| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
AG124
Joined: 28 Jun 2005
Posts: 770
Location: Canada
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 8:59 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
All of those pictures are from the site listed below. There is some detailed information if anyone would like to check it out. I didn't think anyone would be interested. Maybe a certain PC submarine game Dev team might want to have a look... :hmm: 
http://warships.web4u.cz/tridy.php?language=E&stat=JAP&typ=AUX
There are many more pictures and ships here too.  I think I've posted links to this page before though.
EDIT: SSN756, you might want to check that page. Some of the descriptions there appear to be wrong from what you are saying. Those seaplane carriers were listed as tankers for example, which they really don't look like at all. Maybe you should contact the webmaster to let him know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bill clarke
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 296
Location: Canberra, Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 4:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DeepSix wrote: | Hate to burst the bubble, because the "Long Lance" was indeed an excellent torpedo, but I think it was only used in surface ships. The submarine torpedo was the Type 95. Both models were driven by compressed oxygen (hydrogen peroxide) and travelled at 45-50 knots, IIRC.
But, heck yeah, Long Lances could ruin anybody's day.  |
Deepsix, by compressed do you mean liquid ? cause that's what fuelled these babies, in fact many DD's had liquid oxygen facilities on board to fill spares, and the large box like tube mounts were armoured to protect the eels from splinters.
Have a read of this:
Ship and Submarine Torpedoes
Model Diameter Length OA Total Weight Explosive Charge Range Wander (max) Comments
6th Year Type 21" 22' 5" 3157 lbs. 441 lbs. 7,000m @ 36 kts
10,000m @ 32 kts
15,000m @ 26 kts ? An older torpedo still used in some of the older RO-class submarines.
8th Year Type 24" 27' 7" 5207 lbs. 761 lbs. 10,000m @ 38 kts
15,000m @ 32 kts
20,000m @ 28 kts ? A large conventional wet-heater torpedo still used aboard some older cruisers and destroyers, notably Nagara.
Type 92 21" 23' 5" 3792 lbs. 661 lbs. 7000m @ 30 kts 120m / 7,000m An electric torpedo for submarines, used extensively throughout the war.
Type 93 24" 29' 6" 5952 lbs. 1080 lbs. 20,000m @ 48 kts
32,000m @ 40 kts
40,000m @ 36 kts 500m / 20,000m
1000m / 32,000m
1500m / 40,000m The Long Lance. 'Nuff said.
Type 95 21" 23' 5" 3671 lbs. 893 lbs. 9,000m @ 49 kts
12,000m @ 45 kts 170m / 9,000m
250m / 12,000m A smaller version of the Type 93 intended for submarines.
Type 97 17.7" 18' 5" 2161 lbs. 772 lbs. 5,500m @ 44 kts 80m /5,500m A miniaturized Type 93 intended for midget submarines. Very unsuccesful (its oxygen flasks leaked a lot), it was used operationally only once - at Pearl Harbor.
Just for giggles, let's take a look at the statistics on the standard US Navy destroyer torpedo of the war, the Mark 15.
Model Diameter Length OA Total Weight Explosive Charge Range Max Launch Speed Comments
Mark 15 21" 24' 0" 3841 lbs. 825 lbs. 5,500m @ 45 kts
9,150m @ 33 kts
13,700m @ 26 kts ?
BTW, how do I post pics here ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bill clarke
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 296
Location: Canberra, Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 5:12 am Post subject: Re: Japanese Ships Which Should be in SHIV |
|
|
| AG124 wrote: |
If one class needs to be sacrificed, it should be the Ise class.
the Chitose class aren't important enough, IMO.
Any thoughts? |
Yep, the Ise and Hyuga should be included as they were converted post Midway to BCV's, and Chitose and Chiyoda were converted to full length carriers, and should be included, as should the depot and repair ships, why ?, glad you asked, if we have a dynamic campaign generator and engine then sinking the repair and depot ships should mean ships damaged take longer to get back in to the fight, that is if these tenders aren't available to make repairs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wulfmann
Joined: 13 May 2005
Posts: 507
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
We all would love to see everything. The purpose here is to list in the order you find most important in hopes the Devs will consider our opinions in making choices.
If they were going to only use 2 BB models are you saying you think Ise would be number one?
I am pretty sure most would say Kongo is number one because there are 4 instead of 2 as the other 4 classes are pairs and the Kongos were the only ones deployed on a regular basis. Then you would understand the fact they will make Yamato and Musashi simply because they are Yamato and Musashi and that is reason enough!!
It is a matter pf what priority do we list them. We want them all but being realistic we know that is unlikely so hope for what we think are the more relevant, what ever that is.
Wulfmann |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AG124
Joined: 28 Jun 2005
Posts: 770
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
I didn't mean that either the Ise or Chitose classes should be left out, but that if we had to pick and choose those would be two that would have to go. As Wulfmann said, there are just too many class and judging by the roster in SHIII, we are not going to get everything.
