AE Naval and OOB Issues [OUTDATED]

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
JeffroK
Posts: 6380
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:05 am

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by JeffroK »

There seems to be some doubt as to whether she was carrying 3"/23 or 3"/50 AA guns

http://www.network54.com/Forum/594514/m ... e+Sampsons
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
User avatar
LargeSlowTarget
Posts: 4494
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Hessen, Germany - now living in France

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by LargeSlowTarget »

Some more glitches I stumbled upon while modding away - in stock resp. DaBigBabes we have the ships:

4239 / 4239 Canopus - Canopus class AS
7051 / 12051 Santa Ana - Lake Cargo class AK
7052 / 12052 Santa Elisa - Transmarine Cargo class AK
7054 / 12054 Santa Teresa - Transmarine Cargo class AK
8010/ 12343 Mount McKinley - C2 cargo AK (sunk date in editor 420311)

and not in stock, only in DBB there is 10788 Baranof - Yukon class AP.


It appears that - appart from Canopus - the classes and/or names are not correct.

All AKs should belong to the same class - which needs to be created from scratch as an AP class (Yukon class is close but no cigar).

Santa Ana should not be in the game at all since she saw no service in the PTO resp. when she was earmarked for the PTO in late 1945, she belonged to a class not modelled in the game (hospital ship).

Santa Elisa needs a name change and has a duplicate in DBB (Baranof).

Santa Teresa needs a name change (two actually), is available on day 1 in the game, but should enter later and needs a withdrawal date as converted to hospital ship for the ETO.


Here is what I have found on various websites (Naval Historical Center, Grace Line History etc.):


In 1916 Grace decided to institute a passenger service from New York to ports on the west coast of South America as far as Valparaiso, Chile, and contracted for five ships- SANTA ANA, SANTA LUISA, SANTA TERESA (By Cramp) and SANTA ELISA & SANTA LEONORA (by New York Shipbuilding). These 110-passenger ships were 376 feet long with a gross tonnage of 4800. They had four boilers each and quadruple expansion engine of 3300 hp. in the Cramp ships and 3400 in the others. Their service speed of 13 knots could be exceeded by a knot.


The United States Shipping Board took these five ships over for transport duty in 1918. By the time the troops had been carried back from France, Grace had decided that four would be sufficient for the intended service, and declined return of the SANTA LEONORA, which went to the Navy and became the submarine tender CANOPUS, ultimately lost in the Philipines early in 1942.


SANTA ANA (1) was returned to Grace Line in 1919 for the New York - Valparaiso service. She carried 110 passengers. She was transferred to the Panama Mail Line in 1928, and renamed Guatemala. When she returned to Grace Line in 1931, she became the Santa Cecilia, and was used on the New York - San Francisco coastal service. Santa Cecilia was laid up in 1934, and sold to Merchants & Miners in 1936 as the Irwin. In 1941 she was acquired by the War Department and served during and shortly after World War II as the Army's transport and hospital ship John L. Clem. Soon after her acquisition by the Army she was assigned the U.S. Navy hull number AP-36, but did not enter U.S. Navy service. She spent the war in the ETO as troopship and was converted to hospital ship in 1944 for duty in the western Mediterranean. She returned to the US in June 45 to begin preparations for service in the Pacific. However, Japan surrendered and the plans were cancelled.


SANTA ELISA was returned to Grace Line in 1920 for the New York - Valparaiso service. In 1931 she was transferred to the New York - San Francisco coastal service. Santa Elisa was laid up in 1934, and sold to the Alaska SS Co in 1936, renamed Baranof. In Seattle-Alaska service. Chartered by War Shipping Administration, 1942-1946.


SANTA TERESA was returned to Grace Line in 1920 for the New York - Valparaiso service. In 1931 she was transferred to the New York - San Francisco coastal service. Santa Teresa was laid up in 1934, and sold to Merchants & Miners in 1936 as the Kent. SS Kent was purchased by the U.S. Army in April 1941 and renamed Ernest Hinds. Converted to a troopship (750 troops), she had brief Army service before being transferred to the Navy in July 1941. Renamed USS Kent (AP-28), she carried passengers and cargo along the U.S. East Coast and in the Gulf of Mexico area (on Dec. 7th 1941 she was at NYC) until March 1942, when she was returned to the Army and again became USAT Ernest Hinds. During May 1942 - September 1943 Ernest Hinds operated as a transport, making a trip to Alaska in mid-1942 and thereafter carrying personnel and cargo between the U.S., Hawaii, and the south Pacific and within the latter region. The ship was converted to a hospital ship at San Francisco, California, between September 1943 and June 1944. She then steamed through the Panama Canal to begin service between the U.S. East Coast and the Mediterranean Sea. Ernest Hinds's hospital ship service ended in September 1945.


