Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Allied Troopships of WW2

 
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 >> Allied Troopships of WW2 Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Allied Troopships of WW2 - 9/21/2019 2:59:42 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4572
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
https://history.army.mil/documents/WWII/wwii_Troopships.pdf
Post #: 1
RE: Allied Troopships of WW2 - 9/21/2019 5:23:31 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 3867
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
Thanks!

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 2
RE: Allied Troopships of WW2 - 9/21/2019 7:23:06 AM   
fcooke

 

Posts: 455
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Boston, London, Hoboken, now Warwick, NY
Status: offline
Interesting find! I've only briefly looked at it but was surprised to find a 9 knot ship in the mix and quite a few around 11. In the game I would never put troops on something that slow......

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 3
RE: Allied Troopships of WW2 - 9/21/2019 8:43:13 AM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 1988
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke
In the game I would never put troops on something that slow......

JFBs routinely put troop on xAKLs when ferrying to the small islands nearby. Ship availability and ability to dock at very small ports are more important than speed

(in reply to fcooke)
Post #: 4
RE: Allied Troopships of WW2 - 9/21/2019 8:56:06 AM   
fcooke

 

Posts: 455
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Boston, London, Hoboken, now Warwick, NY
Status: offline
I have had a few cases where I could not get the radar unit offloaded. A little odd that an xAKL can do it. Because they have such great deck handling equipment (abstractions - I know).

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 5
RE: Allied Troopships of WW2 - 9/21/2019 9:51:44 AM   
btd64


Posts: 5980
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: online
Nice. Some good information on transports....GP

_____________________________

Intel i7 3.4GHz,8GB Ram,1920x1080 rez

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DW Series-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

I don't like paying for the same real estate twice..Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to fcooke)
Post #: 6
RE: Allied Troopships of WW2 - 9/21/2019 3:22:41 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 5796
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
quote:

JFBs routinely put troop on xAKLs when ferrying to the small islands nearby. Ship availability and ability to dock at very small ports are more important than speed


Key word here being, 'nearby'. For long hauls I'm with fcooke.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 7
RE: Allied Troopships of WW2 - 9/21/2019 4:21:58 PM   
Insano

 

Posts: 213
Joined: 7/23/2009
From: Joplin, Missouri
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

Interesting find! I've only briefly looked at it but was surprised to find a 9 knot ship in the mix and quite a few around 11. In the game I would never put troops on something that slow......


Interesting indeed. You can note that all these slow ships are listed as having an old style reciprocating engine propulsion plant. From browsing briefly the cutoff seems to be at 14 knots. 14 could be either but faster is steam turbines and slower is reciprocating engines. Neat book.

(in reply to fcooke)
Post #: 8
RE: Allied Troopships of WW2 - 9/21/2019 4:54:42 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4572
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
Yeah if you read some the text it tells some were modified with turbines to be able to be faster, i remember reading one that 11kt when upgraded speed increased to 17kt.

(in reply to Insano)
Post #: 9
RE: Allied Troopships of WW2 - 9/21/2019 5:09:13 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 13251
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Yeah if you read some the text it tells some were modified with turbines to be able to be faster, i remember reading one that 11kt when upgraded speed increased to 17kt.

The hull has to be able to take the strain of the speed increase too. A lot of the smaller 'coaster' vessels pressed into service were decrepit things with rusting hulls and corroded internal structure. A lot of them had not had any boiler maintenance either. My dad (a KV Petty Officer) told me it was nearly impossible to get these ships to stop spewing smoke as they struggled to keep up to the 5-6 knot speed of the convoy.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 10
RE: Allied Troopships of WW2 - 9/21/2019 5:18:17 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4572
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
Yeah that's a factor too. One of good things of that document is that gives the range, i was surprised by the very small range of some big transporters like Queen Mary 5000nm, Mauritania 4500nm, Empress of Australia 5700nm.

Another good thing is that the document is OCR..ed so you can search keywords, it is not just a typical image scan.

< Message edited by Dili -- 9/21/2019 5:20:26 PM >

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 11
RE: Allied Troopships of WW2 - 9/21/2019 5:19:30 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 13251
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
Thanks for posting that! I have been looking for a photo of the ship aboard which my Mother (a war bride) came over from Ireland - Samaria. Found it on page 325. Doesn't look like it could accommodate over 4000 passengers!

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 12
RE: Allied Troopships of WW2 - 9/21/2019 5:26:30 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4572
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
Nice :)

btw the ship that increased speed from 10 knots(not 11 like i said before) to 17 knots is in page 20 Edmund B Alexander . And it seems it maintained the reciprocating engines, but was reboiled and converted for oil instead of coal.