BTW - The Ise and Hyuga were indeed converted to half-carriers, but the conversion was a waste and they were never used in that role (they carried no aircraft at Leyte Gulf). And when I was talking about the Chitose and Chiyoda, I was refering to them after they had been converted. It doesn't matter, as most Japanese carriers were converted from some other type of ship. There are many other classes which are more important. (They could probably be kitbashed from the Zuiho class later).
And I don't recall saying that repair/depot ships shouldn't be included - in fact, I said they should be and even posted some pictures which you can see here.
Though I would indeed like to see every single Japanese ship class included if it were possible... :hmm: |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeepSix
Joined: 27 Mar 2005
Posts: 802
Location: DB22
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bill clarke wrote: |
...
Deepsix, by compressed do you mean liquid ? |
Yup, that's what I meant. I probably used the wrong words to describe it, though. Chemistry was not my strong suit.
| Quote: | | BTW, how do I post pics here ? |
You paste a link to the pic into your post; most people use free hosting sites like imageshack or photobucket; are you familiar with those? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bill clarke
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 296
Location: Canberra, Australia
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 1:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| AG124 wrote: |
And I don't recall saying that repair/depot ships shouldn't be included - in fact, I said they should be and even posted some pictures which you can see here.
Though I would indeed like to see every single Japanese ship class included if it were possible... :hmm: |
Sorry about that, and Amen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bill clarke
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 296
Location: Canberra, Australia
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 1:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DeepSix wrote: |
You paste a link to the pic into your post; most people use free hosting sites like imageshack or photobucket; are you familiar with those? |
No, not familiar with them mate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JU_88
Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 65
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| If they devs need to know which aircraft to include, they need look no further than pacific fighters..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeepSix
Joined: 27 Mar 2005
Posts: 802
Location: DB22
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 3:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bill clarke wrote: | | DeepSix wrote: |
You paste a link to the pic into your post; most people use free hosting sites like imageshack or photobucket; are you familiar with those? |
No, not familiar with them mate. |
Ok. You have to create an account (a nuisance, yes, but it's free) at a hosting site, then you can upload images from your machine to the site. They'll provide you with an "IMG" tag after you do. Copy the tag and paste it in your post. Simple as that. Then it'll show up embedded in forums. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bill clarke
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 296
Location: Canberra, Australia
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
TYVM, and to go out on a limb here, the reason I'd like to see so many IJN warships is that as opposied to the Atlantic campaign with the KM, the USN took a heavier toll on the IJN fleet (Gents I'm happy to be corrected here) than what the RN suffered.
So even though it's probably just a pipe dream I'd love to see a full compliment of IJN ships to have a go at. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wulfmann
Joined: 13 May 2005
Posts: 507
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
US subs sank 4 fleet carriers and 4 escort carriers and one battleship (Kongo).
The U-Boats sank 3 fleet carriers and 3 escort carriers (but so badly damaged 2 more they were total losses so really 5) and 2 battleships (Royal Oak and Barham)
I do agree subs were more involved on both sides of the Pacific in surface ship battles and remember the German score was over a longer time period.
Note that both German battleship sinkings were when U-Boats were ordered away from shipping attacks with the intent on attacking warships as was the case for 2 of the 3 fleet carriers sunk.
Wulfmann |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AG124
Joined: 28 Jun 2005
Posts: 770
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 10:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The U-Boats sank 3 fleet carriers and 3 escort carriers (but so badly damaged 2 more they were total losses so really 5) |
I thought four of the five (Taiyo, Unyo, Chuyo, and Shinyo) were actually sunk by US subs (Sailfish, Rasher, Barb, and Spadefish). I also thought that the Kaiyo was wrecked beyond repair by a mine (and later by carrier based aircraft) and not by a sub. Or were you talking about fleet carriers? (the Junyo was torpedoed but never fully repaired). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeepSix
Joined: 27 Mar 2005
Posts: 802
Location: DB22
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I know I keep quoting Clay Blair, but it's just because I'm still reading Silent Victory and this stuff is sort of on the tip of my brain.  Anyway, according to him, U.S. subs | Quote: | | sank more than 1,000 Japanese merchant ships and a significant portion of the Japanese navy, including one battleship, eight aircraft carriers, three heavy cruisers, and eight light cruisers. |
I take "eight" carriers to include fleet carriers plus some of the smaller ones. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AG124
Joined: 28 Jun 2005
Posts: 770
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Some older books on US sub operations credit the USS Nautillus for finishing off the Soryu at Midway. It is now knownn that her torpedo actually hit the Kaga, and that it was a dud (common for US torpedoes in the early years of the war). Maybe he made a mistake in his tally? Or maybe I am wrong, which is also quite possible.
I read Silent Victory about a year ago, but don't remember much about it now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
