Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 2nd USMC Para Btn

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: 2nd USMC Para Btn Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 2nd USMC Para Btn - 2/5/2006 5:27:35 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Ooops - clicked on wrong thread. Moving to CHS OOB Errors.

________________________
There is something messed up with the 2nd Marine (USMC) Para Btn. Using scenario 154, at start of scenario the unit shows as due to arrive in 1 day at San Diego. It does not arrive and drops off the intel list of ground unit reinforcements.

The other USMC Para Btn's and the Raider Btn's all arrive okay. In a CHS game I have that's been running a long time I noticed it was missing but figured it was just a 'disappearing LCU' and I hadn't noticed when it disappeared. Tonight I got curious and decided to run a quick test.

EDIT: Okay, I found out what's happening. When the scenario begins, there is a field artillery unit set to arrive in 2 days, but it arrives at the end of teh Dec 7th turn. This means that the 2nd Marine Para, set to arrive in 1 day, misses it's chance and never arrives.

This is probably a bug in the code, but the result is that all units (at least LCU's, I haven't checked ships & planes) arrive 1 day early, and any slated to arrive just 1 day after scenario start will not arrive at all.

< Message edited by witpqs -- 2/5/2006 5:53:11 AM >

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 91
RE: Lancaster and Lincoln - 2/5/2006 4:09:05 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Can you provide something more substantive? My understanding is that both No.617 and No.9 Squadrons were operating in Europe throughout 1944 (at least until November) trying to nail the Tirpitz. After that they remained operating in Europe until the German surrender. My information is sketchy however.


Aircraft of the Royal Air Force Since 1918
Owen Thetford
Eighth Revised Edition,Putnam
1957 (1988 revision)

ISBN 0 85177 810 0

Article on Lancaster, Squadron Allocations, p. 67.

This lists commands [e.g. "Bomber Command (Wartime)" ; "Middle East (Post War)" and "Coastal Command (Post War)"]
The final listing is "India: 9 and 617" there is no parenthetical note indicating (Post War).
I suppose it may be ambiguous, but they seem to have attempted to be comprehensive and clear throughout.

FYI the text describes Tiger Force as "20 squadrons in two groups" - and says nothing of wings at all!

I will see what else I can find.

Sid

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 92
B-25 and B-26 - 2/5/2006 4:16:14 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		It appears the B-26 was used only early in the Pacific Campaign. I am not sure the later version was used at all in the Pacific? B-26 units mostly upgraded to B-25 or B-24 (but one went the other way, from B-25 to B-26 for a while!)

The B-25 appears to have largely also upgraded to B-24s. Reading the US Squadron histories reminds me of the comments players convert to 4 engines - the USAAF certainly did - if not completely than almost completely. Nevertheless, B-25 H and J were operational for a long time, well into 1944, while the B-26 seems to have been sent to Europe and North Africa after the first 9 months of the war.

I think players may like the torpedo armed B-26s and the 75mm gun armed B-25s - or even the modified B-25H with that gun removed - both of them with rockets. Maybe some will keep twin engine bombers after all? There also was a USMC version of the plane - and USN tested the ability to take off with catapults and land with arrester gear!


(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 93
Hurricanes - 2/5/2006 4:19:34 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		The Hurricane became the most important RAF fighter in the Pacific.
Many squadrons were sent or upgraded - not a few of them missing or failing to upgrade in stock and CHS. But the early Hurricane sent to Singapore is also missing - they let it be a much more capable version.
I have added a Hurricane I to represent that- and changed the IIb to the IIc - but let it represent the IIb - and then kept the IId/IV - but gave it rockets. The first fighter in the world with rockets.

