7BBF5A6E4F2A9AD5B.jpg[/image]




Khanti -> RE: Scenario Descriptions (8/21/2015 10:16:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Between the Storms: Lite (Scen 057)
ALTNAV 1922-1941


The Treaty Mod for AE has been created to reflect a slightly different outcome of the historic Washington and London Naval Conferences to cover the time of 1922-1937. With little changes and tweaks to the Treaty System, a slightly a-historic outcome is produced. It should be noted that no changes are made to any major power from 1937-1941.

(...)


I wonder why in BtS Lite 2.5 BB Nagato upgrade in 12/44 removes armor from secondary guns.
Until 1/44 she has 14 cm/50 3YT with 150 mm armor. Then in 12/44 the same guns have no armor.

Second issue: Nagara class cruisers is useless as usual. Please consider allowing their conversion to CLAA. It could be done by removing all 14 cm single guns and 12.7 cm guns and put there instead all 10 cm /65 DP guns and 25 mm AA guns.

Third request: Why not replace all 13.2 mm AAMG on CVE Hosho class in 1944 with 25 mm AA guns? It could be done with 2/44 upgrade.

Greets.




John 3rd -> RE: Scenario Descriptions (8/21/2015 11:53:16 AM)

Good thought Hanti.

Looks like we have a batch of work bringing in the new/old Omaha CVL so it make sense to clear up any other issues.

Adm Dadman--that is a FINE layout of possibilities for Omaha!


With an update coming are there other things for me to look at?




Admiral DadMan -> RE: Scenario Descriptions (8/21/2015 12:25:24 PM)

If you want the specs for each class and bindings I used, it'll take a few days to compile that.

I also made a variant of 2 more Lexington BC hulls if were used as test beds/training ships called the Constitution IX class. Stripped of all offensive weapons an used for testing and carrier qualifications.




HansBolter -> RE: Scenario Descriptions (8/21/2015 1:51:20 PM)

Sorry I haven't provided any feedback in a while.

MY BTS game (started on the original release and played on in spite of the bug fixes that require restarts to fix) is in November of '43.

I put it on hold for a bit while I play around with Focus Pacific.

I do intend to get back to it as I was just beginning a combined US/Chinese drive into Manchukuo and the Big Blue Fleet is around Wake Island on it's way to Shanghai with 500k supply, 250k fuel and a third infantry division to round out the China Expeditionary Corps which is spearheaded by the 13th Armor Division.

The Big Blue Fleet consists of every American CV, CVL, CVE, BB and most of the CAs escorted by every Fletcher I have.

Since I haven't lost a carrier and have sunk at least half of the Japanese flattops it's an experiment in bulldozing my way through with a death star fleet.

Maybe I'll play a few turns on it this weekend.




John 3rd -> RE: Scenario Descriptions (8/22/2015 4:18:18 PM)

Thanks Hans. Your poking around ahead of everyone has really helped bunches.

Opened up the Editor and poked around some last night.

The changes were are looking at mostly impact the Treaty Mod and two Between the Storms Mods. RA will get superficial work (CVE Hosho and BB probably as detailed earlier). Will do the usual change list on the Mod pages of each one when complete.




John 3rd -> RE: Scenario Descriptions (8/22/2015 5:04:15 PM)

Went through and fixed Nagato's 12/44 upgrade so her remaining casemates had their armor BACK. Treaty was OK but RA, BTS, and BTSL all had the same error.

Hosho needs to be looked at. Will do that in a bit.




Khanti -> RE: Scenario Descriptions (8/22/2015 10:06:47 PM)

Good.
I've found Nagara CLAA conversion finally, but also have found some typo with Momi class.
There are two 9/44 upgrades as E class. The one with 18 speed should probably be PC class (as earlier versions).

Details:
Momi 1373, 1374, 1375 are PC. Not sure if there are ships of that class in mod anyway.
Momi 1393 (6/43) and 1395 (9/44) are in E pack, but definitely are PC versions.
Not a big deal, can't see any PC Momi anyway.

But I write because of another idea: Chitose class.
Normally Japan have 4 CS ships with around 20 capacity for float planes (Chitose, Chiyoda, Mizuho and Nisshin).
In BTSL there are only two: Nisshin but, she comes as CVL and Chiyoda, which can be upgraded to CVL.
I can't see Chitose and Mizuho.
So: in fact there is only ONE ship that can resize float planes to 24 planes and she is too valuable in that role to let her "upgrade" to CVL. There are many other CVL anyways.

So please consider adding normal CS path for her with upgrades into 1944 - but without loosing CS capabilities.

Edit.
Scen 055 ver. 2.4
1st turn. TF KB-4 in CamRanh has wrong planes attack destinations. Some carriers are supposed to attack Pearl, some Manila, all are in the same TF (Ryujo, Shoho, Zuiho).




Admiral DadMan -> RE: Scenario Descriptions (8/24/2015 12:13:49 AM)

Has anyone considered the Katori class training CL's for CLAA/CVL/CVE conversion? Katori, Kashima, Kashii and the uncompleted Kashihara are about 1000 tons lighter and 100 feet shorter than Omaha, but nearly the same width and draught.

