Len,

Thanks.  Great post. It's amazing how definite things are when you only read one
source...and how quickly they can get cloudy when you start to ask questions. 
To your knowledge, did the Japanese also have a detection device that indicated
when radar was being employed by the enemy? (Was that at Tassafaronga?) Because
IF their spotters were blocked by the weather they really would have to get the
weapon targeting data from a fully functional radar set, right? I've never come
across that before; especially feeding it to other ships for a coodinated
launch.  (Not that I've investigated it though.) Did the Niizuki sink with the
only prototype?!

Now, intentionally jumping to a way over-hasty conclusion for a contrafactual
wargame, it's frightening to think what the Japanese might have done with
American style radar directing schools of Type 93 torpedoes in the Solomons.
That would have been a Divine Wind to beat the baka bomb!

- Brandon

--- In NavWarGames@yahoogroups.com, "lenheinz2002" <lenheinz2002@...> wrote:
>
> Here's what I found when I researched this engagement a few years ago.  It's
one of those actions that doesn't yield a clear historical picture:
>
> The authorities are at odds over the details of this action.  Dull identifies
the engaged ships as Niizuki, Yunagi and Nagatsuki, and says that the Niizuki
fed target data from her radar to her consorts.   This is at odds with other
data on Japanese radar development, which suggests that the Japanese had no
effective surface search sets at the time of this engagement.   Rohwer and
Hummelchen list the Japanese ships in the action as the Mochizuki, Mikazuki and
Hamakaze under Captain Tsuneo Orita -- three older destroyer-transports that
probably would not have had radar and may not even have had Long Lance
torpedoes.   This group was the "First Transport Unit" at the battle of Kula
Gulf.  Morison does not identify the Japanese vessels at all, writing only that
the Americans had two radar contacts, and makes no reference to how the Japanese
spotted their targets or laid their weapons.   Despite other data, Morison
credits Niizuki with radar and says that she used it at the Battle of Kula Gulf
(where she was sunk).  Morison's account of that battle suggests that Niikuki's
set detected the presence of American ships 34 minutes before the Americans SG
radar detected the Japanese, and that the Americans were tracked down to a range
of 12,000 yards.   Morison also says that the action off Enogai took place on a
"dark, overcast night," so it seems unlikely that Japanese optics outranged
American radar in the engagement.   Based on this, I conclude that the Niizuki
was present at this action, and that her radar data resulted in the hits scored
that night.  An alternate explanation, which the players may wish to explore, is
that the three Japanese destroyers were hidden against the shoreline at Bairoka,
launched torpedoes and then were spotted only when the exited the gulf.
>
> The footnotes did't make it through the cut-and-paste, but the sources were
Dull's history of the Japanese Navy in WW II, Rohwer and Hummelchen's chronology
of WW II at sea, Morison (of course), and the Takao book from the Anatomy of the
Ship series for radar data.  I don't think that I had Vince O'Hara's book at the
time.
>
> --- In NavWarGames@yahoogroups.com, "bmusler11" <bmusler@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In NavWarGames@yahoogroups.com, "bmusler11" <bmusler@> wrote:
> > >
> > > According to Rohwer's CHRONOLOGY OF THE WAR AT SEA 1939-1945 (p.258) it
may have been either MOCHITSUKI, MIKATSUKI, or HAMAKAZE after they landed troops
near Vila in Kula Gulf. Rohwer notes the long lance hit, "at great range."
> >
> > It should be noted that the link post by Mark Hinds debunks this theory in
favor of a more choreographed mass launch.
> >
>

I have not read it for a while, but I believe your last suggestion is the
right one. The Japanese destroyers were not detected visually and US Radar
sets were blinded by the return clutter from the coastline.

Results with Japanese radar seem a bit spotty to some. But from my research
it seems that the sets themselves were quite good, but the crews lacked
training and lacked badly in how to carry out necessary maintenance. It
could be that the Niizuki was blessed with an efficient operator and a set
in good condition

Because of generally poor results from Japanese radar, naval wargamers seem
to have become conditioned to thinking they were never capable of doing
better. But with the right operator, the right conditions and a set that
worked well, they could get good results. Its just that those things did not
often coincide!


   
http://www.malwrightww2convoy.com/
http://eatingabout.blogspot.com/
http://malwrightblog.blogspot.com/

Mal Wright
Salus populi suprema lex
(safety of people the highest law)
-------Original Message-------

From: lenheinz2002
Date: 05/20/12 00:23:25
To: NavWarGames@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [NavWarGames] Re: "Automatic" torpedo fire defensible designwise?
NO


Here's what I found when I researched this engagement a few years ago. It's
one of those actions that doesn't yield a clear historical picture:

The authorities are at odds over the details of this action. Dull identifies
the engaged ships as Niizuki, Yunagi and Nagatsuki, and says that the
Niizuki fed target data from her radar to her consorts. This is at odds with
other data on Japanese radar development, which suggests that the Japanese
had no effective surface search sets at the time of this engagement. Rohwer
and Hummelchen list the Japanese ships in the action as the Mochizuki,
Mikazuki and Hamakaze under Captain Tsuneo Orita -- three older
destroyer-transports that probably would not have had radar and may not even
have had Long Lance torpedoes. This group was the "First Transport Unit" at
the battle of Kula Gulf. Morison does not identify the Japanese vessels at
all, writing only that the Americans had two radar contacts, and makes no
reference to how the Japanese spotted their targets or laid their weapons.
Despite other data, Morison credits Niizuki with radar and says that she
used it at the Battle of Kula Gulf (where she was sunk). Morison's account
of that battle suggests that Niikuki's set detected the presence of American
ships 34 minutes before the Americans SG radar detected the Japanese, and
that the Americans were tracked down to a range of 12,000 yards. Morison
also says that the action off Enogai took place on a "dark, overcast night,"
so it seems unlikely that Japanese optics outranged American radar in the
engagement. Based on this, I conclude that the Niizuki was present at this
action, and that her radar data resulted in the hits scored that night. An
alternate explanation, which the players may wish to explore, is that the
three Japanese destroyers were hidden against the shoreline at Bairoka,
launched torpedoes and then were spotted only when the exited the gulf.

The footnotes did't make it through the cut-and-paste, but the sources were
Dull's history of the Japanese Navy in WW II, Rohwer and Hummelchen's
chronology of WW II at sea, Morison (of course), and the Takao book from the
Anatomy of the Ship series for radar data. I don't think that I had Vince O
Hara's book at the time.

