| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Posts: 1754
|
|
|
Post subject: Mine layers + Minesweepers
|
 |
|
PLEASE DO NOT DISCUSS MINELAYING RULES
For my entry in creativity Contest 4.
These do not need to become part of the mininavy project. But if (after the contest to prevent conflict of interest) the rules for mine laying are accepted, then feel free to use them.
Only of each for the nations now (becasue I am lazy). It is a mine layer followed by a minesweeper
If you have a nation I did not list added, then ask and I will look into it.
Allied
USN
Terror (1 in class) - 5875t - 20knots - 1942
4 - 127mm. 16 - 28mm, 14 - 20mm, 900 mine
Speed 2 Points ?
Main: 4/3/3/-
AA: 6
2/8/3
Slow 2
Minelayer 30
Argonaut (1 in class) - 2878/4045t -13/7.5knots - 1939
4 - TT 533mm (4 bow), 2 - 152mm, 2 - 7.7mm, 60 Mines
TT - 2/1/1/-
3/7/2
Minelayer 2
Submerged Shot
Raven Class (2 in class) - 1040t - 18 knots
1 - 76.2mm, 2 - 40mm
Speed 1 Points - ?
Main - 1/1/-/-
AA - 3
Minesweeper
UK
Abdiel Class - 3415t - 40knots
6 - 120mm, 4 - 40mm, 8 - 12.7mm, 156 Mines
Speed 3 Points - ?
Main - 5/5/4/-
AA - 5
2/6/2
Minelayer 5
Ryde - max 800t
1 - 100mm Light AA
Speed -1 Points - 2
Main - 2/2/-/-
AA - 3
1/5/1
Minesweeper
Australia
HMAS Bungaree - 3155t - 11 knots - 1941
2 - 102mm, 1 - 76mm. 2 - 40mm. 8 - 20mm 6MG, 423 Mines
Speed 1 Points - ?
Main - 2/2/-/-
AA - 4
2/7/2
Minelayer 14
Axis
Germany
K-Class - Already in game
Speed 2 Points 11
Main : 8/7/6/5
AA : 6
TT : 2/1/-/-
3/8/3
Minelayer 4
Tannenberg - 20 knots - 5504t - 1939
3 - 150mm, 4 - 37mm, 6 - 20mm, 460 Mines
Main : 5/5/4/3
AA : 4
2/7/3
Slow 2
Minelayer 15
(FYI I absolutly love this ship and if i ever get to the point, will try to make it)
M 1915 Class - 14 knots - 718t
Main - 2/1
AA : 3
1/4/1
Minesweeper
Italy
Focal Class (3 ships)- 16/8 knots - 1200/1650t - 1939
6 - 533mm (4 bow, 2 stern), 1 - 100mm 4 - 13.2mm, 36 Mines
TT : 3/2/1
3/6/2
Minelayer 1
Submerged Shot
Japan
IJN Tokiwa - 16 knots - 9240t - 1939
2 - 203mm, 8 - 152mm, 3 - 76mm 300 Mines
Belt : 178 - 90mm, Deck : 50mm, Turret/Casemates : 152mm
Speed 1 Points - ??
Main : 7/6/5/5
Secondary : 6/5/4/3
AA : 3
Minelayer 10
Neutral
Last edited by Rengokuy on Sun Apr 26, 2009 11:31 pm; edited 7 times in total |
|
 Sun Apr 19, 2009 1:17 am |
|
|
SOCCEROO FEVER
Posts: 6808
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Oi, you have forgot the Minelayer that probably sunk the most Russian subs of the war Admiral Murgescu.
_________________
 |
|
| Sun Apr 19, 2009 1:20 am |
|
|
Posts: 1754
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Homework assignment
Due tomorrow
12 noon
I haven't forgotten yet
The Russians (and logically italians) will probably benifit most from the Addition of minelayers.
Evidently I think my system will also allow for net layers. 
Just throw it on there if you want, or post info here. becasue It doesn't sound familiar off the top of my head. |
|
| Sun Apr 19, 2009 1:30 am |
|
|
Moderator
Posts: 938
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: Mine layers + Minesweepers
|
|
|
Minesweepers are pretty straightforward. Some are more "military" than others, but that's about it. Minelayers are much more strictly divided into offensive and defensive types--you would never send Terror on an offensive mission, but she was a great ship for defensive minelaying.
Almost every fleet unit in the Soviet navy could lay mines. |
|
| Sun Apr 19, 2009 1:38 am |
|
|
SOCCEROO FEVER
Posts: 6808
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Mines where th only reason the Romanian navy wasn't blown out of the water in 41. Apart from the airforce of course. The Russians had lots of subs in the Black sea. A large number are attrubuted to Romanian mines
_________________
|
|
| Sun Apr 19, 2009 1:46 am |
|
|
Posts: 1754
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Tiornu - I don't know if i can discuss it or not....but.
These would be used in a pre-battle where the opponent is other minelayers, minelaying subs, Destroyers, and aircraft. Then the main fleet arrives.
