I`ve just been and got a copy of janes warships of WW1 (to go with the WW2
one), and the release of the Imperial Japanise Navy (don`t know if that`s what
they would be called, but it is the old name for their navy). We have a chance
on the list to form a design docterine, or design style, for this navy. We
have to remember that the IJN has a tradition of being a profesional navy,
copying the best examples where they are lacking, and inovationg with new
technology where apropreate. For exaple, we have to remember that the attack
on pearl harbour (while some on the list will disagree, don`t write and
complain please) was a well exicuted, suprise attack, using a new technology
in battle (aircraft), and revolutionised navel warfare overnight. For FT (and
looking at the janes books next to
me),
how does this sound for a design idea?
Speed/thrust-Good (6) for the smaller ships (upto cruisers, mabe BC`s?),
average for the BB`s and CV`s (4), the heavies would be good to poor (4 or
2).
Hull-Average, except maybe the heavies (strong?).
Weapons-For something different (from what we have already got), how
about the small ships being equipt with a pluse torp as the main weapon of
choice
(it would fit with the IJN ship designs for the WW1-2). It doesn`t have
to be the PT, but this would fit with the use of the torpedos fitted to the
smaller IJN ships. For the larger ships, how about copying a historical
parallel and just using the biggest guns (and only a few of them), that can be
fitted on said ship (thinking the dreadnought revolution in capital ship
design, brought about by the battle the IJN had with the russians). For
example, we could have a BB with 3 or 4 Cl.3 batts (5 or 6 arcs, but thats
just me), and 3 Cl.1 bats (same number as FC`s, to allow for dual use as PDS).
This would probably not be the best or most optimal design posible, but who
says the navy doesn`t have to have some design deficences built in (after all,
all the fleets at the moment have some faults designed in, don`t they?). It
would also be different from everything else officially published.
Protection-Armour used on everything (except maybe smaller than DD`s),
with level1sheilds used as well on capitols.
PDS-Heavy (heavier than even the NSL). This would have good historical
parallels. The IJN had started fitting it`s ships with AA guns even from WW1,
and have experiance how deadly aircraft can be (think pearl harbour).
Fighters-For something different, how about fighters JUST being carried
on
carriers, none on DN/SD`s* (just a idea, that would be different from
everyone else, and allow creation and casting of light carriers).
*This someone will disagree with. But being different, it would force people
to play them differently.
The above is just a idea I had, but we on the list have a chance to design a
different design doctorine for a fleet (remember, don`t try and make them a
uber fleet design style, and these guys I would see as a second tier power,
on the par with the FSE/NSL).
Heres a example of a BB design as I would see it-
M=120 NPV=409
FTL (12/24)
Thrust=4 (24/48)
Hull=30 (30/60)
Screens x1 (6/18)
FC`s x3 (3/9)
Cl.1 x3 (3/9)
Cl.3 (5A) x4 (32/96)
Armour x5 (5/10)
PDS x5 (5/15)
Please feel free to critisize at will <G>
Great minds do think alike<g>. I've been thinking along those exact same lines
waiting for my Japanese fleet megadeal to arrive. There is an excellent book
called "KAIGUN" which goes into considerable detail on the tactical
philosophies that drove the Imperial Japanese Navy from it's inception up to
1939. Some of that could very well be translated into FT terms. Specifically,
the Japanese made the assumption that they would always be outnumbered, and so
designed their ships to be individually superior to any potential opposition.
They also actively looked for "force multipliers" to compensate for their
numerical
inferiority. In FT/FB terms I can see ships that are always at the top
end of each class break, well-armed, armored, and fast, but perhaps a
little fragile structurally. Remember that in the 30's there were a
couple of incidents - the capsizing of the torpedo boat Tomodzuru and
heavy storm damage to the Fourth Fleet in I think 1932 or 33 that revealed
significant co! ns! truction flaws that had to be corrected. I can see ships
up through heavy cruiser or possibly Battlecruiser carrying significant
numbers of
P-torps combined with heavy long-range beams. I do disagree with
excluding fighters from all but carriers. After all, the Japanese fielded
battleship carriers (Hyuga and Ise) and cruiser carriers (Mogami as rebuilt,
the Tone class, and the Oyodo) during WWII. So maybe the
FT/FB IJN has several classes of fighter carrying ships rather than just
heavy and light carriers, BDN's and SDN's. I like the idea of a heavy PDS fit.