--- In NavWarGames@yahoogroups.com, "bmusler11" <bmusler@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In NavWarGames@yahoogroups.com, "bmusler11" <bmusler@> wrote:
> >
> > According to Rohwer's CHRONOLOGY OF THE WAR AT SEA 1939-1945 (p.258) it
may have been either MOCHITSUKI, MIKATSUKI, or HAMAKAZE after they landed
troops near Vila in Kula Gulf. Rohwer notes the long lance hit, "at great
range."
>
> It should be noted that the link post by Mark Hinds debunks this theory in
favor of a more choreographed mass launch.
>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I have somewhere a list of Japanese warships fitted with radar and when they
were fitted.  O'Hara ("US Navy Against the Axis") describes her as newly
commissioned and carrying a prototype search radar at the encounter off Rice
Anchorage (Kula Gulf) in July 1943.  From O'Hara's description of events -



0015 hrs  -  NIIZUKI's radar detected an approaching force of American DDs &
CLs before the Japanese force was picked up by American radar (possibly a
result of land returns).  The Japanese DD force reversed course to
disengage, putting 10 to 14 torpedoes into the water while doing so.



0026 hrs  -  The US DDs signaled an all clear and the CLs closed to bombard
Vila.



0031 hrs  -  USS RALPH TALBOT picked up a radar contact



0040 hrs  -   USS RALPH TALBOT classified the radar contact as ships fleeing
Kula Gulf.



0049 hrs  -  USS STRONG hit and ultimately sunk by torpedo hit.





This was the torpedo hit was scored at a range of 22,000 yards and, to one
degree or another, was apparently set up by radar.





I keep saying that the devil is always in the details.





Byron







   _____

From: NavWarGames@yahoogroups.com [mailto:NavWarGames@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of bmusler11
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2012 11:23 AM
To: NavWarGames@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [NavWarGames] Re: "Automatic" torpedo fire defensible designwise?
NO





Len,

Thanks. Great post. It's amazing how definite things are when you only read
one source...and how quickly they can get cloudy when you start to ask
questions. To your knowledge, did the Japanese also have a detection device
that indicated when radar was being employed by the enemy? (Was that at
Tassafaronga?) Because IF their spotters were blocked by the weather they
really would have to get the weapon targeting data from a fully functional
radar set, right? I've never come across that before; especially feeding it
to other ships for a coodinated launch. (Not that I've investigated it
though.) Did the Niizuki sink with the only prototype?!

Now, intentionally jumping to a way over-hasty conclusion for a
contrafactual wargame, it's frightening to think what the Japanese might
have done with American style radar directing schools of Type 93 torpedoes
in the Solomons. That would have been a Divine Wind to beat the baka bomb!

- Brandon

--- In NavWarGames@yahoogroups.com <mailto:NavWarGames%40yahoogroups.com> ,
"lenheinz2002" <lenheinz2002@...> wrote:
>
> Here's what I found when I researched this engagement a few years ago.
It's one of those actions that doesn't yield a clear historical picture:
>
> The authorities are at odds over the details of this action. Dull
identifies the engaged ships as Niizuki, Yunagi and Nagatsuki, and says that
the Niizuki fed target data from her radar to her consorts. This is at odds
with other data on Japanese radar development, which suggests that the
Japanese had no effective surface search sets at the time of this
engagement. Rohwer and Hummelchen list the Japanese ships in the action as
the Mochizuki, Mikazuki and Hamakaze under Captain Tsuneo Orita -- three
older destroyer-transports that probably would not have had radar and may
not even have had Long Lance torpedoes. This group was the "First Transport
Unit" at the battle of Kula Gulf. Morison does not identify the Japanese
vessels at all, writing only that the Americans had two radar contacts, and
makes no reference to how the Japanese spotted their targets or laid their
weapons. Despite other data, Morison credits Niizuki with radar and says
that she used it at the Battle of Kula Gulf (where she was sunk). Morison's
account of that battle suggests that Niikuki's set detected the presence of
American ships 34 minutes before the Americans SG radar detected the
Japanese, and that the Americans were tracked down to a range of 12,000
yards. Morison also says that the action off Enogai took place on a "dark,
overcast night," so it seems unlikely that Japanese optics outranged
American radar in the engagement. Based on this, I conclude that the Niizuki
was present at this action, and that her radar data resulted in the hits
scored that night. An alternate explanation, which the players may wish to
explore, is that the three Japanese destroyers were hidden against the
shoreline at Bairoka, launched torpedoes and then were spotted only when the
exited the gulf.
>
> The footnotes did't make it through the cut-and-paste, but the sources
were Dull's history of the Japanese Navy in WW II, Rohwer and Hummelchen's
chronology of WW II at sea, Morison (of course), and the Takao book from the
Anatomy of the Ship series for radar data. I don't think that I had Vince
O'Hara's book at the time.
>
> --- In NavWarGames@yahoogroups.com <mailto:NavWarGames%40yahoogroups.com>
, "bmusler11" <bmusler@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In NavWarGames@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:NavWarGames%40yahoogroups.com> , "bmusler11" <bmusler@> wrote:
> > >
> > > According to Rohwer's CHRONOLOGY OF THE WAR AT SEA 1939-1945 (p.258)
it may have been either MOCHITSUKI, MIKATSUKI, or HAMAKAZE after they landed
troops near Vila in Kula Gulf. Rohwer notes the long lance hit, "at great
range."
> >
> > It should be noted that the link post by Mark Hinds debunks this theory
in favor of a more choreographed mass launch.
> >
>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I may have mentioned this before, but in Naval Action Japanese Long Lance
  torpedoes have a 2-turn/10 minute range.
 
Down in St. Louis, I ran a 1:700 Battle of the Malayan Shore game against
  Ray Runge and Andrew Waller - Perth Captain Hec(tor) Waller's grandson.
  Needless to say, Andrew had my cardstock Perth leading the Allied battleline,
  which had Hood standing in for Repulse (since there was no 1:700 Repulse at
  that time ... ca. 1985 ... as well as my cardstock Boise.
 
To make a long and dismal story short, I fired off all my longrange 24"
torpedoes,
  only to have the Allies either not there by the time they got there or -
benefiting
  from nonhistorical hindsight - sashaying in and out of range, gulling me into
  expending all my torpedoes, including reloads.
 
The same discovery is made about the historical Battle of the Java Sea:  At such
  long range and after so long a time, the targets may be FAR away from their
  expected position when launching.  The old, non-homing torpedoes were NOT
  a longrangeweapon.
 
By the way, after our game was over, the victorious Andrew told me that his
  brother Richard is the real naval wargamer in the family.  I felt sort of like
  the troll who got knocked off the bridge by a younger billy goat.  :-I

Lou
  Coatney, ELCOAT@...
Skarerasen 16, Apt 1107
1473 Loerenskog, Norway
47-45765765
http://LCoat.tripod.com/index.htm
http://www.coatneyhistory.com
(Free games, cardstock model ship plans, etc.)


