C.O.R.E. HOI - Naval Mod

Gwalcmai · Aug 19, 2003

On destroyer models (UK)

MODEL_20_1;1000 Ton Destroyer;...
MODEL_ENG_20_1;V-Class DD;...

MODEL_20_4;1500 Ton Destroyer;...
MODEL_ENG_20_4;A-Class DD;...

What's my point? The A-class was built in 1929-1930, and had a displacement of 1350 BRT. OTOH, the V-class displaced 1700 BRT and was a couple of knots faster than the A-class. It was also more heavily armed. Why is the A-class a more advanced model than the V-class.

Unless we're talking about the V & W class of 1916 with 1100 BRT displacement? In which case: Portugal needs more tech!

The Douro class was patterned on the A-class. (That's where I started looking into this, obviously. Couldn't stray that far from the POR navy, now could I?

)

Oh, and BTW, according to uboat.net the River class were frigates.

Kevin Mc Carthy · Aug 20, 2003

Helo Carrier

Looking at the HMS Bulwark site, it seems to me that 6621 # Helicopter Carrier should have a prerequisite of 10030 # Naval Helicopters instead of 10974 # Helicopter. On 23rd January 1960 the HMS Bulwarkwas recommissioned at Portsmouth , with 42 Royal marine Commando and 848 Squadron (Whirlwind helicopters), before that it was a regular carrier.

See http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Ships/Bulwark.html

Also, if further tech interconnection is desired, then 6621 # Helicopter Carrier should also have a prerequisite of 11403 # Special Operations Warefare Doctrine!

MateDow?

Kevin Mc Carthy · Aug 20, 2003

UK Commando Carrier Type

Since the tech description says HMS Bulwark why doesn't the model name say HMS Bulwark instead of HMS Invincible????!!!!!!!!

The present Invincible, is the sixth ship of the Royal Navy to bear the name and the first of the Invincible Class of Anti-Submarine Warfare Carriers, was laid down at the Barrow-in-Furness yard of Vickers Shipbuilders Limited in July 1973 and was launched by Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II on 3 May 1977.

The fifth Invincible was a battlecruiser of the First World War attached to the 1st Cruiser Squadron, Home Fleet at the end of 1908. She saw action at Heligoland, the Battle of the Falkland Islands, and the Battle of Jutland, where she blew up and sank after taking a hit from SMS Lützow, with the loss of 1,026 crew. Only 6 crew members survived.

The sixth and current Invincible is a light aircraft carrier, the first of three in the Invincible class. She was built at Barrow-in-Furness by Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering. She was laid down in 1973, and launched on May 3, 1977. For a picture, click here.

Source: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Invincible

Kevin Mc Carthy · Aug 20, 2003

A better Helicopter Carrier

In addition to the techs above I've added Marines and changed the description text, see below. I think this is a good fix for CORE 0.6!

application = { # Helicopter Carrier
id = 6621
name = "Helicopter Carrier"
desc = "This is a small carrier designed to operate helicopters and VSTOL aircraft. It operates a small contengent of aircraft, a small contingent of helicopters for anti-submarine operations, and marines. Historically this was the British Bulwark-class carriers."

required = { 6946 6968 10976 10030 3944 11403 6041}
chance = 90
cost = 10
time = 90
neg_offset = 30
pos_offset = 60

effects = {
command = { type = new_model which = carrier value = 2 }
}
}

Kevin Mc Carthy · Aug 20, 2003

WTF: Destroyers Require Nuc Eng?

3000 Ton Destroyer requires Shipboard Nuke power plant (CORE 0.532).

WTF? How many Nuke destroyers are there in the world?

How about Naval Helos instead?

MateDow · Aug 20, 2003

Re: WTF: Destroyers Require Nuc Eng?

Originally posted by Kevin Mc Carthy
3000 Ton Destroyer requires Shipboard Nuke power plant (CORE 0.532).

WTF? How many Nuke destroyers are there in the world?

How about Naval Helos instead?

Actually, that is what is supposed to be. When I typed it up it was that (I think

). It will be corrected as soon as I log off. MDow

MateDow · Aug 20, 2003

Re: On destroyer models (UK)

Originally posted by Gwalcmai

Unless we're talking about the V & W class of 1916 with 1100 BRT displacement? In which case: Portugal needs more tech! The Douro class was patterned on the A-class. (That's where I started looking into this, obviously. Couldn't stray that far from the POR navy, now could I? )

Oh, and BTW, according to uboat.net the River class were frigates.

