Board Thread:Event Community Discussion/@comment-28069733-20170514083426/@comment-900265-20170514144140

Tsubakura wrote: I have received the following from the poiviewer github section here.

His argument is as follows: As listed in http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/index_ships_list.php DE referred to the following: Destroyer Escort, Escort or "Ocean Escort." The ships in question are Escorts, so DE fits that.

To address the PF arguments above: The ONI has classified the Shimushu-class as PF: http://archive.hnsa.org/doc/id/oni222j-japan-navy/pg107.htm

It also used DE for other kaibokan ships: http://archive.hnsa.org/doc/id/oni222j-japan-navy/pg115.htm These were wartime intelligence reports to begin with, so they relied on incomplete information and they were made for people who were concerned with combat, not terminology.

DE are subject to the London Naval Treaty of 1930 if they have a displacement of over 2000 ton, any gun above 155cm, more than 4 guns above 76mm, the ability to launch torpedoes and the speed of 20 knots or above. The Shimushu however, is nowhere near 2000 ton, does not have any gun above 155cm, only has 3 guns above 76mm at most, no torpedo capabilities and has a speed of 19.7 knots. They are not a destroyer by London Naval Treaty definitions.

USS Evarts DE-5 had a displacement of between 1140 long tons standard and 1450 t full load. You did not post DE specifications. You apparently posted something inspired by Article 8, which only says the treaty limits the numbers of ships that meet the requirements. You posted nonsense, since a 155cm gun is more than three times larger than Yamato's main guns. You said 155, not 15.5, and besides, the treaty defines ships with 15.5cm guns as cruisers, so trying to claim destroyers or destroyer escorts are required to have 15.5cm guns is nonsense. If you're copy/pasting from someone else, you were trolled.

Furthermore, the claim was "are subject to." If something doesn't meet the requirements of the treaty's Article 8, that just means there's no limit on how many of them can be built. That has nothing to do with what counts as a destroyer or destroyer escort. Article 15 defines destroyers as surface vessels of war the standard displacement of which does not exceed 1850 tons, and with a gun not above 5.1-inch (130mm). It doesn't set any minimum.

The IJN does not treat any ships with no torpedo capabilities as destroyers. In-game, they cannot effectively replace DDs in most of the expeditions and map branching rules. It is evidence enough that they are not treated as destroyers, as genuine destroyer escorts should be able to effectively replace them.

Destroyer escorts (DE) are not destroyers (DD). Destroyer escorts can't effectively replace destroyers, and the DDE designation exists for full-fledged destroyers performing escort duties.

The Kaiboukan were built with the purpose of settling fishing disputes between USSR and Japan, not for use as an escort in war.

Not according to the site you linked to earlier, http://www.combinedfleet.com/Kaibokan.htm Provide some evidence for your claim.

The SHIMUSHU class of escorts was ordered in 1937. They were capable of functioning either as escorts or minesweepers. By 1943, increasing losses of merchant shipping caused the IJN to reorder its priorities. Beginning in January 1944 over 30 modified Type B's, known as the UKURU-class, were laid down. The heavy toll exacted by American submarines on the Combined Fleet's East Indies oil supply further caused the IJN to lose some of its hubris, so in 1943 it was decided to design a simplified version of the Type B. The Republic of China's Navy classified these ships as PF when they obtained them post-war. Likewise, the American Destroyer Escorts were given a different classification, which means there are distinctions.

According to wikipedia, type C and D Escorts, which were numbered by Japan rather than named, were classified PF, and US DE's were F, but Etorofu-class ships like Tsushima and Fukue didn't have classifications shown there and I haven't found anything with theirs yet. The list did have one mixing DD with PF: ROCN Xin Yang DD-15 (PF-82, ex IJN Hatsuume). Since there's inconsistencies, the ROCN wouldn't be a reliable source. It probably classified things based on how it was going to use them rather than just ship characteristics.

The Kaiboukan lacks the armanent to be as combat effective as the American Destroyer Escorts. While the lightweight part does fit the role of the USN DE, their capabilities dont.

USS Evarts DE-5 armament, according to wikipedia (if you don't like wikipedia, link an alternative): 3 × 3 in (76 mm)/50 cal dual purpose guns (3×1) 4 × 1.1"/75 caliber anti-aircraft guns (1×4) 9 × 20 mm (0.79 in) anti-aircraft cannons (9×1) 8 × depth charge throwers 1 × 24-tube Hedgehog anti-submarine spigot mortar (144 rounds) 2 × depth charge tracks

Shimushu's armament: 3 × 120 mm (4.7 in)/45 cal dual purpose guns Up to 15 × 25 mm (0.98 in) AA guns 6 × depth charge throwers Up to 60 × depth charges 1 × 80 mm (3.1 in) mortar Shimushu had 120mm guns, while Evarts only had 76. Evarts only had 2 more depth charge throwers. They each had 3 main guns, similar numbers of anti-aircraft guns, one mortar, and that's it. These loadouts are as close to identical as you can get given the differences between the US and Japanese arsenals.

Is there even an explanation needed? The ships are given the tag 海防 in their cards, so why don't we just classify them KB?

KB only makes sense to people who know the Japanese word. Anyone who isn't familiar with it or who tries to look it up in a historical list of classifications will need an explanation. And of course, EE and KB are just made up, not real designations.

That would be fine to me. Since the USN hull classification just brings more confusion anyways.