FANDOM


  • Tsubakura
    Tsubakura closed this thread because:
    http://kancolle.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:558979
    08:35, May 14, 2017

    Now, before everyone went shitfest on me please hear me out. A long time ago we had this problem with the classification of BB as there's this another class called Battlecruiser (let's call it BC) that never comes into fruition because the classification of fBB, BB, and BBV are already engraved into the community.

    Think of the Escort case as the same, but we are trying to avoid the long-term complications. Now, most people are probably already comfortable with calling the current Escort ships, DE (Destroyer Escort); however, there's also another classification called PF (Patrol Frigate)....and many others. Basically, calling it DE will only cover one type of Escort ships (same with PF). So, calling them DE can cause complications in the future.

    Kaibokan, or the escorts we have right now, are labeled as "Escorts"

    This has been discussed and the question was asked to the Naval History and Heritage Command (NHHC) Library regarding the classification. The result was that it is viable to keep calling them "DE" or "E", but definitely not "PF". However, DE might not be the best classification of Escort as stated above.

    Basically, both DE and PF is wrong as it won't cover all type of Escorts so they just recommend "E".

    Therefore, a shit solution was made: make our own classification. The poll for some possible classification that makes sense are below:

    http://www.strawpoll.me/12943149

    Any comments and suggestions can be thrown down here along with any shitfest incoming from trying to force change upon humanity - something people hate.

      Loading editor
    • wow that's fucked up.

      didn't know that stuff could get so complicated over a classification...

      (i tought they were invented by the players in the first place)

        Loading editor
    • Tough classification

      May EE win the pool.

        Loading editor
    • How about LE (Loli Escort) ?

        Loading editor
    • The most stupid thing I read today, just call them DE. Patrol Frigates is literally something non existent in the IJN during WW2.

        Loading editor
    • Zel-melon wrote:

      This has been discussed and the question was asked to the Naval History and Heritage Command (NHHC) Library regarding the classification. The result was that it is viable to keep calling them "DE" or "E", but definitely not "PF". However, DE might not be the best classification of Escort as stated above.

      Question: was it brought up that the US Navy itself used PF during and after the war in its intelligence, as it's been discussed in the previous thread? How did they decide to just strike it off?

      Zel-melon wrote:

      Therefore, a shit solution was made: make our own classification. The poll for some possible classification that makes sense are below:

      Definitely shitty, but it's not like E is an actual abbreviation anyhow.

      EDIT:

      FirstDagr wrote:
      The most stupid thing I read today, just call them DE. Patrol Frigates is literally something non existent in the IJN during WW2.

      And where does "destroyer escort" appear in the IJN ship classification?

      Kruss wrote:

      (i tought they were invented by the players in the first place)

      Nominally the community has been pretending to be using the USN ship designation system.

        Loading editor
    • We should have gone with KB since it derives from the first letter that composes the reading of each kanji from the Kancolle abbreviation (Kai-/Bō-) or CDS that stands for Coastal Defense Ship which is the official translation.

      Kaibōkan(Wikipedia article in English).

      Edit: Well since CD or CDS can cause confusion, the poll will be the one to decide the naming system after all.

      Rev. Edit: The link to the poll is here http://www.strawpoll.me/12943149

      It'll mostly be EE from what I saw.

        Loading editor
    • Well, that escalated quickly. I`ve been somewhat followed the debate (is highlighted on wikia and that blue 1 bothered me) and I thought everything was resolved into DE by some irrefutable proof lol. As for the Battlecruisers i guess you are talking about the Kongo sisters that were built and designed as such but then they were modernized and clasified as FBB.

      Hmmm, as for  the poll. Since you guys have been using USN conventions, but they proved unsatisfactory this time, I agree with Hasemiru in taking the literal IJN designation, altrough i think SDS (sea defense ship) is better since that`s the exact translation kanji by kanji (at least acording with wikipedia at the page of the shimushu-class kaibokans). But since that option is out of the above-highlighted poll, i`ll go with ES (Escort Ship), which is the closest to that

        Loading editor
    • Hasemiru wrote:
      We should have gone with KB since it derives from the first letter that composes the reading of each kanji from the Kancolle abbreviation (Kai-/Bō-) or CDS that stands for Coastal Defense Ship which is the official translation.

      Kaibōkan(Wikipedia article in English).

      CD is used on Combinedfleet as abbreviation for the numbered Type C&D. Going by the logic of the admins/mods/whoevertheyareortheythinktheyare the problem is that it's not generic enough given the card's translation as "escort".

        Loading editor
    • --DELETED--

      (I read what was discussed since the last time I checked the big DE/PF thread, nevermind.)

        Loading editor
    • On the matter of the CD designation.

      I know wikipedia is far from the higher source material ever, but on the page of  the kaibokan classes from Shimushu-class and its successors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukuru-class_escort_ship   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikura-class_escort_ship) where they mention the battles of the ships, they mention other kaibokans who had no name, just hull designation of the  CD-number style (CD-48, CD-32 sinking uss subs and stuff) doesn`t  that means that the IJN used CD for the lesser Kaibokans and just named the "stronger" classes of it? (if so, wouldn`t they would still be classified as CD or with CD(random letter here)?

        Loading editor
    • Jffgvzl wrote:
      On the matter of the CD designation.

      I know wikipedia is far from the higher source material ever, but on the page of  the kaibokan classes from Shimushu-class and its successors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukuru-class_escort_ship   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikura-class_escort_ship) where they mention the battles of the ships, they mention other kaibokans who had no name, just hull designation of the  CD-number style (CD-48, CD-32 sinking uss subs and stuff) doesn`t  that means that the IJN used CD for the lesser Kaibokans and just named the "stronger" classes of it? (if so, wouldn`t they would still be classified as CD or with CD(random letter here)?

      it's an informal abbreviation, the IJN didn't use Romaji for their names and I think they always named them the long way, 第一号海防艦 (Dai Ichi Go Kaibokan) would be CD-1. Even during the repatriation duties they were only painted with their number, without letters, unlike the No.1 class transports which received the T1, etc. names that are still sometimes used today, so it probably didn't originate with the occupation.

      EDIT: The Type C&D were numbered because they planned to build hundreds of them, effectively over 100 were completed between the two classes, they differed in their propulsion, the Type C used a less powerful diesel fitted previously on submarine chasers (every earlier Kaibokan used diesels like those fitted on the I-400 class), the Type D used steam turbine (on a single shaft, every other kaibokan including the Type C had two shafts), diesel production was a bottleneck for this mass production plan.

        Loading editor
    • Hasemiru wrote:
      We should have gone with KB since it derives from the first letter that composes the reading of each kanji from the Kancolle abbreviation (Kai-/Bō-) or CDS that stands for Coastal Defense Ship which is the official translation.

      Kaibōkan(Wikipedia article in English).

      Edit: Well since CD or CDS can cause confusion, the poll will be the one to decide the naming system after all.

      No can do, because KB would make no fucking sense if a foreign escort gets implemented.

        Loading editor
    • Tsubakura wrote:
      Hasemiru wrote:
      We should have gone with KB since it derives from the first letter that composes the reading of each kanji from the Kancolle abbreviation (Kai-/Bō-) or CDS that stands for Coastal Defense Ship which is the official translation.Kaibōkan(Wikipedia article in English).

      Edit: Well since CD or CDS can cause confusion, the poll will be the one to decide the naming system after all.

      No can do, because KB would make no fucking sense if a foreign escort gets implemented.

      Well technically it can be implemented, we would have to take all ships of Japan and foreign nations and put them under a main tag (Escort ships), then for how each country administrates their Hull designation system (E.g.: US Navy Destroyer escort; Imperial Japanese Navy Kaibōkan; Royal Navy and Commonwealth Force Frigates.

      In general terms it'll be very hard to determine a unique tag for all ships in general since they obey to different demands when their nations designed, built and classified them.

