Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Is a 6-8K tons CL usefull to Japan .

 
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 >> Is a 6-8K tons CL usefull to Japan . Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Is a 6-8K tons CL usefull to Japan . - 12/17/2009 10:49:11 AM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1103
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline
Im just looking at a few options for the 3* 6.1" Mogami turrets and i cant see the use for the Agano class even if you made them 9*6" . For minimal cost say 20% more ( asuming turrets are available) you could add some torpedo bulges and go for a Mogami 5*3 and get 67% more firepower , torpedo bulges , better armour and an existing design. Or better yet build HNLMS Tromp 4000 tons destroyer leader for 6 * 6" ( 3*2) , you have 2/3 the fire power but half the cost and the fire power is enough for the Destroyer leader roll. Is it possible to use the existing tripple turrets on a 4000 ton design ?

What were the Agano and Oyodo ( And katori) class going to do ? They were too expensive ( or slow) as destroyer leaders yet couldnt stand up to a US heavy cruiser.
Post #: 1
RE: Is a 6-8K tons CL usefull to Japan . - 12/17/2009 10:59:59 AM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste

Im just looking at a few options for the 3* 6.1" Mogami turrets and i cant see the use for the Agano class even if you made them 9*6" . For minimal cost say 20% more ( asuming turrets are available) you could add some torpedo bulges and go for a Mogami 5*3 and get 67% more firepower , torpedo bulges , better armour and an existing design. Or better yet build HNLMS Tromp 4000 tons destroyer leader for 6 * 6" ( 3*2) , you have 2/3 the fire power but half the cost and the fire power is enough for the Destroyer leader roll. Is it possible to use the existing tripple turrets on a 4000 ton design ?

What were the Agano and Oyodo ( And katori) class going to do ? They were too expensive ( or slow) as destroyer leaders yet couldnt stand up to a US heavy cruiser.


They were HQ ships.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 2
RE: Is a 6-8K tons CL usefull to Japan . - 12/17/2009 11:01:57 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41451
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
The Oyodo and the Katoris were meant as submarine squadron leaders. Not sure what the intent with the Aganos was.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 3
RE: Is a 6-8K tons CL usefull to Japan . - 12/17/2009 2:23:36 PM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1103
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline
Why cant an AS or an AV leads subs ? Im not sure you need a cruiser or warship for that. I supose its a pet peeve of mine waating valueable armoured warships on scouting float planes ( which is a dangerous occupation and the armour wont help much).

< Message edited by bklooste -- 12/17/2009 2:26:20 PM >

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 4
RE: Is a 6-8K tons CL usefull to Japan . - 12/17/2009 2:24:54 PM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1103
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline
HQ for what ? Destroyer leaders ? I know in 44-45 some of these shipts became command ships as all bigger ships were sunk or being repaired.

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 5
RE: Is a 6-8K tons CL usefull to Japan . - 12/17/2009 5:58:48 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41451
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste

Why cant an AS or an AV leads subs ? Im not sure you need a cruiser or warship for that. I supose its a pet peeve of mine waating valueable armoured warships on scouting float planes ( which is a dangerous occupation and the armour wont help much).


We agree completely, but the IJN didn't.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 6
RE: Is a 6-8K tons CL usefull to Japan . - 12/18/2009 4:59:38 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9367
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The Oyodo and the Katoris were meant as submarine squadron leaders. Not sure what the intent with the Aganos was.


The Katori class I knew about, but the Oyodo? Dang, awfully big sub leader ...

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 7
RE: Is a 6-8K tons CL usefull to Japan . - 12/18/2009 7:26:09 AM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The Oyodo and the Katoris were meant as submarine squadron leaders. Not sure what the intent with the Aganos was.


The Katori class I knew about, but the Oyodo? Dang, awfully big sub leader ...


Fleet flagship.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 8
RE: Is a 6-8K tons CL usefull to Japan . - 12/18/2009 12:48:38 PM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1103
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline
Was it actually built to become a flagship ? It was prob designed in 42 wouldnt all the BBs , CAs and CVs be ahead ? It ended up as flagship because all the others were sunk.