________________________________
From: lenheinz2002 <lenheinz2002@...>
To: NavWarGames@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 4:55 PM
Subject: [NavWarGames] Re: "Automatic" torpedo fire defensible designwise? NO


 

Byron,

I agree with your point that the IJN's torpedo tactics versus a battleline were
never given a fair trial under combat conditions. The approach taken in the
article that Brooks pointed us to looks at all IJN night engagements, not at the
particular conditions that the IJN sought to create for the "Decisive Battle."

That said, a review of the engagements shows that the torpedo was a fluky
weapon, with a wide variety of results available. I've always been struck by the
contrasts between Second Guadalcanal and Tassafaronga. In some ways, Second
Guadalcanal was a miniature form of the "ideal" Decisive Battle -- capital ships
on both sides, a night engagement, the IJN deliberately engaging with light
forces before the capital ships joined the action, the USN unaware that it was
in torpedo water -- and the IJN missed the big targets entirely. Tassafaronga is
the other extreme. Again, the Japanese were launching at night, and although the
cruiser battleline had begun to engage them it was not maneuvering to avoid
torpedoes. The result was a high percentage of hits -- approaching 15%.

And that said, I think that the IJN would have struggled to create the ideal
conditions for torpedo phase of the Decisive Battle. Surprise torpedo attacks
from multiple angles were fine in theory, but the command and control issues
inherent in pulling them off were daunting. One thing is clear from the
historical record though -- torpedoes were vastly more effective against
unsuspecting targets than against targets that thought an attack was coming.

--- In NavWarGames@yahoogroups.com, Byron <byronangel@...> wrote:
>
> Long range massed torpedo fire was never afforded the sort of battle line
target for which it had been so painstakingly developed. Never the less, the IJN
does own the record for the longest range torpedo hit in history @ something
like 26,000 yards.
>
> Had there been such a target, my reckoning is that a massed coordinated
surprise night attack involving 100's of torpedoes fired from different approach
axes against a US fleet in night cruising formation would have been very
effective.
>
> Byron
>
> Sent from my iPhone

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I really don't think you need to assign depth, Drew.


Lou Coatney, ELCOAT@...
Skarerasen 16, Apt 1107
1473 Loerenskog, Norway
47-45765765
http://LCoat.tripod.com/index.htm
http://www.coatneyhistory.com
(Free games, cardstock model ship plans, etc.)


________________________________
From: Braunschweig <andrewjarman@...>
To: NavWarGames@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 5:36 PM
Subject: [NavWarGames] Torpedo Fire as a game mechanism


 
I tried to post earlier but it seems to vanished in the ether [sniff]

I am toying with super simple Torpedo Fire rules. The sort of rules for WW1 that
dont give you a headache.

Locomotive Torpedoes are essentially one shot weapons and are fired in salvos of
one to about four up to 1924.

I am thinking of something along the following lines.

Each Torpedo has a Range and Fire Factor depending on the year, diameter and
nationality. [I have a nationality listing and fire factor based on size and
class banding so for example 18" Type A, 18" Type B and so on]

The fire factor at the chosen range gives us the speed of the torpedo at that
range setting.

The fire procedure will e something like this.

The firer decided that he wants to fire and placed a TT Fire Marker beside the
firing vessel. This will have a fire arc of something like 10 degree each side
off the beam to represent trainable tubes and the fact that ships would slightly
turn to fire.

The fire would decide the dept setting either shallow or deep. [more on this
later]

They would decide on how may torpedoes are being fire in that salvo, this is
dependant on the vessel and how may mountins they have available.

The torpedo [[s] is [are] fired and EACH TURN it [they] will travel in the water
at the fire factor speed along the fire arc out to the maximum run range
setting.

Any vessel that sails through the firing arc during the turn that the torpedo
passes through it is potentially liable for a torpedo hit.

Given the huge numbers of torpedos fired in WW1 and the relatively small number
of hits obtained I would give the first torpedo a 10% chance of hitting a ship,
[up to 4000 m from the firers target]each additional torpedo fired in that salvo
adds another 2% to the hit chance. For torpedos fired over 4000 m I would make
the to hit chance only 5% with each additional torpedo giving another 1% chance
for a hit.

If it was set to shallow setting it would cause normal damage to all small
vessells such as destroyers and light cruisers but would strike the main belt of
larger ships such as armoured cruisers, battleships and the like and only cause
hull damage points losses according to the particular torpedo.

If it was set to deep then it would run under all smaller vessels and if it
stuck larger vessels is would cause normal damage as per the damage chart.

The hitting chance would be reduced significantly if the torpedo tracks were
spotted by any potential targets and they then took avoiding action.

I am unsure what the spotting chance should be but the to hit chance would be
halved for any vessel successfully spotting torpedo tracks. Likewise all ships
should have some sort of chance to physically see if any above water torpedos
were being fired by the large spash they made upon entering the water, again I
am not sure of the range this would be but 4000 m seems a good guide as most
hits were obtained under that range and tracks were reported being seen and
ships turned to avoid most of them.

It might sound a low hit chance but most of our games use models that are far
larger than the sea scale so there is a lot more clear blue water around each
model and its base than what we appear to see.

Comments and suggests appreciated?

Drew




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

LOTS of surprises in Naval Action's torpedo mechanics, since torpedo salvos'
  course is plotted in secret along with ship course and gunnery allocation
  ... simultaneouslywith the opponents.
 
I've even bluffed making torpedo launchings by taking extra long to make my
  ship course plot and gunnery allocations.  :-)
 
"Precisely. And what I'm saying is that it might be better to trade off those
marginal conditions where a Long Lance that missing it's intended target 1000
yards away randomly hit another target 17,500 yards away, for a system that
yields actual SURPRISE. The majority of torpedo hits were on close or slowed
targets. Most of the rest were on targets that never expected them to be in the
water. "

Lou Coatney, ELCOAT@...
Skarerasen 16, Apt 1107
1473 Loerenskog, Norway
47-45765765
http://LCoat.tripod.com/index.htm
http://www.coatneyhistory.com
(Free games, cardstock model ship plans, etc.)

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Is there a concensus on if torpedoes were fired with a depth setting or not?

I always thought that they had shallow or deep depending on the intended target
because of the possibility of hitting a thick armoured belt and not causing much
damage.

Also running deep helped them miss annoying things like destroyers etc.

Perhaps I need to check ships designed draughts by type ?