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 13
RE: Allied Troopships of WW2 - 9/22/2019 2:25:59 AM   
geofflambert


Posts: 13714
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: online
Looks like the particularly slow ones were only used on milk runs to and from Alaska and Hawaii.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 14
RE: Allied Troopships of WW2 - 9/22/2019 6:34:45 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 13251
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Looks like the particularly slow ones were only used on milk runs to and from Alaska and Hawaii.

Maybe on the US side because the war had already been in progress for two years. In 1939-40-41 there were not that many new ships available to Britain and its Allies, thanks to the Great Depression which all but stopped shipbuilding.

Once the war started shipyards started getting orders to build merchant ships but priority was given to escort warships first, and most yards were soon at capacity. It would take two years to expand the shipyard capacity to put out greater tonnage (little things like bringing in new power lines from a new generator on a hydro dam don't happen quickly).

So in the North Atlantic, the Allies had to make do with whatever they could scrape up. The old ships that lagged too much behind the convoy were left on their own and the U-boats usually found them. That was survival of the fittest but the merchant crewmen paid the price.

The US benefitted from orders for new merchant ships which helped reactivate US shipyards before entry into WWII. And the genius of mass produced Liberty Ships and Victory Ships meant that the old, slow vessels could be relegated to coastal trade again.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 15
RE: Allied Troopships of WW2 - 9/23/2019 12:09:45 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4572
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
There were quite a bit of new merchants ships build in 30's and there were a big incentive for them: diesel engines were starting to be viable.

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 16
RE: Allied Troopships of WW2 - 9/23/2019 3:54:41 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 13251
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

There were quite a bit of new merchants ships build in 30's and there were a big incentive for them: diesel engines were starting to be viable.

Was that in the US? From what I have seen in the British/Canadian theatre there was a shortage of good merchant ships and the shipbuilding industry was starving (except for naval ships in Britain to counter the new ships being built by Germany and Italy).

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 17
RE: Allied Troopships of WW2 - 9/23/2019 4:31:22 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4572
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
No dieasels were more in Europe, US was late to the diesel.

The Clan series was all build in late 30's, but those were no diesel. Port Chalmers, Halifax and other 2 i think were diesels and i have seen recently any British ships with diesels. but obviously the War put a big strain and there was needed more ships. There were several liners also build in 30's.
French German and Italians went fast for diesels due to lack of oil own sources. Diesel is much more economical than a triple expansion and turbines.

Since i am on a roll on merchant stuff you can get ONI 208 here, it has nationality and year date in the document list. https://archive.org/details/MerchShipRecogManual

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 18
RE: Allied Troopships of WW2 - 9/23/2019 7:18:40 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 1826
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Sydney
Status: offline
I remember reading somewhere (possibly on here) that when building of merchant hulls was expanded during WW1, they went for the tried and tested reciprocating engines instead of then the then new-fangled turbines. The manufacturers just weren't tooled up for the new technology stuff.

Eventually the EFC set up Hog Islander production, with the new design featuring oil fired turbines - too late for WW1.

_____________________________

"You may find that having is not so nearly pleasing a thing as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
- Cdr Spock


Ian R

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 19
RE: Allied Troopships of WW2 - 9/23/2019 2:59:17 PM   
Gridley380


Posts: 464
Joined: 12/20/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Since i am on a roll on merchant stuff you can get ONI 208 here, it has nationality and year date in the document list. https://archive.org/details/MerchShipRecogManual


Nice! I've never seen that one available before. Thanks!

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 20
RE: Allied Troopships of WW2 - 9/23/2019 3:17:42 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 13251
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

I remember reading somewhere (possibly on here) that when building of merchant hulls was expanded during WW1, they went for the tried and tested reciprocating engines instead of then the then new-fangled turbines. The manufacturers just weren't tooled up for the new technology stuff.

Eventually the EFC set up Hog Islander production, with the new design featuring oil fired turbines - too late for WW1.


Britain used oil-fired turbines in the Queen Elizabeth class BBs, but reverted to standard coal fired reciprocating engines for the R class BBs because the government felt the shipyards/engine manufacturer had overcharged for the turbine engines and Britain did not have easy access to oil fuel. I wouldn't be surprised if heat resistant metals like tungsten and titanium were also in short supply for making turbine blades. Nascent technology always has its growing pains and starts out expensive.

I thought I read somewhere that Germany had a lock on diesel technology during the interwar period because they patented it. So I could see them licensing Italian shipyards for it but limiting how much Britain could use it until at least the mid-1930s.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 21
RE: Allied Troopships of WW2 - 9/23/2019 3:35:18 PM   
Zorch

 

Posts: 5914
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

I remember reading somewhere (possibly on here) that when building of merchant hulls was expanded during WW1, they went for the tried and tested reciprocating engines instead of then the then new-fangled turbines. The manufacturers just weren't tooled up for the new technology stuff.