SANTA LUISA was returned to Grace Line in 1920 for the New York - Valparaiso service. She was transferred to the Panama Mail Line in 1928, and renamed El Salvador. When she returned to Grace Line in 1931, she became the Santa Ana (2), and was used on the New York - San Francisco coastal service. Santa Ana (2) was laid up in 1934, and sold to the Alaska SS Co in 1936, renamed Mount McKinley. Chartered by War Shipping Administration 1941 and accidently lost in the Aleutians on 11 March 1942, wrecked near Scotch Cap.


And another nitpick:

7053 / 12053 Santa Rita - Isthmian Cargo class AK

This seems to be either

1) a duplicate of AP-6 William Ward Burrows (slot 5139 in stock and DBB), since the 1929-built Grace Liner "Santa Rita" was converted to AP-6 in 1940, or - less likely - 2) wrong class for C2 cargo ship "Santa Rita" completed in September 1941 which *may* have served briefly in the PTO before being sunk July 9th 1942 700 miles NE of Puerto Rico (so would need a withdrawal date for ETO service).






User avatar
msieving1
Posts: 526
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 2:24 am
Location: Missouri

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by msieving1 »

[font=calibri]I’ve been doing some reading on the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) in World War II and thought I’d make some notes on RFA ships in WITP-AE, particularly the DALE class oilers.[/font]
 
[font=calibri]There are five DALE class oilers in the stock scenarios: [/font]
[font=calibri]ABBEYDALE (arrives October 1944 in Aden)[/font]
[font=calibri]BISHOPSDALE (starts war in Sydney)[/font]
[font=calibri]BROOMDALE (arrives January 1944 in Aden)[/font]
[font=calibri]DINSDALE (arrives June 1945 in Aden)[/font]
[font=calibri]ENNERDALE (arrives June 1945 in Aden)[/font]
 
[font=calibri]All are wrong.[/font]
 
[font=calibri]In October 1944 ABBEYDALE was in two pieces being towed to Taranto, Italy.  She was torpedoed by a German U-boat off Algeria in June 1943, and broke in half.  Both parts stayed afloat and were towed to Algiers, before later being towed to Taranto.  The pieces were re-attached after the end of the war in Europe and she was returned to service in July 1946.[/font]
 
[font=calibri]In December 1941, BISHOPDALE was in the Caribbean.  She arrived in Balboa on January 20, 1942, and sailed the next day for Henderson Island in the Pitcairn group.  There she refueled HMS Warspite on February 6, and Queen Elizabeth on February 15, before sailing to Sydney, where she arrived April 6, 1942.[/font]
 
[font=calibri]BROOMDALE arrived in Cape Town March 17, 1942, and then sailed for Bombay.  She stayed in the Indian Ocean, mostly operating out of Colombo, until sailing January 31, 1945 for Aden and then going back to the UK.  She returned to the Far East in November 1945.[/font]
 
[font=calibri]DINSDALE was torpedoed May 31, 1942 in the South Atlantic by an Italian submarine and sank the next day.[/font]
 
[font=calibri]ENNERDALE spent most of the war in the Mediterranean, but arrived in Aden on April 24, 1945. [/font]
 
[font=calibri]There were several DALE class oilers that served in the Indian and Pacific Oceans during the war that aren’t included in the stock scenarios. [/font]
 
[font=calibri]ARNDALE arrived in Cape Town June 9, 1942 and operated between South Africa and Mombasa for over a year before sailing to Bombay, arriving there September 14, 1943.  She spent the rest of the war servicing the British Eastern Fleet and Pacific Fleet.[/font]
 
[font=calibri]CEDARDALE sailed from Cape Town December 5, 1941 and operated in the Indian Ocean until she sailed from Aden to the Mediterranean May 25, 1943.[/font]
 
[font=calibri]DEWDALE was converted to a Landing Ship Gantry (LSG) in June 1943.  In this conversion, she retained her capability as a tanker but was equipped with four large gantry cranes for unloading LCMs.  She carried 15 LCMs loaded with vehicles, which she could unload in 30 minutes.  DEWDALE sailed from Aden May 28, 1945 to join the British Pacific Fleet.[/font]
 
