Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one

 
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: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one - 5/9/2013 7:53:46 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41460
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Here's the starting list, based on peacetime AND wartime requirements in Asia as of 1/1/22:

UK: Scouting, Destroyer Leader, Trade Protection, Colonial Duties.

US: Scouting, Trade Protection, Colonial Duties.

France: Scouting, Trade Protection, Colonial Duties, Commerce Raiding.

Netherlands: Trade Protection, Colonial Duties, Destroyer Leader, Scouting.

Japan: Scouting, Destroyer Leader, Commerce Raiding, Trade Protection.

Open for discussion. Remember that the Japs had no torpedo attack doctrine back then.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 31
RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one - 5/9/2013 10:51:38 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2324
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
You beat me to it, but I like what you started with. I know that Gary wanted the Germans and Italians but I think the best thing is to work up to them say 1935 for the Germans and tie the Italian building to the French and British presence in the Med.



_____________________________


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 32
RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one - 5/9/2013 11:43:36 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41460
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
"Colonial Duties" should be taken to mean showing the flag around the area in question and deterring other powers from muscling in on the territory.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 33
RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one - 5/10/2013 4:23:53 AM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6865
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Here's the starting list, based on peacetime AND wartime requirements in Asia as of 1/1/22:

UK: Scouting, Destroyer Leader, Trade Protection, Colonial Duties.

US: Scouting, Trade Protection, Colonial Duties.

France: Scouting, Trade Protection, Colonial Duties, Commerce Raiding.

Netherlands: Trade Protection, Colonial Duties, Destroyer Leader, Scouting.

Japan: Scouting, Destroyer Leader, Commerce Raiding, Trade Protection.

Open for discussion. Remember that the Japs had no torpedo attack doctrine back then.


So for missions we basically have:

1. Scouting
2. Trade protection
3. Commerce Raiding
4. Colonial Duties
5. Destroyer Leader

So next I suppose it would be useful to sort out what some characteristics are that make a ship most suitable for each of these missions? My guess would be something along these lines:

1. Scouting - high speed, long range
2. Trade protection - long range, large numbers
3. Commerce Raiding - high speed, heavy armament, long range
4. Colonial Duties - long range
5. Destroyer Leader - high speed




_____________________________


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 34
RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one - 5/13/2013 4:09:31 AM   
dwg

 

Posts: 319
Joined: 1/22/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Alright, I'm happy to pull together lists like this for each of the 3 major powers;

I've added a few notes:

2x OB Kearsarge (11500t, 2x2 13in/35, 16kts, 337mm / 70mm, 1900)
Totally obsolete due to superimposed turrets - Kearsarge was converted into a craneship before the Treaty was even proposed.

3x OB Illinois (11600t, 2x2 13in/35, 16kts, 337mm / 70mm, 1901)
All decommissioned in advance of treaty

3x OB Maine (12600t, 2x2 12in/40, 18kts, 279mm / 64mm, 1902)
2 of 3 due to decommission, 1 in reserve

5x OB Virginia (15000t, 2x2 12in/40, 19kts, 279mm / 76mm, 1906)
Seriously compromised by superimposed turrets, all due to decommission

6x AC Pennsylvania/Pittsburgh (13700t, 2x2 8in/40, 22kts, 152mm / 38mm, 1905)
San Diego sunk by mine 1918

4x AC Tennessee/Memphis (14500t, 2x2 10in/40, 22kts, 127mm / 38mm, 1906)
Memphis wrecked 1916

To be laid down;
5x BB South Dakota (43200t, 4x3 16in/50, 23kts, 343mm / 89mm)
Should be 6

4x BC Lexington (43500t, 4x2 16in/50, 33kts, 178mm / 57mm)
Should be 6

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 35
RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one - 5/13/2013 4:11:58 AM   
dwg

 

Posts: 319
Joined: 1/22/2008
Status: offline
Under construction:
5 x BB/CV Normandie (25230, 3x4 13.4in/45, 21kts, 300mm / 50mm) - I'm thinking these would make a nice class of CVs

One set of turrets is missing (factory taken by Germans), so they can complete a maximum of 4 as battleships

(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 36
RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one - 5/13/2013 4:28:15 AM   
dwg

 

Posts: 319
Joined: 1/22/2008
Status: offline
Battleships: Colossus, Monarch, Thunderer, Ajax, Centurion, King George V, Benbow, Emperor of India, Iron Duke, Marlborough, Barham, Malaya, Queen Elizabeth, Valiant, Warspite, Ramilies, Resolution, Revenge, Royal Oak, Royal Sovereign.