We are talking about the WW1 V-class destroyers. The problem with giving Portugal all of the tech to build the 1500 ton destroyers is that all she built of the Douro-class destroyers were the hulls. From what I have found, all of the machinery and armament was built in the UK and shipped to Portugal for installation. Yarrow built the boilers and turbines, and (I believe) Armstrong built the armament. Without the technical assistance from the British, they would have been unable to build them. I believe the Portugese could have built a destroyer that was comperable to the V & W classes though. MDow

MateDow · Aug 20, 2003

Re: A better Helicopter Carrier

Originally posted by Kevin Mc Carthy
In addition to the techs above I've added Marines and changed the description text, see below. I think this is a good fix for CORE 0.6!

application = { # Helicopter Carrier
id = 6621
name = "Helicopter Carrier"
desc = "This is a small carrier designed to operate helicopters and VSTOL aircraft. It operates a small contengent of aircraft, a small contingent of helicopters for anti-submarine operations, and marines. Historically this was the British Bulwark-class carriers."

required = { 6946 6968 10976 10030 3944 11403 6041}
chance = 90
cost = 10
time = 90
neg_offset = 30
pos_offset = 60

effects = {
command = { type = new_model which = carrier value = 2 }
}
}

Will be incorperated.

MDow

MateDow · Aug 20, 2003

Originally posted by Gwalcmai

Range : dunno. anyone?

5000nm@10 kts

"1a Esquadrilha de Submersíveis"

One Portugese submarine unit with the above name will be added. MDow

Gwalcmai · Aug 20, 2003

Re: Re: On destroyer models (UK)

Originally posted by MateDow
We are talking about the WW1 V-class destroyers. The problem with giving Portugal all of the tech to build the 1500 ton destroyers is that all she built of the Douro-class destroyers were the hulls. From what I have found, all of the machinery and armament was built in the UK and shipped to Portugal for installation. Yarrow built the boilers and turbines, and (I believe) Armstrong built the armament. Without the technical assistance from the British, they would have been unable to build them. I believe the Portugese could have built a destroyer that was comperable to the V & W classes though. MDow

Or copied the pre-1936 built "Douro" engines.

But OK, that's fair enough. I doubt POR was in the condition to arm them, even if it managed to make the engines. I'm still (slightly) questioning the decision to consider the A-class as the 1500 ton DD model. Just because the tonnage as shown on uboat.net is well below 1500. But then, that could be a naval buff thing about BRT and TDW and whatnot.

What about corvettes and frigates? Again resorting to uboat.net, the River class were frigates while the Flower (IIRC) class were corvettes. Models.csv has "River" as the Brit equivalent of general model "corvette", while it uses "frigate" for both general and ENG.

BTW, anything on those subs I listed above?

MateDow · Aug 20, 2003

Re: Re: Re: On destroyer models (UK)

Originally posted by Gwalcmai
Or copied the pre-1936 built "Douro" engines. But OK, that's fair enough. I doubt POR was in the condition to arm them, even if it managed to make the engines.

It isn't that simple to copy and build high pressure, small tube boilers.

I'm still (slightly) questioning the decision to consider the A-class as the 1500 ton DD model. Just because the tonnage as shown on uboat.net is well below 1500. But then, that could be a naval buff thing about BRT and TDW and whatnot.

I selected the "A"-class because it was the first of the "modern" destroyers built by Britain. I could put in "G"-class destroyers if that would make you feel better.

What about corvettes and frigates? Again resorting to uboat.net, the River class were frigates while the Flower (IIRC) class were corvettes. Models.csv has "River" as the Brit equivalent of general model "corvette", while it uses "frigate" for both general and ENG.

BTW, anything on those subs I listed above?

The Hunt and River have been reversed in the model file. MDow

Gwalcmai · Aug 20, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: On destroyer models (UK)

Originally posted by MateDow
It isn't that simple to copy and build high pressure, small tube boilers.

And even if it was, it's also not that simple to copy armament. So, like I said, your call was fair.