[font=calibri]DINGLEDALE sailed from Balboa February 2, 1945 for Manus in the Admiralty Islands to join the British Pacific Fleet.[/font]
 
[font=calibri]EAGLESDALE arrived in Cape Town May 19, 1942 and spent the rest of the war in the Indian Ocean.[/font]
 
[font=calibri]EASEDALE arrived in Cape Town April 19, 1942 and spent the rest of the war in the Indian Ocean.  Both EAGLESDALE and EASEDALE spent most of their time servicing African ports in 1942, and EASEDALE was used in operations against Vichy French in Madagascar.[/font]
 
ECHODALE sailed from Aden March 16, 1944 bound for Abadan, and spent the rest of the war in the Indian Ocean.
 
 
-- Mark Sieving
User avatar
LargeSlowTarget
Posts: 4494
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Hessen, Germany - now living in France

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by LargeSlowTarget »

Interesting - thanks for posting!

*Leaving to start the editor*
User avatar
Don Bowen
Posts: 5171
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Georgetown, Texas, USA

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by Don Bowen »


This is good data. Got anything else on the RFA?
Dili
Posts: 4707
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by Dili »

A RFA webpage is here: http://www.historicalrfa.org/
Image
Dili
Posts: 4707
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by Dili »

For those interested Shiratsuyu and Hatshuaru classes were disappointing for IJN due to low range, it is probable that Hatshuaru had even less then nominal 4000nm range due to modifications. In game they have 6000nm.
Image
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9297
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by Lokasenna »

Possible issue here. When looking at upgrades, I'm noticing that the Nevada class (Nevada and Oklahoma) lose almost all of their Tower armor in their 12/42 upgrades - from 400 down to 38. No other old BB that I have looked at loses this armor. What's going on here? Did they really remove a lot of the superstructure armor on these ships during the war? Why these ships and not others?

Or is this an error?
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26250
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Possible issue here. When looking at upgrades, I'm noticing that the Nevada class (Nevada and Oklahoma) lose almost all of their Tower armor in their 12/42 upgrades - from 400 down to 38. No other old BB that I have looked at loses this armor. What's going on here? Did they really remove a lot of the superstructure armor on these ships during the war? Why these ships and not others?

Or is this an error?
I've seen this asked before, and apparently yes, they did actually remove it. They needed to save a lot of topside weight to handle the modern AA, etc.
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9297
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by Lokasenna »

ORIGINAL: witpqs
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Possible issue here. When looking at upgrades, I'm noticing that the Nevada class (Nevada and Oklahoma) lose almost all of their Tower armor in their 12/42 upgrades - from 400 down to 38. No other old BB that I have looked at loses this armor. What's going on here? Did they really remove a lot of the superstructure armor on these ships during the war? Why these ships and not others?

Or is this an error?
I've seen this asked before, and apparently yes, they did actually remove it. They needed to save a lot of topside weight to handle the modern AA, etc.

Ah, makes sense. I just didn't see any notes about it, but I was just going off of a quick google. The ships were very light on AA on December 7...

So, not sending these ships anywhere near surface combat, then. Heh.
Dili
Posts: 4707
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by Dili »

IRL in some situations the tower armor was more of a problem than an advantage.
Image
User avatar
LargeSlowTarget
Posts: 4494
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Hessen, Germany - now living in France

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by LargeSlowTarget »

xAK "Admiral Y. Williams" (actually "Admiral Y. S. Williams") starts the war at San Diego in stock scen 1 and DBB (and probably most other scenarios and mods).

In fact the ship was drydocked at Hong Kong when the war started. It was taken over by Japan and renamed Tasutama Maru. She survived the war.

Modders may want to correct the starting location - or put her in as Japanese ship.

http://home.comcast.net/~cshortridge/ME ... T_CREW.pdf
Jace11
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 4:29 pm

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by Jace11 »

Should USS Trevor not be named USS Trever, I don't remember, but I think it might be this ship or maybe another DMS was missing from one of the starting TFs in the Guadalcanal scenario. Actually now I think, pretty sure it is Hovey or Hopkins that is missing from one the tf 62 groups.