Eventually the EFC set up Hog Islander production, with the new design featuring oil fired turbines - too late for WW1.


Britain used oil-fired turbines in the Queen Elizabeth class BBs, but reverted to standard coal fired reciprocating engines for the R class BBs because the government felt the shipyards/engine manufacturer had overcharged for the turbine engines and Britain did not have easy access to oil fuel. I wouldn't be surprised if heat resistant metals like tungsten and titanium were also in short supply for making turbine blades. Nascent technology always has its growing pains and starts out expensive.

I thought I read somewhere that Germany had a lock on diesel technology during the interwar period because they patented it. So I could see them licensing Italian shipyards for it but limiting how much Britain could use it until at least the mid-1930s.

My understanding (from somewhere in my fuzzy memory) is that a shortage of gear-cutting machines (that are needed for turbines) was the USA bottleneck.

Someone will probably correct me on this, but I thought the R class BBs used turbines from launch; it's just that they were coal-fired in most boilers. The Royal Navy was unhappy with British manufacturers failure to keep up before WWI. They couldn't do 'geared' turbines, only the less efficient direct-drive ones. Supposedly the Queen Elizabeth class would have been 2+ knots faster if they had geared turbines and small tube boilers.

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 22
RE: Allied Troopships of WW2 - 9/23/2019 4:07:46 PM   
pontiouspilot


Posts: 1023
Joined: 7/27/2012
Status: offline
interesting.....I always wondered why the Germans didn't put diesels in their tanks (AFVs). Diesel is much easier and cheaper to produce and a hell of a lot less flammable.

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 23
RE: Allied Troopships of WW2 - 9/23/2019 4:36:35 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4572
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
No there wasn't patent lock by Germans in diesel engines. A bit of British Merchants(some relatively big like Warwick Castle 20000grt https://www.wrecksite.eu/wreck.aspx?17048 ).

Here is a pdf discussing the Liberty ship re-motorization post war - they were considered too slow - Check the advantages for diesel https://archive.org/details/USMALibertyShipConversionReport1957/page/n71

Also i got this interesting tidbit from British Bank line,they were already building diesel but some were also with quadruple expansion :
quote:

The Oil Burning or Coal Burning steamships had interesting quadruple expansion engines and were built expressly for Weirs with interchangeable fuel burned in their boilers. Coal or oil was purchased when required in either format dependent upon price and availability, the ship's engineers being required to make the boiler burner alterations to suit. Generally, however, the engineers preferred the cleaner oil over the dirty and heavy work of coal.

https://www.shipsnostalgia.com/guides/Bank_Line_-_Part_2

(in reply to Zorch)
Post #: 24
RE: Allied Troopships of WW2 - 9/24/2019 8:14:26 PM   
sstevens06


Posts: 246
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: USA
Status: offline
Dili, very helpful as always - thank you!

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 25
RE: Allied Troopships of WW2 - 9/24/2019 9:26:51 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4572
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

interesting.....I always wondered why the Germans didn't put diesels in their tanks (AFVs). Diesel is much easier and cheaper to produce and a hell of a lot less flammable.



Might be they could not get the power output necessary from them with restriction in size and weight that were not so critical in ships. Italians had diesel tank engines but their tanks were very light. T-34 was on diesels too so that is a counter argument since it is a medium tank, maybe that just what the engineers in tank production were more familiar. inertia.


glad you liked sstevens06

(in reply to pontiouspilot)
Post #: 26
RE: Allied Troopships of WW2 - 9/25/2019 10:28:51 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 1826
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Sydney
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch

Someone will probably correct me on this, but I thought the R class BBs used turbines from launch; it's just that they were coal-fired in most boilers.



I had a look at that in Conways. The "Revenge" class (as described in the Admiralty papers for the 1913 building programme) were designed as cheaper versions of the 'cutting edge' QEs.

The original design, when the first three keels were laid in 1913, and the 4th and 5th in 1914, was 'multi-fuel' with both coal and oil, and 4 shaft Parson's turbines, for 21.5kts.

Renee Greger in his book (page 87) says the lower speed, compared to the QEs, was acceptable because the ships were specifically designed for North Sea duty, and the German High Seas Fleet was limited to not more than 21kts anyway.

