so what's the general concensus on the IJN half carriers? the mogami based one didn't really carry enough planes to have the extra guns... but it might make a really interesting armed convoy ship, being that the front was still all cruiser. the ISE class one is the one that really interests me... having 4 Battleship guns , and the secondaries... and enough planes (marginally) to have those extra 'plane' guns (though not many) so what are the thoughts... novelty? viable? I am guessing this would be far more useful in treaty and big gun how would one class such a vessel?
Some clubs allow ships to be built in any "modified" configuration, including those that were started but never finished. Usually, that means stuff like torpedo blisters, changes to secondary guns, torpedo tubes, etc. For most gun-oriented games, something like that would be at a big disadvantage. Some clubs allow guns to represent embarked aircraft (i.e. X number of guns to represent Y number of aircraft, etc.). Those that do this often use a "torpedo" gun; a fixed, short-range 1/4" ball bearing gun. Something like that may or may not prove better than the original gunned configuration if the captain can convince their club's Technical Officer that it's a valid setup. JM
I guess it would be more of a decision by the perticular battle group as to which it would fall under for speed, unit count, armor etc etc .. in my case I am trying to start a group in my area (non exist) adopting the washington treaty rules so that we may interact in the future. I how ever haven't been able to see their complete rules yet as I am awaiting aprovable on their yahoo group perhaps a treaty fighter might want to chime in with an idea? these were actually built and sailed .. they basically kept thier front guns (the ISE kept it's front pair and half it's middle 4) and their side secondaries. the mogami CV held under 10 planes though (6 I believe) .. I forget howmany the ISE held.. 20?.. maybe?
Ise held 20-ish planes... but she still had 4 main turrets after the conversion (2 amidships) for a total of 8 big guns. The secondaries in the casements were plated over by that point, so they wouldn't be a factor.
It had 12 guns before the conversion. Why would you build it after it had the nasty looking flight deck added?
fun?... I'm crazy?... for some reason I like the way the mogami and Ise carriers looked? also I am trying to get a new group started, having multi role ships will help and a weirdo half carrier will attract attention I really don't mind being a target... but I'm gonna shoot back
My understanding is that by the time the conversions were done, no planes were available. I belive the catapults were later removed, to clear the fire arc of the guns. No aircraft seam to have been abord when it saw action after the conversion
heh... some friends and I were talking about the half carriers and thought it might be fun to do a model of a Yamato version .. using the Yamato and the Shimano .. basically cut the Shimano deck to fit from around the SS back ... leaving the Yammy with the 2 front guns and a pretty big flight deck not for battle ofcourse, just as a RC model
I showed Brian Koehler my Hyuga BBCV hull some months ago, and he thought my idea of painting the side with the Japanese kanji for "GA-RA-Ku-TI-KA" was almost as cool as my idea for putting Colonial Vipers on the catapults. *Why not spell Galactica with kanji? No L sound... So spell it like they do
I thought ship names are written in katakana (a phonetic alphabet), not kanji (adopted Chinese ideographs). I have seen drawings of destroyers with their name in katakana on the side, and "Yamato" is written in katakana in Uchuu Senkan Yamato. Also, the "Ti" character is pronounced "Chi" (just like the "Tu" character is pronounced "tsu") so you would have to use "Te" and "I". I'll ask in my class tomorrow night. Edit: I tried to type it in, but it didn't work. I can write it up (or use a brush) and post a photo tomorrow, if you want.
katakana, kanji, hiragana... whatever, whatever! LOL You are quite correct, I meant the Japanese phonetic alphabet. Our line of thinking was that under the MWCI rules, the BBCV gets no separate entry, but clearly has no stern turrets. So I was going to build her as a 5.5 unit ship, just not using stern guns, because it LOOKS KEWL!
I was thinking for the ISE BBCV ... 1 unit pump, 4 1 unit singles - the middle 2 stationary pointed to the sides, and the front 2 would rotate opposite of each other so it would give me 2 barrels on any side then 2 1/4 rip guns off the tail for the planes that would be for treaty though. the mogami CV would be a similar but I would have to throw myself on the mercy of a battle judge if I can have a single rip in the tail to make up it's measly 6 planes .. the nose gun would be stationary straight, and the 2 behind it would rotate with each other .. main idea would be to keep the nose of either on something attacking you (or you felt the need to attack) and no let anything get to the rear third of the ship
Rip guns are restricted in Treaty, only in class 1's get them and only 1 each, so neither Mogami nor Ise are allowed to have them. That being said, Treaty is a little more flexible with sidemounts then the other fast gun clubs are, so you can spit one of your units and add it to your other allowed sidemounts to have 2 75 rounders mounted in your main battery turrets (I'd place them in "A" and "B" turrets, personally) That leaves you with 2.5 units remaining. Ships with no aft firing main turrets are allowed to arm one secondary with a single 1.0 unit cannon facing aft to cover that arc (which I would do) which would leave you with 1.5 units which I would commit to pumps. That would leave you with a dual rudder ship (good maneuverability) with excellent side firepower (Treaty concentrates on this a little more then the other .177 formats), excellent damage taking (voluminous hull, good pump flow above most battleships which will have 1.0 unit pumps) respectable speed (24 or 25 knots off the top of my head, don't take that as gospel) and a tail stinger to keep people from crossing your stern with impunity. Altogether, for treaty work she's a pretty good choice on paper. Until one hits the water though, we'll never know for sure. That being said, Mogami is not allowed to have guns which fire into the side quadrants as she is only class 3. Class three ships are only allowed to have guns which fire forward or aft (+/- 15 degrees) of centerline. Mike D