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 9
RE: Is a 6-8K tons CL usefull to Japan . - 12/18/2009 12:52:29 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41451
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
The Oyodo was intended as a submarine squadron flagship and scout with its floatplanes, not a "fleet flagship". She was laid down in February 1941, so probably designed in or before 1940.

EDIT: final plans for the Oyodo were submitted in early October 1939.

< Message edited by Terminus -- 12/18/2009 12:56:19 PM >


_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 10
RE: Is a 6-8K tons CL usefull to Japan . - 12/18/2009 2:34:57 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The Oyodo was intended as a submarine squadron flagship and scout with its floatplanes, not a "fleet flagship". She was laid down in February 1941, so probably designed in or before 1940.

EDIT: final plans for the Oyodo were submitted in early October 1939.


Yes, submarine squadron flagship. The Aganos were destroyer/submarine squadron flagships, while the Katoris were training ships and administrative fleet flagships used on detached duty. The Japanese seemed to think 5,000-8,000 tons was a handy size for a command cruiser.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 11
RE: Is a 6-8K tons CL usefull to Japan . - 12/19/2009 5:38:00 AM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1103
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline
Expensive ships for both rolls. Most players just use a leader with Glenns.


Q why couldn't you use a Yubari style ship or converted AS/civilian float plane carrier for a sub leader/tenderer and a Tromp/Yubari style cruiser for destroyer leader ?



< Message edited by bklooste -- 12/19/2009 5:52:36 AM >

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 12
RE: Is a 6-8K tons CL usefull to Japan . - 12/19/2009 7:57:13 AM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste

Expensive ships for both rolls. Most players just use a leader with Glenns.


Q why couldn't you use a Yubari style ship or converted AS/civilian float plane carrier for a sub leader/tenderer and a Tromp/Yubari style cruiser for destroyer leader ?




So commanders can go to sea in comfort. The Japanese found their old light cruisers handy ships, and these were the replacements.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 13
RE: Is a 6-8K tons CL usefull to Japan . - 12/19/2009 9:22:52 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41451
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Besides, the Japs turned their sub tenders into carriers. Good move there...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 14
RE: Is a 6-8K tons CL usefull to Japan . - 12/19/2009 1:46:52 PM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1103
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Besides, the Japs turned their sub tenders into carriers. Good move there...


Yep build over priced expensive ships that are too valueable too lose which need to sit near enemy ships and tie your ship yards up converting. Good way to lose the war .

I think the comments on Japanese ship building are not correct , I have plotted every single ship and noted they
- Made a 5th 20K + slip available at short notice , there were at least another 7+ 10k slips.
- The shipyards/dry docks are full of ships in refits /conversions which took much LONGER than a new ship .
- There Merchant production quickly rose to 4M tons in 44 when it was needed.
- When needed to make way for a new order like a liner ( but infrequently) ships were quickly released from the slip and finished at a pier eg Suzuya was launched in 11 months , Mogami a leasurely 2.5 years.
- The Yamatos were rushed ,new design 70K tons , new yards , new technology a bit over 4 years is pretty good . I can only imagine how many workers were involved on these 4 ships , their new guns and the turret carrier.

I can only conclude either it was completely mis managed ( a strong possability) , they took even minor things away to rush the Yamatos ( wheres the rivot machines ah the Navy number 1 team took them all this morning), or the limiting resource was steel ( I note when they quickly ramp up production in 44 they used substandard steel , they scrapped 111 whent the hull was built) . There is a strong possability that re-equiping steel yards to make the huge amount plate the 4 Yamatos really hindered there abbility to expand their steel production.

