|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 25, 2018 17:05:08 GMT -6
All right, its silly but fun believe me. Here is my version of a US Navy surface raider
San Diego, USA Surface Raider laid down 1935
Displacement:
12,713 t light; 13,331 t standard; 16,204 t normal; 18,501 t full load
Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(622.21 ft / 615.00 ft) x 66.00 ft x (28.00 / 30.98 ft)
(189.65 m / 187.45 m) x 20.12 m x (8.53 / 9.44 m)
Armament:
6 - 10.00" / 254 mm 45.0 cal guns - 504.26lbs / 228.73kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1935 Model
2 x Triple mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
8 - 5.00" / 127 mm 45.0 cal guns - 63.03lbs / 28.59kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1935 Model
4 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 3,530 lbs / 1,601 kg
Main Torpedoes
8 - 21.0" / 533 mm, 23.80 ft / 7.25 m torpedoes - 1.588 t each, 12.701 t total
In 2 sets of deck mounted side rotating tubes
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 4.00" / 102 mm 399.75 ft / 121.84 m 9.75 ft / 2.97 m
Ends: 1.00" / 25 mm 215.23 ft / 65.60 m 9.75 ft / 2.97 m
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length
Main Belt inclined 10.00 degrees (positive = in)
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 6.00" / 152 mm - 10.0" / 254 mm
2nd: 2.00" / 51 mm - 4.00" / 102 mm
- Box over machinery & magazines:
3.00" / 76 mm
Forecastle: 3.00" / 76 mm Quarter deck: 3.00" / 76 mm
- Conning towers: Forward 8.00" / 203 mm, Aft 8.00" / 203 mm
Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 87,213 shp / 65,061 Kw = 30.00 kts
Range 18,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 5,170 tons
Complement: 717 - 933
Cost:
£5.716 million / $22.863 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 814 tons, 5.0 %
- Guns: 788 tons, 4.9 %
- Weapons: 25 tons, 0.2 %
Armour: 3,132 tons, 19.3 %
- Belts: 722 tons, 4.5 %
- Armament: 931 tons, 5.7 %
- Armour Deck: 1,259 tons, 7.8 %
- Conning Towers: 221 tons, 1.4 %
Machinery: 2,478 tons, 15.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 6,190 tons, 38.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,490 tons, 21.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 0.6 %
- On freeboard deck: 100 tons
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
27,253 lbs / 12,362 Kg = 54.5 x 10.0 " / 254 mm shells or 2.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.05
Metacentric height 2.9 ft / 0.9 m
Roll period: 16.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 78 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.96
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.85
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.499 / 0.515
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.32 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 24.80 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 42
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 26.90 ft / 8.20 m, 26.90 ft / 8.20 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 26.90 ft / 8.20 m, 26.90 ft / 8.20 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 26.90 ft / 8.20 m, 26.90 ft / 8.20 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 26.90 ft / 8.20 m, 26.90 ft / 8.20 m
- Average freeboard: 26.90 ft / 8.20 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 69.4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 188.8 %
Waterplane Area: 27,020 Square feet or 2,510 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 143 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 126 lbs/sq ft or 615 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.89
- Longitudinal: 3.00
- Overall: 1.00
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent sea boat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather Included is one catapult for an OS2U Kingfisher
Note: I have not included tertiary armament for anti-air. I really don't believe that a surface raider needs 20, 40 mm guns or 1 inch. I believe that .50 cal. Machine guns should be sufficient. But I could be wrong and will change the design.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Nov 25, 2018 17:29:54 GMT -6
I don't know if that's silly, looks like a fine raider for the Pacific, ~ 2000 nm range more than Graf Spee. I suppose the silly part is what they would do with it 6 years later when they were proven vulnerable to aircraft. They'd probably be briefly withdrawn and the AA really stacked up. If they were in the Solomons in 42, they could make some noise though.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 25, 2018 19:31:09 GMT -6
I don't know if that's silly, looks like a fine raider for the Pacific, ~ 2000 nm range more than Graf Spee. I suppose the silly part is what they would do with it 6 years later when they were proven vulnerable to aircraft. They'd probably be briefly withdrawn and the AA really stacked up. If they were in the Solomons in 42, they could make some noise though. The primary area of operations for such a ship would be between Borneo, Malaya, Truk and the Dutch East Indies. It's job would be to intercept Japanese tankers, transports and merchant on those trade routes. It could be useful against the reinforcements moving on the east side of the Solomon's, but I would not make that a primary area. The problem areas for such a ship would be Formosa, the Philippine's, the Mariana's. Since the Japanese did not have convoy's, I don't see any real issue for such a fast, well armed ship. It might prove an excellent way to draw ships from Japan, Truk and possibly Rabaul.