Ship Etorofu ( not class, actual ship name) has typo also I reckon. Is listed at Etoforu. Can someone check this...? Names are tricky. Searching both names give the same escort, but the former gives more official sources while the latter is mainly fan sites, modellers and this forum, where the typo appears to have propagated into mainstream usage. Seeing as the ship is most likely named after the kurile island I think the former is correct, the same as the Escort's class in the database.
Cerion
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:33 am
Location: Europe

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by Cerion »

Errata in Fubuki class destroyers:

DD Fubuki (I) - At start, 12/41 --> Endurance 4000, Fuel 475; Update 1/42 --> "Endurance 4750", Fuel 475; Update 1/43 --> Endurance 4000, Fuel 475.

DD Fubuki (II) - At start, 12/41 --> "Endurance 4750", Fuel 475; Update 1/43 --> Endurance 4000, Fuel 475; Update 3/44 --> Endurance 4000, Fuel 475.

DD Fubuki (III) - At start, 12/41 --> "Endurance 4750", Fuel 475; Update 1/43 --> Endurance 4000, Fuel 475; Update 3/44 --> Endurance 4000, Fuel 475.

What is the correct figure? Endurance 4000 or 4750?
User avatar
magic87966
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 9:45 pm
Location: Winston-Salem, NC

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by magic87966 »

Good catch.
"Gentlemen, when the enemy is committed to a mistake we must not interrupt him too soon."

Horatio Nelson
User avatar
Jonathan Pollard
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 2:48 am
Location: Federal prison
Contact:

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by Jonathan Pollard »

I checked the starting fuel level of subs that start the Guadalcanal scenario on patrol in enemy waters, and they all start with 100% fuel, even if they're very far from the nearest friendly base. I haven't checked any of the other scenarios yet but I expect a similar unrealistic starting fuel level in those scenarios as well.
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 18328
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by BBfanboy »

AFAIK all ships at sea on Dec. 7th start out fully fueled, even KB off PH.
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
User avatar
m10bob
Posts: 8583
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 9:09 pm
Location: Dismal Seepage Indiana

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by m10bob »

ORIGINAL: Cerion

Errata in Fubuki class destroyers:

DD Fubuki (I) - At start, 12/41 --> Endurance 4000, Fuel 475; Update 1/42 --> "Endurance 4750", Fuel 475; Update 1/43 --> Endurance 4000, Fuel 475.

DD Fubuki (II) - At start, 12/41 --> "Endurance 4750", Fuel 475; Update 1/43 --> Endurance 4000, Fuel 475; Update 3/44 --> Endurance 4000, Fuel 475.

DD Fubuki (III) - At start, 12/41 --> "Endurance 4750", Fuel 475; Update 1/43 --> Endurance 4000, Fuel 475; Update 3/44 --> Endurance 4000, Fuel 475.

What is the correct figure? Endurance 4000 or 4750?


I have checked several sources on this one class and no question the designers of the game had real problems verifying info on this one..The greater range seems to have been AFTER some of the many modifications the classes went thru,(there were 4 separate Fubuki/Hubuki classes), and the greater range was at the practical cruising speed of 14 kts.

I checked the modifications themselves in JAPANESE WARSHIPS OF WWII by Anthony J Watts...sbn 7110 0215 0 (an Ian Allen book) and it details the mods pretty well, indicating Japanese DD's had a tendency to be top heavy in the mid thirties and had gun turrets removed in 1942-43, replacing them with later 25MM guns, generally.
Weight on these ships was put lower in the water, raising the weight from 1680 tons to over 2000, (reducing the speed from 38 kts to 34..)
Later successful classes were roughly based on the Fubuki's.
Image

cardas
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2016 1:01 pm

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by cardas »

(Mostly copy pasted from the Focus Pacific thread in the Scenario Design and Modding sub-forum but the same holds for the stock scenario)

Some of the small Dutch vessels in the stock scenario have some issues. They all have a manuever value of thirty which doesn't jive at all with their speed/size. The classes in question are Sm.Gouv.Mar. PC/AVP/AG, Med.Gouv.Mar.PC/AVP/AG, A class, Merbaboe, Alor, Merapi, Djember, Ardjoeno and Arend. In addition Merbaboe, Alor, Merapi, Djember and Ardjoeno definitely has incorrect fuel values/endurance. As also mentioned in that thread, the cruise speed seems punishingly low and I don't understand why.
To prevent the low post count filter from triggering I will write out the numbers with text, which does make it a bit harder to read.