Instead of Agano and the conversion build 2 * Tromp style 3000 tons CLs in a Destroyer yard , build a quick Soryu class CV in the Aganos yard with short slip time and have an AS in use when you need it. I thnk the ship bulding resources for this is about the same or less ( but you need 10K more steel , with similar plate but get to us the AS yard which was used for conversions for tying up 2 Destroyer yards)


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 15
RE: Is a 6-8K tons CL usefull to Japan . - 12/19/2009 2:07:16 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41451
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Why even bother with light cruisers for destroyer leaders? The RN used dedicated destroyers for this, and the Japs could too.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 16
RE: Is a 6-8K tons CL usefull to Japan . - 12/19/2009 2:59:40 PM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1103
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline
The float plane is very usefull ( the UK didnt have to worry about scouting as much) , though i dont think the armour is . These ships cary like 1 and a maximum of 2" belt which i dont think is proof against a 5"/38 if it is i would argue they significantly help in a destoryer vs destroyer shoot out and the 6'1" guns are free.

You may be right though put the guns in as CD's everywhere and spend the entire light cruiser budget on CAs ( if they come before mid 43) and DDs.
2.5DD Vs 1 4K CL is pretty close anyway when you add the torpedos in.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Why even bother with light cruisers for destroyer leaders? The RN used dedicated destroyers for this, and the Japs could too.



< Message edited by bklooste -- 12/19/2009 3:16:14 PM >

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 17
RE: Is a 6-8K tons CL usefull to Japan . - 12/20/2009 12:04:25 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41451
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
And the IJN saw the mass torpedo attack as the main reason for having destroyers in the first place. Take the ol' CL's and make them CLAA's, like they planned to do anyway.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 18
RE: Is a 6-8K tons CL usefull to Japan . - 12/20/2009 12:44:14 PM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1103
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline
With regard to the Oi are you questioning there value as torpedo platforms ? I Note the conversion to "Torpedo Cruiser" was cheap ( pull of a turret and add some deck tubes), changing guns would be a much more expensive operation and the Japanese do not need conversions to tie up more ship yards. Second would they be more effective that focusing on the existing CLAA the Akizuki ( they are of similar tonnage to the Yubari) and carry 4*2 * 3.9" and just build more/build them faster and improve them with better directors etc ?

Still trying to find a use for the 60 (20*3) 6.1" tubes the idea of them sitting in CDs is a bit anti climatic though they may be usefull in such a role with high max elevation for a range better than most 8" . Since you can go back to 65 degrees make them DP guns at least they can theoretically hit B29s

What about a night fighting , CA 35-36 knots , armour for close fighting , 12 (4 *3) *6.1" + 4(2 * 2) short 8-12" + 4 ( 2*2) 3.9"/100 DP , Takao style torps , prototype radar , lots of search lights etc. Since even 5" guns will penetrate at short range you dont need a thick belt ( 2" is enough) you just need to asume the hits get through so extra thick Barbette protection , supreme compartmentalization , Mutsu style independent machinary to shafts , little/thin super structure with backup bridge beneath deck , first rate DR ( cough cough) etc. Need a decent deck for air protection for the run in and out.

< Message edited by bklooste -- 12/20/2009 1:13:51 PM >

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 19
RE: Is a 6-8K tons CL usefull to Japan . - 12/20/2009 12:47:20 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41451
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
I most certainly question their value as torpedo platforms, as did more than a few contemporary IJN officers. You're packing the torpedo tubes of 8 or 9 destroyers into two cruisers. Those 8 or 9 DD's are far more versatile than 2 one-trick ponies.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 20
RE: Is a 6-8K tons CL usefull to Japan . - 12/20/2009 1:02:49 PM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1103
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline
Torpedo tubes and torpedos are cheap though...If some destroyers did not get built/missed out that would be an issue.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 21
RE: Is a 6-8K tons CL usefull to Japan . - 12/20/2009 3:31:54 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41451
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Actually, they're anything but cheap, especially Long Lances. Both of the torpedo cruiser conversions couldn't get 40 tubes, exactly because of a shortage of weapons.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 22
RE: Is a 6-8K tons CL usefull to Japan . - 12/20/2009 4:49:22 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7889
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
Besides, you have to actually hit with the torpedo, which was very hard at best when both fleets are maneuvering. Kitikami and Oi were a waste of resources, better converted to CLAA or left in their destroyer leader role.