They'd need upgraded power plants, and could use blistering, and another 100 feet of hull, but they could make serviceable CVL's of maybe 24 planes. If they were taken in hand at the start of the war, they could be turned around in 9 months, or assume Katori, Kashima to be in conversion process at war start due in March, with Kashii due in June and Kashihara in September.

Thoughts?




John 3rd -> RE: CVL-1 (8/24/2015 12:21:42 AM)

Got the files updated for Treaty, BTS, and BTSL. Created the Kittyhawk Class of CVL as more-or-less described earlier. Only difference is I raised the plane complement to 14 (8 F and 6 DB) and tinkered with the updates with one in Jan 43 and the next in Jan 44. Nothing beyond that. Agree with other readers that these aged ships would have been low in update value.

Went through and changed a few names to raise the strength of the Kittyhawk name. Instead of the aircraft transport Kittyhawk there is now a modern Kittyhawk CVL. The earlier Kittyhawk is now named after Adm Moffat. Found a CV named Kittyhawk in one of the Mods and changed its name to Vera Cruz.

Will upload all the Mod updates tomorrow. Sent the 057 over to Michael for a look.




John 3rd -> RE: Scenario Descriptions (8/24/2015 12:23:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

Has anyone considered the Katori class training CL's for CLAA/CVL/CVE conversion? Katori, Kashima, Kashii and the uncompleted Kashihara are about 1000 tons lighter and 100 feet shorter than Omaha, but nearly the same width and draught.

They'd need upgraded power plants, and could use blistering, and another 100 feet of hull, but they could make serviceable CVL's of maybe 24 planes. If they were taken in hand at the start of the war, they could be turned around in 9 months, or assume Katori, Kashima to be in conversion process at war start due in March, with Kashii due in June and Kashihara in September.

Thoughts?


We eliminated the 'Training-Class' cruisers in all the Mods. The older WWI CLs are converted to training to open tonnage for other cruisers under the Washington/London Treaties.




Admiral DadMan -> RE: Scenario Descriptions (8/25/2015 2:49:11 PM)

New art for CLAA Omaha:

[image]local://upfiles/5778/6E876D3AE9B5436C9D2005F607CFA816.jpg[/image]




Admiral DadMan -> Omaha Art (8/25/2015 3:06:33 PM)

Omaha hull art as:

CLAA (5in/38 mounts)
CVL/CVE w/mast only
CVL/CVE w/small island
CVL rebuild w/full island/stack




DOCUP -> RE: Omaha Art (8/25/2015 3:37:00 PM)

Looks good admiral dadman.

Do I count 8 5/38 mounts?

Not to high jack the thread. I did turn the Katori's into CLAA.




Terminus -> RE: Scenario Descriptions (8/25/2015 4:00:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

New art for CLAA Omaha:

[image]local://upfiles/5778/6E876D3AE9B5436C9D2005F607CFA816.jpg[/image]


That may be a little bit overgunned. The Omahas were a relatively flimsy design that suffered from stability problems all their lives. 16 5-inchers firing at the same time, with the ship traveling at flank... May not literally shake it to pieces, but it wouldn't make for a stable and accurate gun platform. There's a good reason why the Oakland class downgunned from the Atlanta class. That, and the fact that the wing guns were an afterthought meant to fire starshell only.

If it were me, I'd dismount at least the #3 turret, right behind the bridge superstructure. It has a very limited field of fire anyway.

Also, #4 and #5 turrets are sitting on top of the engineering spaces, and the hull is too narrow for the two not to conflict, so that equates to a slower ship.




Admiral DadMan -> RE: CVL-1 (8/25/2015 4:20:08 PM)

I've come up with this:

[image]local://upfiles/5778/27AB19BA8A17411FB751DA9EEF648010.jpg[/image]


based on this:

[image]http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/OnlineLibrary/photos/images/s-file/s511-05.jpg[/image]




Admiral DadMan -> RE: Omaha Art (8/25/2015 5:07:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

Looks good admiral dadman.

Do I count 8 5/38 mounts?

Not to hijack the thread. I did turn the Katori's into CLAA.


Yes. 16x2 5/38's.

4x2 fwd
6x2 center
2x2 all
4x2 rear

All are centerline mounted.

Term, I agree that they might be a bit overgunned. I originally had this design with 3 more turrets winged amidships, and decided that was definitely overkill.

I was iffy on turret #2 and turret #3. I may move turret #3 and the fwd stack aft a bit then remove turret #4.

So here she is as a 12x2 5in/38 CLAA

[image]local://upfiles/5778/E573BE966B6B445BBD88A459923179A4.jpg[/image]

4x2 fwd
4x2 center
4x2 rear




DOCUP -> RE: CVL-1 (8/25/2015 5:14:50 PM)

If that CLV could handle 36 planes in 1940. How many more could it take if the 6 in guns where removed and flight deck was increased?




Admiral DadMan -> RE: CVL-1 (8/25/2015 5:16:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

If that CLV could handle 36 planes in 1940. How many more could it take if the 6 in guns where removed and flight deck was increased?

I think 36 was optimistic. It would need a full length deck/hanger to handle that number.




DOCUP -> RE: CVL-1 (8/25/2015 5:33:59 PM)

That's still a little bit better than the Independence class.




Page: <<   < prev  27 28 [29] 30 31   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.078125