      "Destroyer escort (DE) was the United States Navy mid-20th century classification for a 20-knot (23 mph) warship designed with endurance to escort mid-ocean convoys of merchant marine ships. Kaibōkan were designed for a similar role in the Imperial Japanese Navy. The Royal Navy and Commonwealth forces identified such warships as frigates, and that classification was widely accepted when the United States redesignated destroyer escorts as frigates (FF) in 1975. Destroyer escorts, frigates and kaibōkan were mass-produced for World War II as a less expensive anti-submarine warfare alternative to fleet destroyers"

      Destroyer escort. (2017, May 4). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved

      00:00 UTC, May 12, 2017

      , from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Destroyer_escort&oldid=778586298

        Loading editor
    • Hasemiru wrote:

      Tsubakura wrote:
      Hasemiru wrote:
      We should have gone with KB since it derives from the first letter that composes the reading of each kanji from the Kancolle abbreviation (Kai-/Bō-) or CDS that stands for Coastal Defense Ship which is the official translation.Kaibōkan(Wikipedia article in English).

      Edit: Well since CD or CDS can cause confusion, the poll will be the one to decide the naming system after all.

      No can do, because KB would make no fucking sense if a foreign escort gets implemented.
      Well technically it can be implemented, we would have to take all ships of Japan and foreign nations and put them under a main tag (Escort ships), then for how each country administrates their Hull designation system (E.g.: US Navy Destroyer escort; Imperial Japanese Navy Kaibōkan; Royal Navy and Commonwealth Force Frigates.

      In general terms it'll be very hard to determine a unique tag for all ships in general since they obey to different demands when their nations designed, built and classified them.

      "Destroyer escort (DE) was the United States Navy mid-20th century classification for a 20-knot (23 mph) warship designed with endurance to escort mid-ocean convoys of merchant marine ships. Kaibōkan were designed for a similar role in the Imperial Japanese Navy. The Royal Navy and Commonwealth forces identified such warships as frigates, and that classification was widely accepted when the United States redesignated destroyer escorts as frigates (FF) in 1975. Destroyer escorts, frigates and kaibōkan were mass-produced for World War II as a less expensive anti-submarine warfare alternative to fleet destroyers"

      Destroyer escort. (2017, May 4). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved

      00:00 UTC, May 12, 2017

      , from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Destroyer_escort&oldid=778586298

      The idea is similar, because my plan is to put them all under the Escort ship tag, except your 2nd plan isnt realistically achievable, due to the limitations of the database infrastructure. If that was possible, I would've solved the issue of Suzuya and Taiyou still being CVL long ago now.

      As I already said many times that PF, DE and Kaiboukan can be classified as Escort, I aint in no mood to restart the debate again. Fight it out with the other historians to your hearts content, but I am going to push the change regardless when the time comes.

        Loading editor
    • Selzeny wrote:
      How about LE (Loli Escort) ?

      How about LL (LoLi)?

        Loading editor
    • Voted EV because it sounded like EV-il

        Loading editor
    • LE should be on the Poll :(

        Loading editor
    • FirstDagr wrote:
      The most stupid thing I read today, just call them DE. Patrol Frigates is literally something non existent in the IJN during WW2.

      Let me remind you that those Kaiboukans were classified as PF by the Republic of China Navy right after the war. And the Amercan DEs were classified into something else by them as well.

      And let me remind you that CVL does not exist in IJN classification to begin with.

      EV, EE , KB and ES are the same to me, as they are just giving up and invent our own. While this is indeed a way out of trouble, if you guys really care about the potential future foreign Kaiboukans, PF would be better as the only possible foreign counterpart of Kaiboukan will be the British Flower-class corvettes.

        Loading editor
    • I will just let you guys decide because I am total scrub at WWII History of Warships and etc....

      I just came here to read the comments
        Loading editor
    • Ar-cen-ciel
      Ar-cen-ciel removed this reply because:
      02:13, May 12, 2017
      This reply has been removed
    • For me, it's DE and that's enough (KCV already had the DE name in it way before the Escorts ships were introduced)

        Loading editor
    • Mystia Lore. wrote:
      For me, it's DE and that's enough (KCV already had the DE name in it way before the Escorts ships were introduced)

      Well actually Kaiboukans exists in the game file since KC day 1. Plus, we already know that they will never be a kind of Destroyer (because we knew that Kaiboukans are not allowed to have torps). If KCV prepared DE for Kaiboukan early, then they are simply wrong from the beginning.

        Loading editor
    • Mystia Lore. wrote:

      For me, it's DE and that's enough (KCV already had the DE name in it way before the Escorts ships were introduced)
      No, they're not. They are not destroyers to begin with. Their inability to replace actual destroyers for in-game expeditions is solid enough an evidence to back that up. Actual escort destroyers should be able to replace fleet destroyers in expeditions just fine, and the Kaibokans are too lightly armed to do that.
      FirstDagr wrote:
      The most stupid thing I read today, just call them DE. Patrol Frigates is literally something non existent in the IJN during WW2.

      Problem with that classification for Kaibokans is that they don't have torpedoes. A surface ship must have torpedo tubes to count as a destroyer in IJN, escort or no. Kaibokans don't have any, Combined with their slow speed, they are not eligible to count as DDs or DEs that could participate in Destroyer Squadrons, as evidenced by expeditions.

      As far as DEs goes, closest thing IJN had to that are Type-D destroyers (Matsu and Tachibana class), which actually had torpedoes like 4/5 of American DE classes.

        Loading editor
    • I kinda don't understand why using PF (Patrol Boat) when then USN stated they're DE (Destroyer Escort).

      As someone said here already. Because of similar roles. Since we're using the USN hull naming classification. We should only stick to WW2-era. not beyond.


      @Ar-cen-ciel You should complain to the USN officials then. Because of similar roles and appearance gave them that way.

        Loading editor
    • Here come my illogical argument.

      We generally have 2 letters for ship classification. In a neat way, the first letter divide things into sizes. with A for misc. stuff, B for big (Battleships), C for smaller ships (CV, CA, CL) and D for tiny ships (DD). And here we have yet another smaller category with some even younger girl, isn't it kind of logical to give them something start with E? (cues EE)

        Loading editor
    • Oh yeah, that reminds me:

      DEs generally have 21kt+ speed, or torps, or other features that forces them to be subject to the London Naval Treaty of 1930.

      Kaiboukans, on the other hand, did not have any of the following:

      1. any gun above 155mm

      2. more than 4 guns above 76mm (3 inch), (Kaiboukans have 3)

      3. ability to launch torpedoes

      4. ability to go at 20 knots or above (19.7 for Shimushu-class)

      which means Kaiboukans are not subject to the Treaty. Now this, is a very significant difference between a DE and a Kaiboukan.

        Loading editor
    • Dandan550 wrote:
      I kinda don't understand why using PF (Patrol Boat) when then USN stated they're DE (Destroyer Escort).

      Except the USN stated that they are PF (Patrol Frigate).

        Loading editor
    • I vote for Escort. Or Esc or whatever it'll be.

      Not that I care, but this thing will definitely go nowhere and this is like that time with armored carrier-classification-discussion-gets-nowhere.

        Loading editor
    • Dandan550 wrote:

      I kinda don't understand why using PF (Patrol Boat) when then USN stated they're DE (Destroyer Escort).

      As someone said here already. Because of similar roles. Since we're using the USN hull naming classification. We should only stick to WW2-era. not beyond.
      According to USN's doctrine, they might fit the role, if only on the lightweight side for their liking. So no, they don't really fit to be escort destroyers, neither in IJN nor USN. So your argument about Kaibokans are considered as DEs fell flat because they don't have the right specs to fit within the escort destroyer's hull specifications.

      Personally, I don't mind whatever hullcode they would have, as long as my loli kaibokans aren't lumped into the same category as the fleet destroyers.

        Loading editor
    • Stymphalian ID.27 wrote:
      Here come my illogical argument.

      We generally have 2 letters for ship classification. In a neat way, the first letter divide things into sizes. with A for misc. stuff, B for big (Battleships), C for smaller ships (CV, CA, CL) and D for tiny ships (DD). And here we have yet another smaller category with some even younger girl, isn't it kind of logical to give them something start with E? (cues EE)

      Uh, no ,that's not what the ABCD means...