RN concerns about fuel oil supplies where alleviated when Sir Winston Churchill arranged for the strategic purchase of shares in the Anglo-Iranian oil company, and in January 1915 the design was altered (even though two had been launched) to pure oil firing, with a consequent increase from 31,000 to 40,000 SHP, and speed increased to 23 knots (not that they ever achieved that) - I.E. making them a more austere version of the "second generation" QE fast battleship. For example, they only had one rudder (plus a smaller hand operated rudder centreline ahead of it, which proved useless and was later removed).

This in one sense compares favourably with the QEs, whose turbines produced 56,000 SHP on a similar displacement, and also rated at 23kts. However, the power limitations, and other aspects of "accepting the lowest bidder" procurement, made them less amenable to later modernisation. Also, on trials with torpedo protection bulges added, the speed dropped by 0.5kts, albeit they became more stable gun platforms.

In August 1914 the 6th and 7th units were suspended and later re-ordered as the BCs Renown and Repulse, and the 8th unit (Resistance) was canned.

Only one of the five ships received an extensive rebuild in the 1930s - the Royal Oak, which was ironically sunk at anchor by a U-boat. The other four were retired to reserve during the war after performing useful convoy escort and bombardment duties.

Winston Churchill, writing after 1945, said the Admiralty spent most of the war keeping the R class BBs "as far away from the enemy as possible".


< Message edited by Ian R -- 9/25/2019 11:20:16 AM >


_____________________________

"You may find that having is not so nearly pleasing a thing as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
- Cdr Spock


Ian R

(in reply to Zorch)
Post #: 27
RE: Allied Troopships of WW2 - 9/25/2019 12:47:54 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 13251
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch

Someone will probably correct me on this, but I thought the R class BBs used turbines from launch; it's just that they were coal-fired in most boilers.



I had a look at that in Conways. The "Revenge" class (as described in the Admiralty papers for the 1913 building programme) were designed as cheaper versions of the 'cutting edge' QEs.

The original design, when the first three keels were laid in 1913, and the 4th and 5th in 1914, was 'multi-fuel' with both coal and oil, and 4 shaft Parson's turbines, for 21.5kts.

Renee Greger in his book (page 87) says the lower speed, compared to the QEs, was acceptable because the ships were specifically designed for North Sea duty, and the German High Seas Fleet was limited to not more than 21kts anyway.

RN concerns about fuel oil supplies where alleviated when Sir Winston Churchill arranged for the strategic purchase of shares in the Anglo-Iranian oil company, and in January 1915 the design was altered (even though two had been launched) to pure oil firing, with a consequent increase from 31,000 to 40,000 SHP, and speed increased to 23 knots (not that they ever achieved that) - I.E. making them a more austere version of the "second generation" QE fast battleship. For example, they only had one rudder (plus a smaller hand operated rudder centreline ahead of it, which proved useless and was later removed).

This in one sense compares favourably with the QEs, whose turbines produced 56,000 SHP on a similar displacement, and also rated at 23kts. However, the power limitations, and other aspects of "accepting the lowest bidder" procurement, made them less amenable to later modernisation. Also, on trials with torpedo protection bulges added, the speed dropped by 0.5kts, albeit they became more stable gun platforms.

In August 1914 the 6th and 7th units were suspended and later re-ordered as the BCs Renown and Repulse, and the 8th unit (Resistance) was canned.

Only one of the five ships received an extensive rebuild in the 1930s - the Royal Oak, which was ironically sunk at anchor by a U-boat. The other four were retired to reserve during the war after performing useful convoy escort and bombardment duties.

Winston Churchill, writing after 1945, said the Admiralty spent most of the war keeping the R class BBs "as far away from the enemy as possible".


Thanks for the detailed info on their design history. I am puzzled by the statement about the sixth and seventh units becoming BCs Repulse and Renown (AKA Repair and Refit). The BCs had a much longer hull to accommodate their additional boilers/machinery for higher speed. Does that mean just the money for construction was diverted, or had the R class 6th and 7th keels already laid down?

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 28
RE: Allied Troopships of WW2 - 9/25/2019 9:16:53 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 3329
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Lima and Toronto
Status: offline
A bit off topic, but still talking about troopships

Big ships like SS Normandy, or some early US battleships or Lexington class carriers got turbo-electric drives instead of conventional turbines.
But then few ships during or after WW2 got it; curious to know what were the reasons to go back to reduction geared turbines

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 29
RE: Allied Troopships of WW2 - 9/25/2019 11:15:17 PM   
fcooke

 

Posts: 455
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Boston, London, Hoboken, now Warwick, NY
Status: offline
I think the idea that for units 6 & 7 the funds were freed up for the BCs - not that hulls had been started and converted.

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Allied Troopships of WW2 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

0.164