I also found that 880 Squadron FAA had 9 Seafires and no Sea Hurricane when it entered the Indian Ocean.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 94
RE: Hurricanes - 2/5/2006 7:09:42 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

Many squadrons were sent or upgraded - not a few of them missing or failing to upgrade in stock and CHS


List them please.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 95
Lancaster and Lincoln Again - 2/5/2006 10:41:17 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Various items posted here, and ambiguous wording in the RAF reference, and unit histories of 9 and 617 Squadrons RAF, force me to conclude they did not reach India until 1946. I am restoring them to Tiger Force. I have not yet removed squadron formations in favor of Wings or Groups - and have not yet seen a version of the OB which does that. Unless it appears the squadron organization won't work I may keep them.

Given the Lancaster does NOT appear during the historical war, I see no justification for two versions of it only starting in October 1945. I am very tempted to not include it at all. No Japanese aircraft which appears so late is allowed and there is no slot to put one in if it were. No game I have heard of lasts so late either and Joe thinks none ever will - that the mechanics never allow these dates to appear. USSBS concluded the war must have ended by 1 November 1945 without atom bombs and without invasion of Japan. Perhaps the scenario end is incorrectly set. Any thoughts?

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 96
RE: Lancaster and Lincoln Again - 2/5/2006 11:24:17 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Various items posted here, and ambiguous wording in the RAF reference, and unit histories of 9 and 617 Squadrons RAF, force me to conclude they did not reach India until 1946. I am restoring them to Tiger Force. I have not yet removed squadron formations in favor of Wings or Groups - and have not yet seen a version of the OB which does that. Unless it appears the squadron organization won't work I may keep them.

Given the Lancaster does NOT appear during the historical war, I see no justification for two versions of it only starting in October 1945. I am very tempted to not include it at all. No Japanese aircraft which appears so late is allowed and there is no slot to put one in if it were. No game I have heard of lasts so late either and Joe thinks none ever will - that the mechanics never allow these dates to appear. USSBS concluded the war must have ended by 1 November 1945 without atom bombs and without invasion of Japan. Perhaps the scenario end is incorrectly set. Any thoughts?



Personally I would prefer to see a greater variety of early war aircraft for the reason you state ...most games seem to degenerate by 1945.


_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 97
RE: Lancaster and Lincoln Again - 2/6/2006 12:02:17 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

USSBS concluded the war must have ended by 1 November 1945 without atom bombs and without invasion of Japan. Any thoughts?


A thought regarding the USSBS conclusion rather than the scenario. Their conclusion is the same mindset that says (I'm paraphrasing the mindset, not quoting anybody) we don't need ships or troops anymore, we can just break their 'will' with airpower ('them' being any opponent). That is still yet to happen. Even with two atomic bombs dropped Japan actually surrendering was a near thing.

My point being that while I am sure the USSBS is wonderful in many respects, I put no faith whatsoever in that particular conclusion.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 98
Hurricanes and seafires - 2/6/2006 1:03:55 AM   
Hipper

 

Posts: 254
Joined: 6/15/2004
Status: offline 		The Hurricane became the most important RAF fighter in the Pacific.
Many squadrons were sent or upgraded - not a few of them missing or failing to upgrade in stock and CHS. But the early Hurricane sent to Singapore is also missing - they let it be a much more capable version.
I have added a Hurricane I to represent that- and changed the IIb to the IIc - but let it represent the IIb - and then kept the IId/IV - but gave it rockets. The first fighter in the world with rockets.

I also found that 880 Squadron FAA had 9 Seafires and no Sea Hurricane when it entered the Indian Ocean. [/quote]

Every book I have read indicates that the hurricanes sent to singapore were Mk IIb with the Merlin xx engine and 12 303 mgs's, ususally the outer 4 mgs were taken off. I would be suprised if the first batch that were sent were Mk I's. althoough anything is possible !

Re Sea Fires the first seafires on board ship were HMS furious in june 1942

It is impossible for HMS Indomidable to have seafires in December 1941 !!! I can show you pictures of Sea Hurricanes on board Indominable in August 1942, I have read a book by an RAF Hurricane Pilot who was ferried from Indomidable in January 1942 saying how a sea hurricane took off first (with the shortest deck space available) to show the RAF bods that it was possible. (Terrance Kelly The battle for Pelambang I think) Hurricanes over java and Sumatra is another recomended book

What convinced you that The FAA had Seafires available in 1941 !