Bif's proposed battleship is interesting, and a good start. I'll post a couple
of mine for comment once I get them finalized.
> gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu wrote:
Speed/thrust-Good (6) for the smaller ships (upto cruisers, mabe BC`s?),
average for the BB`s and CV`s (4), the heavies would be good to poor (4 or
2).
Hull-Average, except maybe the heavies (strong?).
Weapons-For something different (from what we have already got), how
about the small ships being equipt with a pluse torp as the main weapon of
choice
(it would fit with the IJN ship designs for the WW1-2). It doesn`t have
to be the PT, but this would fit with the use of the torpedos fitted to the
smaller IJN ships. For the larger ships, how about copying a historical
parallel and just using the biggest guns (and only a few of them), that can be
fitted on said ship (thinking the dreadnought revolution in capital ship
design, brought about by the battle the IJN had with the russians). For
example, we could have a BB with 3 or 4 Cl.3 batts (5 or 6 arcs, but thats
just me), and 3 Cl.1 bats (same number as FC`s, to allow for dual use as PDS).
This would probably not be the best or most optimal design posible, but who
says the navy doesn`t have to have some design deficences built in (after all,
all the fleets at the moment have some faults designed in, don`t they?). It
would also be different from everything else officially published.
Protection-Armour used on everything (except maybe smaller than DD`s),
with level1sheilds used as well on capitols.
PDS-Heavy (heavier than even the NSL). This would have good historical
parallels. The IJN had started fitting it`s ships with AA guns even from WW1,
and have experiance how deadly aircraft can be (think pearl harbour).
Fighters-For something different, how about fighters JUST being carried
on
carriers, none on DN/SD`s* (just a idea, that would be different from
everyone else, and allow creation and casting of light carriers).
*This someone will disagree with. But being different, it would force people
to play them differently.
The above is just a idea I had, but we on the list have a chance to design a
different design doctorine for a fleet (remember, don`t try and make them a
uber fleet design style, and these guys I would see as a second tier power,
on the par with the FSE/NSL).
Heres a example of a BB design as I would see it-
M=120 NPV=409
FTL (12/24)
Thrust=4 (24/48)
Hull=30 (30/60)
Screens x1 (6/18)
FC`s x3 (3/9)
Cl.1 x3 (3/9)
Cl.3 (5A) x4 (32/96)
Armour x5 (5/10)
PDS x5 (5/15)
Please feel free to critisize at will
BIF
A couple of points:
> 3 Cl.1 bats (same number as FC`s, to allow for dual use as PDS).
A single FCS can guide any number of B1s in PD mode.
> Fighters-For something different, how about fighters JUST being carried
While this is currently unique for the published HUMAN forces, it is identical
to the Phalon fighter doctrine.
> Heres a example of a BB design as I would see it-
No, NPV = 412. See below.
> FTL (12/24)
Hm. While this does squeeze by as "Average", it is rather on the Weak side
- clashes somewhat with the "except maybe the heavies (strong?)" bit.
> Screens x1 (6/18)
FCSs cost 4 pts each, so should be (3/12)
> Cl.1 x3 (3/9)
Apart from that it's legal :-/
[quoted original message omitted]
[quoted original message omitted]
> Bif Smith wrote:
> I can see ships up through heavy cruiser or possibly Battlecruiser
Probably right about PTorps on cruisers and smaller only. But don't
In message <01c101c1a8cb$5887b240$2a8287d9@inty>
> "Bif Smith" <bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> Speed/thrust-Good (6) for the smaller ships (upto cruisers, mabe
I'd prefer MD 8 for escorts, 6-8 for cruisers, and 4-6 for capitals
(make them a bit faster than most FB1 fleets)
> Hull-Average, except maybe the heavies (strong?).
Ok, may have to cut back abit for extra speed.
> Weapons-For something different (from what we have already got), how
For
> example, we could have a BB with 3 or 4 Cl.3 batts (5 or 6 arcs, but
Ok, but with faster speed, you could cut back on the arcs a bit. From
the models I'd give each design 1 large F-only weapon, but the models
can be interpreted in so many different ways :-)
> Protection-Armour used on everything (except maybe smaller than DD`s),
I'd like to see as heavy use of level 2 screens as possible, as no FB1 fleet
uses this philospohy (bad vs. KV I know, but good v.s Phalons,
and, to a varying but lesser extent, everyone else :-).
