I'd like to suggest that consideration be given to making the following changes to the data files for Tsushima, if and when a v 1.03 patch is put together (though perhaps someone else has already made the same observations):
(1) MA: While the main armament indeed was mounted aft (“APS”) on Matushima, it was mounted forward on sisters Itsukushima and Hashidate (“FPS”). Moreover, giving these ships the “standard” 12-inch-JP makes them much too powerful, as the range and rate of fire are far too high. The guns were a 12.6-inch Canet design, with a theoretical rate of fire of 1 round per 5 minutes (reload time 300 seconds). In practice (at the Battle of the Yalu in 1894) the rate of fire seems to have been about 1 round per hour! Maximum elevation was 10.5 degrees, giving a maximum range of 13,120 yards (according to the data quoted in Tony DiGiulan's "Naval Weapons of the World" site cited below), or perhaps only 9605 yards / 8783 meters (according to the range table at the Russo-Japanese War Research Society site). Moreover, training the main armament abeam had a marked adverse effect on stability, especially on Itsukishima and Hashidate (the forward-mounted guns being higher above the waterline) – so it may even be justifiable to designate the angle of train as simply “F” and “M”. (2) CN: Name is probably better rendered as "Chin Yen" (2 words). Rate of fire for the main armament (30.5cm RKL/25 Krupp model 1880) was 3 rounds per 10 minutes (reload time 200 seconds). Maximum range: 7903 yards / 7227 meters at elevation of 13 degrees.
(3) There also differences among the main armament of some of the older Russian ships (e.g. 10-inch guns of Apraksin and Ushakov are older, lower-velocity weapons than 10-inch guns of Osliabia; similarly, 12-inch/27 cal. guns of Imperator Nikolai I are older and less powerful than 12-inch/31.9 of Navarin), but I appreciate that in these cases the differences in performance are not nearly as significant and that it makes sense to simplify things by using the same values for guns of the same calibre.
(4) SV: name should be spelled "Sissoi Velikii" (or "Sisoi"), not "Sissio" (name refers to St. Sisoi (Sisoes) the Great -- in turn a reference to the Battle of Gangut, fought on the saint's feast day in 1714).
Sources:
Mach, "The Chinese Battleships", Warship No. 29, 1984, p. 9
Itani, Lengerer & Rehm-Takahara, “Sankeikan”, Warship 1990, p. 35
Conway’s All the World’s Fighting Ships, 1860-1905
McLachlin, Russian and Soviet Battleships (Naval Institute Press, 2003)
"Naval Weapons of the World", http://www.warships1.com/Weapons/WNSpain_126-35_m1884.htm
"Japanese Guns of the RJW",
http://www.russojapanesewar.com/ord-links.html
I appreciate that making these changes would require adding another class to the “ships” file and two new types to the “guns” file, but it seems to me that the differences are significant enough to justify the trouble. I suppose the brave (or reckless) approach would be just modifying the data files and seeing what happens . . .
Mark Kindrachuk
Tsushima -- old Japanese ships
Forum Locked
Posted - 05/07/2004 : 16:15:17