Drew
Sent from my iPhone

Torpedo hydrostatic depth keeping mechanisms were quite adjustable.  I have
read one account of US torpedoes in the same spread being set to run at
various depths between 5 and 9 feet (in response to suspicions about
excessively deep running).  Warship drafts could range from 10 ft for a DD
to 40+ feet for a capital ship.  Since torpedo damage effect would increase
with the depth of a hit, it was desirable to tailor the torpedo's depth
setting to the intended target.



Of course, the depth-keeping performance of a torpedo (among other
performance characteristics) depended upon the quality of maintenance it had
received at the depot and of preparation made by the torpedo crew before
going into action.



Byron



   _____

From: NavWarGames@yahoogroups.com [mailto:NavWarGames@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Drew Jarman
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 1:30 AM
To: NavWarGames@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [NavWarGames] Depth settings fir torpedoes





Is there a concensus on if torpedoes were fired with a depth setting or not?

I always thought that they had shallow or deep depending on the intended
target because of the possibility of hitting a thick armoured belt and not
causing much damage.

Also running deep helped them miss annoying things like destroyers etc.

Perhaps I need to check ships designed draughts by type ?

Drew
Sent from my iPhone





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

So my idea of deep or shallow draft settings wasnt wide of the mark.

At Jutland they were after the big ships, often missed or ran underneath their
targets. Making them a weapon of threat rather than effect is probably the best
way forward.

Factoring a lot of things into the design concept to simplify the process to
avoid slowing down the game.

Drew
Sent from my iPhone

On 20 May 2012, at 12:59, "Byron Angel" <byronangel@...> wrote:

> Torpedo hydrostatic depth keeping mechanisms were quite adjustable. I have
> read one account of US torpedoes in the same spread being set to run at
> various depths between 5 and 9 feet (in response to suspicions about
> excessively deep running). Warship drafts could range from 10 ft for a DD
> to 40+ feet for a capital ship. Since torpedo damage effect would increase
> with the depth of a hit, it was desirable to tailor the torpedo's depth
> setting to the intended target.
>
> Of course, the depth-keeping performance of a torpedo (among other
> performance characteristics) depended upon the quality of maintenance it had
> received at the depot and of preparation made by the torpedo crew before
> going into action.
>
> Byron
>
> _____
>
> From: NavWarGames@yahoogroups.com [mailto:NavWarGames@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Drew Jarman
> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 1:30 AM
> To: NavWarGames@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [NavWarGames] Depth settings fir torpedoes
>
> Is there a concensus on if torpedoes were fired with a depth setting or not?
>
> I always thought that they had shallow or deep depending on the intended
> target because of the possibility of hitting a thick armoured belt and not
> causing much damage.
>
> Also running deep helped them miss annoying things like destroyers etc.
>
> Perhaps I need to check ships designed draughts by type ?
>
> Drew
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> The vast difference in scale of these is why
> the decision on how to model guns vs torpedoes in a TACTICAL
> game is usually different, and also the number of weapons involved.
> A lot more shells are fired than torpedoes, so it is easier to model
> overall shell performance with a statistical model.

True, but a higher percentage of torpedos hit, and each one did a lot more
damage. And in the night battles in the Slot, the ranges of employment weren't
even that different.

Therefore I think that somebody ought to try designing a game around the torpedo
system and then adding gunnery as a misfit afterthought, rather than vice-versa.
This conception would also fit Japanese thinking, in which the torpedo was to be
the primary weapon.

Brian

In one of the responses, someone seemed to be deriding there being
  torpedo tracks at night.
 
Of course, in the South Pacific anyway, anything moving faster than
  20 (?) knots ... left a phosphorescent wake ... which must have been
  thrilling to watch ... especially if it was coming at you.

Lou Coatney, ELCOAT@...
Skarerasen 16, Apt 1107
1473 Loerenskog, Norway
47-45765765
http://LCoat.tripod.com/index.htm
http://www.coatneyhistory.com
(Free games, cardstock model ship plans, etc.)


________________________________
From: Lou Coatney <cl52@...>
To: "NavWarGames@yahoogroups.com" <NavWarGames@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 4:50 AM
Subject: Re: [NavWarGames] Torpedo Fire as a game mechanism - Surprise


 
LOTS of surprises in Naval Action's torpedo mechanics, since torpedo salvos'
  course is plotted in secret along with ship course and gunnery allocation
  ... simultaneouslywith the opponents.
 
I've even bluffed making torpedo launchings by taking extra long to make my
  ship course plot and gunnery allocations.  :-)
 
"Precisely. And what I'm saying is that it might be better to trade off those
marginal conditions where a Long Lance that missing it's intended target 1000
yards away randomly hit another target 17,500 yards away, for a system that
yields actual SURPRISE. The majority of torpedo hits were on close or slowed
targets. Most of the rest were on targets that never expected them to be in the
water. "

Lou Coatney, ELCOAT@...
Skarerasen 16, Apt 1107
1473 Loerenskog, Norway
47-45765765
http://LCoat.tripod.com/index.htm
http://www.coatneyhistory.com
(Free games, cardstock model ship plans, etc.)

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The easiest system is to look at the success rate v numbers fired.. If we add in
the size of spread and ranges we can sort of model a game system around the
initial 5% hit rate that appears to be common for the whole of the 20th Century.

Drew

From: Brian
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 3:31 PM
To: NavWarGames@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [NavWarGames] Re: "Automatic" torpedo fire defensible designwise? NO



> The vast difference in scale of these is why
> the decision on how to model guns vs torpedoes in a TACTICAL
> game is usually different, and also the number of weapons involved.
> A lot more shells are fired than torpedoes, so it is easier to model
> overall shell performance with a statistical model.

True, but a higher percentage of torpedos hit, and each one did a lot more
damage. And in the night battles in the Slot, the ranges of employment weren't
even that different.

Therefore I think that somebody ought to try designing a game around the torpedo
system and then adding gunnery as a misfit afterthought, rather than vice-versa.
This conception would also fit Japanese thinking, in which the torpedo was to be
the primary weapon.

Brian





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

True.  With torpedoes, you only worried about ultimate range - not intermediate
ranges.


Lou Coatney, ELCOAT@...
Skarerasen 16, Apt 1107
1473 Loerenskog, Norway
47-45765765
http://LCoat.tripod.com/index.htm
http://www.coatneyhistory.com
(Free games, cardstock model ship plans, etc.)


________________________________
From: Brian <brianmccue22312@...>
To: NavWarGames@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 4:31 PM
Subject: [NavWarGames] Re: "Automatic" torpedo fire defensible designwise? NO


 

> The vast difference in scale of these is why
> the decision on how to model guns vs torpedoes in a TACTICAL
> game is usually different, and also the number of weapons involved.
> A lot more shells are fired than torpedoes, so it is easier to model
> overall shell performance with a statistical model.

