16 replies to this topic

[leefair]

Gwin/Monnsen/Farenholt etc. Do they have 10 (2x5) torpedo tubes or 5 (1x5)?. It says 10 in the rules (and Wikipedia FWIW) and 5 in the deluxe ship logs. I know the Aaron Ward has only 5 (in both logs), but I was under the impression that it was the oddball in this case.

[Cpt M]

Gwin/Monnsen/Farenholt etc. Do they have 10 (2x5) torpedo tubes or 5 (1x5)?. It says 10 in the rules (and Wikipedia FWIW) and 5 in the deluxe ship logs. I know the Aaron Ward has only 5 (in both logs), but I was under the impression that it was the oddball in this case.

In this case, the Deluxe Logs are correct. The 'Benson/Livermore' (also referred to as the 'Benson/Gleaves' and at least one more class designation) are not a homogeneous group. They roughly broke down into 2 large groups: One with a single 5 torpedo tube mount (and additional AA) and a second with 2 5 torpedo tube mounts. What ships mounted each configuration at commissioning is still somewhat in contention (USN documentation is, to put in politely, horrid). And, to make matters worse, many ships switched configurations during the war (some, several times). The USN Deluxe Logs are based on many primary sources (many thanks to the National Archives and their staff for that) and are the best representation we have to date based on the available (and often contradictory) information.

[leefair]

In this case, the Deluxe Logs are correct. The 'Benson/Livermore' (also referred to as the 'Benson/Gleaves' and at least one more class designation) are not a homogeneous group. They roughly broke down into 2 large groups: One with a single 5 torpedo tube mount (and additional AA) and a second with 2 5 torpedo tube mounts. What ships mounted each configuration at commissioning is still somewhat in contention (USN documentation is, to put in politely, horrid). And, to make matters worse, many ships switched configurations during the war (some, several times). The USN Deluxe Logs are based on many primary sources (many thanks to the National Archives and their staff for that) and are the best representation we have to date based on the available (and often contradictory) information.

Thanks again. All that leaves is the question of the correct armor rating for the Nevada and Pennsylvania Class Hulls.

[Cpt M]

Thanks again. All that leaves is the question of the correct armor rating for the Nevada and Pennsylvania Class Hulls.

How so?

[leefair]

How so?

http://www.odgw.com/...izona-get-sunk/

You indicate there that the logs for the Pennsylvania and Arizona would have their armor upgraded to BA, but this hasn't happened (at least not in the copy I just purchased), so I'm not sure if you changed your mind or not. IIRC both the Nevada and Pennsylvania class have similar armor specs, with the Belt being in the BA range and the deck firmly in the BB range, so I could certainly see it either way.

Thanks again, again.

[Cpt M]

http://www.odgw.com/...izona-get-sunk/

You indicate there that the logs for the Pennsylvania and Arizona would have their armor upgraded to BA, but this hasn't happened (at least not in the copy I just purchased), so I'm not sure if you changed your mind or not. IIRC both the Nevada and Pennsylvania class have similar armor specs, with the Belt being in the BA range and the deck firmly in the BB range, so I could certainly see it either way.

Thanks again, again.

In the Deluxe Logs the Nevada class are rated BB while the Pennsylvania class are rated BA. This is in line with the reconstruction of the latter. Neither class are listed in the GQ3.3 logs, however (both got bumped due to space concerns).

[leefair]

In this case, the Deluxe Logs are correct. The 'Benson/Livermore' (also referred to as the 'Benson/Gleaves' and at least one more class designation) are not a homogeneous group. They roughly broke down into 2 large groups: One with a single 5 torpedo tube mount (and additional AA) and a second with 2 5 torpedo tube mounts. What ships mounted each configuration at commissioning is still somewhat in contention (USN documentation is, to put in politely, horrid). And, to make matters worse, many ships switched configurations during the war (some, several times). The USN Deluxe Logs are based on many primary sources (many thanks to the National Archives and their staff for that) and are the best representation we have to date based on the available (and often contradictory) information.

Contradictory indeed... the destroyer history foundation seems to have the exact opposite opinion on the actual ships in question. They have the ships of DesDiv 22 (Gwin, Meredith, Grayson, Monnssen) with 10 Torpedoes and 4 turrets (like the rules logs) while the deluxe logs have them with 5 torpedoes and 5 turrets.

[leefair]

In the Deluxe Logs the Nevada class are rated BB while the Pennsylvania class are rated BA. This is in line with the reconstruction of the latter. Neither class are listed in the GQ3.3 logs, however (both got bumped due to space concerns).

Ummm... the deluxe logs I downloaded yesterday list them both (all 4 ships) as BB(BA)CS. Did I somehow grab the wrong file?

[Cpt M]

Ummm... the deluxe logs I downloaded yesterday list them both (all 4 ships) as BB(BA)CS. Did I somehow grab the wrong file?

The masters and the pdfs (all three; the early Pacific, late Pacific and Atlantic/Med) for the large format Deluxe Ship Logs have the Nevada class are rated BB(BA)CS and the Pennsylvania class rated BA(BA)CS. Without know which files you're referring to, I can't really respond.

[Cpt M]

Contradictory indeed... the destroyer history foundation seems to have the exact opposite opinion on the actual ships in question. They have the ships of DesDiv 22 (Gwin, Meredith, Grayson, Monnssen) with 10 Torpedoes and 4 turrets (like the rules logs) while the deluxe logs have them with 5 torpedoes and 5 turrets.