Some other observations:

1. Mogami: When left in its commisioning configuration what you have is a slightly better armored Boise. And we all know about Boise. I've actually put this configuation in game and watched the 4 Mogami's drive off 2 older British BBs while escaping virtually undamaged....in game, they are awesome. It's simply the number of mid sized gun tubes available, each Mogami can lay down withering fire when it has 15 6.1" guns.

2. Shimakaze: The most armed to the teeth DD of the war. This is the class off DDs that should have been used as the destroyer leaders. Too bad Japan lacked the resources to build the 16 they had planned.

3. Oyodo: really a waste of resources. Too few guns and the entire aft is a floatplane deck. Additional Agano's or finishing the Ibuki class would have been better.

4. Agano: While the initial batch was under-armed with only 6 6.1" guns, the planned Agano-kai would have had 8 and been quite respectable in the battle line. A further improvement of making the turrets triples instead of doubles would have made these ships quite useful in fleet engagements.

5. Akizuki: Again a very good destroyer design with even better AAA capability than Shimakaze. Another class that had a large number of boats cancelled and never saw its full potential.

6. Shinano: Colossal waste of resources, 'nuff said.

Overall, I'd have left the Mogami's with the 6 inch guns, built a few more Takao's to take their place in the CA line-up. Scrap Shinano and build either the Shimakaze/Akizuki's or more Unryu or Taiho class Carriers. But then, I wasn't in charge.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 23
RE: Is a 6-8K tons CL usefull to Japan . - 12/20/2009 8:48:55 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41451
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
The Shimakaze was a dead-end. She was too big, and her machinery was too complex and resource-intensive to build and maintain. Bad move for the Japs.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 24
RE: Is a 6-8K tons CL usefull to Japan . - 12/20/2009 11:38:31 PM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1103
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The Shimakaze was a dead-end. She was too big, and her machinery was too complex and resource-intensive to build and maintain. Bad move for the Japs.


Worse than that is she probably put the Akizuki class behind and another 4-5 destroyers these would have been very usefull in 42.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 25
RE: Is a 6-8K tons CL usefull to Japan . - 12/20/2009 11:57:53 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41451
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Biggest bottleneck for the Akizukis was probably the 10cm mounts and tubes. The Japs never really got going with those.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 26
RE: Is a 6-8K tons CL usefull to Japan . - 12/21/2009 2:20:05 AM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1103
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline
True but most of the gun development teams were on the 18" ... big opportunity cost.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 27
RE: Is a 6-8K tons CL usefull to Japan . - 12/21/2009 2:51:50 AM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1103
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline

1. The Mogami , its an interesting tactic but the beauty of the 8" guns and her speed is she can theretically keep the ships like Boise at distance so they cant hurt her and she can hurt them and run away from battleships. Sure at point blank range you can penetrate CAs and BBs but not at normal distance which includes later night fighting when radar picks up.

Note 8" guns penentrations vs BR PP Steel 6"(16K Yards) - 8.8" ( 10K yards ) - 16.6" (0 K) , 6" guns are 6.4" - 3.8" (16k) - 6.4( 10K) - 14" ( 0 k) . The performance in the critical 10-20K yard range is very poor. This may not be modelled in the game ( which included the poor firing arc of the 5th Turret) , i dont like modding for gamieness and the engine may change.

For short range combat a dedicated night fighter CA could be built ( maybe a CL in terms of cost but with a wide beam and massive bulges it would weight as much as a CA) see above. With massive short barreled guns which are cheap ( 8" were fitted to a lot of merchants) and can do massive damage at close range.

2. Agree with Terminus here while i would love a few squadrons of these they were a 1 of and squadrons puts it into fantasy lands rather than the possible ( unless your willing to put in Yamato resources) . She was smaller than the Akitzuki ( which was 2700/3700) . However the power plant was a one off with precision time consuming machinary. Considering Japan had an excellent 50kshp standard set of destroyer machinanry and 150K for the Cruisers putting the efforts into mass producing these would have served them better power plants were one of the major bottle necks in Japanese shipping . Its worth noting the parallels with the DB601 where they could have put more effort and mass produced the later Kensei.

