Anyone interested in some intellectual exercise?

I use this tactic also and it is effective. I second your comment Steve.

 

The exact configuration of our escorts I will leave to our esteemed experts on the matter. I do however echo our esteemed ambassador to the European powers in his desire to keep the overall number of ship class's devoted to escort duty to the lowest possible number so as to promote standarization to the greatest level.

I am in full agreement that all current Destroyer/Escorts under construction are completed.

I also agree that we should make any needed changes now
while they are under construction.

 

I always look forward to posts by our Honorable representative to Italy and liason to our Axis partners.
Always good data and reasoned suggestions.

I have used the historical main battery for these types. I think Carronade answered correctly when he stated;

I have no problem decreasing the number of Types if that's where our discussions lead us.

I was using Type A as the existing and building Types of units optimized for surface combat. I had listed the Akitsuki's as Type B's (Their historical designation) because they are a new class coming into service. Note I have not yet posted the proposed Type B specs. (Wanted to reply to your posts first) If we are using them as AA escorts (their optimal role as built) for high value units such as our fleet carriers C & C functions can be taken care of by other, larger escorts such as cruisers and they really don't need a leader. I would like to incorporate additional space for a CIC, especially once we start mounting electronic sensors such as radar.

Carronade wrote:

I second your suggestion, I am in agreement.

Carronade wrote:

I was looking at the current production Yugumo's as Type A's optimized for surface actions. I had planned to incorporate production optimization features as introduced in the Ukuru class escorts into the Yugumo production plan, (simplified, modular and pre-fab construction). Additional units would be built as Type B1 or Type C (General purpose). I took your earlier suggestions and ran with them:

And your suggestions as to an AA escort type, as you called it, a very tight ship.

For the Type C, General Purpose (Fletcher equivilent) we have a Yugumo hull and machinery, gun placement and most of the upper works. Retain the 3 x 5"/40 turrets. (6 tubes vs 5 for the Fletcher). 1 x Type 94 gun director. Move the forward torpedo mounting and reloads aft to a position between where the historical fore and aft mountings were located. We go with a quintuple mount like was installed on the Shimakaze class, with reloads (Fletcher had 2 x quintuple mounts) so we have parity there, and save some weight (37038lbs or 18 1/2 tons in torpedoes alone not counting the quadruple mounts weight). We use the same med/light AA fit as already specified for the Type A Yugumo. We have increased deck space and weight carrying ability to up the ASW fit/additional depth charges carried and increase accomidations as TOS mentioned. We also have a lot of spare displacement to carry the newest and greatest electronics fit.

The Type B1 would again be based upon a Yugumo hull, machinery and upper works. Mount 4 x 3.9" twins, two fore and two aft. The A, X and Y mounts would be Akizuki types, the B position would be a shielded mount as on the Oyodo class light cruiser (Thanks to you and TOS for this new found information) to minimize top weight we will gain from an additional Type 94 director aft (this is also partially offset by the 3.9" guns and their mountings being lighter than the 5"40). We lose the rear quadruple torpedo mount and reloads. Minimal ASW fit 18 depth charges and one stern rack/chute. We still have weight to go to 12 40mm mounts (6 x 2, we lose the B position 40mm mount to the 3.9" mount) and ten 20 mm mounts. We still have space and weight we can use to fit radars and their associated personnel and equipment when they become available. I still prefer the Akizuki class, but this is a cheaper, though not a great deal less capable AA ship we can build and deploy.

I think you meant Asashio instead of Arashio, if I am incorrect please forgive me, but I will comment as if this were the case. The Arashio was the 4th ship of the Asashio class and I am not aware of any mods/changes that made it a distinct class/sub class, but am ready to learn if you have some additional info. Why go with these vs the newer Kagero/Yugumo types? As I had earlier stated I classified all existing ships optimized for surface warfare as Type A and used the B Type for AA destroyers like the Akizuki.

As Carronade pointed out the Harusame and Shiratsuya classes had structural and topweight problems. Not really interested in repeating them.

Gotta go will try and finish replying to your post later.

 

I've been doing a little research in our ordnance files, which for some peculiar reason are called navweaps. Our 5" 50 destroyer guns come in 32-ton twin mounts or 18-ton singles. I was a bit surprised to find that the enclosed destroyer-type 3.9" 65 weighs in at 38 tons, so my idea from a few pages back about substituting it in a Yugumo hull might be trickier than I thought - though the game system seems to be pretty forgiving. These were both base-ring mounts fed from handling rooms below the mount, so the 3.9" should be basically compatible with the Yugumo design.