True, but a higher percentage of torpedos hit, and each one did a lot more
damage. And in the night battles in the Slot, the ranges of employment weren't
even that different.

Therefore I think that somebody ought to try designing a game around the torpedo
system and then adding gunnery as a misfit afterthought, rather than vice-versa.
This conception would also fit Japanese thinking, in which the torpedo was to be
the primary weapon.

Brian




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> Therefore I think that somebody ought to try designing a game around the
torpedo system and then adding gunnery as a misfit afterthought, rather than
vice-versa. This conception would also fit Japanese thinking, in which the
torpedo was to be the primary weapon.

That's a great idea if we are talking about a tactical game focused primarily on
surface warfare.  After all, when all was said and done, the Americans had
changed their initial tactics in two major ways that bascially mirrored the
Japanese approach. 1) DDs were allowed to maneuver (more) independently of the
main battle line. 2) Under ideal conditions the torpedo attack by the DDs was
conducted BEFORE the order to open fire with the main battery was given.  The
only caveat I would stress if that the conditions that validated these tactics
changed as the war continued so it should be a Solomons game.

Just keep in mind..... Most destroyer men I ever spoke too referred to the
torpedo tubes as the ships "Main ornament". The vast majority never ever
even fired one other than in practice.


  > Therefore I think that somebody ought to try designing a game around the
torpedo system and then adding gunnery as a misfit afterthought, rather than
vice-versa. This conception would also fit Japanese thinking, in which the
torpedo was to be the primary weapon.>



   
http://www.malwrightww2convoy.com/
http://eatingabout.blogspot.com/
http://malwrightblog.blogspot.com/

Mal Wright
Salus populi suprema lex
(safety of people the highest law)











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I'm entering this thread a bit late so excuse me if it has ended.  SBIII is
adjustable.  Any text editor can be used to change any of the 80+ data points in
each ship's data string.  As Brooks R. said changing the displacement wont cure
the durability problem.  I went a bit further and revised the rate of fire for
the guns, esp. the smaller calibers.  The game uses the theoretical best rate of
fire.  I reduced that drastically.  that seemed to help somewhat in small ship
actions. (I still have my notes in the box which identifies every place of the
data string and what it represents if anyone is interested....back in the early
90's I had the time and inclination to work that out).  I shared this same
concern with Dave waaaaay back then too.  IIRC he told me that part of the
problem was that he had another programmer working with him and that person did
a lot of the work for the game including the gunfire aspect.  There was a big
error in the coding along that line and he did not have the source code
available to him to make the necessary corrections.  So the game is flawed in
(IMO) a pretty serious way.
Dave's DCATR windows program was an attempt to have the gamers themselves work
out the bugs etc. but like many of his projects, it got set aside for other
interests, or daily life, etc. (this is not meant to be a critism but I've seen
the same thing happen with his Tank Treads and other programs back then. 
Anyways, I also changed from SBIII to Action Stations as I really dont like the
linear damage model (Alnavco's Seapower and Fletcher Pratt's game as stated
earlier by someone, also uses a linear damage model).  Action Stations (AS) also
has its bugs and ship data errors, but for the most part runs pretty well.  It
also suffers from the small ship vulnerability mainly due to the high gunfire
rates of small guns when using a 3 minute turn and, as stated in the rulebook,
it totals up all hits and applies them at the end of the turn rather than
applying them as they occur which could affect further firing by a gun that was
maybe KO'd one minute into the turn.
In AS the ship data files can also be edited with any text editor and I am in
process of doing that for my own personal copy (something I started some years
ago and shared with Brandon M...but now I really have time to do a more thorough
job of it).  Again I have found not only some errors in the ship data files
(i.e. weapons, armor, obvious typos, but also the data string concerning the
chance of where each hit could land.) Having experimented with much of the data
strings I have discovered also that the main program itself (which I can't
change without the source code) has errors in its programing (i.e when applying
hits to the conning tower location helm control is not affected but instead
directors are KO'd.  3 of the hit locations KO directors; IMO this is a bit
much).
It would be great if Alan Zimm would redo the game using more up to date
graphics and correcting the programming errors ... maybe someday he will.




--- In NavWarGames@yahoogroups.com, "Drew Jarman" <andrewjarman@...> wrote:
>
> Brooks
>
> Is SBIII adjustable? Perhaps the DD’s can be tweaked so their displacements
are higher than real life to improve their durability a bit?
>
> Drew
>
> From: Brooks R
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 4:14 PM
> To: NavWarGames@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [NavWarGames] Re: BATTLES France v's Italy campaign game
>
>
> One issue I found every time I tried Shipbase III was excessive vulnerability
of small ships. They died wayyyy to quickly compared to historically. Almost
everything else worked pretty well, but the damage model for ships was almost
purely linear with displacement, and the reduced probability of hits against
small ships didn't compensate for that.
>
> Brooks Rowlett
>
> --- In mailto:NavWarGames%40yahoogroups.com, "mgwright@" <mgwright@> wrote:
> >
> > http://pawnderings.blogspot.com.au/2008/05/shipbase-iii-still-useful.html
> >
> >
> >
> > This site has a good review of SBIII.
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

http://www.buglecall.com.au/home

Please note the link above to the BUGLE CALL wargames convention to be held
on the Queens Birthday weekend in Adelaide South Australia.

I will be presenting a demonstration game of CARNAGE AND GLORY II computer
moderated rules at the convention. Players interested in taking part in my
game are invited to contact me accordingly.

The venue is located in the southern suburbs of Adelaide near the Marion
Shopping Centre. The shopping centre is quite near and has a Movieplex and
eating places that can provide a convenient distraction for wives and
children. The main central city of Adelaide is within 30 minutes drive, but
there are plenty of buses nearby and train services. There is a major
caravan park on Sturt road which has cabins and caravans for hire. There are
others nearby as well as hotels and motels.  The Southern Vales wine tourist
area and the Fleurieu Peninsular tourist sites are within a twenty minute
drive south of the venue.

Trader stalls can be seen on the above link as well as games etc.

Recent weeks have been bright and sunny despite winter being with us and
that could last over the period of the event.


   
http://www.malwrightww2convoy.com/
http://eatingabout.blogspot.com/
http://malwrightblog.blogspot.com/

Mal Wright
Salus populi suprema lex
(safety of people the highest law)

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Glen,

> Action Stations (AS) also has its bugs and ship data errors, but for the most
part runs pretty well.  It also suffers from the small ship vulnerability mainly
due to the high gunfire rates of small guns when using a 3 minute turn and, as
stated in the rulebook, it totals up all hits and applies them at the end of the
turn rather than applying them as they occur which could affect further firing
by a gun that was maybe KO'd one minute into the turn.

