Two More CVs, Four Battleships

[Muzzy]

Interesting that only the four Kongo class BB's were capable of effectively screening CV's. Sheds  bit of extra light on Japanese fleet dispositions at Midway and the like.

[Guppy35]

I clocked our current TF speed at approx. 33 MPH or 28.7 knots. That's cruising speed (but for game purposes, only speed - may as well be top).

Bismark didn't have a CV to escort - however, in the MA, she might.

That leaves (give a couple knots):

German

Scharnhorst class - 31 knots

Bismark class - 30 knots

U.S.

North Carolina class - 28 knots

South Dakota class - 27.8 knots (erg, maybe)

Iowa class - 33 knots

I.J.N.

Kongo class - 30 knots

Nagato class - 26.5 knots (erg, make the cV zig zag more)

Yamato class - 27 knots (even it lagged)

R.N.

King George V - 28 knots

(It does limit selection.)

A good reason to have escort carriers and the older BBs that specialized in supporting the ground pounders.  A bit easier for the shore batteries to do thier work in defending too.  Separate deep water task forces with the fast BBs and big CVs then would be out where it would be carrier clashes and big gun duels

Yeah it's wishful thinking, but it is a wish list

[Arlo]

Yeah it's wishful thinking, but it is a wish list

Not a bad one, imo. It would take a great deal of interest and support from the community (that old Pyro post alluded to such).

[Arlo]

Lets compare the guns. First with the current cruiser 8 in gun we have in game:



http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_8-55_mk12-15.htm

The 16" guns on the N. Carolina ans S. Dakota classes



http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-45_mk6.htm

The 16" guns on the Iowa class



http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm

The 16" Guns of the Nagato class



http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_161-45_3ns.htm

The 18.1" guns of the Yamato class



http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_18-45_t94.htm

The 15" guns of the HMS Hood



http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_15-42_mk1.htm

The 14" guns of the HMS King George V



http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_14-45_mk7.htm

The '15"' guns of the Bismark



http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_15-52_skc34_pics.htm

[Arlo]

If .... we were to campaign for *1* CV and *2* BBs (for a start) .... I think a Pacific focus of USN vs IJN would make the most sense.

The IJN CV should be the Shokaku class, in my opinion. They took part in several key battles (from Pearl Harbor to 'Operation A-Go').

~~~~~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Sh%C5%8Dkaku
The Shōkaku-class carriers were part of the same program that also included the Yamato-class battleships. No longer restricted by the provisions of the Washington Naval Treaty, which expired in December 1936, the Imperial Japanese Navy was free to incorporate all those features they deemed most desirable in an aircraft carrier, namely high speed, a long radius of action, heavy protection and a large aircraft capacity. Shōkaku was laid down at Yokosuka Dockyard on 12 December 1937, launched on 1 June 1939, and commissioned on 8 August 1941.

With an efficient modern design, a displacement of about 32,000 long tons (33,000 t), and a top speed of 34 kn (63 km/h; 39 mph), Shōkaku could carry 70–80 aircraft. Her enhanced protection compared favorably to that of contemporary Allied aircraft carriers and enabled Shōkaku to survive serious damage during the battles of the Coral Sea and Santa Cruz.
~~~~~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Sh%C5%8Dkaku

So, what would better serve the AH community if only one USN and one IJN BB could be modeled? Would modeling the giants like the Iowa and Yamato bring more interest to ocean surface fights (perhaps paving the way for more ship models) or should the older and slower BBs like the South Dakota and Nagato be modeled first and have their own dedicated TFs?

[Guppy35]

Washington and Nagato. Lots of history with both.  Not as much name recognition but more relevant and equal within the game environment in my opinion

[Arlo]

North Carolina and Nagato classes. That would make separate TFs a necessity but that could make things just as interesting. What do you think of rotational TF spawning in the MA?

[Bastid]

The IJN may kiss my grits.

Mel.

[Arlo]

Which means you'd really enjoy sinking the Nagato? Gotta have a Nagato to sink a Nagato.

[Guppy35]

North Carolina and Nagato classes. That would make separate TFs a necessity but that could make things just as interesting. What do you think of rotational TF spawning in the MA?

Maybe it means a third option.

-A CVE, slow battleships, Destroyer, Destroyer escort PT boat Task Group for off shore invasion support
-A fast CV Task Group for deep water with Cruisers and Destroyers as escort.  This would be more of the carrier airwar bit like Midway, etc
-A no CV task group with battleships, cruisers and destroyers for surface action.  This give you Iron Bottom Sound, Surigo Straights etc.

Limit the big carriers to deep water and the CVEs to shoreline.  Then allow the surface group to wander wherever it wants knowing that airpower could easily blow it to pieces while unopposed it could destroy a carrier task group with relative ease

[Arlo]

So the ability to close within x miles of the shore (and top speed) will mark the difference between the CV and the CVE. Capacity won't be a factor under current modeling (and likely won't be in future modeling since its a a play/fun limitation - besides, CVEs will get more players upping to take bases in the MA). There's been discussion of separate types of Task Groups before. To accomplish this vision with the least amount of modeling but with distinctly different U.S. and Japanese forces we would have (IMO):

A U.S. CV group (Essex class CV, Pittsburgh class CA , Fletcher class DDs) [our current task group]

A Japanese CV group (Shokaku class CV, Myoko class CA, Akizuki class DDs)

A U.S. CVE group ( North Carolina class BB, CVE class [or converted oiler] to be determined, Fletcher class DDs, landable craft - and PTs?)

A Japanese CVE group (Nagato class BB, Hosho 'class' CV [closest ting IJN had to a CVE], Akizuki class DD, landable craft - and PTs?)

A U.S. BB group (Iowa class BB, Pittsburgh class CA, Fletcher class DDs)

A Japanese BB group (Yamato class BB, Myoko class CA, Akizuki class DDs)

That would be nine models (eight if we ignore the DDs but more if we shoot for uniquely Japanese replacements for the landable vehicles and PTs):

However - Japanese landable vehicles and 'PTs':

Japanese type 2 Ka-Mi (Amphibious tank - 37mm)

Japanese Daihatsu-class landing craft

The closest thing I've found to a 'Japanese PT boat' is the Shin'yo class suicide motorboat. The Japanese had 'Patrol boats' armed with AA guns and depth charges.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This would be quite an undertaking compared to modeling 2 BBs and one CV (but could be the end result if the community showed more interest in the new ships modeled and it, dare-say, attracted players interested in WWII ship v ship stuff).

P.S. I think it would pretty much require rotational (and likely randomized) spawning of Task Group type/nationality in the MA. I suggest randomized because that might possibly cut down the intentional risking/sinking of groups because a player's preferred group is next in the rotation.

[Volron]

Mogami-class running it's 15 6" guns.   Though it would likely be equipped with the 10 8" setup as beginning in 1939, that is when they starting to switch to 8".  Still, would be a sight to see the Mogami with 15 6" guns.


Hmmm, would be interesting.  Yamato vs Iowa.  HiTech won't implement the range finding equipment that the Iowa's had during the war, so it'll fall to the skill of the gunners.  I just hope they will allow players to use each of the fire control tower on the ships.

[Karnak]

I'd prefer the Japanese CA to be Takao class rather than Myoko class.  More distinctive look.

[Arlo]

The Takao also had 8 24" torpedo tubes as well as her 10 8" guns (some of which had limited firing arcs).

[Arlo]

But a Mogami class cruiser is still pretty distinctive.



(It also has the torpedo tubes).