Most 5" 40 twin mounts weigh around 24 tons, the fully enclosed A1 mod 3 used on the Yamato is 28, so that might be another option. The 50 caliber gun has advantages for surface action, but our opponents use 5" 38s and 4.7" 45s, so the 5" 40 would not be outclassed. The 5" 40 is a pedestal mount, so there would have to be some rearrangement of ammunition handling arrangements.

The US Navy does not consider there to be much difference in firepower between three twin mounts and five singles; that's why most of their destroyers use the latter. The main advantage of twins is to conserve centerline space for other weapons or equipment.

Not sure what is meant by "Move the forward torpedo mounting and reloads aft to a position between where the historical fore and aft mountings were located." The arrangement, fore to aft, was - forward funnel - forward torpedo mount - aft funnel, with reload torpedos for forward mount on each side - aft torpedo mount - aft superstructure, including reloads for aft tubes. I don't object to quintuple mounts, but I would say that four 24" Long Lances already gives us more than parity with five 21".

I'll confess to a preference for simplicity, and I'm not even the one who has to put all this into the computer so if we have a basically suitable design, I'd tend to make only the essential changes.

Speaking of which I too "still prefer the Akizuki class" even though "this is a cheaper, though not a great deal less capable AA ship we can build and deploy."

As Carronade pointed out the Harusame and Shiratsuya classes had structural and topweight problems.

As built; as far as I know they were satisfactory once reconfigured. If we want to go the "war emergency" route, I would basically repeat the Shiratsuyu design, including torpedo reloads unless the weight gets really crirtical, since we are reducing the surface gunfire capability. As TOS suggested, twin 5" 40s fore and aft, we might even squeeze in a third one in place of the single 5" 50 since they're a bit lighter, but we're probably better off maximizing the 40mm battery. Basically we have a choice between a four- or six-gun destroyer, otherwise mostly similar.

And your suggestions as to an AA escort type, as you called it, a very tight ship.

If we try to build it on an existing hull like an Etorofu; this might be one case where we need to design something from scratch. it might be worth looking at a common hull, though. The AA version could have two or three pedestal-mount 3.9s or 5" 40s, a Type 94, a couple of twin 40mm, few depth charges, not much else. The ASW version would switch the guns to 4.7s, lose the Type 94, add depth charges, throwers, AS mortars, etc. and maybe a few more automatic weapons. This could be our top-of-the-line ASW escort, faster and more powerful than the average kaibokan.

 

Asashio and Arashio are sister ships part of ten destroyers of the 1934 replenishment programme (hull numbers 75 to 84) but you're right that the class is named after the former, my mistake, I used the earlier class insted of Kagero/Yugumo because I was advocating stopping the series in favour of a more economical type. AFAIK the improved 1937 replenishment programme ships (Kagero) and the 3 additional ships from the 1939 progamme (Arashi) have just entered service at the time of writing and the first of the slightly larger Yugumo still has to be delivered while many of her sisters have yet to be laid down so while the "state of the art" for type A destroyers is Yugumo I preferred to refer to the earlier in service class.

From my sources the redesigned Harusame had solved the stability problems at the cost of one triple torpedo mount and 3 knots of speed over the original design, I am sacrificing one gun and the torpedo reloads compared to the historical ship but keeping 2x4 tubes as our current doctrine specifies an 8 tube salvo as the ideal number to guarantee a hit.
In believe we need an "expendable" design to replace losses as the 27 knots Matsu are marginal as fleet destroyers, especially for a fast carrier force, so something less expensive than Yugumo is required if we want numbers.

According to my data the twin 100/65 turret installation is actually larger than the twin 127/50, the early 127/50 turrets had only 50 degrees elevation, the type B of the last "special" group could elevate to 70 degrees but this dropped back to 55 degrees in Asashio to eventually go back to 75 degrees on Yugumo, but overall the AA performance remained poor so it probably can't be turned into a good DP gun. If we could have a twin 100/65 turret as a plug in replacement for the 127/50 it would be great, but I fear we are stuck with either the 127/40 or the 100/65 in open mounts if we want to stay within the original weight so as to leave some margin for electronics and light AA.