If you wanted to be representative with RAF Hurricanes you could start with a mk IIb with a short range (only internal fuel), then by late 1942 upgrade to Mk IIc which had drop ranks and a range of 3/4 (from Imphal to Mandaly)
finally in 1943 upgrade to IId/v's (hurricanes over the the Arkan gives most of this information)

well done on the rockets


Hipper

_____________________________

"Gefechtwendung nach Steuerbord"

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 99
RE: 2nd USMC Para Btn - 2/6/2006 2:22:37 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I added 1790 FAA Squadron on HMS Vindix with Firefly using
leader 17559 - no longer used from a deleted unit.

I deleted 812, 816F and 824F Squadrons FAA. These are assigned
post war to ships not in theater anyway. This permitted renaming
816T to 816 and 824T to 824 - both correctly equipped with torpedo
bombers.

488 Squadron RAF should be 488 Squadron RNZAAF - it always was.

A number of Seafire squadrons are missing - others do not upgrade to it - others are wrongly assigned it - I am trying to compile a comprehensive list.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 100
RE: Lancaster and Lincoln Again - 2/6/2006 2:29:59 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

A thought regarding the USSBS conclusion rather than the scenario. Their conclusion is the same mindset that says (I'm paraphrasing the mindset, not quoting anybody) we don't need ships or troops anymore, we can just break their 'will' with airpower ('them' being any opponent). That is still yet to happen. Even with two atomic bombs dropped Japan actually surrendering was a near thing.

My point being that while I am sure the USSBS is wonderful in many respects, I put no faith whatsoever in that particular conclusion.


While the USSBS was dominated (in numbers) by USAAF bomber officers, they were both influenced by others and unable to impose upon them. I used to have a neighbor who was a retired admiral (he is dead now) who served on it as a US Navy captain. The conclusions were influenced by careful study of the mine campaign, the submarine campaign, and the anti-shipping campaigns of bombers and PT boats. It also (properly in my view) considered the impact of the Soviet invasion - something almost always discounted in popular US analysis. The Soviets invaded the last source of major raw materials and food available to Japan, and it also had two significant industrial areas (Central Manchuria and Southern Korea) which were basically undamaged. I do not believe the surrender of Japan was a "near thing" (and I have studied the minute by minute events surrounding it) except in terms of what day it occurred and who implemented it. No one in Japan had any doubt the war was lost - not even the most fanatical. The arguments and even revolts were over the nature of the ending of the war.

There is a view different from both yours and mine. A Truman scholar, Prof Bernstein of the University of California, says that the USSBS "came to the right conclusions, but for the wrong reasons." That is an interesting interpretation - and he is very technical and detailed about why - but still it holds the conclusions are valid! He felt the nature of the "committee" prevented a scholarly type presentation of reasoning, requiring lip service to things like you think drove the conclusions. He thinks the lip service didn't realy drive them, however.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 101
RE: Hurricanes and seafires - 2/6/2006 2:34:23 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Every book I have read indicates that the hurricanes sent to singapore were Mk IIb with the Merlin xx engine and 12 303 mgs's, ususally the outer 4 mgs were taken off. I would be suprised if the first batch that were sent were Mk I's. althoough anything is possible !


Actually, your books are correct about two groups of Hurricanes sent to Singapore late in January, 1942. They really straggled in so badly it is impossible to say what date should count, and pilots from one squadron would often - even usually - deliver planes to a different one - but they could not be used by their own unit which had not yet arrived! However, there are other cases - for example a squadron of New Zealand fighters which upgraded from Buffalos. And a number of other squadrons upgraded in various parts of the theater later.

Note, however, I would prefer not to have three Hurricane slots. I will investigate this further in the hope of doing away with Mark Is.