I selected the "A"-class because it was the first of the "modern" destroyers built by Britain. I could put in "G"-class destroyers if that would make you feel better.

I simply pointed out a really minor displacement issue. The reason you chose to use the A class sounds a lot better than "This class was unremarkable, but it wasn't short by 100 tons."

The Hunt and River have been reversed in the model file. MDow

Ah, I'm glad, that was a real game-breaker...

And going back to the subs. Is it possible to put a unit in a country's inc file that country is unable to build? The only sub development in Portugal seems to have been the design of a couple of hull tested before WWI, and those Delfim class ships were built by Vickers. Comparing them to German Type VIIC, they seem to have been about the same in dimensions, speeds, engine power and armament. If the range and depths matched (I doubt that, but...) those were pretty good boats for 1936. And giving POR the tech to build them would be wrong, but so would not having them in the mod. (unless 3 ships don't a flotilla make)

MateDow · Aug 20, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On destroyer models (UK)

Originally posted by Gwalcmai
And going back to the subs. Is it possible to put a unit in a country's inc file that country is unable to build? The only sub development in Portugal seems to have been the design of a couple of hull tested before WWI, and those Delfim class ships were built by Vickers. Comparing them to German Type VIIC, they seem to have been about the same in dimensions, speeds, engine power and armament. If the range and depths matched (I doubt that, but...) those were pretty good boats for 1936. And giving POR the tech to build them would be wrong, but so would not having them in the mod. (unless 3 ships don't a flotilla make)

A sub flotilla is five submarines. The three Delfims and the other two make one flotilla of basic submarines.

Here are the new Portugese Naval Models

Code:

MODEL_POR_19_0;Nunes-class Sloop;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_POR_19_1;Albuquerque-class Sloop;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_POR_20_0;Zaire-class PG;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_POR_20_1;Guadiana-class DD;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_POR_20_4;Douro-class DD;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_POR_22_0;Delfim-class SS;;;;;;;;;;x

I am still not going to give Portugal a cruiser, but if they build something of that size, I figured that it would be nice to have a name to go with it. Does this look good to you? MDow

Gwalcmai · Aug 20, 2003

Code:
Originally posted by MateDow
A sub flotilla is five submarines. The three Delfims and the other two make one flotilla of basic submarines.

Here are the new Portugese Naval Models

Code:

MODEL_POR_19_0;Nunes-class Sloop;;;;;;;;;;x MODEL_POR_19_1;Albuquerque-class Sloop;;;;;;;;;;x MODEL_POR_20_0;Zaire-class PG;;;;;;;;;;x MODEL_POR_20_1;Guadiana-class DD;;;;;;;;;;x MODEL_POR_20_4;Douro-class DD;;;;;;;;;;x MODEL_POR_22_0;Delfim-class SS;;;;;;;;;;x

I am still not going to give Portugal a cruiser, but if they build something of that size, I figured that it would be nice to have a name to go with it. Does this look good to you? MDow

Yaaaay! Portuguese entries in models.csv! Cool!

I'll let you know if I find out the names of the CLs the navy rearmament called for. ATM, the only name I know for those cancelled ships is "Sacadura Cabral" which would have been the seaplane carrier. "Vasco da Gama" would probably be a safe bet for a cruiser class.

Any chance the battle of the minesweeper "Augusto de Castilho" and U-139 in 1918, coupled with shipping troops to France and Africa, and with running ASW air patrols from mainland Portugal and Azores with the french and americans, warrants WWI experience to the POR navy? The Brits did most of the shipping to France, but...

shimgray · Aug 20, 2003

Originally posted by Gwalcmai
Any chance the battle of the minesweeper "Augusto de Castilho" and U-139 in 1918, coupled with shipping troops to France and Africa, and with running ASW air patrols from mainland Portugal and Azores with the french and americans, warrants WWI experience to the POR navy? The Brits did most of the shipping to France, but...

I'm not well-versed here, but WWI experience is as much a matter of knowing what the lessons were as actively learning them; wouldn't the Portugese navy have had significant contact with people who *had* been fighting naval battles for four years, and gained the experience from that?