      A means auxiliary, B is battleship, C is cruiser or French about carrier, D is Destroyer. And then we have F for frigate and P for patrol.

        Loading editor
    • Tennousu wrote:
      I vote for Escort. Or Esc or whatever it'll be.

      Not that I care, but this thing will definitely go nowhere and this is like that time with armored carrier-classification-discussion-gets-nowhere.

      If people of the English KC community are willing to admit that everyone who thought it's DE was downright wrong, we can just go PF easily. The CVB problem is that USN don't have a code for armored carriers (CVB is "large" carrier), but in this case the USN DO have a code for the true Kaiboukan equivalent (Flower-class), that's PF. Although USN used PG, we can all agree that Kaiboukans are NOT gunboats, plus the ROCN used PF as well, and USN intels referred to IJN Kaiboukans as PFs as well, there shouldn't be any problem at all.

        Loading editor
    • Copying my comments from Reddit: I'm actually surprised that the NHHC contact didn't catch this bit of info. From the list of USN abbreviations used during WWII from the NHHC website: "EV -- Escort Vessels (enemy)". Since kaibokans were escort vessels operated by the USN's enemy at the time, wouldn't EV a) make the most sense and b) be an actual acronym used at the time and therefore not something Kancolle players have to invent?

        Loading editor
    • -Groans-..... really guys. Just go with the recomendation you had from historians (E) and put another E just to use the 2 letter designation. Stamp EE and let this be over with.

      Failing that, I think that any acronism we come up will be always in dispute by someone and that LE (loli escort) JB (jailbait) SM (for Shimushu, the first one of the class of ships that made this entire ordeal) or any other crazy thing is the same.

        Loading editor
    • Mindwarp42 wrote:
      Copying my comments from Reddit: I'm actually surprised that the NHHC contact didn't catch this bit of info. From the list of USN abbreviations used during WWII from the NHHC website: "EV -- Escort Vessels (enemy)". Since kaibokans were escort vessels operated by the USN's enemy at the time, wouldn't EV a) make the most sense and b) be an actual acronym used at the time and therefore not something Kancolle players have to invent?

      The only problem with this is that it is a list of abbreviations, not hull classification symbols, while it is still usable, there is a difference.

        Loading editor
    • Ar-cen-ciel wrote:

      Dandan550 wrote:

      I kinda don't understand why using PF (Patrol Boat) when then USN stated they're DE (Destroyer Escort).

      As someone said here already. Because of similar roles. Since we're using the USN hull naming classification. We should only stick to WW2-era. not beyond.
      According to USN's doctrine, they might fit the role, if only on the lightweight side for their liking. So no, they don't really fit to be escort destroyers, neither in IJN nor USN.

      Personally, I don't mind whatever hullcode they would have, as long as my loli kaibokans aren't lumped into the same category as the fleet destroyers.

      Well they aren't designed anyway to fight in the frontlines anyway.

      Hyper Shinchan wrote:

      Dandan550 wrote:
      I kinda don't understand why using PF (Patrol Boat) when then USN stated they're DE (Destroyer Escort).

      Except the USN stated that they are PF (Patrol Frigate).

      I assure that is after the war report heh. Not following to that.

        Loading editor
    • Hyper Shinchan wrote:
      Dandan550 wrote:
      I kinda don't understand why using PF (Patrol Boat) when then USN stated they're DE (Destroyer Escort).
      Except the USN stated that they are PF (Patrol Frigate).

      In the second document you state there's some contradiction going on since they mention the Mikura-class and Ukuru-class as Patrol Frigates, but mention after them Kaiboukan N°1 class and N°2 class (Type C and Type D Kaiboukan respectively). This means that even US Naval Intelligence wasn't able to put them under a unified standard as the Japanese had.

      This makes the an already complex theme more comlplex.

      I'm going to have to agree with Zel-melon and Tsubakura, and stick with just creating our own tag and designating them as escort ships. Like they say in spanish: "¡...y punto!"

        Loading editor
    • Dandan550 wrote:
      Ar-cen-ciel wrote:
      According to USN's doctrine, they might fit the role, if only on the lightweight side for their liking. So no, they don't really fit to be escort destroyers, neither in IJN nor USN.
      Well they aren't designed anyway to fight in the frontlines anyway.
      It's no longer the matter of roles at this point, it's the matter of ship sizes and armament. The latter have more say in hull classifications than their designated role, especially in naval treaties, which is why ships like Mogami-class light (actually heavy) cruisers and Zara-class (treaty) cruisers exist.

      More importantly, being classified as escort destroyer implies that those ships are capable of fighting like a fleet destroyer to some extent against surface ships. Since DDs in IJN have powerful torpedo armaments while Kaibokans have none, they're essentially in entirely different level in terms of combat capability against surface ships.

        Loading editor
    • Dandan550 wrote:

      I assure that is after the war report heh. Not following to that.

      It doesn't matter as long as it is about a WWII-era ship. How much could classification change between 15 August 1945 and 16 August 1945? This applies to the ROCN classification as well.

        Loading editor
    • Hasemiru wrote: In the second document you state there's some contradiction going on since they mention the Mikura-class and Ukuru-class as Patrol Frigates, but mention after them Kaiboukan N°1 class and N°2 class (Type C and Type D Kaiboukan respectively). This means that even US Naval Intelligence wasn't able to put them under a unified standard as the Japanese had.

      This makes the an already complex theme more comlplex.

      Using kaibokan interchangeably with patrol frigate doesn't appear like a contradiction to me, especially because it's part of their name in the numbered Type C&D and it's not an abbreviation, which is the point of the discussion here. Anyway in ONI-222 No.1 is referred to as PF and named Kaibokan No.1.

      Dandan550 wrote:

      I assure that is after the war report heh. Not following to that.

      Not following to what?

        Loading editor
    • Vcharng wrote: It doesn't matter as long as it is about a WWII-era ship. How much could classification change between 15 August 1945 and 16 August 1945? This applies to the ROCN classification as well.

      Ah, did he mean that they were referred to as DE during the war and that changed only afterwards? ONI-222 is dated June 1945, though.

        Loading editor
    • Hyper Shinchan wrote:
      Dandan550 wrote:
      I assure that is after the war report heh. Not following to that.
      Not following to what?
      OP thought we should stubbornly stick to WWII classifications and ignore the PF classification because it's a post-war thing.
        Loading editor
    • Hyper Shinchan wrote:
      Vcharng wrote: It doesn't matter as long as it is about a WWII-era ship. How much could classification change between 15 August 1945 and 16 August 1945? This applies to the ROCN classification as well.
      Ah, did he mean that they were referred to as DE during the war and that changed only afterwards? ONI-222 is dated June 1945, though.

      June or post war, I'll give an example: ONI told us Graf Zeppelin should look like this throughout the war, but she didn't.

      Graf-Zeppelin-1.jpg

      There are times that post-war datas are more accurate than during the war.

        Loading editor
    • That reminds me of Shiratsuyu-class being misnamed as Shigure-class from the same intel source due to misidentifying Shigure as the lead ship.

      Ijn-destroyer-shigure-0051 zpsf743029b
        Loading editor
    • Vcharng wrote:
      Mindwarp42 wrote:
      Copying my comments from Reddit: I'm actually surprised that the NHHC contact didn't catch this bit of info. From the list of USN abbreviations used during WWII from the NHHC website: "EV -- Escort Vessels (enemy)". Since kaibokans were escort vessels operated by the USN's enemy at the time, wouldn't EV a) make the most sense and b) be an actual acronym used at the time and therefore not something Kancolle players have to invent?
      The only problem with this is that it is a list of abbreviations, not hull classification symbols, while it is still usable, there is a difference.

      True, but considering the arguments on both sides for PF and DE have valid points, and the recommendation from the NHHC to classify kaibokans as just E, and since part of the problem is trying to be somewhat accurate for the time period, it makes sense as an option for a fictitious hull code.  (shrugs)  For me, it's more of a compromise, I'll just probably write out kaibokan when talking about them.

