I think a 1/4" barrel for x number of aircraft is a good rule for carriers. Clearly 1 for 1 is excessive, but I have no good feeling as to what ratio to use. I would not apply this to submarines though as they have other advantages.
Yeah, most big gun rules that I've read are 1 gun per 10 aircraft. Shinano would be yet further strange (rules-wise), as her own aircraft complement was 47 aircraft, but it carried stowed another !120! as replacements for losses from other fleet carriers that it was supposed to be a support ship for. How do ya work _that_ in? My gut feeling would be: If you get one gun per 10 aircraft carried, splitting the total between dead ahead and astern, give Shinano 16 1/4" guns (rounding down any fractions), and it could run 8 and 8, a pretty terrifying chase armament, but then she's BIG boat. Does that sound fair? Or should the stowed aircraft not count for strikes? I also just realized that Shinano's armor is a lot weaker than Yamato's On the plus side, her secondary battery is huge. Sixteen 5" and twelve 4.7" guns for your BB-shooting pleasure. I'm trying to locate data on where they were mounted. Mark, you got any information on that? Mike, I would grant it to subs, but given that the biggest sub carrier only carried 3 aircraft, it would qualify for 0 1/4" guns
I would say that all the aircraft would count since they could be launched from the ship. She may have had less armor but still falls into the 1/8" balsa range. I saw that she carried 5" rockets, could these be represented by single shot bb batteries? BTW Tug, I'm still building a Yamato so please continue working on those primaries, 2nds, and 3rds I will buy them as soon as they're ready. the 3rds will also be used on the Shinano (8 I believe)anyone know of an accurate plans source for building the Shinano?
The WWCC recently modified our aircraft carrier armament rules. We originally had the 1x 1/4" cannon per 10 aircraft (minimum of 6 aircraft-representative cannons) AND 4 3/16" secondary defensive cannons, regardless of the historical armament. With those rules, I only saw 2 carriers in combat, and they kept getting shredded because they didn't have the firepower to back up their battleship size. We just changed the rulebook so carriers under 20,000 tons standard displacement get 12x 1/4" cannons with three each of the bow, stern, port, and starboard. Carriers over 20,000 tons get 16x 1/4" cannons with four each off the bow, stern, port, and starboard. We chose to divide carriers at 20,000 tons because that is generally the line between the huge fleet carriers and the smaller light and escort carriers (though there are exceptions). This change was intended to make carriers more appealing by increasing their armament, but should keep them from becoming too powerful by only allowing them to bring 3-4 cannons to bear on a target at a time. Since Shinano was intended as a support ship for carrier fleets, I would think that under Big Gun rules it should only get the 47 aircraft, but would be considered an armed cargo vessel and can score cargo points. I need to talk with the other tech officer in the WWCC to come to a consensus on how Shinano fits into our new convoy and carrier rules.
All Great stuff here. In Treaty we allocate cannons for the carriers by tonnage (I think). Mainly because the British, and some others were big and heavy, but carried a small number of aircraft for several reasons. In the MBG we allocate cannons based on 1 cannon for each 10 planes carried (based on the info from Conways). Now I already want to build a Bearn for Battlestations, and plan to do so anyway, but if we go with the system used in big-gun rules, then I will almost certainly build my carrier sooner than expected. Mikey
Not sure on the rockets... They were more one-shot wonders once they'd fired the on-mount rockets, took a while to reload. Regardless, I do have some good plans of the launchers that I got from my friend in Japan. I'll scan them in sometime. My thoughts on the rockets is that we allow large-caliber AA guns to be armed, on the theory that they could be trained at ships and fired. The AA rocket launcher can't depress low enough to be a threat to ships, which would negate it, I'd think. Kind of like trying to use a hedgehog ASW launcher against surface vessels. You'd have to be reeeaaalll lucky.