Yes, the manual admits to this problem; particularly at short range where the
number of his can get pretty ridiculous as a result.  That turns out to be a
smaller problem than you might think because a ship wandering point blank into
the enemy is often out of control already and often close to sunk. But in cut
and thrust destroyer actions it is perhaps the most niggling problem with the
program.  That said, DD's survive longer then cruisers in SBIII.

> In AS the ship data files can also be edited with any text editor and I am in
process of doing that for my own personal copy (something I started some years
ago and shared with Brandon M...but now I really have time to do a more thorough
job of it).

Note to everybody...when Glen says "thorough job" he's not kidding! For example
he even checks (and corrects) the hull lengths to ensure accuracy. He also did a
thorough job of sorting through all of the available guns, making some
reassignments where necessary (which was mostly necessary for the French navy in
particular, IIRC.) Glen uses his 40 sources...whereas I just tend to retrofit
SK5 data into my ship files...but anybody can use any source they want as long
as they have a text editor.

> Again I have found not only some errors in the ship data files (i.e. weapons,
armor, obvious typos, but also the data string concerning the chance of where
each hit could land.) Having experimented with much of the data strings I have
discovered also that the main program itself (which I can't change without the
source code) has errors in its programing (i.e when applying hits to the conning
tower location helm control is not affected but instead directors are KO'd.  3
of the hit locations KO directors; IMO this is a bit much).

I see you've been working on it since last we exchanged e-mails. I guess that
loss of helm must occur as a result of belt end hits. In any case they do occur
in the game with some frequency. And I agree that directors -- and especially
radar -- are vulnerable which makes ships with multiple directors more valuable.
I could not say whether the rate of degradation is accurate in this regard. 
Unfortuantely, we're never going to get the source code unless somebody other
than Zimm hands it over because Alan himself doesn't have it.

> It would be great if Alan Zimm would redo the game using more up to date
graphics and correcting the programming errors ... maybe someday he will.

He says it's on his to do list...along with a host of other things.

I've said it ad nauseum, but if you have a serious interest in simulating WW2
surface torpedo warfare...this is the game for you. IMO it's second to none in
that regard.

Good to hear from you again Glenn!

- Brandon

>
> --- In NavWarGames@yahoogroups.com, "Drew Jarman" <andrewjarman@> wrote:
> >
> > Brooks
> >
> > Is SBIII adjustable? Perhaps the DD’s can be tweaked so their
displacements are higher than real life to improve their durability a bit?
> >
> > Drew
> >
> > From: Brooks R
> > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 4:14 PM
> > To: NavWarGames@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [NavWarGames] Re: BATTLES France v's Italy campaign game
> >
> >
> > One issue I found every time I tried Shipbase III was excessive
vulnerability of small ships. They died wayyyy to quickly compared to
historically. Almost everything else worked pretty well, but the damage model
for ships was almost purely linear with displacement, and the reduced
probability of hits against small ships didn't compensate for that.
> >
> > Brooks Rowlett
> >
> > --- In mailto:NavWarGames%40yahoogroups.com, "mgwright@" <mgwright@> wrote:
> > >
> > > http://pawnderings.blogspot.com.au/2008/05/shipbase-iii-still-useful.html
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This site has a good review of SBIII.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

I have to agree with Brandon concerning the torpedo aspect of the Action
Stations game.  Frankly it's what i enjoy most about the game, and I will admit
I do close range just so I can get to play with the launching torps part of the
game.

superstructure hits (one of the 14 hit locations) can affect helm control or the
ability to get orders from bridge to engineering or other locations. Not always
does a hit on a location fully affect that area's perview. which is nice since
maybe the hit was to another less critical area of the superstructure. 
Superstruction hits can have no immediate affect, KO bridge (reducing its
efficiency at following orders to helm or other systems), searchlights, I have
found so far, that hits on the Conn may cause the ship to change heading just a
couple of degrees but will definitely be treated as a hit on a director. 
Another aspect of the program I like is that maybe the hit was on an already hit
area. so hits dont just KO the next working element but maybe the hit was on an
already KO'd turret, etc.
I am pretty much done with all ship data aspects (gun, armor, size, torpedo
protection, ammo capacity, engineering, and flotation). I am currently working
on the chance of hit on a location via a grid system overlayed over a scaled top
and side drawings of each ship class.  Then making some subjective adjustments
to that mainly for SG and TG since they were more easily KO'd due to
(relative)lack of protection for crew and weapon. trouble is these old eyes say,
"whoa! enough of this 1mm grid counting" after a couple of hours.
I am documenting just what sources I've used in my cover pages to the ship data
files so that users can choose to use some other methodology or just copy what I
have come up with into their own copy of the data files.

--- In NavWarGames@yahoogroups.com, "bmusler11" <bmusler@...> wrote:
>
> Glen,
>
> > Action Stations (AS) also has its bugs and ship data errors, but for the
most part runs pretty well.  It also suffers from the small ship vulnerability
mainly due to the high gunfire rates of small guns when using a 3 minute turn
and, as stated in the rulebook, it totals up all hits and applies them at the
end of the turn rather than applying them as they occur which could affect
further firing by a gun that was maybe KO'd one minute into the turn.
>
> Yes, the manual admits to this problem; particularly at short range where the
number of his can get pretty ridiculous as a result.  That turns out to be a
smaller problem than you might think because a ship wandering point blank into
the enemy is often out of control already and often close to sunk. But in cut
and thrust destroyer actions it is perhaps the most niggling problem with the
program.  That said, DD's survive longer then cruisers in SBIII.
>
> > In AS the ship data files can also be edited with any text editor and I am
in process of doing that for my own personal copy (something I started some
years ago and shared with Brandon M...but now I really have time to do a more
thorough job of it).
>
> Note to everybody...when Glen says "thorough job" he's not kidding! For
example he even checks (and corrects) the hull lengths to ensure accuracy. He
also did a thorough job of sorting through all of the available guns, making
some reassignments where necessary (which was mostly necessary for the French
navy in particular, IIRC.) Glen uses his 40 sources...whereas I just tend to
retrofit SK5 data into my ship files...but anybody can use any source they want
as long as they have a text editor.
>
> > Again I have found not only some errors in the ship data files (i.e.
weapons, armor, obvious typos, but also the data string concerning the chance of
where each hit could land.) Having experimented with much of the data strings I
have discovered also that the main program itself (which I can't change without
the source code) has errors in its programing (i.e when applying hits to the
conning tower location helm control is not affected but instead directors are
KO'd.  3 of the hit locations KO directors; IMO this is a bit much).
>
> I see you've been working on it since last we exchanged e-mails. I guess that
loss of helm must occur as a result of belt end hits. In any case they do occur
in the game with some frequency. And I agree that directors -- and especially
radar -- are vulnerable which makes ships with multiple directors more valuable.
I could not say whether the rate of degradation is accurate in this regard. 
Unfortuantely, we're never going to get the source code unless somebody other
than Zimm hands it over because Alan himself doesn't have it.
>
> > It would be great if Alan Zimm would redo the game using more up to date
graphics and correcting the programming errors ... maybe someday he will.
>
> He says it's on his to do list...along with a host of other things.
>
> I've said it ad nauseum, but if you have a serious interest in simulating WW2
surface torpedo warfare...this is the game for you. IMO it's second to none in
that regard.
>
> Good to hear from you again Glenn!
>
> - Brandon
>
> >
> > --- In NavWarGames@yahoogroups.com, "Drew Jarman" <andrewjarman@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Brooks
> > >
> > > Is SBIII adjustable? Perhaps the DD’s can be tweaked so their
displacements are higher than real life to improve their durability a bit?
> > >
> > > Drew
> > >
> > > From: Brooks R
> > > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 4:14 PM
> > > To: NavWarGames@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: [NavWarGames] Re: BATTLES France v's Italy campaign game
> > >
> > >
> > > One issue I found every time I tried Shipbase III was excessive
vulnerability of small ships. They died wayyyy to quickly compared to
historically. Almost everything else worked pretty well, but the damage model
for ships was almost purely linear with displacement, and the reduced
probability of hits against small ships didn't compensate for that.
> > >
> > > Brooks Rowlett
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:NavWarGames%40yahoogroups.com, "mgwright@" <mgwright@>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
http://pawnderings.blogspot.com.au/2008/05/shipbase-iii-still-useful.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This site has a good review of SBIII.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
>