 

one way to reducethe drag is on supply is to not occupy every island. It is a risk, because it leaves islands open, but since we cannt defend everything we should just defend key bases. If we lose air superiority it wont matter anyway. Another idea, I think was discussed is to have a transport commission to coordinate convoys, escorts and such so we dont end up wasting empty ships.

 

We have two problems here,
1.) When I was looking at my notes for figuring other possible configurations, I confused my data for the 5"/40 twin mount Mod 3 and the 3.9"/60 data. I take terrible hand written notes, that's why I put so much data in spreadsheets.
2.) When I was typing my reply about the Type C (General Purpose) destroyer, I wrote:

I should have specified change to the 5"/40 twin mount instead of retain the 5"/40 twin mount. I meant to change from the 5"/50 that came on the original Yugumo's. The different turret weights are irrelevant here, but I wanted to use the better DP gun. The 5"/40 was what I intended to be mounted on these destroyers because of the 5"/50's mediocre AA performance. My bust. My mistake I stand corrected.
Hey, at least ya'll keep me honest!

When doing the initial research, I had wondered about the weight issue also because the individual guns are heavier. 5"/50 4.18t per gun 3.9"/60 3.36t per gun. Since only one weight is given for the 3.9" mount I have assumed, based upon the weight it was the turret type not the shielded type found on Oyodo. I assumed that the difference in weight was in the amount of protection provided for the mount (thickness of the steel). It was/is noted (and mentioned on the NavWeapons site) that the mounts as they originally appeared on the Hatsuharu and Shiratsuyu class, had to be strengthened.

This is not unique to Japanese turrets. Have you ever noticed that the lower turrets on a Fletcher are different from the superfiring ones? The lower mounts are heavier and have additional bracing because of damage caused and deformation of the gun house when the upper mount was fired. Notice the difference in the roof angles, that is how to differentiate them externally:

View attachment 27227
Here's a sketch of the lower turret.
View attachment 27228

Here's a sketch of the upper turret.
The difference in the bracing increased the weight of the shield from 4860' to either 5630 for the Mk 25 and 6440 for the Mk 26 (and thusly the overall mount weight). If you look at the 5"/38 twins mounted on US warships the same mount but with 2.5" armor as mounted on some BB's weighed 169,000lbs down to 95,800lbs for the .125" protected type (example weights for 5"38 twin mounts, 2.5"-169,000lbs,2.0"-153,000lbs, 1.25"-134,000lbs, .5"-105,600lbs, .25"-98,000lbs and ,125"-95,800lbs) Anyway, this is one possible explaination for the weight difference.
It should not, however prevent us from being able to do the AA mod. Three 5"/50 turrets as installed weigh 96 tons (3 x 32t), four 3.9"/60's would max out at 152 tons (4 x 38t, though we know one turret, the Oyodo type in the B position, should weigh a good deal less). We were deleteing four torpedoes and four reloads for a total of 49384lbs/24.60 tons, let's delete all eight plus the reloads (weight savings of 49.2 tons) and the two mounts. 152t-96t=56t-49.2=6.8 tons is all we are short plus the weight of the director). I need to see if I can find out the mount weights for the torpedo tubes.

We can look at this option also.

I have a concept saved in paint, I'll post it up once I get a chance, to show what I'm talking about.

From Lt. Wiki on the Shiratsuyu class.

The above quotation made me think despite the modifications to the Hatsuharu class, modifications that were incorporated into the follow on Shiratsuyu class, to increase structural strength and to reduce topweight, topweight must still have been critically close. Why else go to the extremes of trying to decrease the torpedo mounts shielding weight? It couldn't have saved a great deal of weight.

Roger that sir, when I get caught up, we'll see what we can put together.

 

Good points! Thank you for the clarification.

Again, very good points. I now see the underlying thinking your proposal was based upon and it makes sense to me. Though I am not sure that the Hatsuharu/Shiratsuyu's stability problems have been fully resolved, more likely minimized to an acceptable level.

We're still working on this, (see my last reply to Carronade). I think your overall evaluation is correct, we just need to see what we can get done with the guns you mentioned. BTW, you don't have a good weight for the 3.9"/60 open backed mount as you earlier pointed out was mounted on the Oyodo?