Determining exactly what the maneuver value for the small boats should be is difficult, I don't see an entirely clear standard there. Take the Thronycroft HDML (which I think should be spelled Thornycroft?) as an example, it has a lower maneuver value than the Active PC despite being both smaller and faster, so it's a bit of a mystery. Potentially some kind of hull shape consideration comes into play, but that's not info that you can easily find about obscure ships. Anyway let's look at one of the Dutch vessels, the Ardjoeno class. From the info I've found it's slightly slower and slightly larger than the Thornycroft, but at the same time it is also faster and smaller than the Active. Who knows what maneuver value it should have? Not thirty at least.
Moving on to the fuel/cruise speed issue but lets keep the Ardjoeno as an example. From what I've found it's supposed to have a diesel engine. It has a very large fuel load of one hundred twenty (should probably be less) while only somehow making six hundred nm. So in other words it gets five endurance per fuel unit. The larger diesel powered Active gets twenty endurance for the same price while doing four knots more (six vs ten) with a fuel load of two hundred. The more similar sized Thornycroft gets roughly forty endurance per fuel unit at two knots more (six vs eight), although it only has fuel load of twelve. Only Dutch ships cruises at six knots as far as I know (I haven't checked it that throughoutly) and means they only make one hex per phase. Apart from that, only the Japanese midget subs and floating docks goes as slow or slower. At seven knots you should already get two hexes instead and even then only very few ships cruise at that speed, among them the Admiralty HDML along with some of the small landings ships (e.g. LCVP and the Japanese 1Xm Type landing crafts). That just underlines what kind of outliers these Dutch ships are at the moment.
cardas
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2016 1:01 pm

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by cardas »

Okay, with the "newbie" poster restriction gone here's a more thorough walkthrough of the issue. This is copied from what I've already sent to some modders. If the stock scenario is changed then you surely have your own models for setting the correct maneuver values, but I include my proposed values for modders. Hopefully that's okay, thought it would be a good idea in case there is no change to the stock scneario. The graphs use values based on DBB-C, but that doesn't really change the underlying issue. The problem stems from the stock scenarios.


Okay, to begin with I'd like to emphasize that
a) I'm as I said unsure as to exactly how the maneuver values were calculated for the small boats, they don't seem to follow a clear formula (or at least not one that I've identified). With larger ships its a bit more clear.
b) It's hard to find definite data for the Dutch boats when relying on the internet only, especially when it comes to how much fuel and endurance they have.
So ultimately my suggested values are no more than guesswork.

Now most ships have a maneuver value that is roughly dependant on the max speed divided by length. There is probably a bit more to it, but that gets you close enough for modding work in my opinion. I haven't really looked that deeply into the merchant ships because they are partly generic class and thus difficult to it's difficult to specify exact values. This is illustrated by these graphs (using maneuver values as found in DBB-C that I've plotted out, so not the stock scenario directly). Note that if I haven't found the waterline length for a ship then I've simply made a reasonable guess as to what it could be. Also this is obviously not exactly every ship in the database, but certainly enough in my mind.

Image
Image

The x-axis is 100 multiplied by the max speed divided by waterline length (200*(max speed/waterline length)) while the y-axis is the maneuver value. So we got a grouping of DDs, CLs, ships except DDs and CLs larger than 500 ton and finally boats (less than 500 ton). Clearly the DD, CL and ship groupings doesn't exactly follow a linear value but close enough I'd say. But then you get to boats and values are all over the place, obviously the Dutch vessels makes up the ones you find at 30 maneuver. It gets very difficult to find a clear reasoning behind these values.
The Fairmile B and the SC-453 110' are the first boats above 85, yet there are several boats that have better max speed/length values that are way below that. The Thornycroft and Admiralty HDML are examples of this. Some of the lower values are from the landing crafts however, and it could reasonably be that they follow a different calculation model from the other boats. Still, it's a mystery to me. I've chosen a linear increase that would put most boats around 70 (slow) to 95 (fast) maneuver. Anything below 70 uses the same linear calculation as generic ships. You could make an compelling argument for going with some other function, but this gives you something to start with at least.

Or to visualize this, here you have a plot of how the maneuver value would be assigned according the calculated value. The boats plotted out in this chart is restricted to the MTB, HDML, PT, SC, ML and MGB classes. So the affected Dutch ships aren't included as they are of the AMc and PG/AVP/AG classes. It also cuts out the landing crafts which could very well be a special case. The three boats below 55 maneuver here is the Thronycroft HDML (should be Thornycroft?), Admiralty HDML and finally the P1 Mot. Launch. I think these should also have their maneuver bumped up, but they aren't as "wrong".
Image

Anyway, this is the data I used for length and the suggestions I've got. I haven't got any good fuel/endurance data, it's simply made up so your guess is as good as mine.