(Unless, of course, the navy had massive purges in the 1920s, but I doubt that <g>)

MateDow · Aug 21, 2003

Brazillian Naval OOB Review

Here is the 'new' Brazillian naval OOB that I have pieced together. I will post it here for your review, and so you can correct more of my (probably) faulty Portuguese. MDow

Code:

	# BB Dreadnaught built in 1910:
	# Recently refitted
	navalunit = {
		name = "Minas Gerais" 
		id = { type = 30053 id = 2 }
		location = 356
		
	division = { 
		id = { type = 30053 id = 200 }  
		name = "Minas Gerais" 
		type = battleship 
		model = 1
		}
	}
	
	# Protected Cruisers built in 1910
	navalunit = {
		name = "1a Divisão de Cruzadores" 
		id = { type = 30053 id = 3 }
		location = 356
		
	division = { 
		id = { type = 30053 id = 300 } 
		name = "Bahia" 
		type = cruiser 
		model = 1 
		}

	division = {
		id = { type = 30053 id = 301 }
		name = "Rio Grande Do Sul"
		type = cruiser
		model = 1
		}
	}
	
#Two divisions of WW1 Para-class Destroyers
	navalunit = {
		name = "1a Divisão de Contratorpedeiros" 
		id = { type = 30053 id = 4 }
		location = 356

	division = { 
		id = { type = 30053 id = 400 } 
		name = "1a Divisão de Contratorpedeiros" 
		type = destroyer 
		model = 1 }
	}

	navalunit = {
		name = "2a Divisão de Contratorpedeiros" 
		id = { type = 30053 id = 401 }
		location = 356

	division = { 
		id = { type = 30053 id = 402 } 
		name = "2a Divisão de Contratorpedeiros" 
		type = destroyer 
		model = 1 
		}
	}
	
	# Sao Paolo in poor condition, being heavily refitted and modified.
	development = {
		name = "São Paulo"
		type = battleship
		model = 1
		cost = 1
		date = { year = 1939 month = march }
		id = { type = 30053 id = 2299 }
	}

MateDow · Aug 21, 2003

Argentine Naval OOB Review

Here is the 'new' Argentine Naval OOB for version 0.6 for your review and correction (probably) of my spanish. It assumes that the Independencia and Libertad were remotely operational in 1936. MDow

Code:

navalunit = {
	name = "ARA Veinticinco De Mayo"
	id = { type = 30050 id = 1 }
	location = 386 # Bahía Blanca

division = { 
	id = { type = 30050 id = 100 } 
	name = "ARA Veinticinco De Mayo" 
	type = cruiser 
	model = 5 
	}
}

navalunit = {
	name = "ARA Almirante Brown"
	id = { type = 30050 id = 2 }
	location = 386 # Bahía Blanca

division = { 
	id = { type = 30050 id = 200 } 
	name = "ARA Almirante Brown" 
	type = cruiser 
	model = 5 
	}
}

# BB Dreadnaughts commissioned in 1914 and 1915:
navalunit = {
	name = "Fuerza de Acorzados Nro. 1"
	id = { type = 30050 id = 3 }
	location = 386 # Bahía Blanca

division = { 
	id = { type = 30050 id = 300 } 
	name = "ARA Moreno" 
	type = battleship 
	model = 1 
	}

division = { 
	id = { type = 30050 id = 400 } 
	name = "ARA Rivadavia" 
	type = battleship 
	model = 1 
	}
}

navalunit = {
	name = "Fuerza de Acorzados Nro. 2"
	id = { type = 30050 id = 401 }
	location = 386 #Bahia Blanca

	division = {
		id = { type = 30050 id = 402 }
		name = "ARA Independencia"
		type = cruiser
		model = 2
		maxspeed = 14
		strength = 5
	}
	division = {
		id = { type = 30050 id = 403 }
		name = "ARA Libertad"
		type = cruiser
		model = 2
		maxspeed = 14
		strength = 5
	}

# Destroyer Division pre-1930 (Churucca & Mendoza classes):
navalunit = {
	name = "Fuerza de Destructores Nro. 1"
	id = { type = 30050 id = 6 }
	location = 384 # Buenos Aires

division = { 
	id = { type = 30050 id = 600 }
	name = "Fuerzade Destructores Nro. 1"
	type = destroyer 
	model = 0
	}
}