 

O.K. Gents, we've had some good discussion on the first part of the Destroyer and Escort proposal. Let's continue. First, rather than force you to go back through the last several pages of posts, I'll repost my original proposal and the listing of what I consider "Class A" Destroyers. Then I will re-post TOS's alternate classification proposal:

Building Plan 031041-Destroyers, Destroyer Escorts, Escorts and small Escort Vessels

1. Destroyers & Escorts:
Type A-major fleet unit, optimized for surface actions. CL used as leader for these units.
Type B-major fleet unit optimized for AA escort work with high value ships. No leader type required for these units, C&C provided by TF.
Type C-general purpose destroyer. Adequate surface, AA and ASW weapons fit, but not optimized for any one area. Sufficient speed to operate with fleet units. Use as leader for Type D units.
Type D-Destroyer Escort (Lg) General purpose armament but of smaller size and lesser speed, than Type C, primarily for fast convoy/escort work. Use as leader for Type E/G units.
Type E-Destroyer escort (Sm). General purpose armament but of smaller size and lesser speed, than Type D, primarily for general convoy/escort work. Use as leader for Type G units.
Type F-Historical Type C/D escorts. Less capable versions of the Type E to be built as an emergency measure. Recommend continued design work, but do not produce at present. 20,000 man hours.
Type G-Escort. Smaller and with less speed than destroyer escort, weapons fit optimized towards ASW warfare. Use as leader for Type H units.
Type H-ASW Patrol craft. Small type optimized for ASW warfare, but with very limited range, speed, surface and AA capability.
​

