Jump to content


Photo

SDS for DTMB


  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

#1 W. Clark

W. Clark

    Captain

  • Members
  • 256 posts
  • LocationOregon, out in the sticks

Posted 05 June 2018 - 06:19 PM

I've run the campaign six times now and most of the ships in the OB for both sides have made it onto a table top. That being the case, I've needed to provide SDS at some point for all the ships involved. I consider myself fortunate in that I have every ODGW product with SDS including the Deluxe SDS. It turns out that I have needed all those resources to get the Japanese on the table with each ship having its own SDS. DTMB provides all the SDS for the Allies, but not for the Japanese. By combing through DTMB, GQIII.3 and TSC I was able to find all the Japanese SDS but two Hatsuharu class DDs; the Wakaba and the Hatsushimo. 

 

I used Deluxe SDS to provide the missing SDS; but in an earlier query on the TSC forum I asked for and received a reply to which SDS should be used for the campaign. The word was, use the SDS provided by the campaign; so my solution to the missing SDS is not the best one possible. I know that the ODGW staff provide additional SDS on the forum from time to time and I'm asking that they do that again for the missing DD's SDS. That way they will fulfill the promise made in rule 1.2 of DTMB that all ship's SDS are available on the web site.



#2 Dave Franklin

Dave Franklin

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • 195 posts
  • LocationColorado Springs CO

Posted 06 June 2018 - 02:19 PM

Bill,
 
We did do [several] reviews/audits of the ship logs (this seems to be the new GQ3.3 term for the old SDS term) between the GQ3.3 PDF and those for DTMB (AKA ABDACAM).
 
Hatsushimo is first ship second row of page 160, and Wakaba is on the bottom left corner of page 160, of the GQ3.3 PDF.
 
Now, it would be a fair point to note that page 160 is the "IJN 1943 - 45 DDs" page, and we're talking about a campaign that only runs up to mid-March '42.
 
According to www.combinedfleet.com,
From Hatsushimo's TROM, 5 September-5 October [1942] :  At Yokosuka for repairs and refitting: “X” turret removed/replaced by triple 25mm machine gun mount; twin 25mm machine guns added on bandstand forward of bridge.
 
From Wakaba's TROM, 9 September-16 October [1942]:  At Sasebo for repairs and refitting: “X” turret removed/replaced by triple 25mm machine gun mount; twin 25mm machine guns added on bandstand forward of bridge; Type 22 radar mounted on foremast.
- Note: the GQ3.3 ship logs do not show her with Type 22 (RW- SW) radar...
 
Both ships on page 160 of the GQ3.3 PDF show only 4 (2x2) 5" guns (and better close AA), vice 5 (2x2, 1x1) 5" guns (i.e. they have "X" turret removed).  So for ABDACAM, you would be more accurate to copy the Hatsuharu ship log from ABDACAM for both Hatsushimo and Wakaba.  Mea culpa.  I'm sure when I was reviewing/auditing the presence of the ship logs, I was doing it by a word search, and didn't notice they were on the "IJN 1943 - 45 DDs" page (vice the "IJN 1941 - 43 DDs" page).
 
As for the color ship logs of ALL the ABDACAM ships not being available for download, this is the first I've heard of it.  It is ironic that as the ABDACAM author, I didn't actually purchase the product, so I can't see on the website exactly what resources are available for download.  The ship logs were Lonnie's purview.  In conjunction with updating the wording of Section 1.2 of ABDACAM to its present form, I offered to help with the ship logs and the carrier logs (which I was surprised to learn are also done in Excel), to have an all-encompassing set available at release time, but Lonnie declined.  He seems pretty zealous about controlling access to those raw Excel files.
 
Dave


#3 W. Clark

W. Clark

    Captain

  • Members
  • 256 posts
  • LocationOregon, out in the sticks

Posted 06 June 2018 - 08:36 PM

I did not consider the Japanese 43-45 DD pdf page. I figured it was not applicable to a campaign ending in March 42. I was careful with the ship's logs taken from 
TSC later in 42 to make sure they were still in the configuration they had been earlier in the year. A page devoted to 43 and later seemed likely to show ships reconfigured for better AA fire rather than surface engagement.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users