Code: Select all

 Length (m) - cruise speed - fuel - endurance - maneuver - ship name
 56         - 8            - 180  - 3070      - 43       - Sm.Gouv.Mar. (Bellatrix)
 59,75      - 8            - 235  - 3550      - 40       - Med.Gouv.Mar. (Fomalhaut)
 41,9       - 8            - 30   - 1200      - 67       - A class
 22,25      - 8            - 15   - 625       - 71       - Merbaboe
 31         - 10           - 33   - 1300      - 71       - Alor
 34         - 10           - 43   - 1700      - 70       - Djember
 26,65      - 12           - 13   - 600       - 73       - Ardjoeno
 70,5       - 12           - 275  - 4040      - 51       - Arend
 
There is an endurance value of 10 knots/1400 nm for the Arend on navypedia, but I don't fully trust navypedia when it comes to endurance values so I made up my own. To put the 1400 nm at 10 knots fuel efficiency value in perspective that'd be almost twice as bad as, say, the large C1 cargo ship at 14 knots cruise speed. The generic Coastal Cargo class gets 4000 endurance for 221 fuel as another comparison point (1050 ton and 8 knots cruise speed). You also have a 12 knot max speed on Arend while navypedia claims its 18 so I don't know what's up with that.
Merapi is, from what I can tell, a ship of the Merbaboe class and if that's correct then it shouldn't be a separate class. DBB-C has replaced it with the coastal minesweeper class Soemenep. This is my value for that class.
38 - 7 - 45 - 1500 - 53 - Soemenep


----------------------------------------------

This is for issues unrelated to the maneuver values.

The SC-453 110' and the Admirable (both USN ships) stand out quite a bit due to their very low fuel consumption. The SC-453 gets ~83,3 nm/fuel while the Admirable gets ~60,7 nm/fuel. That's very high, especially considering their size. Even small (20 ton) ships tops out at around 50 nm/fuel of the ships I've looked at.
The Admiralen Batch I has 300 fuel and the Admiralen Batch II has 330 while both get identical endurance, I'd boost the endurance on the Batch II slightly.


There are also some armament issues with the Dutch ships. Just as with most other things it's not easy to find good info about it on the net so take everything I say with a big grain of salt.

I believe many of the 7,5 cm guns on the Dutch ships weren't DP capable, being mostly old WW1 era guns/mounts (7,5 cm/40 No.3 from Krupp and later Bofors). It might even be so that only the ones on the Admiralen destroyers, Van Oranje and perhaps Soerabaja were DP guns (7,5 cm/55 No.7 to No.9). Some of the ships with the 7,5 cm/40 might have received British 12 pdrs later.
When it comes to the small and medium Gouvernmentmarine ships I'd also say they are over-armed. Many seems to either have had two ancient 3,7 cm guns (3,7 cm/20 Gericke or Hotchkiss revolver guns maybe? probably not AA/DP capable) or a single 7,5 cm/40 gun and lacking any AA defence at all (even a machine gun).
The Admiralen class is also wrong. At the moment both batches has a 12 cm twin mount forward and a 12 cm twin mount aft, while in reality it should be two single mounts forward and two single mounts aft. The other weapons is also wrong, essentially the Batch I should have the weapons that Batch II has and vice-versa. The 7,5 cm gun is, from what I've found, a 7,5 cm/55 DP (Bofors or Siderius).
Lastly from the original plans it does look like the Batch I would only have had four MGs, two singles to the right and two to the left (not center, although that's a minor point). The Batch II however doesn't have two twin 40 mm Bofors, it's four singles (two left, two right, not center) and they are probably 2 pdrs rather than the Bofors. Same as with the Batch I the 12,7 mm MGs on the Batch II are also singles and with two to the left, two to the right (not center, but again, a minor issue).

Edit:
Another minor thing, the plans for the P17 motor launch it with 20 mm guns (1 forward, 1 aft). Actually getting them in the DEI might have proven difficult.

Small potential armament changes, but I'm unsure about them.
Alor: 2 x 37 mm, 2 x 7,7 mm
Merbaboe: 2 x 7,7 mm
Djember: 1 x 12,7 mm
Ardjoeno: 2 x 7,7 mm
Soemenemp: 2 x 12,7 mm
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”