Re: FT-IJN Designs?

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:
> 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 

BIF