Update: I added in the design 16 40mm guns, and 10 20mm guns. I won't post the changed report but it does have light AA guns.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 25, 2018 20:48:35 GMT -6
Ok, now the $64,000 Dollar question? Where do you deploy this surface raider or raiders from? Keep in mind, that the German's knew they were going to start the war and what date approximately. They could deploy their raiders early and keep them in positions away from the normal trade routes. The US is attack initially and has no idea when. We have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, but the US Naval Operations did not. So, would it be California, Pearl Harbor, Cavite, or possibly Sydney, Australia? Certainly not Singapore. Guam could not support the ship. Neither can Midway. It could be organizationally part of ABDA and deployed from Surabaya on the Java Sea could be a good location but your exit point is tricky.
California is much too far, Pearl Harbor is ok if you have advanced warning but you don't.
Any thoughts gents.
|
|
|
Post by skyhawk on Nov 25, 2018 22:35:34 GMT -6
Ok, now the $64,000 Dollar question? Where do you deploy this surface raider or raiders from? Keep in mind, that the German's knew they were going to start the war and what date approximately. They could deploy their raiders early and keep them in positions away from the normal trade routes. The US is attack initially and has no idea when. We have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, but the US Naval Operations did not. So, would it be California, Pearl Harbor, Cavite, or possibly Sydney, Australia? Certainly not Singapore. Guam could not support the ship. Neither can Midway. It could be organizationally part of ABDA and deployed from Surabaya on the Java Sea could be a good location but your exit point is tricky. California is much too far, Pearl Harbor is ok if you have advanced warning but you don't. Any thoughts gents. I would, perhaps, suggest Dutch Harbor for one of them if the harbor could support its draft. The US had troops there as of August 41. With a supply ship and tanker she could swoop down through the gap between Hokkaido and Sakhalin and hit any ships transporting resources between China/Korea and the Home Islands before either turning around or risking continuing on down to Cavite. Other than that I would suggest Cavite itself. Risky proposition I realize but they would provide a solid core for the Philippine squadrons to rally around.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 25, 2018 23:02:41 GMT -6
Ok, now the $64,000 Dollar question? Where do you deploy this surface raider or raiders from? Keep in mind, that the German's knew they were going to start the war and what date approximately. They could deploy their raiders early and keep them in positions away from the normal trade routes. The US is attack initially and has no idea when. We have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, but the US Naval Operations did not. So, would it be California, Pearl Harbor, Cavite, or possibly Sydney, Australia? Certainly not Singapore. Guam could not support the ship. Neither can Midway. It could be organizationally part of ABDA and deployed from Surabaya on the Java Sea could be a good location but your exit point is tricky. California is much too far, Pearl Harbor is ok if you have advanced warning but you don't. Any thoughts gents. I would, perhaps, suggest Dutch Harbor for one of them if the harbor could support its draft. The US had troops there as of August 41. With a supply ship and tanker she could swoop down through the gap between Hokkaido and Sakhalin and hit any ships transporting resources between China/Korea and the Home Islands before either turning around or risking continuing on down to Cavite. Other than that I would suggest Cavite itself. Risky proposition I realize but they would provide a solid core for the Philippine squadrons to rally around. Dutch Harbor is not a bad idea, weather and harbor depths are adequate for two ships, one surface raider and one supply ship. However, to get to your area of operations, you would have to sail through the Philippine Sea which at this time, is surrounded on three sides by Japanese territory. The distance is over 4000 miles. Since you are a US Naval vessel, you will not have the advantage of advantaged planning. You have to react. So you will have to sail the complete distance in a war time environment with the IJN on readiness. You might get lucky, I doubt it. Cavite is an ok idea, but you are right in the thick of things. But of course we have the benefit of hindsight, so that is a good idea although I don't think your ship will survive. It will have to deploy at night, as soon as the word of the Pearl Harbor attack arrives, observing radio silence. It's possible, if the captain is an experience officer.
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on Nov 25, 2018 23:22:13 GMT -6
Perth (Australia) might be a good base for sneaking into the DEI and Borneo, as its the largest port on the Western Coast of Australia and is in relatively close proximity to the area that you've described (with the exception of Truk). You might have to deploy an Ammunition Tender or two to Perth to ensure that it could be resupplied with the proper ammunition, until other arrangements have been made to ship in more munitions. Perth does have a few problems, namely that you'd burn up a considerable amount of fuel getting on station considering how far Perth is from the DEI. Yet by the same token, it would not be under the same threat of being detected as soon as it left port unless a Japanese submarine floatplane was able to sneak a peak at Perth harbor.