(in reply to Hipper)
Post #: 102
RE: Hurricanes and seafires - 2/6/2006 2:36:23 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Re Sea Fires the first seafires on board ship were HMS furious in june 1942


Given that 880 Squadron FAA had 9 of them in January - to cover the delivery of Hurricanes to Singapore - this cannot be correct. There seems to be real confusion about that unit - and it is listed in the game as using Sea Hurricanes on that date - even though it appears they were not in fact in inventory - at least by the time the task force left Aden.


(in reply to Hipper)
Post #: 103
RE: Hurricanes and seafires - 2/6/2006 2:40:33 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

It is impossible for HMS Indomidable to have seafires in December 1941 !!! I can show you pictures of Sea Hurricanes on board Indominable in August 1942, I have read a book by an RAF Hurricane Pilot who was ferried from Indomidable in January 1942 saying how a sea hurricane took off first (with the shortest deck space available) to show the RAF bods that it was possible. (Terrance Kelly The battle for Pelambang I think) Hurricanes over java and Sumatra is another recomended book


Well - since I don't show them on her before late January 1942 - it may indeed be correct it is "impossible" to show them in December 1941 - anyway it is not a contradiction. It is not clear to me why RAF historians would get this wrong - it is in their account of delivery of LAND Hurricanes - but as a sailor I have witnessed worse errors on the part of air force types. I can only say I HOPE you are incorrect - I don't want to put back a type I deleted and I don't want a type for only a single squadron. We must make compromises and I think - if there is a single unit with 9 of these - we will have to substitute a different fighter - until WITP II gives us more slots. But I will continue to gather data about this.

(in reply to Hipper)
Post #: 104
RE: Hurricanes and seafires - 2/6/2006 2:45:59 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

What convinced you that The FAA had Seafires available in 1941 !


British Naval Aircraft Since 1912..


"Large scale production of Seafires began in late 1942..."

"All Seafire IBs had fixed wings...Deliveries to the Royal Navy took place over the period from January 1942 to June 1943."

"The next version of the Seafire was the Mk IIC, which began deliveries to the Royal Navy in June 1942"

"Seafires first entered service with 807 Squadron in June 1942..."

And on and on for many pages.

(in reply to Hipper)
Post #: 105
RE: Hurricanes and seafires - 2/6/2006 2:47:03 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

If you wanted to be representative with RAF Hurricanes you could start with a mk IIb with a short range (only internal fuel), then by late 1942 upgrade to Mk IIc which had drop ranks and a range of 3/4 (from Imphal to Mandaly)
finally in 1943 upgrade to IId/v's (hurricanes over the the Arkan gives most of this information)


I like this idea. The difference between a IIb and a IIc is significant.


(in reply to Hipper)
Post #: 106
RE: Hurricanes - 2/6/2006 3:07:25 AM   
Hipper

 

Posts: 254
Joined: 6/15/2004
Status: offline 		Hmm There is a lot of information out there lots of it condratictory

however in Percivals Dispatch about Malaya and Singapore, he states that the Huricanes delivered were "not of the most modern type" by which I presume he means Hurricane MK 1's it is also possible that 30 hurricane Mk 1's were delivered to Burma in January 1942.

The hurricanes Delivered on HMS Indomidable (these are land Hurricanes) to singapore in january 1942 look to have been Mk 11's subsiquent deliveries to the theatre were probably Mk II's

I also found out that about 30 Huricane mk Is were delivered to the dutch air force in january 1942

The link Percivals dispatch in the ILN
http://www.fepow-community.org.uk/Research/London_Gazette_1948/

A quick note on Numbers

51 Hurricanes were delivered to Singapore on a ship in early January 1942 Mk 1's 30 more to Burma, and another 30 to the dutch, all Mk 1's, 33 mk II's delivered later in january 1942 via the Indominable which spent most of those three months acting as an aircraft ferry.

according to the RAF historical website hurricane deliveries were maintained at about 50 a month thereafter

Curses it looks like the Mk I hurricanes may have to put in an appearance after all