        Loading editor
    • I'm going to be a hipster. PFE-Patrol Frigate Escort. While there is no such thing as PFE It should satisfy both part or worst case, cause a bigger uproar because it's not correct. This will retain both roll and keep the important part of escort. But honestly, this is already getting messy. A lot of people is already using DE and there for i could support that DE as an abbreviation for them. But on the other hand, my brain is telling me PF. Whatever we are going to use, some people is going to be happy while some other is going despite, because they still consider their own abbreviation for that class as correct.

        Loading editor
    • Escortwiki

      The wikipedia even states to treat them as that

      Can't we just call them Escort as the game stated?

      Even at the combinefleet.com also refer them as that too.

        Loading editor
    • Dandan550 wrote:
      Escortwiki

      The wikipedia even states to treat them as that

      Can't we just call them Escort as the game stated?

      Escort ship is not a ship category, that's the problem. It's a role played by warships, may she be a destroyer, frigate, corvette, patrol boat, cruiser, or even a smaller carrier.

        Loading editor
    • Vcharng wrote:
      Dandan550 wrote:
      Escortwiki

      The wikipedia even states to treat them as that

      Can't we just call them Escort as the game stated?
      Escort ship is not a ship category, that's the problem. It's a role played by warships, may she be a destroyer, frigate, corvette, patrol boat, cruiser, or even a smaller carrier.

      But given that the main purpose of having classification is to help players identify map routing based on backend designation given by the devs, it doesn't have to be proper to begin with.

      I mean, FBB for a slow Gungat? Why not, that's how the devs decide to roll with it. ¯ヽ_(ツ)_ノ¯

      Rather than what to call escorts, I'm more curious as to whether CV(B) meant CV + CVB or CV + CVB + CVL every time it appears in event map pages.

        Loading editor
    • That's point. The devs call them escorts while we all fighting what to call them (unofficially).

      Well I had made my talk anyway, so I will just treat this little girls the same way as what they're consider to be.

        Loading editor
    • Kenji135 wrote:

      But given that the main purpose of having classification is to help players identify map routing based on backend designation given by the devs, it doesn't have to be proper to begin with.

      I mean, FBB for a slow Gungat? Why not, that's how the devs decide to roll with it. ¯ヽ_(ツ)_ノ¯

      Rather than what to call escorts, I'm more curious as to whether CV(B) meant CV + CVB or CV + CVB + CVL every time it appears in event map pages.
      This is going to problematic for various reasons, because there are maps and quests that does discriminate against certain ship types and categories. Gangut and Abukuma is a special case in-game, but we can't completely ignore ship types because map branching are determined by ship type, not by their role.

      Also, as Vchrang stated, escort is a naval ship role, which means Kasuga Maru and Taiyou could also be considered as an escort ship. We'd be in serious trouble if we ended up causing confusion over an overly board ship category. It's like saying we can get away with aviation battleship or cruisers for branching that needs CVs.

        Loading editor
    • Kenji135 wrote:
      Vcharng wrote:
      Dandan550 wrote:
      Escortwiki

      The wikipedia even states to treat them as that

      Can't we just call them Escort as the game stated?
      Escort ship is not a ship category, that's the problem. It's a role played by warships, may she be a destroyer, frigate, corvette, patrol boat, cruiser, or even a smaller carrier.
      But given that the main purpose of having classification is to help players identify map routing based on backend designation given by the devs, it doesn't have to be proper to begin with.

      I mean, FBB for a slow Gungat? Why not, that's how the devs decide to roll with it. ¯ヽ_(ツ)_ノ¯

      Rather than what to call escorts, I'm more curious as to whether CV(B) meant CV + CVB or CV + CVB + CVL every time it appears in event map pages.

      Yes, this is a solid point, so I won't say EE (or the like) is a complete no-go, (unlike DE which would cause very serious confusion) but it would be a compromise just like BBV. What I can't quite understand is that we do have a next-to-perfect historical candidate known as PF, so why bother inventing our own?


      CV(B) means CV and CVB, all carriers would probably have to be covered by CV(L)(B) or the like, just like we use (F)BB(V) to cover all kinds of battleship varients.

        Loading editor
    • DE.

        Loading editor
    • I don't care either way. I'll just call them "escorts". Though either DE or E(EE) is fine with me. Even NHHC supports this (they use EV, ES or simply E). Not very comfortable with PF.

      Don't forget this is a game, though. And we already have made up classifications like BBV, CAV, FBB. So it makes perfect sense to make our own classifications. But I suggest making a separate "E" option in the poll to be safe.

      For reference: https://www.history.navy.mil/search.html?q=kaibokan

        Loading editor
    • Archer88 wrote:
      Besides only Commonwealth navies used that designation (at least during WWII).

      I keep remaining surprised at the depth of  players' historical knowledge around here.

        Loading editor
    • Hyper Shinchan wrote:
      Archer88 wrote:
      Besides only Commonwealth navies used that designation (at least during WWII).
      I keep remaining surprised at the depth of  players' historical knowledge around here.


      Well you expect everyone to know everything about smaller and not so well known vessels. So I didn't know about Tacoma class. Fine! I take my statement back. I still think using a universal classification of "Escort" for kaibokan would be the safest option here.

        Loading editor
    • Archer88 wrote: Well you expect everyone to know everything about smaller and not so well known vessels. So I didn't know about Tacoma class. Fine! I take my statement back. I still think using a universal classification of "Escort" for kaibokan would be the safest option here.

      I expect people to document themselves before spouting nonsense, yeah. Tacoma class is the first result on Google if you type patrol frigate, it doesn't take too much effort.

      We should use "capital ship" in place of both "battleship" and "fast battleship" then, confusion between the two be damned because the game itself calls them both battleship (戦艦), having Repulse implemented as fast battleship wouldn't be that different from having an American destroyer escort hypothetically implemented as kaibokan (never mind that they will probably become destroyers because of the torpedo tubes, it's purely hypothetical); obviously the looser the term the safer it is, but making up more fictional abbreviations when there is an actual abbreviation used by the USN in reference to those ships is unwarranted.

        Loading editor
    • Archer88 wrote:
      I don't care either way. I'll just call them "escorts". Though either DE or E(EE) is fine with me. Even NHHC supports this (they use EV, ES or simply E). Not very comfortable with PF.

      Don't forget this is a game, though. And we already have made up classifications like BBV, CAV, FBB. So it makes perfect sense to make our own classifications. But I suggest making a separate "E" option in the poll to be safe.

      For reference: https://www.history.navy.mil/search.html?q=kaibokan

      I'm getting confused, so the toppy-brassy NHHC is using the E-series, not DE?

      I just received a message on my wall demanding clarification of my "academic position", like I'm gonna be arrested by NSA the next second or something. And I thought these guys are defending DE.

      My only problem with the E-series is that they are not a hull classification symbol, if we decide to give up on using USN hull classification symbols and create our own abbreviations, they are perfectly fine. I just don't think there are solid reasons to not use PF.

        Loading editor
    • Why not go with "the word on the cards" (with adaptation if needed, like 'F' in FBB) to create the abreviation, instead of foreign (from the point of view of the game) hull classification ?

      We can't be wrong that way, as it's intended for "game accuraccy" rather than "historical accuracy" anyway.

        Loading editor
    • Selzeny wrote:
      Why not go with "the word on the cards" (with adaptation if needed, like 'F' in FBB) to create the abreviation, instead of foreign (from the point of view of the game) hull classification ?

      Well last time when we were talking about CVB, there was a guy who was very stubbern about USN hull classification symbols... It has probably become a habit since then.

      I would personally agree, though, that using an actual officially used classification symbols make me feel safer. Now, does NHHC using ES counts? Well, to me ,kind of. That's why my opinion has always been "ES or other self-invented stuff is fine, but I would personally prefer something from the list of USN hull symbols."

        Loading editor
    • Should we do a poll to establish new tags based on game accuracy vs. USN tags based on historical accuracy, and let the community decide?

      It might sound counterproductive and it would mean that if there are new tags then a lot of the wikia's structure would have to be reorganized and since this game dates from 2013 and considering all the items we have...

      I'm just planting one possible solution, not stating that it should be done.