Darwin might seem like a good base due to it's location location. You'd have a number of good vectors for getting into the DEI to hunt for Convoys. However, you'd have to deal poor railway connection to the rest of Australia (to my limited knowledge, I don't think there was even a railway connection from Darwin to the rest of Australia. IIRC, the Darwin railroad ended at Katherine and the southern railroads only went up to Alice Springs), which means that logistical support would have to be shipped in by sea (vulnerable to detection and destruction). Furthermore, Darwin is close enough to possible Japanese bases (if parts of the DEI are captured as IRL) to be vulnerable both to enemy recon, and to enemy air raids (as in real life). So you'd either have to commit the assets to protect the port (AA guns, fighters, radar, etc) or accept the risk that your raider would be sunk in harbor.
Brisbane wouldn't be a bad base on the East Coast of Australia. It's a decent port, has a good rail connection, and is close enough to Sydney for the ship to be sent to the yard if needed (but a bit farther north, so you'd save a bit on fuel)
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 26, 2018 0:29:06 GMT -6
Perth (Australia) might be a good base for sneaking into the DEI and Borneo, as its the largest port on the Western Coast of Australia and is in relatively close proximity to the area that you've described (with the exception of Truk). You might have to deploy an Ammunition Tenderor two to Perth to ensure that it could be resupplied with the proper ammunition, until other arrangements have been made to ship in more munitions. Perth does have a few problems, namely that you'd burn up a considerable amount of fuel getting on station considering how far Perth is from the DEI. Yet by the same token, it would not be under the same threat of being detected as soon as it left port unless a Japanese submarine floatplane was able to sneak a peak at Perth harbor. Darwin might seem like a good base due to it's location location. You'd have a number of good vectors for getting into the DEI to hunt for Convoys. However, you'd have to deal poor railway connection to the rest of Australia (to my limited knowledge, I don't think there was even a railway connection from Darwin to the rest of Australia. IIRC, the Darwin railroad ended at Katherine and the southern railroads only went up to Alice Springs), which means that logistical support would have to be shipped in by sea (vulnerable to detection and destruction). Furthermore, Darwin is close enough to possible Japanese bases (if parts of the DEI are captured as IRL) to be vulnerable both to enemy recon, and to enemy air raids (as in real life). So you'd either have to commit the assets to protect the port (AA guns, fighters, radar, etc) or accept the risk that your raider would be sunk in harbor. Brisbane wouldn't be a bad base on the East Coast of Australia. It's a decent port, has a good rail connection, and is close enough to Sydney for the ship to be sent to the yard if needed (but a bit farther north, so you'd save a bit on fuel) Any one of those three would be good locations except the Japanese would be watching Darwin since they were invading and occupying Rabaul. However, my choice is Noumea, New Caledonia. It is French, but they have lost the Battle of France and De Gaulle has been followed by the French and the New Caledonian's. It has a great harbor and was close enough to the Coral Sea and access to Japanese trade routes. After Pearl Harbor, the ship could sail northward, then west interdict the routes to Rabaul and locations farther east. New Caledonia would become a very important support base in August 1942 for Operation Watchtower.
|
|
|
Post by skyhawk on Nov 26, 2018 0:58:24 GMT -6
[/quote]Dutch Harbor is not a bad idea, weather and harbor depths are adequate for two ships, one surface raider and one supply ship. However, to get to your area of operations, you would have to sail through the Philippine Sea which at this time, is surrounded on three sides by Japanese territory. The distance is over 4000 miles. Since you are a US Naval vessel, you will not have the advantage of advantaged planning. You have to react. So you will have to sail the complete distance in a war time environment with the IJN on readiness. You might get lucky, I doubt it. Cavite is an ok idea, but you are right in the thick of things. But of course we have the benefit of hindsight, so that is a good idea although I don't think your ship will survive. It will have to deploy at night, as soon as the word of the Pearl Harbor attack arrives, observing radio silence. It's possible, if the captain is an experience officer. [/quote]
Ah I'd somehow missed that you'd stated a likely deployment zone right there at the beginning. My suggestion of Dutch Harbor did not take that into account. As a suggested location for a surface raider to operate from at the beginning of the war I still believe it has promise though. If it's starting location was known to the Japanese they would be forced to expend resources to counter it in the exact opposite direction of their initial likely grabs for territory. Being able to dash down to make retaliatory strikes on targets on Hokkaido or to sweep traffic from the Sea of Japan would force the Japanese to retain a much needed squadron or two up north in the Home Island chain...stretching them even thinner.