Missing Erin and Agincourt

Under construction
Battlecruiser: Hood (added)

Carrier: Furious (under reconstruction from large light cruiser)

Cruisers: Frobisher, Emerald, Enterprise
Missing Raleigh

Being laid down in 1922

Battleships: Nelson and Rodney
Nelson and Rodney were a post-Washington Treaty design, in 1920 the RN was intending to lay down the 4 N3 class battleships and the 4 G3 class battlecruisers.

Cruiser: Adventure
Actually a minelayer

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 37
RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one - 5/13/2013 9:29:54 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 903
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
I've put my comments in bold to distinguish them, didn't want to have like 10 quotes in one post.

Of note is that my list is as is at 1/1/1920. This means anything decommissioned after that is still listed. Likewise, the 'to be built' is ONLY ships that will be laid down by the end of 1920.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dwg
quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Alright, I'm happy to pull together lists like this for each of the 3 major powers;

I've added a few notes:

2x OB Kearsarge (11500t, 2x2 13in/35, 16kts, 337mm / 70mm, 1900)
Totally obsolete due to superimposed turrets - Kearsarge was converted into a craneship before the Treaty was even proposed.

Kearsarge was used as a training ship in 1919, only decommissioned for conversion in May 1920.
Kentucky was also used as a training ship, decomissioned in May 1920.


3x OB Illinois (11600t, 2x2 13in/35, 16kts, 337mm / 70mm, 1901)
All decommissioned in advance of treaty

All 3 still in reserve at the beginning of 1920.


3x OB Maine (12600t, 2x2 12in/40, 18kts, 279mm / 64mm, 1902)
2 of 3 due to decommission, 1 in reserve

I made an error here, should be 2x OB Maine, as 1 already decommissioned (Missouri in Sept 1919), 2 in reserve.


5x OB Virginia (15000t, 2x2 12in/40, 19kts, 279mm / 76mm, 1906)
Seriously compromised by superimposed turrets, all due to decommission

But none decommissioned as of 1/1/1920.


6x AC Pennsylvania/Pittsburgh (13700t, 2x2 8in/40, 22kts, 152mm / 38mm, 1905)
San Diego sunk by mine 1918

Thank you, missed that.


4x AC Tennessee/Memphis (14500t, 2x2 10in/40, 22kts, 127mm / 38mm, 1906)
Memphis wrecked 1916

Likewise.


To be laid down;
5x BB South Dakota (43200t, 4x3 16in/50, 23kts, 343mm / 89mm)
Should be 6

Massachusetts only laid down 4/4/1921.


4x BC Lexington (43500t, 4x2 16in/50, 33kts, 178mm / 57mm)
Should be 6

Lexington and Ranger only laid down in 1921.



_____________________________


(in reply to dwg)
Post #: 38
RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one - 5/13/2013 9:43:56 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41460
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dwg

Battleships: Colossus, Monarch, Thunderer, Ajax, Centurion, King George V, Benbow, Emperor of India, Iron Duke, Marlborough, Barham, Malaya, Queen Elizabeth, Valiant, Warspite, Ramilies, Resolution, Revenge, Royal Oak, Royal Sovereign.

Missing Erin and Agincourt

Under construction
Battlecruiser: Hood (added)

Carrier: Furious (under reconstruction from large light cruiser)

Cruisers: Frobisher, Emerald, Enterprise
Missing Raleigh

Being laid down in 1922

Battleships: Nelson and Rodney
Nelson and Rodney were a post-Washington Treaty design, in 1920 the RN was intending to lay down the 4 N3 class battleships and the 4 G3 class battlecruisers.

Cruiser: Adventure
Actually a minelayer



It was my understanding that we were doing this as of 1922 (which others have done).

I excluded the Erin and Agincourt because they paid off in 1922. The Hood was in service at this time. The Nelson and the Rodney was laid down at the same time. The Raleigh was lost in a grounding in August of '22, and the Adventure was a cruiser-minelayer.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to dwg)
Post #: 39
RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one - 5/14/2013 12:35:17 AM   
JuanG


Posts: 903
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: dwg

Battleships: Colossus, Monarch, Thunderer, Ajax, Centurion, King George V, Benbow, Emperor of India, Iron Duke, Marlborough, Barham, Malaya, Queen Elizabeth, Valiant, Warspite, Ramilies, Resolution, Revenge, Royal Oak, Royal Sovereign.