> PDS-Heavy (heavier than even the NSL). This would have good historical
Ok, but what area defence philosophy? Specialised area-defence craft vs.
fitting ADFC to any hull that has room (and enough PDS to make it worth
it).
> Fighters-For something different, how about fighters JUST being
But not different to Phalons. I prefer Bob's solution - Fighters on
_all_ capital ships, say 1 group on BC & BB, 2 on DN & SDN. Carriers are
a bit like NSL, only 4 groups on CV?
> The above is just a idea I had, but we on the list have a chance to
Well, I've made some suggestions... :-)
From: <bob_eldridge@mindspring.com>
> Great minds do think alike<g>. I've been thinking along those exact
My thoughts on the IJN, based on WW2 IJN.
Small ships - "Long Lance" MT missiles, the ones with 5 range, or a Mix.
Medium ships - vast quantities of Beam-2s, a la Mogami, Chikuma etc,
which when originally constructed had something like 15 6" guns.
At least one should have 12+ MT missiles instead of beam-2's.
I don't like MT missiles and never use them. I was thinking a Beam-5 or
Beam-6 as a spinal mount plus a couple of Beam-4's, but 4 Beam-4's would
probably do just as well, maybe better. The key point is that the Japanese SDN
should be very well armored and very heavily armed. The Japanese never really
built large "light" cruisers like for instance the British "Town" class or the
US "Brooklyn" class. The Mogami class were
originally armed with 15-6.1in guns, but were rebuilt and rearmed before
WWII started with
10-8in guns. So I visualize the Japanese cruisers as being larger than
the other cruisers with a very heavy beam/pulse-torp armament. I presume
that your ship with 12+ MT missiles is intended as a Kitakami analog
(Kitakami was rebuilt in 1942 to carry no less than 40(!) 24-inch
torpedo tubes.) I'm working on a similar ship, but with lots of pulse torps.
Japanese destroyers should likewise be larger and more powerfully
gunned. Remember that the Japanese were building 2000-ton destroyers
with six five-inch guns when the "average" fleet destroyer displaced
1500 tons and was armed with four 4.7 or 5 inch guns. So most of the
Japanese destroyers should actually be "super-destroyers" in FT/FB
parlance. I'm planning on making all or most of the larger ships
hermaphrodites with some carrier capability (1-2 squadrons). I"m
thinking about making the heavy carrier analogous to the historical Akagi as
she was orginally completed, with say 5 squadrons and a fairly strong beam
armament (a! s!
originally completed Akagi carried 65 aircraft and 10 8-inch guns.), but
the "big, fast, lots of fighters" version (a Zuikaku analog) certainly has a
lot to recommend it (and would give Jon a chance to make TWO heavy carrier
models for the Japanese). I'm going to try to post some of my designs tonight
or tomorrow once I finish checking the math.
> gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu wrote:
> Great minds do think alike. I've been thinking along those exact same
My thoughts on the IJN, based on WW2 IJN.
Small ships - "Long Lance" MT missiles, the ones with 5 range, or a Mix.
Medium ships - vast quantities of Beam-2s, a la Mogami, Chikuma etc,
which when originally constructed had something like 15 6" guns.
At least one should have 12+ MT missiles instead of beam-2's.
Large ships - Hermaphrodite carriers a la Ise and Hiei
CVLs - fragile, slow, lots of fighters for their size, which is small.
CVAs - fast, large, not well armed or protected, rely on speed.
SuperShips - Make Komarovs look weedy. 4 Beam-4s in the forward arc
(only),
which makes a pretty powerful "spinal mount" a la Space Cruiser Yamato, only
without the need for Yet Another Vunder Veapon.
Japanese Fighters should be capable of transforming into combat walkers
:-)
> BIF wrote:
> >A couple of points:
No worries :-)
> And I thought it was a FC per incoming target, not per Cl.1 bat?
No, it's one FCS period. One FCS dedicated to point defence allows any number
of B1s to engage any number of incoming missiles or fighter groups (...no more
than one missile or fighter group per B1, of course).