Glenn,

> I have to agree with Brandon concerning the torpedo aspect of the Action
Stations game.  Frankly it's what i enjoy most about the game, and I will admit
I do close range just so I can get to play with the launching torps part of the
game.

Well, so do I. But I try not to reach grappling range...though the AI does not
always cooperate by doing what I anticipate!

> I am pretty much done with all ship data aspects (gun, armor, size, torpedo
protection, ammo capacity, engineering, and flotation).

And, it should be mentioned, that both you and I have added missing ships and
alternate version of ships like Hood, Exeter etc...that fought in different
actions or eras.

> I am currently working on the chance of hit on a location via a grid system
overlayed over a scaled top and side drawings of each ship class.  Then making
some subjective adjustments to that mainly for SG and TG since they were more
easily KO'd due to (relative)lack of protection for crew and weapon.

SG and TG?  Secondary and tertiary mounts?  Does this mean that you are
reallocating the percentages of hits to the 14 differnt damage areas? Is that
possible to do that? Or was it just that we hadn't deciphered which of those
numbers mapped to which damage locations the last time I worked on this with
you?

> I am documenting just what sources I've used in my cover pages to the ship
data files so that users can choose to use some other methodology or just copy
what I have come up with into their own copy of the data files.

TIA. I will look forward to this. Just to be clear to other people reading here.
What Glenn produces is a spreadsheet where the rows (or do you still use
columns?) can be copied over the AS! ship data files to modify them according to
superior sources. (NB: a lot more/better data has become accessible since 1990
when the game was first published.)

This merely requires a bit of cutting and pasting; no real computer/technical
skill.  Once you have the key to the files you can modify the parameters
yourself...so if you want to give French ships Japanese torpedos and guns for
one scenario, you can do it. It makes a great moderation tool for spotting,
radar and (torpedo) movement too. - Brandon

P.S. In case you don't know, I've already posted some of your past work this
site in the files section btw.

The torpedo was the Great Equalizer ... like the Colt .45 was called in the Old
West.
 
Then look at the doomed, committee-designed DeRuyter with only 5.9" guns
  - hardly a threat even toJapanese fleet destroyers.

Lou
  Coatney, ELCOAT@...
Skarerasen 16, Apt 1107
1473 Loerenskog, Norway
47-45765765
http://LCoat.tripod.com/index.htm
http://www.coatneyhistory.com
(Free games, cardstock model ship plans, etc.)


________________________________
From: Mal Wright <mgwright@...>
To: NavWarGames@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 7:39 PM
Subject: Re: [NavWarGames] Re: "Automatic" torpedo fire defensible designwise?
NO


 
Just keep in mind..... Most destroyer men I ever spoke too referred to the
torpedo tubes as the ships "Main ornament". The vast majority never ever
even fired one other than in practice.


> Therefore I think that somebody ought to try designing a game around the
torpedo system and then adding gunnery as a misfit afterthought, rather than
vice-versa. This conception would also fit Japanese thinking, in which the
torpedo was to be the primary weapon.>



   
http://www.malwrightww2convoy.com/
http://eatingabout.blogspot.com/
http://malwrightblog.blogspot.com/

Mal Wright
Salus populi suprema lex
(safety of people the highest law)











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Not really.  Our destroyers in Surigao Strait and the Japanese longrange
  torpedo attack in the Philippines soon thereafter were made before gunfire.
 
Torpedos' effectiveness was greatly enhanced by surprise, which gunfire
  gave away, and among islands, radar could still be unreliable.
 
"The only caveat I would stress if that the conditions that validated
  these tactics changed as the war continued so it should be a Solomons game."

Lou Coatney, ELCOAT@...
Skarerasen 16, Apt 1107
1473 Loerenskog, Norway
47-45765765
http://LCoat.tripod.com/index.htm
http://www.coatneyhistory.com
(Free games, cardstock model ship plans, etc.)


________________________________
From: bmusler11 <bmusler@...>
To: NavWarGames@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 6:37 PM
Subject: [NavWarGames] Re: "Automatic" torpedo fire defensible designwise? NO


 


> Therefore I think that somebody ought to try designing a game around the
torpedo system and then adding gunnery as a misfit afterthought, rather than
vice-versa. This conception would also fit Japanese thinking, in which the
torpedo was to be the primary weapon.

That's a great idea if we are talking about a tactical game focused primarily on
surface warfare. After all, when all was said and done, the Americans had
changed their initial tactics in two major ways that bascially mirrored the
Japanese approach. 1) DDs were allowed to maneuver (more) independently of the
main battle line. 2) Under ideal conditions the torpedo attack by the DDs was
conducted BEFORE the order to open fire with the main battery was given. The
only caveat I would stress if that the conditions that validated these tactics
changed as the war continued so it should be a Solomons game.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

True enough -- the new tactics progressed to doctrine. But after the Solomons,
with a few exceptions, air power began to deliver most of the significant
torpedo attacks. The measurement of a ship's utility almost becomes how much AA
(and radar) a ship could provide (provided it wasn't a carrier itself) to ward
them off.