      The rest is up to all of you and the community, the problem would also be establishing this new system within other KC communities which would be even harder if done within ours and end up isolationg ourselves.

        Loading editor
    • I'm fine with Patrol or Escort whatever as long as it's not Destroyer of any kind, keep that to actual destroyers like the Matsu-class. I think the existing poll here is reserved for Escort subtypes only, while Vcharng prefers PF because it's solid enough a classification for Kaibokans and ships with similar specs and role like the Flower-class corvettes within US hull classification.

      That being said, I'm still confused with which escort subtype I should go with if I was pressured to choose one of these. Like, what's the difference between them anyway?

        Loading editor
    • There is no real difference I can think of, all 3 of them are completely made up to serve the purpose of classifying Escorts.

      As I've probably stated a lot of times, historical accuracy is a high priority, but so is getting all the parties and communities to use the same classification. And I sure as hell don't plan on agreeing to DE this easily, due to the overwhelming evidence that is available.

      There's basically 2 choices currently:

      1. Convince everyone to use PF, even though they have pretty much accepted DE for whatever retarded reason.
      2. Go with EE instead, as Escort basically covers them all. This is also the suggestion NHHC came with, considering they do not agree with either PF or DE.

      Seeing as I know that the majority has already accepted DE, while the minority consisting of historians actually provided hard evidence that it is PF, my solution is to settle with EE. We both know that they will not give up on using DE in favor of PF, no matter what kind of evidence you bring up. We have BB for battleships, we also have DD for Destroyers, EE for Escort makes perfectly logical sense if we consider the naming standard.

      You see, just because you are factually right, it does not mean that the world will agree on it, as much as I want to support your decision.

        Loading editor
    • Tsubakura wrote:
      There is no real difference I can think of, all 3 of them are completely made up to serve the purpose of classifying Escorts.

      As I've probably stated a lot of times, historical accuracy is a high priority, but so is getting all the parties and communities to use the same classification. And I sure as hell don't plan on agreeing to DE this easily, due to the overwhelming evidence that is available.

      There's basically 2 choices currently:

      1. Convince everyone to use PF, even though they have pretty much accepted DE for whatever retarded reason.
      2. Go with EE instead, as Escort basically covers them all. This is also the suggestion NHHC came with, considering they do not agree with either PF or DE.

      Seeing as I know that the majority has already accepted DE, while the minority consisting of historians actually provided hard evidence that it is PF, my solution is to settle with EE. We both know that they will not give up on using DE in favor of PF, no matter what kind of evidence you bring up. We have BB for battleships, we also have DD for Destroyers, EE for Escort makes perfectly logical sense if we consider the naming standard.

      You see, just because you are factually right, it does not mean that the world will agree on it, as much as I want to support your decision.

      I will agree with you on this one, and it looks like we won't have but to force the community to accept this as it makes logical sense, plus there's the NHHC that solved our dispute so let's stick to the answer they gave us since this problem is just prolonging itself. And going by how the polls are in this moment the "to be" official tag is still EE.

        Loading editor
    • Tsubakura wrote:
      Seeing as I know that the majority has already accepted DE, while the minority consisting of historians actually provided hard evidence that it is PF, my solution is to settle with EE.

      Between a better and worse alternative you're picking the worst. It should be noted that informally DE was used in some circumstances, just look at this army-navy identification magazine, they use both PF and DE interchangeably to a degree, it was probably not official practice, given the consistent usage of PF in reference to most kaibokan in ONI-222 and the postwar report brought up before, but nevertheless it's not completely out of this world. Do you want to know what is out of this world? EE.

        Loading editor
    • For now, I've compiled the following list:

      Arguments that the Kaiboukan should be DE (Destroyer Escort):

      • The community has already accepted it as the correct classification, even though the majority didn't bother to look through the historical facts first.
      • They have the same role generally during the WW2, even though they lack all the armanents and specifications of an American Destroyer Escort.
      • The US Army identification magazine used both DE and PF interchangeably: https://archive.org/details/USANJOR194405-nsia (Note: Magazine, thus most likely not official practice)
      • The documents could all have been written by someone from the Royal Navy or they could've exchanged info with them, which does not prove that the USN themselves uses the classification PF themselves.
      • Nobody cares about the Naval Treaties, so we shouldn't either.


      Arguments that the Kaiboukan should be PF (Patrol Frigate):

      • The ONI has classified the Shimushu-class as PF: http://archive.hnsa.org/doc/id/oni222j-japan-navy/pg107.htm
      • Page 40 of the USN Technical Mission to Japan classified the Kaiboukan as PF: http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ%20Reports/USNTMJ-200H-0602-0659%20Report%20S-03.pdf
      • The IJN does not treat any ships with no torpedo capabilities as destroyers.
      • 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.
      • 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.
      • 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.
      • The Kaiboukan were built with the purpose of settling fishing disputes between USSR and Japan, not for use as an escort in war.
      • 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.
      • The US Army identification magazine used both DE and PF interchangeably: https://archive.org/details/USANJOR194405-nsia (Note: Magazine, thus most likely not official practice)


      Arguments that the Kaiboukan should be EE (Escort):

      • The in-game shipcards themselves literally state that they're Escorts. Not PF or DE, but Kaiboukan and Escort.
      • NHHC has provided a statement that they are Escorts. They have also provided the following trusted source: http://www.combinedfleet.com/Kaibokan.htm
      • Escort can basically mean PF, DE and Kaiboukan, pretty much resolving everything in the debate.
        Loading editor
    • Hyper Shinchan wrote:

      Do you want to know what is out of this world?

      I got this one : boats anthropomorphised as little girls who fight evil monsters from who knows where.

      Thats it, right ?

        Loading editor
    • Ar-cen-ciel wrote:
      This is going to problematic for various reasons, because there are maps and quests that does discriminate against certain ship types and categories. Gangut and Abukuma is a special case in-game, but we can't completely ignore ship types because map branching are determined by ship type, not by their role.

      Also, as Vchrang stated, escort is a naval ship role, which means Kasuga Maru and Taiyou could also be considered as an escort ship. We'd be in serious trouble if we ended up causing confusion over an overly board ship category. It's like saying we can get away with aviation battleship or cruisers for branching that needs CVs.

      I think we're thinking the same way, but the way you phrased it make it sounds as if you're disagreeing with me instead.

      For all intent and purpose, no one's going to mistook escort for Kasuga Maru / Taiyou. Kasuga Maru is a CVL simply because that's what the devs designate her as. No one other than those interested in naval history ever takes ship types as anything more than game mechanics.

      If anything, I think people prefer EE over PF just because typing escort is faster than patrol frigate.

        Loading editor
    • Tsubakura wrote:
      • 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.


      Correction here:

      DE are subject to the treaty of 1930 due to they are >600t but <2000t, and are designed to sail at 20 knots or faster (24 for Evarts-class, although some are completed with slower speed), and/or are designed to launch torpedoes (the rest 4 classes of DE)

      I think leaving out the somewhat irrevelent stuff (what kind of DD have a 155mm gun anyway?) may prove to be more clear.

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

      Just to be reminder. Several of them had done a job of escorting merchant fleets. Some like Kunashiri participate in naval operations.

      This is the reason why calling them PF is invalid. The IJN were "looking for excuses" at that time so that they'll build ships of such. But of course they didn't prioritize of improving them judging on seeing how pathetic the USN subs during those years.

      I manage to understand why they're not made for expedition. Because it is obviously that wasn't their job anyway. Their job was to protect Transport/Merchant Fleets hence they can be place in the Transport Combine Fleet.

      We can go to either DE or Escort. If I had to bother, I might go to the combinefleet forum to ask for someone's opinion about this.

        Loading editor
    • Dandan550 wrote:
      >The Kaiboukan were built with the purpose of settling fishing disputes between USSR and Japan, not for use as an escort in war.

      Just to be reminder. Several of them had done a job of escorting merchant fleets. Some like Kunashiri participate in naval operations.

      This is the reason why calling them PF is invalid. The IJN were "looking for excuses" at that time so that they'll build ships of such. But of course they didn't prioritize of improving them judging on seeing how pathetic the USN subs during those years.