As I stated, many of these ships went through many changes throughout the war. Meredith, Gwin and Monnssen had their second torpedo mounts removed 1/42 and kept all 5 5"/38s (all were lost before further modifications were made). Grayson had her second torpedo mount removed 1/42 and kept all 5 5"/38s, then regained her second torpedo mount 9/43 while losing one 5"/38s. And finally, she lost her last torpedo mount 5/45 while keeping 4 5"/38s (as part of the fleet wide 'Kamikaze Modification' program).

While the information in the Destroyer History Foundation is generally good, it only provides a snapshot in time of the the ships in question. And, in some cases, falls victim to the generally bad data available. What the Ship Logs try to do is the provide (as close as the available information will allow) a full history of a ship's modifications. However, if you feel confident in the information you have available, then modify the logs accordingly.

[leefair]

The masters and the pdfs (all three; the early Pacific, late Pacific and Atlantic/Med) for the large format Deluxe Ship Logs have the Nevada class are rated BB(BA)CS and the Pennsylvania class rated BA(BA)CS. Without know which files you're referring to, I can't really respond.

This is the file I'm downloading:

"Old Dominion GameWorks → Downloads→ Private Access Library→ General Quarters 3→ Deluxe Ship Logs

Deluxe US Pacific Navy 1941-43 Ship Logs 1.00
in Deluxe US Pacific Navy 1941-43 Ship Log Database (PAC 1 USN.pdf)"
---------------------------

The Arizona and Pennsylvania have BB hull armor in this file.

[leefair]

As I stated, many of these ships went through many changes throughout the war. Meredith, Gwin and Monnssen had their second torpedo mounts removed 1/42 and kept all 5 5"/38s (all were lost before further modifications were made). Grayson had her second torpedo mount removed 1/42 and kept all 5 5"/38s, then regained her second torpedo mount 9/43 while losing one 5"/38s. And finally, she lost her last torpedo mount 5/45 while keeping 4 5"/38s (as part of the fleet wide 'Kamikaze Modification' program).

While the information in the Destroyer History Foundation is generally good, it only provides a snapshot in time of the the ships in question. And, in some cases, falls victim to the generally bad data available. What the Ship Logs try to do is the provide (as close as the available information will allow) a full history of a ship's modifications. However, if you feel confident in the information you have available, then modify the logs accordingly.

Not confident, just confused. Still, at this point in the war another cannon is probably more useful than another mount of flaky torpedoes, I guess I shouldn't complain...

[Cpt M]

Not confident, just confused. Still, at this point in the war another cannon is probably more useful than another mount of flaky torpedoes, I guess I shouldn't complain...

And you're not alone. The USN data is particularly bad, especially on the DDs (when you have 3 primary sources that contradict each other, you know you have a problem). In the 60+ years since the war, much of the refit information has gone missing, been misfiled, or was never recorded correctly in the first place. Add in field modifications that were done (such as some DDs mounting Army 40mm AA guns which never got recorded) and you begin to see just how much of a research mess this can be.

As for why these ships lost their torpedoes, that can be traced to the need to beef up the light and medium AA battery. Many of the pre-war DD designs were so 'tight' that adding the weight of badly needed 40mm AA guns, 20mm AA guns and radar had to be offset be removing weight elsewhere. This is a recurring theme for all the pre-war design DDs, CAs and CLs (in the case of the surviving CAs, almost all lost their armored conning towers to save weight).

[Cpt M]

This is the file I'm downloading:

"Old Dominion GameWorks → Downloads→ Private Access Library→ General Quarters 3→ Deluxe Ship Logs

Deluxe US Pacific Navy 1941-43 Ship Logs 1.00
in Deluxe US Pacific Navy 1941-43 Ship Log Database (PAC 1 USN.pdf)"
---------------------------

The Arizona and Pennsylvania have BB hull armor in this file.

And you're right, this file (and the others) have all 4 with the BB(BA)CS armor. Which is wrong... (and how the wrong file got uploaded is a mystery to me, but it obviously happened). Apologies all around on this gaffe. The correct values for Arizona and Pennsylvania is BA (Oklahoma and Nevada keep the same value, that is BB). I'll get the corrected file loaded (although that may take awhile).

[Kenneth D. Hall]

As for why these ships lost their torpedoes, that can be traced to the need to beef up the light and medium AA battery. Many of the pre-war DD designs were so 'tight' that adding the weight of badly needed 40mm AA guns, 20mm AA guns and radar had to be offset be removing weight elsewhere. This is a recurring theme for all the pre-war design DDs, CAs and CLs (in the case of the surviving CAs, almost all lost their armored conning towers to save weight).

I'm reading Friedman's US Cruisers right now, and the weight/stability issues are a constant theme in the treaty cruisers and the Clevelands. Looking forward to perusing his destroyer, battleship, and carrier volumes.

[Aman]

My bottom line with the logs is game balance.  Unless re-enacting a specific battle, I pick ships that suit the models I have and the scenarios requirements.  So if you are using small ships like 1/2400 - use any log you like, no one can tell.  If you are using 1/700 or 1/1200 ships that are easier to ID, then pick whichever ship log suits the models you have.

 

At the end of the day, subtle variations in class are irrelevant.  Call the DD a different name to suit the available log, the demands of the scenario and the appearance of the model, and run with it!  I've played with a '39 Mahan with 5 guns b/c that's the model I have.  It never saw action in that configuration, but I got it cheap on line and it's a nice model.  The guys love it.

[Cpt M]

That's one (and perfectly valid) approach.  I tend to be more historically oriented and so use the logs for the period in question.  Of course, I also use 1/6000 ships so counting the gun mounts on the model is not that big of an issue!