Type A:
Fubuki class-nine units (one stricken after collision in 1934)
Displacement (std): 2080 t
Length: 388’ 6”
Beam: 34’ 1”
Speed: 38 knts
Speed (cruise): 14 knts
Range: 5000 nmi
Armament:------------------- Suggested Modifications
6 x Type 3 5”/50 (3 x 2)----- UpgradeType A turrets to Type B
22 x Type 96 25mm--------- 10 x 40mm bofors (5 x 2)
10 x 13mm Type 93 AA -----10 x 20mm oerlikons
9 x 24” Torpedo tubes (3 x 3) plus reload
18 x Depth Charges--------- 36 x Depth Charges (add 4 x Type 94 projectors)
Ayanami sub-class (Fubuki II)-Ten units
Displacement (std): 2080 t
Length: 388’ 6”
Beam: 34’ 1”
Speed: 38 knts
Speed (cruise): 14 knts
Range: 5000 nmi
Armament:------------------- Suggested Modifications
6 x Type 3 5”/50 (3 x 2)----- None. Units built with Type B turrets
28 x Type 96 25mm--------- 10 x 40mm bofors (5 x 2)
10 x 13mm Type 93 AA----- 10 x 20mm oerlikons
9 x 24” Torpedo tubes (3 x 3) plus reload
18 x Depth Charges--------- 36 x Depth Charges (add 4 x Type 94 projectors)
Akatsuki sub-class (Fubuki III)- four units
Displacement (std): 2080 t
Length: 388’ 6”
Beam: 34’ 1”
Speed: 38 knts
Speed (cruise): 14 knts
Range: 5000 nmi
Armament:-------------------- Suggested Modifications
6 x Type 3 5”/50 (3 x 2)------ Upgrade Type A turrets to Type B
28 x Type 96 25mm---------- 10 x 40mm bofors (5 x 2)
10 x 13mm Type 93 AA------ 10 x 20mm oerlikons
9 x 24” Torpedo tubes (3 x 3) plus reload
18 x Depth Charges---------- 36 x Depth Charges (add 4 x Type 94 projectors)
Hatsuhara class- six units
Displacement (std): 1831 t
Length: 359’
Beam: 32’ 10”
Speed: 36 knts
Speed (cruise): 14 knts
Range: 4000 nmi
Armament:------------------- Suggested Modifications
5 x Type 3 5”/50 (2 x 2-1 x 1)
-------------------------------5 x 40mm bofors (2 x 2-1 x 1)
-------------------------------6 x 20mm oerlikons
9 x 24” Torpedo tubes (3 x 3) plus reload
18 x Depth Charges
(as built due to Washington Naval Treaty limitations these ships were lighter, less stable and top heavy. This limits us to the amount of upgrading we can do).
Shiratsuyu class- Ten units (improved Hatsuharu’s)
Displacement (std): 1712 t
Length: 352’ 8”
Beam: 32’ 6”
Speed: 34 knts
Speed (cruise): 14 knts
Range: 4000 nmi
Armament:----------------- Suggested Modifications
5 x Type 3 5”/50 (2 x 2-1 x 1)
----------------------------5 x 40mm bofors (2 x 2-1 x 1)
----------------------------6 x 20mm oerlikons
8 x 24” Torpedo tubes (2 x 4) plus reload
16 x Depth Charges-------18 x Depth Charges
Asashio class- Ten units (1[SUP]st[/SUP] post-WNT class)
Displacement (std): 2408 t
Length: 388’ 1”
Beam: 33’ 10”
Speed: 35 knts
Speed (cruise): 10 knts
Range: 5700 nmi
Armament:-------------------- Suggested Modifications
6 x Type 3 5”/50 (3 x 2)
28 x Type 96 25mm---------- 10 x 40mm bofors (5 x 2)
10 x 13mm Type 93 AA------10 x 20mm oerlikons
8 x 24” Torpedo tubes (2 x 4) plus reload
36 x Depth Charges---------- 36 x Depth Charges (add 4 x Type 94 projectors)
Kagero class- Nineteen units
Displacement (std): 2032 t
Length: 388’ 9”
Beam: 35’ 5”
Speed: 35.5 knts
Speed (cruise): 18 knts
Range: 5000 nmi
Armament:------------------Suggested Modifications
6 x Type 3 5”/50 (3 x 2)
27 x Type 96 25mm--------10 x 40mm bofors (5 x 2)
4 x 13mm Type 93 AA-----10 x 20mm oerlikons
8 x 24” Torpedo tubes (2 x 4) plus reload
18 x Depth Charges--------36 x Depth Charges (add 4 x Type 94 projectors)
Shimakaze class- One unit building
This unit was laid down on 08 August 1941, so has been building for about two months as we speak. I recommend we complete the build, but at present build no more. I also recommend that we build with the modified AA fit.
Displacement (std): 2610 t
Length: 424’ 10”
Beam: 36’ 9”
Speed: 39 knts
Speed (cruise): 18 knts
Range: 6000 nmi
Armament: Suggested
6 x Type 3 5”/50 (3 x 2)
10 x 40mm bofors (5 x 2)
10 x 20mm oerlikons
15 x 24” Torpedo tubes (3 x 5)
36 x Depth Charges
4 x Type 94 projectors
Yugumo class-(improved Kagero’s)
We have six units nearing completion (Yugumo, Makigumo, Kazagumo, Naganami, Makinami, Takanami) and two additional units scheduled to be laid down (Kiyonami 15 October ’41 and Onami 15 November ’41) in the near future. I recommend we complete those building, but build no more at this time. Delay the two preparing to build and complete them to a modified design incorporating, simplification, modular and prefabricated construction, and an alternate weapons fit.
Displacement (std): 2077 t
Length: 390’ 6”
Beam: 35’ 5”
Speed: 35.5 knts
Speed (cruise): 18 knts
Range: 5000 nmi
Armament: Suggested
6 x Type 3 5”/50 (3 x 2)
10 x 40mm bofors (5 x 2)
10 x 20mm oerlikons
8 x 24” Torpedo tubes (2 x 4) plus reload
36 x Depth Charges
4 x Type 94 projectors

Note: All ships have their current configuration listed and to the right the proposed upgrades in their armaments fit. The six Yugumo's now building, I propose to complete with the updated weapons fit. I also propose that we immediately begin design changes to simplify, modularize and incorporate pre-fabrication to decrease build time on future Yugumo's. All ships will be upgraded to the new fit when operational requirements allow. Electronics fits, radar, radio direction finding and improved sonar fits will be done as the new units become available and as yard time and operational tempo permits. I do not recommend building any additional "Type A" destroyers at this time.

 

Alternate Proposal by the Honorable Ambassador to our Axis partners in Europe, Germany, Italy and Vichy France.