      I manage to understand why they're not made for expedition. Because it is obviously that wasn't their job anyway. Their job was to protect Transport/Merchant Fleets hence they can be place in the Transport Combine Fleet.

      We can go to either DE or Escort. If I had to bother, I might go to the combinefleet forum to ask for someone's opinion about this.

      No, that's just your imagination. Remember Shimushu was planned in 1938, in Maru-3 plan, check Japan's territory in 1938, they don't have such a need for merchant escort at the time. Merchant escort was also not the focus of Maru-3, unlike Etorofu's Maru-kyuu.

      Also, Japan don't need excuses for Shimushu. First, Maru-3 was the first plan after Japan withdrawn from the naval treaties, and second, Shimushu is defined to be unrestricted by those treaties due to her weaponry.

      Finally, 1938 was right in the time when Japan was shifting from UK&US's side to Axis (1937~1940), how are they supposed to foresee the future of American subs sinking their merchant ships (they don't have convoys yet, so convoy escort is out of question)?

      Shimushu was built entirely not for merchant escort. IJN was.... very stupid when it comes to convoy protection, it is unimaginable to think that they forsaw the need of convoy escort before the war. Etorofu (commissioned 1943), on the other hand, was indeed built for convoy escort, but she was designed on the basis of Shimushu, and therefore the improvements are limited.

      Oh BTW, Japan don't have convoys until 1942 (and no "serious" convoys until 1944), how is Shimushu, completed in 1940, supposed to be built for convoy escort?

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

      A correction, kaibokan were multipurpose ships, since the beginning they were supposed to be used as fisheries patrols in peacetime, minesweepers and escorts in wartime. Japan didn't place any emphasis whatsoever on escorts, they didn't even consider to convoy their merchant traffic, hence they didn't specifically build ships for this purpose.


      On this note the British sloops were similar, originally they were colonial gunboats in peacetime and minesweepers/escorts in wartime. The "patrol frigates" of the River class for all intent and purpose were austere and cheaper versions of the sloops (refer to Friedman's British Destroyers & Frigates: The Second World War & After for the relation between them).

        Loading editor
    • Kenji135 wrote:
      Ar-cen-ciel wrote:
      Also, as Vchrang stated, escort is a naval ship role, which means Kasuga Maru and Taiyou could also be considered as an escort ship. We'd be in serious trouble if we ended up causing confusion over an overly board ship category. It's like saying we can get away with aviation battleship or cruisers for branching that needs CVs.

      I think we're thinking the same way, but the way you phrased it make it sounds as if you're disagreeing with me instead.

      For all intent and purpose, no one's going to mistook escort for Kasuga Maru / Taiyou. Kasuga Maru is a CVL simply because that's what the devs designate her as. No one other than those interested in naval history ever takes ship types as anything more than game mechanics.

      If anything, I think people prefer EE over PF just because typing escort is faster than patrol frigate.
      What I agree with you:
      • Clear classification is more important than sticking to specific navy's hull specification
      • Ship classification should be relevant to the game.

      What I disagree with you:

      • Using Escort (single letter E) as ship type, because it's simply overly board a classification. I have no problem with any of the Escort subtypes (ES, EV or EE), though.
        Loading editor
    • Hyper Shinchan wrote:
      Tsubakura wrote:
      • The Kaiboukan were built with the purpose of settling fishing disputes between USSR and Japan, not for use as an escort in war.
      A correction, kaibokan were multipurpose ships, since the beginning they were supposed to be used as fisheries patrols in peacetime, minesweepers and escorts in wartime. Japan didn't place any emphasis whatsoever on escorts, they didn't even consider to convoy their merchant traffic, hence they didn't specifically build ships for this purpose.


      I think we may need to distinguish Shimushu (Pre-war Kaiboukan) and Etorofu (mid-war Kaiboukan). Shimushu was never designed to be escorts, but she was used as such later; Etorofu, on the other hand, was designed with escort duty in mind.

        Loading editor
    • Vcharng wrote:
      I think we may need to distinguish Shimushu (Pre-war Kaiboukan) and Etorofu (mid-war Kaiboukan). Shimushu was never designed to be escorts, but she was used as such later; Etorofu, on the other hand, was designed with escort duty in mind.
      Hmm, is the description in their character and class category page good enough? They're treated as the same ship type in game, though the latter have lower level requirement to get OASW.
        Loading editor
    • Vcharng wrote: I think we may need to distinguish Shimushu (Pre-war Kaiboukan) and Etorofu (mid-war Kaiboukan). Shimushu was never designed to be escorts, but she was used as such later; Etorofu, on the other hand, was designed with escort duty in mind.

      From Lengerer's "Japanese 'Kaibokan' Escorts":

      "Initially the coast defence ships were designed as multi-purpose vessels, with escort duties being regarded as only third priority. In the case of Etorofu class, however, the design was altered to make convoy protection the most important role. Nevertheless in real terms the convoy escort did not become the overriding requirement until the Mikura class, and if strict standards are applied, not until the Ukuru class."

        Loading editor
    • Ar-cen-ciel wrote:
      Vcharng wrote:
      I think we may need to distinguish Shimushu (Pre-war Kaiboukan) and Etorofu (mid-war Kaiboukan). Shimushu was never designed to be escorts, but she was used as such later; Etorofu, on the other hand, was designed with escort duty in mind.
      Hmm, is the description in their character and class category page good enough? They're treated as the same ship type in game, though the latter have lower level requirement to get OASW.

      Well, character library description could be wrong (e.g. Akagi's stating that Midway was lost due to over-confidence), but the Kaiboukans seems to be correct.

      So for me, Kaiboukan is a family of ships that starts as coastal patrols and was tasked (and modified in the case of Etorofu) with convoy escort later, but not designed as such.

        Loading editor
    • I would add that "fitted for but not with" probably has always been a thing, just recently the French announced that they're at last giving sonars to the La Fayette class frigates, which until now were being mainly used to "show the flag" around that collection of small islands and outposts that they still have. Similarly the Shiumushus didn't have sonar as built, Shimushu herself received it in January 1943 according to combinedfleet's TROM, and their ASW capacity was marginal, by any standard.

        Loading editor
    • Hyper Shinchan wrote: I would add that "fitted for but not with" probably has always been a thing, just recently the French announced that they're at last giving sonars to the La Fayette class frigates, which until now were being mainly used to "show the flag" around that collection of small islands and outposts that they still have. Similarly the Shiumushus didn't have sonar as built, Shimushu herself received it in January 1943 according to combinedfleet's TROM, and their ASW capacity was marginal, by any standard.

      It's because the IJN doesn't improve the ASW capability after seeing how pathetic the USN subs during that time.

        Loading editor
    • Dandan550 wrote:

      Hyper Shinchan wrote: I would add that "fitted for but not with" probably has always been a thing, just recently the French announced that they're at last giving sonars to the La Fayette class frigates, which until now were being mainly used to "show the flag" around that collection of small islands and outposts that they still have. Similarly the Shiumushus didn't have sonar as built, Shimushu herself received it in January 1943 according to combinedfleet's TROM, and their ASW capacity was marginal, by any standard.

      It's because the IJN doesn't improve the ASW capability after seeing how pathetic the USN subs during that time.

      No it's not, IJN didn't know or think much about the USN subs in 1938.

      Plus it's not the American subs that are pathetic, it's their torpedoes.

        Loading editor
    • Vcharng wrote:

      Dandan550 wrote:

      Hyper Shinchan wrote: I would add that "fitted for but not with" probably has always been a thing, just recently the French announced that they're at last giving sonars to the La Fayette class frigates, which until now were being mainly used to "show the flag" around that collection of small islands and outposts that they still have. Similarly the Shiumushus didn't have sonar as built, Shimushu herself received it in January 1943 according to combinedfleet's TROM, and their ASW capacity was marginal, by any standard.

      It's because the IJN doesn't improve the ASW capability after seeing how pathetic the USN subs during that time.

      No it's not, IJN didn't know or think much about the USN subs in 1938.