Missing Erin and Agincourt

Under construction
Battlecruiser: Hood (added)

Carrier: Furious (under reconstruction from large light cruiser)

Cruisers: Frobisher, Emerald, Enterprise
Missing Raleigh

Being laid down in 1922

Battleships: Nelson and Rodney
Nelson and Rodney were a post-Washington Treaty design, in 1920 the RN was intending to lay down the 4 N3 class battleships and the 4 G3 class battlecruisers.

Cruiser: Adventure
Actually a minelayer



It was my understanding that we were doing this as of 1922 (which others have done).

I excluded the Erin and Agincourt because they paid off in 1922. The Hood was in service at this time. The Nelson and the Rodney was laid down at the same time. The Raleigh was lost in a grounding in August of '22, and the Adventure was a cruiser-minelayer.


Pretty sure we started off as 1920, Gary did the French and Germans as 1922 since they were fairly static.

_____________________________


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 40
RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one - 5/14/2013 12:08:07 PM   
dwg

 

Posts: 319
Joined: 1/22/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus
It was my understanding that we were doing this as of 1922 (which others have done).


I'm just kibitzing as I've done a fair amount of reading around this period and there are a lot of changes that would have happened with or without the Treaty (such as the RN and USN battleship retirements), but which were claimed to be due to the Treaty as part of the general horsetrading ('we'll scrap all these battleships so long as you let us do X'). Some of the USN BBs scrapped were obsolete in 1914, never mind 1920. Whether you set the start point before the treaty or after makes a huge difference in both current status and future plans.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 41
RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one - 5/14/2013 12:15:43 PM   
dwg

 

Posts: 319
Joined: 1/22/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
I believe the British (and almost everybody else) considered the "Hawkins Class" to be an abberrition.


The one exception being the USN's Navy Board, who saw the range as suiting it to the Pacific, the RN would have been much happier keeping cruisers at 4-6,000 tons, because of the numbers they needed.

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 42
RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one - 5/14/2013 5:22:23 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2324
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
I picked 1920 just because.....

The main points are no treaty, no great depression. How would this affect the major powers with their ship development.

Here are some of my thoughts;

Keep Germany to historic builds because of the treaty. If Gary wants to amend that we will work them up too. But lets face it, they would never be able to out build the Brits in numbers of hulls so its raiders and subs.

I thoughts on the US, build 2 of the BC because of the Hood. Continue planned scrapping of the OB's through the 1920's along with the AC's and PC's.

In the 1930's scrap the South Carolina's, Delawares, and Florida's. Convert the Wyoming's to training ships. Go with the planned historical construction of the BB's and light cruisers. I would like to add the change in history that the Navy see's the threat that Billy Mitchell showed them and they use the other 4 BC's hulls as carriers. Skip the Ranger and in the 30's build the Yorktowns.

The "heavy cruisers" are a challenge, but I see their mission as Asiatic squadron and showing the flag in the America's. As such they would be large cruisers which would stand up (with numbers)to any old BB they have in South America or the older Japanese ships in the Pacific. By the 30's they would be built along the lines of hunting the Graff Spee (fast, /w large caliber guns) or built with weight of broadside in mind and have 8 - 12 8" guns. Another thought would be they look at the Hawkins class and decided its the right direction and build a better ship.

Destroyers I would go with historical builds.

If I had a better feel for the British post WWI idea's I think it would be better if we designed the British navy first since I think the rest of the major powers would react to Britain.



_____________________________


(in reply to dwg)
Post #: 43
RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one - 5/27/2013 3:13:09 AM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6865
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45


Keep Germany to historic builds because of the treaty. If Gary wants to amend that we will work them up too. But lets face it, they would never be able to out build the Brits in numbers of hulls so its raiders and subs.


How about this for Germany. Germany scraps all her old battleships and light cruisers in the 1920s and builds 6 Deutschland class pocket battleships, 1 Emden and 5 "K" class light cruisers by 1930. No old junk for the Reichsmarine.

_____________________________


(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 44
RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one - 5/27/2013 4:20:23 AM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6865
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline
How about this for the German Navy's first baby steps after WW1.





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Gary Childress -- 5/27/2013 4:37:50 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 45
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Hijacking Gary's two threads into one Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

0.168