3. Agree outside of Destroyer leaders and gunnery control im a firm beliver in Aux float plane carriers. Which as Terminas stated were converted to Cvs

4. The Agano at 9*6.1" is quite viable at 6Ktons and comparible to some other Cruisers. This is what this thread has been about . However historically the Yamatos snapped up the turrets and most of the guns with these ships being built from the waste of the 111 ( which is why they were built late also) . Considering you can add torpedo bulges cheaply upgrade to 10-12K and carry 5 turrets on a cheap ship ( say 25% more cost) why would you still build the 9*6.1 CL ? The only case is as a Destroyer leader but you could use the Oi unrefitted or a cheaper ship for this.

5.Akizuki is Japan's CLAA no need to build one. If you accept the 100/65 earlier you would have had these destroyers earlier. If you want a better one put more and better directors on her. Put 10% of the 18" gun team to work on the 100/65 and you iwll have it much earlier.

6. All the Yamatos were wasteful who here woudnt take 6-8 32 knot Battle Cruisers or Fleet CVs . The biggest issue with Shinano was like a lot of Japanese ships ( Taiho !) there were arguments what to do with no clear direction so she sat there with no work done for long periods and work redirected to the other Yamato ships. The lack of steel must have been chronic considering the 111 which was ready to launch you got a massive hull ready to launch , why didnt they just finish the hull , add a cruiser Power plant ( the main expense) add a cheap even wood flight deck and use her say mid 43 ( and Shinano the start of 43) , i can only think lack of steel , note her steel ( over 20K tons) was used in a number of conversions.



(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 28
RE: Is a 6-8K tons CL usefull to Japan . - 12/21/2009 4:31:11 AM   
Shark7


Posts: 7889
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
The Shimakaze would have been best used as a Destoyer Leader with its massive torpedo battery. And granted the machinery it used was complex, but this was also the same machinery that went into several of the late war carriers (which was the main reason more Shimakaze's weren't built). If one was willing to ditch Shinano and #111 early, concetrate on perfecting the machinery production it would be a longshot but possible to get a few more Shimakaze.

Obviously, the Akizuki is the best choice for a DD, its AAA battery was far better than any other Japanese DD (or CL for that matter) at the time. Again a simple decision to concentrate production into a single usable piece of equipment (the 100mm/65 Type 98) would not only have allowed the construction, but also would have allowed a major upgrade to most of the IJN in terms of AAA capability (the 100mm/65 Type 98 was an excellent weapon).

The Agano-kai would have had 4 turrets, which combined with triple 6.1" guns would have given you 12 tubes per ship, very useful had the Japanese only made this decision. In its 8 gun configuration its not quite as good and placing 8 inch guns on the same hull might have made more sense. Scrapping the Shinano and #111 earlier (which eventually happened anyway) would have freed some 6.1" triple turrets earlier. Again its a production decision that wasn't made either direction.

As I write this, I am realizing that most of the major problems with the IJN build schedule was simply a failure to: 1) Pool resources into 1 or 2 systems instead of many and 2) Constant indecisiveness on which direction to go with the build queues. A more focused build and R&D program could have overcome many of the problems.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 29
RE: Is a 6-8K tons CL usefull to Japan . - 12/21/2009 6:02:51 AM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1103
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline


quote:


The Shimakaze would have been best used as a Destoyer Leader with its massive torpedo battery. And granted the machinery it used was complex, but this was also the same machinery that went into several of the late war carriers (which was the main reason more Shimakaze's weren't built).