      Plus it's not the American subs that are pathetic, it's their torpedoes.

      >1938 why are you referring to this year when they're facing them during ww2 at all?

      Also that is what I'm saying. The USN subs are pathetic thanks to their torpedoes.

        Loading editor
    • Dandan550 wrote:

      Vcharng wrote:

      Dandan550 wrote:

      Hyper Shinchan wrote: I would add that "fitted for but not with" probably has always been a thing, just recently the French announced that they're at last giving sonars to the La Fayette class frigates, which until now were being mainly used to "show the flag" around that collection of small islands and outposts that they still have. Similarly the Shiumushus didn't have sonar as built, Shimushu herself received it in January 1943 according to combinedfleet's TROM, and their ASW capacity was marginal, by any standard.

      It's because the IJN doesn't improve the ASW capability after seeing how pathetic the USN subs during that time.
      No it's not, IJN didn't know or think much about the USN subs in 1938.

      Plus it's not the American subs that are pathetic, it's their torpedoes.

      >1938 why are you referring to this year when they're facing them during ww2 at all?

      Also that is what I'm saying. The USN subs are pathetic thanks to their torpedoes.

      Because Shimushu was designed in 1938, she was built as per Japan's requirement in 1938.

      Therefore there is no way her design will "predict" the nature of naval warfare in WWII. She's not designed by a prophet.

        Loading editor
    • Dandan550 wrote:
      The USN subs are pathetic thanks to their torpedoes.
      Torpedo isn't the only benchmark for submarine's performance. The US subs back in WWII can dive much deeper than what the Japanese intels indicate, allowing them to survive depth charges from Japanese destroyers early in the war.
        Loading editor
    • Hyper Shinchan wrote:
      Vcharng wrote: I think we may need to distinguish Shimushu (Pre-war Kaiboukan) and Etorofu (mid-war Kaiboukan). Shimushu was never designed to be escorts, but she was used as such later; Etorofu, on the other hand, was designed with escort duty in mind.
      From Lengerer's "Japanese 'Kaibokan' Escorts":

      "Initially the coast defence ships were designed as multi-purpose vessels, with escort duties being regarded as only third priority. In the case of Etorofu class, however, the design was altered to make convoy protection the most important role. Nevertheless in real terms the convoy escort did not become the overriding requirement until the Mikura class, and if strict standards are applied, not until the Ukuru class."

      Hmm, ok.

      From the Japanese doctrines in 1938, however, such "escort" might be a bit different from our convoy escort, though.

        Loading editor
    • Vcharng wrote: Hmm, ok.

      From the Japanese doctrines in 1938, however, such "escort" might be a bit different from our convoy escort, though.

      In terms of doctrine Japan didn't have any plan whatsoever for escorting civilian shipping before the war, they were Mahanian to the marrow after all, but escorting troop convoys and military supplies isn't substantially a different job, I can't really see how different they might have been.

      In terms of design they were not optimised for escort duties, but that's deliberate for a multipurpose ship and to an extent the solutions adopted on later kaibokan were also the result of actual experience, for instance an increase in the stowage of depth charges can be observed in pretty much every navy, while the urgent need for some kind of dual purpose armament (the 10th Year Type 12cm/45 adopted with the Mikura class) wasn't appreciated to its full extent in pre-war destroyers either.

        Loading editor
    • Hyper Shinchan wrote:
      Vcharng wrote: Hmm, ok.

      From the Japanese doctrines in 1938, however, such "escort" might be a bit different from our convoy escort, though.

      In terms of doctrine Japan didn't have any plan whatsoever for escorting civilian shipping before the war, they were Mahanian to the marrow after all, but escorting troop convoys and military supplies isn't substantially a different job, I can't really see how different they might have been.

      In terms of design they were not optimised for escort duties, but that's deliberate for a multipurpose ship and to an extent the solutions adopted on later kaibokan were also the result of actual experience, for instance an increase in the stowage of depth charges can be observed in pretty much every navy, while the urgent need for some kind of dual purpose armament (the 10th Year Type 12cm/45 adopted with the Mikura class) wasn't appreciated to its full extent in pre-war destroyers either.

      Nah, what I mean was that the IJN was very bad at their so-called escort effort, military or civillian ship alike.

      Just in the second half of 1944, IJA lost about two divisions of men to sunken troop transport alone. That's after the Japanese finally embraced the concept of convoys. So I would say that there's no actual Japanese equvalent to what the Allies refer to as "convoy escort", as the Japanese "counterpart" are very far away from effective.

        Loading editor
    • Vcharng wrote: Nah, what I mean was that the IJN was very bad at their so-called escort effort, military or civillian ship alike.

      Just in the second half of 1944, IJA lost about two divisions of men to sunken troop transport alone. That's after the Japanese finally embraced the concept of convoys. So I would say that there's no actual Japanese equvalent to what the Allies refer to as "convoy escort", as the Japanese "counterpart" are very far away from effective.

      If we go by this logic Japanese submarines aren't that much of a counterpart either, carriers stopped being that after the end of 1942 and the battleships never reached something comparable to Surigao Straits.

        Loading editor
    • Hyper Shinchan wrote:
      Vcharng wrote: Nah, what I mean was that the IJN was very bad at their so-called escort effort, military or civillian ship alike.

      Just in the second half of 1944, IJA lost about two divisions of men to sunken troop transport alone. That's after the Japanese finally embraced the concept of convoys. So I would say that there's no actual Japanese equvalent to what the Allies refer to as "convoy escort", as the Japanese "counterpart" are very far away from effective.

      If we go by this logic Japanese submarines aren't that much of a counterpart either, carriers stopped being that after the end of 1942 and the battleships never reached something comparable to Surigao Straits.

      So we never said that the Japanese subs have the same role as their American counterpart, did we? However, these DE supporters are saying that DE and Kaiboukan have the same role as their reason to support the DE classification, which is incorrect. Carriers, BBs and SSs are defined not by their role, so there's no such a problem.

        Loading editor
    • Vcharng wrote: So we never said that the Japanese subs have the same role as their American counterpart, did we? However, these DE supporters are saying that DE and Kaiboukan have the same role as their reason to support the DE classification, which is incorrect. Carriers, BBs and SSs are defined not by their role, so there's no such a problem.

      Ahem, how would you functionally distinguish between DE and PF in the USN? Even the torpedo tubes are more a legacy than a piece of equipment regularly used in their wartime activites; the short hulled DEs didn't have them to begin with, which would make them PFs if we use this secondary anti-ship capability as the discriminant factor, ultimately many long hulled DEs gave up their torpedo tubes as well when the AA threat became even more paramount than what it was before (EDIT: I said because of kamikaze before, but I was wrong, the first DEs to give up their torpedo tubes for more AA were those that served in the Med). I'm more inclined to distinguish distinguish between DE and PF mostly on genetic lines.

      On the matter of DE supporters, in my opinion they, deliberately or accidentally, ignore the PF designation and its historical usage.

        Loading editor
    • Zel-melon wrote:
      Now, before everyone went shitfest on me please hear me out. A long time ago we had this problem with the classification of BB as there's this another class called Battlecruiser (let's call it BC) that never comes into fruition because the classification of fBB, BB, and BBV are already engraved into the community.

      First off, Battlecruiser is CC, not BC or whatever bull you guys made up on the spot. And save for Kongou-class, none of the other ships classified as CCs in-game were ever historically CCs. This means that the game itself takes liberties with how it classifies its ships, and none of you have kept this in mind.

      Ar-cen-ciel wrote:

      Mystia Lore. wrote:

      For me, it's DE and that's enough (KCV already had the DE name in it way before the Escorts ships were introduced)
      No, they're not. They are not destroyers to begin with. Their inability to replace actual destroyers for in-game expeditions is solid enough an evidence to back that up. Actual escort destroyers should be able to replace fleet destroyers in expeditions just fine, and the Kaibokans are too lightly armed to do that.
      FirstDagr wrote:
      The most stupid thing I read today, just call them DE. Patrol Frigates is literally something non existent in the IJN during WW2.
      Problem with that classification for Kaibokans is that they don't have torpedoes. A surface ship must have torpedo tubes to count as a destroyer in IJN, escort or no. Kaibokans don't have any, Combined with their slow speed, they are not eligible to count as DDs or DEs that could participate in Destroyer Squadrons, as evidenced by expeditions.