8 types of escorts are too much I suggest the following mix:
Typa A: (2700t) AA fleet destroyers, 4 twin 100mm DP mounts, one 4 tube torperdo mount, 35 knots (basically the Akitsuki), leaders for this class give up one twin mount and torpedo reloads in favour of better accomodation
Type B: (2100t) Torpedo fleet destroyers, complete those on order but no more, 2 twin 5/50", mounts two 4 tube torperdo mount, 35 knots (basically the Arashio after mod), leaders for this class give up torpedo reloads in favour of better accomodation.
Emergency fleet destroyers: (1700t), 2 twin 5"/40 DP mounts two four tube torpedo mounts with no reloads, 34 knots (a simplified Harusame), leaders for this class give up torpedo reloads in favour of better accomodation
Destroyer escorts: (1250t) (3 5" DP mounts one four tube torpedo mount with no reloads, 25 knots (historical Matsu), leaders sacrifice the torpedoes.
Escorts: (750t) 2 single 4" DP, 17 knots (basically the historical Type D escort), no leaders
Sub chasers: (400t) 1 single 4", 16 knots (we may be able to build and crew 3 of these instead of two Type D escorts but they need to operate in pairs as one is outgunned by a US fleet sub.

Refitted "specials" will resemble the Type B, it would be very nice to have a true DP to replace one for one the guns on the "specials", can the 3.9 (unlikely as the mounts on Akitsuki are larger) or the 4.7/40 be adapted to the existing "turrets", with decent traverse/elevation speed and true high angle reloading?.

I would love to have some of the experimental historical Type C fleet destroyers (Shimakaze); 2 twin 5"/50 (3 before refit), 3 5 tube torpedo mounts, 39 knots, but the type is still untried, A couple of flottillas of them could be built as a sop to the battleline faction when we pull out the torpedoes from the heavy cruisers in favor of more AA during refits, a 15 tube long lance salvo is scary but as a standard type they are way too expensive.

I have based the design on currenly existing weapons, the "torpedo" DDs sacrifice from the start the third twin mount in favor of more AA.

 

Type B Destroyers:

Akizuki class-We have four building and a 5th scheduled to be laid down in December.
Akizuki, launched 2 July 1941--Teruzuki, scheduled to launch 21 November 1941--Suzutsuki, laid down 15 March 1941--Hatsuzuki, laid down 25 July 1941.

I propose that we delay construction on the next unit until modifications can be made to streamline and simplify construction. We will more than recoup the delay time with the shorter production time, resources and manhours required. (Historical Michizuki sub-class) As soon as the design changes can be made I propose we schedule these to build up to a minimum of 12 ships. Two per each Fleet Carrier and build additional units at a minimum of two per additional carrier laid down. All building ships to be completed with the enhanced 40mm/20mm AA fit.

As a fall back in case of a lack of shipyard construction capacity or pressing operational needs, I suggest design studies be done on a supplemental, Type B.

--Type XB1-Production enhanced Yugumo hull with 4 x twin 3.9" main battery (8 tubes) and 2 x Type 94 Directors, no torpedo tubes, 40mm/20mm light AA fit, and minimum acceptable ASW fit.

--Type XB2-Production enhanced Yugumo hull with 4 x twin 5"/40 main battery (8 tubes), 2 x Type 94 Directors, 1 x quad mount torpedo tubes w/reloads, 40mm/20mm light AA fit, and minimum acceptable ASW fit.

Type C destroyers: (General Purpose) Production enhanced Yugumo hull with 3 x twin 3.9" main battery (6 tubes), 1 x Type 94 Director, 1 x quintuple mount torpedo tubes w/reloads, 40mm/20mm light AA fit, and moderate ASW fit.

I believe all new Fleet Destroyer production should be this Type. Now as good as the Akitzuki's for AA work, but acceptable capability. Not as strong a Torpedo/surface action fit, but still dangerous and capable. With an ASW fit good enough to get the job done when more capable ASW types are not available. Fully able to work with the battle fleet or as an escort when required.

 

Type D-Destroyer Escort (Lg) General purpose armament but of smaller size and lesser speed, than Type C, primarily for fast convoy/escort work. Use as leader for Type E/G units.

For the initial set of these I propose we use the 36 ships we currently have in service, of the Minekaze, Kamikaze and Mutsuki destroyer classes.

