Board Thread:Game Updates/@comment-3502824-20170330044846/@comment-26574811-20170511013051

Tsubakura wrote: I hope the historians are still there, since this topic has been contested on other communities yet again. I am no historian when it comes to this, I only choose the answer which is the most correct out of the 2. The primary goal is to get a consensus as to what classification they should be given across all platforms, to remain consistency. Until that's achieved, this debate will continue.

Anyway, we have the following arguments going around:
 * Based on some analysis, it is concluded that this came from an intelligence exchange with the British. As the USN actually had delivered the Evart-class to the Royal Navy, in which they quickly were re-designated as Frigates, it is in no way a proof that PF is the only correct option out of the 2.
 * The USN themselves never used Frigates for operational practices. While they did built them, they were rarely used in practice as the USN view them as inferior to the DE and DD they currently have posession. As the Kaiboukan were basically used the same way as the USN DE during the WW2 era, the USN would classify them as DE. Of course it would make no sense at all if we applied Japan logic (a DE with no torpedo capabilities is unheard of when thinking about the IJN doctrine), but that is irrelevant as we're trying to use USN classifications right now.
 * There are no firm rules in classifying when looking at the displacement of a ship, besides smaller than the bigger class and bigger than the smaller class. The ships are generally classified by the role they are assigned with.

Can you guys help me on clarifying them? 1. Yes, DE (USN) = Frigate (RN), but we are talking about Gunboat (USN)=corvette (RN) = Kaiboukan (IJN) here.

2. The USN was never brought to their coastal waters, so the "coastal defense" was never put to use. As for convoy, you guys are stating that "USN uses DE for convoy escort, IJN uses Kaiboukan for convoy escort, therefore DE=kaiboukan" but this is not always true. Convoy escort of the USN may very well be different from that of IJN. For example, the leader of a group of DDs in IJN is a CL, but for RN it's "flotilla leader (Scott-class DD)". Why? Because for the RN, range matters, and a CL is hence defined to be a long range combat vessel, why wasting one of those just to lead a group of short-ranged DDs? However, that's not the case for the IJN, therefore they used CLs to fulfill the same role. No one's gonna state that Japanese CLs before Agano-class are DDs or that Scott-class flotilla leaders are CLs, right?

Oh and BTW, if you insist that we talk about the ships' intended use, the Shimushu-class was built to tackle fishing disputes between Japan and USSR, not for convoy escort at all. They used them for escort just because they don't have much choice, but this is NOT their intended role.

3. Does displacement matters? When you're facing a nasty thing known as a Naval Treaty, it does. It defines ship category by gun calibers and displacements. You can see that the intended role for CLs are very different between USN, RN and IJN, but they are nonetheless all CLs.

BTW, do you know that the Kaiboukans are exempt from the London Naval Treaty? That's something the DE's can never achieve.

London Naval Treaty, Article 8:

The following vessels are exempt from limitation:

(b) naval surface combatant vessels exceeding 600 tons (610 metric tons), but not exceeding 2,000 tons (2,032 metric tons) standard displacement, provided they have none of the following characteristics:

(1) mount a gun above 6.1-inch (155 mm.) calibre;  (Shimushu was 12cm, and don't think about Etorofu, she was launched after London Treaty expired)

(2) mount more than four guns above 3-inch (76 mm.) calibre; (Shimushu has 3)

(3) are designed or fitted to launch torpedoes; (Shimushu has none)

(4) are designed for a speed greater than twenty knots. (Shimushu was 19.7)

Even the USS Evarts (Launched December 1942, before London Treaty expires) is too fast (21kt) for this definition. In other words, the Kaiboukans are defined "not-a-DD" by the London Naval Treaty.