To be honest -- and this is just my own personal bias -- the naval war becomes
drastically less interesting to me after 1943.  By then the Japanese had
decisively missed their window to extend the war by fleet action.

--- In NavWarGames@yahoogroups.com, Lou Coatney <cl52@...> wrote:
>
> Not really.  Our destroyers in Surigao Strait and the Japanese longrange
>   torpedo attack in the Philippines soon thereafter were made before gunfire.
>  
> Torpedos' effectiveness was greatly enhanced by surprise, which gunfire
>   gave away, and among islands, radar could still be unreliable.
>  
> "The only caveat I would stress if that the conditions that validated
>   these tactics changed as the war continued so it should be a Solomons
game."
>
> Lou Coatney, ELCOAT@...
> Skarerasen 16, Apt 1107
> 1473 Loerenskog, Norway
> 47-45765765
> http://LCoat.tripod.com/index.htm
> http://www.coatneyhistory.com
> (Free games, cardstock model ship plans, etc.)
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: bmusler11 <bmusler@...>
> To: NavWarGames@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 6:37 PM
> Subject: [NavWarGames] Re: "Automatic" torpedo fire defensible designwise? NO
>
>
>  
>
>
> > Therefore I think that somebody ought to try designing a game around the
torpedo system and then adding gunnery as a misfit afterthought, rather than
vice-versa. This conception would also fit Japanese thinking, in which the
torpedo was to be the primary weapon.
>
> That's a great idea if we are talking about a tactical game focused primarily
on surface warfare. After all, when all was said and done, the Americans had
changed their initial tactics in two major ways that bascially mirrored the
Japanese approach. 1) DDs were allowed to maneuver (more) independently of the
main battle line. 2) Under ideal conditions the torpedo attack by the DDs was
conducted BEFORE the order to open fire with the main battery was given. The
only caveat I would stress if that the conditions that validated these tactics
changed as the war continued so it should be a Solomons game.
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

I am trying to find information on the names, types, numbers and design of ships
for the Royal Siamese Navy between 1894-1924.
If anyone has any information leads it would be appreciated.

Drew

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thought this might be of general interest....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-18236910

HMS Caroline, a WW1 light cruiser has been a Naval Reserve training vessel in
Belfast for 80 years.

There were a number of articles in Warship International magazine (published by
INRO).  I got the following after searching one of the article databases on
their website:

THAILAND (includes SIAM)

153/66. Siamese coast defense vessels Dhonburi and Sri Ayuthia, l.1937-38.
Q.66(4):321. A.68(1):72; 70(4):422.

68/67. Siamese cruisers building in Italy, 1941. Q.67(2):144. A.68(3):247.

73/68. Fate of Siamese destroyer Pre Ruang, WW2. Q.68(2):141. A.70(1):84.

88/68. French-Siamese naval battle off Indochina, 1941. Q.68(3):228. (Identical
to Question 105/68 in 68(4):316) A.70(1):88; 86(2):206.

105/68. French-Siamese naval battle off Indochina, 1941. Q.68(4):316. (Identical
to Question 88/68 in 68(3):228; Miscoded as Question 4/69 in 70(1):88)
A.70(1):88; 86(2):206.

45/70. Warships acquired by Uruguay and Siam, 1908. Q.70(2):177. A.71(3):292.

65/70. Siamese naval vessels, 1862-95. Q.70(2):178. A.71(3):300; 72(2):215.

122/70. Siamese and Brazilian floating batteries, 1906. Q.70(3):279. (Related to
Question 65/70) A.71(4):424.

10/72. US vessels transferred to foreign navies, post-WW2. Q.72(1):81.
A.72(4):437.

11/74. Classification of Siamese warships Ayuthia and Dhonburi, l.1930s.
Q.74(1):73. A.74(4):408.

C/77. Fates of Danish Iver Hvitfeldt, l.1886, WW2 Soviet battleship Marat, and
WW2 Siamese coast defense ships Dhonburi and Sri Ayuthia. Q.77(1):85.
A.77(4):363.

38/89. Laying down, launch, and completion dates of destroyers from various
countries. Q.89(3):304. A.90(4):420.

MH

--- In NavWarGames@yahoogroups.com, "Drew Jarman" <andrewjarman@...> wrote:
>
> I am trying to find information on the names, types, numbers and design of
ships for the Royal Siamese Navy between 1894-1924.
> If anyone has any information leads it would be appreciated.
>
> Drew
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

You could also try Conways.

MH

--- In NavWarGames@yahoogroups.com, "Drew Jarman" <andrewjarman@...> wrote:
>
> I am trying to find information on the names, types, numbers and design of
ships for the Royal Siamese Navy between 1894-1924.
> If anyone has any information leads it would be appreciated.
>
> Drew
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

And from a 2nd INRO database:

THAILAND (includes SIAM)

A resume of the battle of Koh-Chang, 17 January 1941. Jean Guiglini and K. R.
Macpherson. N2/90:135. §N2/90, 187.

Siam's coast defense ships. Staff. N1/64:5. (R/64:27).

The Thai Navy. Stephen S. Roberts. N3/86:217. §N1/87:5; §N2/87:114(2);
§N3/87:224: §N4/87:338; §N2/88:113; §N3/88:226; §N4/89:327.

BTW, I happen to own issues from the late 1970s through 1980s, and I think that
the 1986, volume 3, page 217+ reference in the last listing would be of interest
to you. It has a table of ships starting in 1862, and illustrates many of them
with at least one photograph. OOP I think, but you could try an interlibrary
loan from a large library.

(Sorry for the reposts; I keep mis-typing, and Yahoo doesn't allow edits...)

MH



--- In NavWarGames@yahoogroups.com, "Drew Jarman" <andrewjarman@...> wrote:
>
> I am trying to find information on the names, types, numbers and design of
ships for the Royal Siamese Navy between 1894-1924.
> If anyone has any information leads it would be appreciated.
>
> Drew
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the NavWarGames
group.

   File        : /Reprecussions Rewards and Recriminations
   Uploaded by : davidov26 <davidov26@...>
   Description : final part of alternative history of WW1.

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NavWarGames/files/Reprecussions%20Rewards%20and%20\
Recriminations

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.html
Regards,

davidov26 <davidov26@...>

I will be visiting family as part of grandpa duty in Melbourne over the
first week of July, but expect to get a leave of absence here and there. It
would be nice to meet up with some Victorian wargamers.



   
http://www.malwrightww2convoy.com/
http://eatingabout.blogspot.com/
http://malwrightblog.blogspot.com/

Mal Wright
Salus populi suprema lex
(safety of people the highest law)

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]