It makes a poor leader since it has little space for command ,carries no float plane and outruns the rest of the Squadron. Historically she didnt even lead because she could use her speed better alone. It was intended that she lead a slighly cheaper varient ( the other 20 ordered) which would have been slightly slower ie a 40knots flotilla. The late war machinary on CVs makes little sense , machinary on larger ships tends to be more reliable , more fuel efficient and costly but weigh more. In the 150kshp impulse engines that powered the Tones and Mogamis they had an excellent power plant for 30+ knot 30K ton carriers ( excellent power to weight , reliable , bedded down, fuel efficient) . Unfortunately 1941 is no time to be wasting time developing new power plants and they should be shelved to focus on building more plants. They could do with a simple mass prodiced plant in 41 though say 30K shp or even 40K to build more destroyers, by the time they did for the Mutsu they were runnoing into all sorts of difficulties.

quote:

If one was willing to ditch Shinano and #111 early, concetrate on perfecting the machinery production it would be a longshot but possible to get a few more Shimakaze.


No question the Shinao would be worth at least 5-6.

quote:

Obviously, the Akizuki is the best choice for a DD, its AAA battery was far better than any other Japanese DD (or CL for that matter) at the time. Again a simple decision to concentrate production into a single usable piece of equipment (the 100mm/65 Type 98) would not only have allowed the construction, but also would have allowed a major upgrade to most of the IJN in terms of AAA capability (the 100mm/65 Type 98 was an excellent weapon).


Agreed , it needs to be mass produced . It makes a nice CD gun as well.

quote:

The Agano-kai would have had 4 turrets, which combined with triple 6.1" guns would have given you 12 tubes per ship, very useful had the Japanese only made this decision.


It would have gone up in tonnage a fair bit...Why not build Mogamis ? In which case why not 8" ..

quote:

In its 8 gun configuration its not quite as good and placing 8 inch guns on the same hull might have made more sense.

Scrapping the Shinano and #111 earlier (which eventually happened anyway) would have freed some 6.1" triple turrets earlier. Again its a production decision that wasn't made either direction.


Yes they would be freed earlier , but im leaning to using them as CD batteries or on night fighting ships . Note not building or earlier scrapping of 111 does not buy you any tonnage , though it does make a35K slip available . The steel was used for a number of CV conversions.


quote:

As I write this, I am realizing that most of the major problems with the IJN build schedule was simply a failure to: 1) Pool resources into 1 or 2 systems instead of many and 2) Constant indecisiveness on which direction to go with the build queues. A more focused build and R&D program could have overcome many of the problems.


Yes Japan seesm to be significantly worse in this respect than say the US who held the Montanas for the ships that were quicker to build Essex and Iowa or Germany or Russia .
Note the Naval R&D program was pretty much busy with the Yamatos there were many obstacles to overcome even 5 years later 42 the guns still had issues. Please note the desire for conversions obviously came from a lack of steel and machinery. They wasted a lot of yard time with time consuming rebuilds. I knid of like the idea of going for top heavy mass produced 1000-1500 ton destroyers , who cares if one roles because it empties the tanks without balast their life expectancy is short anyway and once you take a torp or shells and counter flood your not going to worry ...

Im leaning towards no Yamatos laid down till 42 ( and the plans scrapped before the war)
AS with float planes stay AS , player may convert if there is a midway.
Katoris ,Agano and Oyodo not build resources focused on DD.
Tones and Ibukis ( early) replaced by 4 Night fighting CAs as above.
Introduce 2 new destroyer classes
1 ) Same as the Akizuki but will preceed her and carry 2 * 2 * 6.1" guns and 2 small float planes to act as a destroyer leader. Later a 3.9" turret is added and 1 float plane removed . Later can carry 6 * 3.9" + Float plane.
2) A Ootori or Momi style top heavy 2nd class destoryer . Japan tradditionally had these but had not build many for a while. ~950-1000 tons standard , 31 knots ,4000nm range , 4 (2 * 2) 4.7" DP guns , 4 21" torpedo tubes ( not the 24") , Depth Charges. Cheap and dirty use as escorts for high value or squadrons.




(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> Is a 6-8K tons CL usefull to Japan . Page: [1] 2   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

0.204