      As far as DEs goes, closest thing IJN had to that are Type-D destroyers (Matsu and Tachibana class), which actually had torpedoes like 4/5 of American DE classes.

      Second, Destroyer Escorts are not destroyers, with one of the main differences (at least at the time) being having a much slower speed. You're thinking of Escort Destroyer, which is DDE.

      And finally to everyone, if after this discussion you still can't agree on what classification to use, then I propose to add a feature in the viewers to allow people to change the abbreviation to whatever they fancy, among the possible choices you have. Better still would be to drop the idea of using abbreviations altogether, but I know you guys won't agree to that.

      I swear if corvettes ever get added into the game you're going to get its classification totally wrong.

        Loading editor
    • Hyper Shinchan wrote:
      Vcharng wrote: So we never said that the Japanese subs have the same role as their American counterpart, did we? However, these DE supporters are saying that DE and Kaiboukan have the same role as their reason to support the DE classification, which is incorrect. Carriers, BBs and SSs are defined not by their role, so there's no such a problem.
      Ahem, how would you functionally distinguish between DE and PF in the USN? Even the torpedo tubes are more a legacy than a piece of equipment regularly used in their wartime activites; the short hulled DEs didn't have them to begin with, which would make them PFs if we use this secondary anti-ship capability as the discriminant factor, ultimately many long hulled DEs gave up their torpedo tubes as well when the AA threat became even more paramount than what it was before (EDIT: I said because of kamikaze before, but I was wrong, the first DEs to give up their torpedo tubes for more AA were those that served in the Med). I'm more inclined to distinguish distinguish between DE and PF mostly on genetic lines.

      On the matter of DE supporters, in my opinion they, deliberately or accidentally, ignore the PF designation and its historical usage.

      I don't, I distinguish them by feature and by the fact that DEs are restricted by London Treaty and PFs are not (regardless whether the USN still take the treaty into consideration in 1942 or not, this is how they are defined under the treaty nonetheless)

      Also the definition talks about how a ship is "designed" to have, so as long as DE was designed to be able to carry torps, they are DD varients regardless of those torps being removed or not later on. This applies to the 20-knot criteria as well, Evarts-class was designed to sail at 24kt, so even if some of them ended up going only 19kt, they are still restricted by the treaty.

        Loading editor
    • IMide wrote:
      Zel-melon wrote:
      Now, before everyone went shitfest on me please hear me out. A long time ago we had this problem with the classification of BB as there's this another class called Battlecruiser (let's call it BC) that never comes into fruition because the classification of fBB, BB, and BBV are already engraved into the community.
      First off, Battlecruiser is CC, not BC or whatever bull you guys made up on the spot. And save for Kongou-class, none of the other ships classified as CCs in-game were ever historically CCs. This means that the game itself takes liberties with how it classifies its ships, and none of you have kept this in mind.

      Second, Destroyer Escorts are not destroyers, with one of the main differences (at least at the time) being having a much slower speed. You're thinking of Escort Destroyer, which is DDE.

      And finally to everyone, if after this discussion you still can't agree on what classification to use, then I propose to add a feature in the viewers to allow people to change the abbreviation to whatever they fancy, among the possible choices you have. Better still would be to drop the idea of using abbreviations altogether, but I know you guys won't agree to that.

      I swear if corvettes ever get added into the game you're going to get its classification totally wrong.

      1. Yes, battlecruiser is CC according to USN, but no one is using that symbol (not even the USN as they don't have one of their own), BC is way more oftenly used. Another reason to object CC is that CC means that battlecruiser is a varient of cruisers, which is incorrect. Either by treaty or by common sense, it's a varient of battleships instead.

      2. Destroyer Escorts are not Destroyers? are you sure about what you are saying? Before they were reclassified into frigates (that's in 1975, btw), they are, by definition. Unless they are at or slower than 20 knot as designed, it would just be a slower varient of DD and not some game-changing differences.

      The British River-class Frigates are exempt from London treaty (speed just 20 knots, exactly the limit, and they were laid down in 1942 so this is actually kind of a concern), while all the DEs of the USN are not (either designed with a faster speed or with torpedoes), you know...


      3. The only corvette currently possibly on the horizon is the British Flower-class, which would most probably become a Kaiboukan or its equivalent in-game.

        Loading editor
    • IMide wrote:Second, Destroyer Escorts are not destroyers, with one of the main differences (at least at the time) being having a much slower speed. You're thinking of Escort Destroyer, which is DDE.
      *Double take and check*

      I thought they were purpose-built mini-destroyers? They may be slower and weaker than fleet destroyers, but they still have torpedoes and guns and all, and they're stated to be twice the displacement of our coastal defense ships. Definitely not a category you would want to lump the Kaibokans into, especially with IJN doctrine in mind.

        Loading editor
    • Vcharng wrote:

      1. Yes, battlecruiser is CC according to USN, but no one is using that symbol (not even the USN as they don't have one of their own), BC is way more oftenly used. Another reason to object CC is that CC means that battlecruiser is a varient of cruisers, which is incorrect. Either by treaty or by common sense, it's a varient of battleships instead.

      2. Destroyer Escorts are not Destroyers? are you sure about what you are saying? Before they were reclassified into frigates (that's in 1975, btw), they are, by definition. Unless they are at or slower than 20 knot as designed, it would just be a slower varient of DD and not some game-changing differences.

      The British River-class Frigates are exempt from London treaty (speed just 20 knots, exactly the limit, and they were laid down in 1942 so this is actually kind of a concern), while all the DEs of the USN are not (either designed with a faster speed or with torpedoes), you know...

      >which is incorrect

      Is this for real? They started off as cruisers designed to take down other cruisers. And unlike the CVB situation, you're objecting to a classification for a ship class which did have an official classification historically.

      And even if you're right, are you saying that everyone is fine with treating aircraft carriers as a type of cruiser? If they're fine with CV for aircraft carriers I don't see why they can't be fine with CC for battlecruiser. Just because it has a C in front doesn't automatically make it a cruiser. Similarly, having a D in front doesn't make it a destroyer. DE was even renamed Ocean Escort later on.

      Ar-cen-ciel wrote:
      IMide wrote:Second, Destroyer Escorts are not destroyers, with one of the main differences (at least at the time) being having a much slower speed. You're thinking of Escort Destroyer, which is DDE.
      *Double take and check*

      I thought they were purpose-built mini-destroyers? They may be slower and weaker than fleet destroyers, but they still have torpedoes and guns and all, and they're stated to be twice the displacement of our coastal defense ships. Definitely not a category you would want to lump the Kaibokans into, especially with IJN doctrine in mind.

      The Evarts-class DEs at least didn't have torps, and weren't much larger than the kaiboukan either.

        Loading editor
    • So we're debating about abbreviation for battlecruisers now?

      IMide wrote:

      The Evarts-class DEs at least didn't have torps, and weren't much larger than the kaiboukan either.

      It'd be another story if all the USN DEs were Evarts-class, but that's not the case, since succeeding DE classes have the capability to act as improvised destroyers.

      Evarts-class is a one-case predecessor of USN DEs, while Kaibokans don't have torpedoes as part of their ship classification specs.

        Loading editor
    • I'm for ES because its for Escort Ship , we got ship girl not vessel girl, and also because recall ES of EScort, seem more nice tbh

        Loading editor
    • Ar-cen-ciel wrote:
      IMide wrote:

      The Evarts-class DEs at least didn't have torps, and weren't much larger than the kaiboukan either.

      It'd be another story if all the USN DEs were Evarts-class, but that's not the case. If anything, they're much like what Zara K2 is compared to CAVs.

      Zara due can't carry WG42. And since DEs without torps did exist, there's no reason why the kaiboukan can't be compared to them.

        Loading editor
    • This thread will be closed due to some development. Please continue your debate here.

        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.