For your actual suggested theater of operation though I'd still go with Cavite...she just wouldn't likely be able to return there. Depart with a resupply ship asap and never look back.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Nov 26, 2018 1:14:10 GMT -6
I think you guys are all dreaming a bit, lol.
What would stop the Japanese from doing to this ship what they did to HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales?
They have excellent, long range, land based flying boat reconnaissance. They would find this ship after the first reported sighting (if not sooner) and then send naval land-based, twin-engine torpedo planes to sink it. Even after adding more AAA. And the 40mm Bofors wasn't available until late 42 or 1943 right? Any lone surface raider in Japanese waters would be a reef waiting to happen.
|
|
|
Post by gurudennis on Nov 26, 2018 3:01:56 GMT -6
I think you guys are all dreaming a bit, lol. What would stop the Japanese from doing to this ship what they did to HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales? They have excellent, long range, land based flying boat reconnaissance. They would find this ship after the first reported sighting (if not sooner) and then send naval land-based, twin-engine torpedo planes to sink it. Even after adding more AAA. And the 40mm Bofors wasn't available until late 42 or 1943 right? Any lone surface raider in Japanese waters would be a reef waiting to happen. No expert here, but something tells me that things aren't so clear cut. The Japanese both expected the RN task force and were specifically prepared to stop it. With a mere raider, less resources would be available and less information could be relied upon, so it's not apples to apples. Then there are C&C factors. Real-life communications in the period would be somewhat imprecise. Plus the communication systems and the realities of command structure, especially in WW2 Japan, would introduce a significant delay between the sighting and the launch of the land-based air strike. I'm not saying surface raiding in Japanese waters would actually be halfway practical, but any small-ish vessel would likely be able to operate as a raider for a week or two at a time on the outer reaches of Japanese supply lines before returning to a nearby Allied base. Of course, attacking the supply lines where it really hurts (Yellow Sea, Tsushima strait etc.) would have been well and truly suicidal for any surface raider due to heavy surface traffic let alone the amount of aircraft in range. Aside from the elevated risks of surface raiding in the face of land based air strikes, I think the reason why surface raiders were not used more commonly may have been because submarine technology of the time allowed for much more effective large-scale raiding.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Nov 26, 2018 9:09:00 GMT -6
No expert here, but something tells me that things aren't so clear cut. The Japanese both expected the RN task force and were specifically prepared to stop it. With a mere raider, less resources would be available and less information could be relied upon, so it's not apples to apples. That is a fair point. It would be harder to find a single, long range ship that was not trying to defend a particular territory like Force Z was. Although presumably if the ship was forward deployed at the war's start (for instance, in the Philippines) the Japanese would be aware of it (like they were of what ships were based in Honolulu because of pre-conflict intelligence gathering) and they would have probably had some resources tasked with sinking it as at least a secondary objective. The raider may get into the shipping lanes undetected, no search program is perfect, but it wouldn't be long after it started sinking ships that it's general location would be pinpointed allowing the Japanese to find and fix its position. Then there are C&C factors. Real-life communications in the period would be somewhat imprecise. Plus the communication systems and the realities of command structure, especially in WW2 Japan, would introduce a significant delay between the sighting and the launch of the land-based air strike. I'm not saying surface raiding in Japanese waters would actually be halfway practical, but any small-ish vessel would likely be able to operate as a raider for a week or two at a time on the outer reaches of Japanese supply lines before returning to a nearby Allied base. Of course, attacking the supply lines where it really hurts (Yellow Sea, Tsushima strait etc.) would have been well and truly suicidal for any surface raider due to heavy surface traffic let alone the amount of aircraft in range. Aside from the elevated risks of surface raiding in the face of land based air strikes, I think the reason why surface raiders were not used more commonly may have been because submarine technology of the time allowed for much more effective large-scale raiding. I think you might be selling the Japanese Naval Air Service a little short in this instance. The Kawanishi H8K flying boat was an excellent reconnaissance platform with long range and endurance and the Mitsubishi G4M twin-engine bomber, while extremely vulnerable to fighters, also had great range and, when flown by naval air service pilots, was adept at torpedo warfare. An airborne torpedo attack against a cruiser, when the cruiser has no air cover, almost entirely plays to the strengths of the Japanese in this case while minimizing their vulnerabilities. I don't give the cruiser much chance. Especially if it is early war before the Americans start putting light and medium AA on every open horizontal space. Also, since in this case both are under the Naval Air Service, inter-service communication and rivalry problems would be mitigated. Your last point is the important one in the end however. Submarines had matured enough that they were a far better choice than any surface raider. If the damned torpedoes work.