I'm in favor of allowing one 1/4" gun for every 10 aircraft (rounding fractions down), and secondary armament as the ship actually carried. If aircraft guns are actually used, representative aircraft must be on deck (not like 160 of them, just a nice-looking strike wing) Anyone dramatically against the idea? Anyone for it? Also to be considered: Do we require the guns to be split fore and aft? between the 4 sides? I do not want to see a Shinano with 16 1/4" guns pointing all in the same direction! :O
Conways info on Shinano... Belt armor 8.1" (I think this is 3/32" balsa). 16 x 5" guns. 47 aircraft Hanger capacity for 70. Just some thoughts on this based on MBG rules. Carriers are allocated one 1/4 cannon for each 10 planes carried. Evenly distributed fore, and aft. Carriers are also allocated three 1/4" cannons (torpedoes) port, and starboard ( total of 6) for side defence. If I remember correctly, in MBG the Shinano gets cannons for 70 planes. So say a quad in the bow, and a triple in the stern. (8 seconds ROF). She has 6 side defence torpedoes (three per side), (30 seconds ROF). She can also arm the 16 5" guns, (3 seconds ROF). She also has a large pump capacity due to tonnage. She also has thicker armor than most other carriers, due to her belt armor thickness. Also in the MBG. Not only can carriers score combat points by scoring damage on enemy ships, but they can also score combat points by doing laps around the islands. These points are figured based on the number of planes carried. (I cannot recall how many points per plane you get for a lap around the pond, but I will look it up). Also. Originally the side defense torps were originally a defensive weapon only, and could not be used offensively to attack ships that were not attacking the carrier, but in time we found that the carriers were still being raked over the coals by pretty much everything on the pond, so we changed the rule, so that they could attack with the side torps, which made the game more fun, without giving the carriers too much power. One other thing.. MBG allows some carriers to convoy planes for convoy points. They had to be converted, or delegated to the mission historically (I think). But I have found that allowing the carriers (perhaps all carriers) to score convoy points for transporting planes just gives the carriers lovers more reason to build and battle a carrier, and it doesn't give them too much power, or allow them to sway the game too much. Mikey
really doesn't matter that she only had "47" aircraft of her own, and carried 120 extra for other ships. If the planes could fit, and be flown off the deck they're potential weapons. It's like saying the main guns on your battle ship could only fire each barrel once because all the other ammo is in "storage"
Not the best analogy. The stored planes were not in a flight worthy condition. The shells in the magazine were pretty much ready to go. (Not sure if they are kept fused or not). Still as Shinano managed to get torpedoed on her way to be fitted out we will never know. I suspect that the IJN would have probably increased the size of her airgroup (if possible).
Well it seems as Battlestations rules have been following the WWCC ones closely, so even if we stick to that Shinano gets 16 1/4" guns any way (regardless of the 120 "other" aircraft she carried) Tug, let me know if you find a decent deck layout of the Shinano (don't need hull lines) I haven't found any good ones so far. as to the arming of large caliber AA guns, lets leave that can of worms be, too much headache. I only mentioned the rockets because they were 5" and they would only be "one shot wonders" aimed at a slight downward angle (say hitting the water 2' out from the boat). but the design of said launchers would be a little ways off due to other weapon development that must come first. How do other clubs aim the 1/4" guns for aircraft? are they set up like TT's?
As far as I know, a lot of rules stipulate that they be mounted horizontally, under the edge of the flight deck. Personally, I don't mind Shinano counting the other 120 aircraft for cannon count, nor do I think the WWCC guns allowance is unreasonable. But I'm just the rules-keeper, _not_ the rules-dictator. So I'd like to hear from a few people who haven't chimed in what they think is reasonable, please
She'll be a porcupine! Of course in this scale there is enough room to fit a ton o' guns! For a ship that size only 4 plane based guns does seem to be a bit light.
I'm curious, where did the information about 120 extra planes come from? According to Conways, Shinano had 47 aircraft and hangar space for 70 more. 70+47=117 which is rounded up to 120 total, not 120 extra. This seems reasonable when compared to the USS Midway (137 aircraft) which has larger dimensions but less tonnage.
Wikpedia. also I wouldn't use conways as the definitive, end-all source for info on ships. seems to me to be an out-dated general "overview" of ships from that era. If one looks around they can find more detailed works on specific ships. Hell, go to your local library or barns&noble and I'm sure you can find more up-to-date works that have been revised on info of certain ships.
Hey, Mark... I checked and my friend Haruo-san in Japan (Miyukikai plans) has a set of 1/200 scale plans for Shinano as aircraft carrier. He's got the price listed as $24, including postage from Japan for the 3 sheet set (plan #042). His plans do rock the free world, very detailed and all that. If you go to his site, he has some sample pics on the page somewhere. http://www2.odn.ne.jp/miyukikai/sub2.htm If you do buy some from him, please let him know that I sent you. Not that I get kickbacks, just to let him know I'm still spreading the good word in the US
While wikipedia isn't a conclusive source, I've had decent luck with it, and I've had issues with Conways, too. I will try to find some kind of corroboration in my stacks of books.
You are correct, Conways is not perfect. However, it is good enough that is is the "Big Gun Bible," the official source of all information for big gun ships. Two reliable sources must be provided to show that Conways is in error (this is to eliminate ridiculous claims such as the USS Atlanta achieving 40 knots). As in my earlier post, it could be that Wikipedia is combining the 47 aircraft and hangar space for 70 resulting in about 120 aircraft. Or Conways could be in error (it doesn't mention any 4.7" secondary guns). Until I see another source that agrees with Wikipedia the WWCC requires that I stick with Conways, though I would be happy to see more information either way.