Im trying to find the best form of the Tokiwa (year wise) for this. I think her 1939 for did the best balance of Offensive/Defensive. Though the AA is weak.
Sine sweepers are so varried I figured the UK may as well get something fun.
The Gorkiys will easily become one of the best (if not most expensive) minelayers with 100 mines each. (per my rules that's enough for 3 tiles) Short of a minelaying battleship that is....but I doubt any of those exist except HMS London.
Play them with a large map and the altered rules and I think the offensive and defensive layers will make a decent impact. Especially a speedy British one, that is doing exactly what they want it too.
Rae - I'll stick them into this if you want. I'm all for minor nations, and mines will greatly allow them to pack a little more punch. Maybe they will be able the Romanian forces a bit more of a chance..
I should add tehh submariens too...first homework.
(sidenote, does having 2 dots mean no one loves me ) |
|
| Sun Apr 19, 2009 2:48 am |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 4166
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Rengokuy wrote: |
(sidenote, does having 2 dots mean no one loves me ) |
It means two guys love you. 
Hey! What do those dots mean anyway?
As far as these ships go. Maybe it would be better to wait on them until after the contest? There will probably be at least some need to discuss and revise the rules first that may affect how you stat the ships.
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship! |
|
| Sun Apr 19, 2009 3:45 am |
|
|
Posts: 1754
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Think of this as a weeks notice before they can be torn into.
They are just to give options for my scenario to play.
After the contest (if mine rules are accepted/agreed on) then we can tear these apart.
For now they are strictly for a special scenario. |
|
| Sun Apr 19, 2009 3:49 am |
|
|
Moderator
Posts: 938
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Tokiwa will never need any offensive weapons because she'll never serve as an offensive minelayer. An offensive minelayer has great speed to sprint into enemy waters and create a hazard in a heavily trafficked area. This is why you won't be seeing a whole lot of battleship minelayers. When will a battleship ever need to lay mines?
Maybe tomorrow I'll have time to discuss the IJN linked mines. |
|
| Sun Apr 19, 2009 4:32 am |
|
|
Caesar Americanus II Munchkin Wrangler
AHF Silver-Rated Trader
Posts: 2967
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
IIRC, all German DD's had mine-gear.
_________________
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Frickin' cookie crap...
IJNCVLF: 'Cuz my Avengers wanna bust more'n just BB's... |
|
| Sun Apr 19, 2009 4:49 am |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 4166
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Tiornu wrote: | Tokiwa will never need any offensive weapons because she'll never serve as an offensive minelayer. An offensive minelayer has great speed to sprint into enemy waters and create a hazard in a heavily trafficked area. This is why you won't be seeing a whole lot of battleship minelayers. When will a battleship ever need to lay mines?
Maybe tomorrow I'll have time to discuss the IJN linked mines. |
Please do!
Also, is there a way to discern from the specs whether a minelayer was 'offensive' or 'defensive?' I think Rengokuy's current rules proposal really reflects an offensive use of mines.
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship! |
|
| Sun Apr 19, 2009 5:02 am |
|
|
Posts: 1644
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Hey, Rengokuy!
I fooled around with a Mine Layer SA for the Soviet repaints of the Italian Condottierres, but I never finished. I found out that lots of ships, subs, and aircraft could lay mines, and I didn't want to take them all on at once, just so I could have a cool SA for my Kirov, you know?
_ Although just about anything can dump mines in the water, you need sweepers to recover them. Not so sure about disabling them, so that still needs to be resolved.
_ Mines should remain in play until successful, disabled, or recovered.
_ Upside-down damage counters can be used to represent the mines. The 1's and 2's can represent density. A 2 could be the full 30 mines per sector you mentioned, and a 1 could represent the lesser amount that fighting ships might use.
_ Any ship that enters a mined sector should immediately roll the number of dice revealed when you turn the counter over. On a roll of 5, the ship takes a point of hull damage. On a roll of 6, the ship takes 2 points of hull damage. If only 1 of 2 attack dice are successes, the 2 point mine counter should be replaced with a 1 point counter.
Mines made a difference. Even the possibility of mines made a difference. Sooner or later, the game's got to deal with them.  |
|
| Sun Apr 19, 2009 5:46 pm |
|
|
Posts: 1754
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Sorry chesty I think it's a conflict of intrest if we discuss anything till after the contest is over.
I already have rules set.
After the contest is over we can peel them apart and come up with one we all agree on. |
|
| Sun Apr 19, 2009 5:49 pm |
|
|
Moderator
Posts: 938
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
If you see a puttsy little minelayer with a top speed of 12 knots, you know it's there for defensive purposes. Is this thing going to dash a thousand miles into the enemy's coastal merchant lanes or to the approaches to enemy's main base? On the other hand, are you going to plant defensive minefields using an expensive, fuel-guzzling cruiser?
Offensive minelayers are usually either purpose-built warships or fleet units also capable of laying mines. The Abdiels were probably the fastest ships (as opposed to boats) in the RN during WWII. Or look at Emile Bertin (though she never actually undertook a mining mission). The only offensive minelayers for the US were converted destroyers. Minelaying subs would also be offensive, obviously, and most navies could use any sub for minelaying.