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on Nov 26, 2018 11:51:45 GMT -6
Taking into account the crappy command of ABDA, and their general crappy performance I'm pretty sure that if they had a command of this ship, she would be just as misused as other ABDA assets (as flagship I suppose) and would sink at the Java Sea with other available ships in one of those failed escape attempts.
Correct me, if I'm wrong, but wasn't DEI quite well saturated with Japanese heavy forces? Way more in fact than much wider areas of Atlantic during hunt on Bismarck. And while Japanese were mostly fighting with cruisers, there were battleships hanging back just in case, so even if such ship would be sent to raid, it could easily run into one of Japanese task forces. And even if she won the clash, all the reinforcements would converge on her.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 26, 2018 13:48:54 GMT -6
Taking into account the crappy command of ABDA, and their general crappy performance I'm pretty sure that if they had a command of this ship, she would be just as misused as other ABDA assets (as flagship I suppose) and would sink at the Java Sea with other available ships in one of those failed escape attempts. Correct me, if I'm wrong, but wasn't DEI quite well saturated with Japanese heavy forces? Way more in fact than much wider areas of Atlantic during hunt on Bismarck. And while Japanese were mostly fighting with cruisers, there were battleships hanging back just in case, so even if such ship would be sent to raid, it could easily run into one of Japanese task forces. And even if she won the clash, all the reinforcements would converge on her. I agree and that is why I would station the cruiser with its supply ship at New Caledonia. A ship with this mission needs open ocean. An enclosed sea and narrow passages are not the area to place a ship with this mission. The DEI environment is exactly the wrong location. We only know that ABDA was useless from history. But the general area around New Caledonia is not visible to the Japanese which is why they took Guadalcanal and Florida Island to gain such an observation point with their seaplanes and land based bombers. Trade warfare using surface raiders is generally a minor naval power's type of strategy. Great Britain, France, the US and Japan did not need such ships. However, due to the geography of Germany and its lesson's learned from WW!, it was the only strategy that they could adopt and possibly do some damage to keep the British Navy busy. The U-boats were the primary tool but the other ships were designed from the outset, to be surface raiders. One advantage of occupying France was to gain the major ports on their west coast like Brest, St. Nazaire, Lorient, La Rochelle for their U-boats and surface raiders. The German navy of the Second World War was a trade war based navy. My purpose for this thread was to explore what were the requirements in both strategy and ships to pursue such a strategy. It was for the game that this thread was offered.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 26, 2018 14:25:06 GMT -6
I think you guys are all dreaming a bit, lol. What would stop the Japanese from doing to this ship what they did to HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales? They have excellent, long range, land based flying boat reconnaissance. They would find this ship after the first reported sighting (if not sooner) and then send naval land-based, twin-engine torpedo planes to sink it. Even after adding more AAA. And the 40mm Bofors wasn't available until late 42 or 1943 right? Any lone surface raider in Japanese waters would be a reef waiting to happen. Don't be to certain that the Japanese would be able to locate a quiet surface raider. The only reason the British found Graf Spee was because of her extensive attaches stationed in the neutral countries in the South America. They were able to have good intelligence from neutral ships entering and leaving those ports which could be transmitted to the British Naval Intelligence and then the Naval operations could send the Force K the information. The British had flying boats but they never came near finding Graf Spee. The Japanese do not have such an extensive network and these were unfriendly countries generally part of GB, France and Holland. They were decidedly anti-Japanese. My father used to tell me that the PBY's he flew in from the Canal, flew at 5000 feet because any higher and you cannot really see ships well due atmospherics and waves. At 5000 feet, the horizon is 86.6 miles. That is as far as you can see and if the ship is reducing its smoke, you are really going to have a real problem spotting it. If you do spot it and transmit your sighting, the raider will be listening for such transmissions and even if it can't decode it, will know something is in the area. If you are the Japanese, you now have to assemble a force to deal with this ship. This might have to have a battleship and a carrier included, like Force K to perform the mission and if those ships are not available, this raider will disappear.
|
|