Minekaze, Kamikaze and Mutsuki class:
Displacement (std): 1367t/1400t/1315t (Minekaze/Kamikaze/Mutsuki)
Length: 337'
Beam: 30'
Speed: 39/37.25-36.88/37.25 knts
Speed (cruise): 14 knts
Range: 3600 nmi
Armament:------------------Suggested Modifications
4 x Type 3 4.7/45 (4 x 1)--2 x Type 3 4.7/45 2 x 1
16 x Type 96 25mm--------12 x 40mm bofors (6 x 2)
---------------------------8 x 20mm oerlikons
6 (3x2/3x2/2x3) x 24” Torpedo tubes
18 x Depth Charges--------120 x Depth Charges (2 x depth charge racks and 6 x Type 94 projectors)

Note: The conversions of these ships can be made relatively rapidly. Type 93 Mod 3 Sonar would be mounted. I propose more numerous 40mm mounts to make up for the 4.7/45 being a single-purpose mount.

If we need additional units in this class I suggest we build the following historical type, preferably the Tachibana's because they are optimized for easier/quicker production. These ships were historically classified as Type-D and Modified Type-D destroyers. They had a top speed of only 27 knts and really were inadequately armed for any type of fleet action. While classified as destroyers they were actually closer to destroyer escorts and that is why I've chosen to designate them as such.


Matsu/Tachibana class:
Displacement (std): 1260t
Length: 328' 1"
Beam: 30' 8"
Speed: 27.5 knts
Speed (cruise): 18 knts
Range: 3500 nmi
Armament:------------------Suggested Modifications
3 x 5"/40 DP (1x1 1x2)-------None
24-39 x Type 96 25mm------10 x 40mm bofors (5 x 2)
---------------------------8 x 20mm oerlikons
4 x 24” Torpedo tubes-------None
48 x Depth Charges 2 x racks 4 x Type94 Projectors--72 x Depth Charges (2 x depth charge racks and 6 x Type 94 projectors)

 

A new post on the shipyard thread over on the IJN board
Japanese ship yard info.
barbaryan has made a lengthy post with an analysis of the longer slips available to the IJN if anyone is interested.

 

Thanks for keeping us informed. Headed that way now to check out the intell.

 

Sorry to get off topic before I finish the proposal, but looking ahead to our seizure of the SRA I had a question for General Nishio. I have been concerned about damage to the oil facilities if we don't seize them quickly enough. One possible way around this would be to drop airborne forces to secure the facilities in conjunction with our landings to eleminate the enemy's defensive forces. One problem we have is not a lot of airborne units. If we stand up units from scratch by the time we get them trained it will be too late and their inexperience will cause excessive casualties. One idea of how we might get around this is that we have some very experienced independant infantry regiments (not a component of a larger unit, division or brigade), why not send the entire unit through Jump School? There would be some minor adjustments to the unit structure and TOE weapons, but in the end infantry is infantry. We would be able to get the entire unit airborne qualified in three weeks and still have ample time for battalion level exercises where they can practice their specific missions against specific targets.
Your thoughts?

 

I thought about seizing the leadership and forcing them to acknowledge our control. If you have good airborne to seize the airfield in use then reinforcements can just fly in. There is no way to seize the oilfields them selves, too large and no way to prevent sabotage.

 

Please elaborate.

Yes you can reinforce the initial drop, if necessary.

Why not? What date did you attempt it? What size airborne unit? Had the Dutch had the opportunity to fall their troops back to defend the location? If you seize them rapidly enough you can prevent the sabatoge. If not fully prevented you can minimize the damage. I'd like to hear your thoughts on why it can't be done, with details. I don't see it, but would like to know "Why" you think it can't be done.

 

all's it takes is one person to set off charges. The Japanese did try to seize palembang with airborne and failed, the damage was never fully repaired

 

1.) The charges have to be set.
2.) You would probably not have charges set if you were not in a war condition.
3.) Japan went to war with the allies in early December 1941. Palembang wasn't invaded until 13 Feb 1942. (A rather lengthy time to prepare)
4.) Anglo-Dutch Forces were'nt concentrated in the Palembang area until January '42.
5.) The Japanese only dropped less than two companies equivilent of paratroops. They initially managed to seize the refinery complex intact, but lost it to a counter-attack and that was when demolition was attempted.

So just because it didn't happen, doesn't mean we can successfully accomplish this task.

 

there are other ways to sabotage the fields and refineries. I was not aware they were initially seized though. So more landings and reinforcements seem critical. I still think seizing the governor and sucwill help