> >>Fighters-For something different, how about fighters JUST being
Sure, but it is kinda repetitive to have two Fleet Books in a row both of
which feature a fleet which puts all its fighters in dedicated carriers
<g>
Later,
In message <012a01c1a995$eb97cd20$e0ba0aca@avis>
> "Alan and Carmel Brain" <aebrain@austarmetro.com.au> wrote:
> From: <bob_eldridge@mindspring.com>
But ve already hav not vun but tvo vunder veapons :-) vun ist in der
original Full Thrust rullbuk :-)
> Japanese Fighters should be capable of transforming into combat
Hmm.. This has been discussed before, many times IIRC - I think the
simplest way to represent this is: 1) find a set of boarding rules you like 2)
allow 'mecha' fighters to board (as 1 borading party per fighter) instead of
attacking normall (PDS still applies)
Cost of these - dunno :-(
Well one can also look not just at the historical perspective but the anime
perspective:) The models themselves have a definate anime look to them so they
could be designed around that philosophy.
* lots of fighters
- if the ship can fit them, put them in
* 1 or 2 really big guns then lots and lots of small and medium ones for light
effects * fill the rest with missiles
- SMRs are good because you'll get a lot of ordinance out in one
shot and are fairly short range making good cinematography
I'll make some designs up when I have a few more free minutes
> I don't like MT missiles and never use them.
A 5-endurance MT missile (the "long lance" config) works for me, but
obviously leaves you cold. Either SMs or PTs make an acceptable
substitute. I really prefer MTs, but it's a matter of taste - your
opinion is at least as good as mine.
> I presume that your ship with 12+ MT missiles is intended as a
Good to meet a man who knows his IJN ships! Well spotted.
> I'm working on a similar ship, but with lots of pulse torps.
Which would make sense if you don't use MTs.
> Japanese destroyers should likewise be larger and more powerfully
Concur. Super Destroyers (Fubuki) and not-so-small-light-cruisers
masquerading as destroyers. ( 8x5" guns + heavy AA...)
> I'm thinking about making the heavy carrier analogous to the
> --- Alan E Brain <aebrain@austarmetro.com.au> wrote:
...
> >Japanese destroyers should likewise be larger and
The Yubari was the smallest cruiser at 3141T, carried 6 x 5.5 in. guns and 1 x
3 in. AA.
The Fubuki class DD, special type, had 6 x 5 in 50 cal., 2430T.
The Akizuki class DDAA, had 8 x 100MMAA, 3470T.
Bye for now,
[quoted original message omitted]
> [quoted text omitted]
From Jaime:
> Well one can also look not just at the historical perspective but the
Two types: 1 "standard," "torpedo", and "interceptor" along the lines of
Dean's TIE
fighters: 12 per group, though they play exactly like equivalent normal groups
of 6 as far as attack and damage. It's the visual effect I'm looking for.
2 "attack", and "heavy" - Mecha fighters. Groups of 6 or less - even
single units - that attack and degrade just like normal groups of 6. One
Mecha fighter, for example, takes up to 6 points of damage and degrades
effectiveness as it takes damage.
> * 1 or 2 really big guns then lots and lots of small and medium ones
Basically a bristle of PDS (the "small turrets") and a few C1's (the "big
turrets")
> * fill the rest with missiles
Any panel that looks like it might slide or flower open to reveal a missile
rack.
I agree that this should be the model for the Japanese fleet. Any 20th century
war model is 200 years out of date.
> Noam Izenberg wrote:
> I agree that this should be the model for the Japanese fleet. Any 20th
hmm... on further thought, most anime battles you watch the ships don't move
around a lot, well at least in the ones that come to my mind. The fighters
flit back and forth but the capital ships stay releatively unmoving. I wonder
if the opposite thrust should be taken to what has been sugested. Low thrust
with lots of multi arc weapons. Just a thought.
In message <006901c1a9ff$e90ecb20$0a16ac3e@pbncomputer>
> "Robin Paul" <Robin.Paul@tesco.net> wrote:
[snip]
> Sticking with the WW2 model for a bit, it ought to be remembered that
As
> the DDs mostly had effective torpedo reload systems, my thought is to
I'd definately go with either extended-range SMs or 'long lance'
missiles (assuming they become 'official') - especially as very few
SML-using designs are efficient at using SM-ERs (if you do load them,
you probably waste some magazine space). A design with, as you suggest, a
number of SMLs with 6 MASS magazines
(housing 2 SM-ERs each) whould be a little different from other races
SML designs (FSE tend to have 1 big magazine with 1 or more launchers).