# Submarine Division, pre-1936? (3 ships):
navalunit = {
	name = "Fuerza de Submarinos Nro. 1"
	id = { type = 30050 id = 10 }
	location = 385 # Mar del Plata
	
division = { 
	id = { type = 30050 id = 1000 } 
	name = "Fuerza de Submarinos Nro. 1" 
	type = submarine
	model = 0 
	}
}

#Light Cruiser being built in UK
development = {
	id = { type = 30050 id = 101 }
	name = "La Argentina"
	type = cruiser
	model = 4
	date = { day = 31 month = january year = 1939 }
	cost = 2
	}

#Destroyer Flotilla being built in UK
development = {
	name = "Fuerza de Destructores Nro. 2"
	type = destroyer
	model = 4
	id = { type = 30050 id = 601 }
	date = { month = january year = 1938 }
	cost = 1
}

MateDow · Aug 21, 2003

Chilean Naval OOB Review

Here is the Chilean OOB for your review (and hopefully not) correction. MDow

Code:

	navalunit = {
		id = { type = 30055 id = 1 }
		name = "Chilean Navy"
		location = 379
		
		# These have five DDs each:
		division = { 
			id = { type = 30055 id = 100 } 
			name = "1a Destructor División" 
			type = destroyer 
			model = 1 
			}
		division = { 
			id = { type = 30055 id = 101 } 
			name = "2a Destructor División" 
			type = destroyer 
			model = 1 
			}
		
		# Built 1915
		division = { 
			id = { type = 30055 id = 102 } 
			name = "Almirante Latorre" 
			type = battleship 
			model = 1 
			}
		
		# Really Old Cruisers
		division = { 
			id = { type = 30055 id = 103 } 
			name = "Chacabuco" 
			type = cruiser 
			model = 2
			}

		division = {
			id = { type = 30055 id = 104 }
			name = "O'Higgins"
			type = cruiser
			model = 2
			}
	}

Gwalcmai · Aug 22, 2003

For Argentina:

I think it's spelled 'Acorazados', not 'Acorzados'. But a google for acorzados did return some results... Maybe argentine spelling?

Also, a typo: there's a 'Fuerzade' in there, should be 'Fuerza de'.

Chile:

'1a Destructor División'. Did the Chileans call them that? Doesn't look right. Maybe it should be like the Argentina navy? 'Fuerza de Destructores'? Or maybe 'División de Destructores'.

Brasil:

Nothing directly related with the OOB you posted. Did you check the size for 'Divisão de Contratorpedeiros?' I forgot.

BTW, a question. There's a tech called 'Recipricating Engine'. Should that be 'Reciprocating', or is recipricating some engineering term?

MateDow · Aug 22, 2003

Originally posted by Gwalcmai
For Argentina:

I think it's spelled 'Acorazados', not 'Acorzados'. But a google for acorzados did return some results... Maybe argentine spelling?

Also, a typo: there's a 'Fuerzade' in there, should be 'Fuerza de'.

That is pretty easy to fix. I took the Acorzados from the Argentine Navy website, but I can't say one way or the other. Generalisimo? Any opinions?

Chile:

'1a Destructor División'. Did the Chileans call them that? Doesn't look right. Maybe it should be like the Argentina navy? 'Fuerza de Destructores'? Or maybe 'División de Destructores'.

That makes sense to me. I will go with the Fuerza... unless someone has any better idea.

Brasil:

Nothing directly related with the OOB you posted. Did you check the size for 'Divisão de Contratorpedeiros?' I forgot.

That is 10 Para-class destroyers in two divisions.

BTW, a question. There's a tech called 'Recipricating Engine'. Should that be 'Reciprocating', or is recipricating some engineering term?

No secret engineering terms. It is just a plain and simple typo caused by i and o being to close together. MDow

C.O.R.E. HOI - Naval Mod

©

Former SF Weapons Sergeant

Former SF Weapons Sergeant

Former SF Weapons Sergeant

Former SF Weapons Sergeant

CORE Grand Admiral

CORE Grand Admiral

CORE Grand Admiral

CORE Grand Admiral

©

CORE Grand Admiral

©

CORE Grand Admiral

©

Second Lieutenant

CORE Grand Admiral

CORE Grand Admiral

CORE Grand Admiral

©

CORE Grand Admiral