The Japanese developed their linked mine during the RJ War. The Type 1 mine was something like two mines joined by a chain. The idea was that these two mine bodies would drift along at the opposite ends of their chains, thus increasing the target area. These would be laid in the path of the oncoming enemy fleet. There were a couple problems with this. First, simply scattering mines in open waters is not a promising venture, especially if you hope to gain control of those waters soon after. Second, why on earth would the mines float with their chain taut and perpendicular to the enemy's path? By 1930, it became clear that a "smarter" weapon was needed. And what, after all, is smarter than a person? So the Japanese developed a manned mine. That is where the Japanese midget sub came from. As originally conceived, the subs would be dropped in the path of the oncoming fleet by specially adapted "seaplane" carriers. Chitose, Chiyoda, Nisshin, and Mizuho could each carry a dozen subs at the cost of a reduced air group. Of course, there's still a problem here as a tiny sub's chances of acquiring a high-speed target on the high seas is pretty poor. In the end, the IJN bowed to practicality and diverted their expensive, specialized midget subs to the covert raiding mission, for which they were ill suited. |
|
| Sun Apr 19, 2009 6:28 pm |
|
|
Posts: 1644
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Sorry! Didn't realize this was an Olympics thing. I'll just be off to bed, now.  |
|
| Sun Apr 19, 2009 6:44 pm |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 4166
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Tiornu wrote: | If you see a puttsy little minelayer with a top speed of 12 knots, you know it's there for defensive purposes. Is this thing going to dash a thousand miles into the enemy's coastal merchant lanes or to the approaches to enemy's main base? On the other hand, are you going to plant defensive minefields using an expensive, fuel-guzzling cruiser?
Offensive minelayers are usually either purpose-built warships or fleet units also capable of laying mines. The Abdiels were probably the fastest ships (as opposed to boats) in the RN during WWII. Or look at Emile Bertin (though she never actually undertook a mining mission). The only offensive minelayers for the US were converted destroyers. Minelaying subs would also be offensive, obviously, and most navies could use any sub for minelaying.
The Japanese developed their linked mine during the RJ War. The Type 1 mine was something like two mines joined by a chain. The idea was that these two mine bodies would drift along at the opposite ends of their chains, thus increasing the target area. These would be laid in the path of the oncoming enemy fleet. There were a couple problems with this. First, simply scattering mines in open waters is not a promising venture, especially if you hope to gain control of those waters soon after. Second, why on earth would the mines float with their chain taut and perpendicular to the enemy's path? By 1930, it became clear that a "smarter" weapon was needed. And what, after all, is smarter than a person? So the Japanese developed a manned mine. That is where the Japanese midget sub came from. As originally conceived, the subs would be dropped in the path of the oncoming fleet by specially adapted "seaplane" carriers. Chitose, Chiyoda, Nisshin, and Mizuho could each carry a dozen subs at the cost of a reduced air group. Of course, there's still a problem here as a tiny sub's chances of acquiring a high-speed target on the high seas is pretty poor. In the end, the IJN bowed to practicality and diverted their expensive, specialized midget subs to the covert raiding mission, for which they were ill suited. |
Very interesting. I assumed midget subs were concieved as a 'smart torpedo.'
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship! |
|
| Sun Apr 19, 2009 7:57 pm |
|
|
Posts: 1644
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Where are the rulres your tlking about? Im really tired but, Idon't see any rules, just scores. I don't meaan to make trouble. Sorry about that, Ren. |
|
| Sun Apr 19, 2009 9:03 pm |
|
|
Moderator
Posts: 938
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: | | I assumed midget subs were concieved as a 'smart torpedo.' |
It's a thin line, isn't it? Historically, the torpedo is just a locomotive mine. The Japanese went on to "smart torpedoes" with the kaiten, and this epitomized the shortcomings of the system. Target acquisition was so difficult, a kaiten could be right next to its target and not know about it. Ground level is not the most commanding vantage point. Only two ships were destroyed by kaiten attack during the war, the destroyer escort Underwood and the tanker Mississinewa. I don't guarantee the spelling of either name. |
|
| Sun Apr 19, 2009 9:36 pm |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 4166
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Tiornu wrote: | | Quote: | | I assumed midget subs were concieved as a 'smart torpedo.' |
It's a thin line, isn't it? Historically, the torpedo is just a locomotive mine. The Japanese went on to "smart torpedoes" with the kaiten, and this epitomized the shortcomings of the system. Target acquisition was so difficult, a kaiten could be right next to its target and not know about it. Ground level is not the most commanding vantage point. Only two ships were destroyed by kaiten attack during the war, the destroyer escort Underwood and the tanker Mississinewa. I don't guarantee the spelling of either name. |
True, I forgot the first 'torpedoes' were actually what we call mines now.
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship! |
|
| Sun Apr 19, 2009 11:31 pm |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Donations are used for Forumini Olympics awards (donations admin: Aquarius)
| Forumini Gallery |
 |
|