Hipper

_____________________________

"Gefechtwendung nach Steuerbord"

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 107
RE: Seafires - 2/6/2006 3:24:49 AM   
Hipper

 

Posts: 254
Joined: 6/15/2004
Status: offline 		I did a bunch of research on the FAA way back when the game came out

HMS Indomidable was due to come out with POW & Repulse but grounded in the Carribean and was about a month late,

when not acting as an aircraft ferry she had 4 squadrons on board, two of Albacores one of Fulamrs and one of 9 sea hurricanes , later on in March she replaced the fulmars with martlet fighters 50 of which arrived in India in april and May,
a detachment of fulamrs was also retained for day searches,

she covered the Invasion of madagascar in this condition then went to durban and the Mediteranian picking up another squadron Of Sea Hurricanes on the way, with 3 fighter squadrons 2 sea hurricanes and one of martlets she helped fight the Pedastal convoy through in August 1942. No account of operation Pedastal says there were any seafires on the Indomidable. Seafires were first used operationally in the RN for Torch in late 1942.

During 1942 the Fleet air arm had two main fighters the Martlet (export version of the F4) and the sea hurricane,

In the Indian ocean the Martlet was the most common type carried so you could get away without but you do loose detail

on fleet carriers both were replaced by the seafire in late 1942

I reccomend the site "fleet air arm archive" which goes into these things in a lot of detail
( its the website of the fleet air arm musieum)

Hipper




_____________________________

"Gefechtwendung nach Steuerbord"

(in reply to Hipper)
Post #: 108
RE: Hurricanes and seafires - 2/6/2006 5:08:59 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

What convinced you that The FAA had Seafires available in 1941 !


British Naval Aircraft Since 1912..


"Large scale production of Seafires began in late 1942..."

"All Seafire IBs had fixed wings...Deliveries to the Royal Navy took place over the period from January 1942 to June 1943."

"The next version of the Seafire was the Mk IIC, which began deliveries to the Royal Navy in June 1942"

"Seafires first entered service with 807 Squadron in June 1942..."

And on and on for many pages.



Maybe I'm missing something, but he asked about December '41 and all the citations you make say '42.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 109
RE: Seafires - 2/6/2006 1:55:09 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

No account of operation Pedastal says there were any seafires on the Indomidable.


Not so. See Bloody Shambles. It gives a figure of 9 in 880 Squadron FAA - the ONLY air cover for the operation.

(in reply to Hipper)
Post #: 110
RE: Hurricanes and seafires - 2/6/2006 1:59:43 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Maybe I'm missing something, but he asked about December '41 and all the citations you make say '42.


Yep. You missed my comment that I never said December 41. Although from the game database you might not be able to tell - there are many Seafire squadrons assigned to ships with no date - they appear with the ship - and many of them appear on the wrong ship and/or the wrong squadron. Real Seafire squadrons are missing - there were only 8 in theater and of these 3 are missing - but you would never guess from the listing. The problem with just putting the right unit on a carrier is - now the carrier has too many units - so one has to figure out what to take off! It is confusing because units moved - and many carriers landed their planes to behave as transports for a period. [Don't do that in the game - the AI does not like to behave if you do]

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 111
RE: Allied Aircraft (RAF issues item) - 2/6/2006 7:36:53 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Missing RAF squadrons:

453 & 458 (Buffalo)
No 4 PRU Flight (Buffalo)
244 & 521 (Wellington)
231 (Liberator)
39, 55 and 223 (Blenheim)

ALL are Far East units. IF they belong in WITP, WHEN do they appear and WHERE do they appear? If not, why not?

52 and 96 Squadrons are wrongly assigned C-46. Only one C-46 was ever in British service - run by a civil airline. This cannot be correct. Any idea what belongs in these units?

60 Squadron should be shown with Buffalo.

Wellington units should be shown upgrading to Liberator III.
Liberator III units should be shown upgrading to Liberator IV.


Blenheim I and IF are listed for several squadrons, but it did not serve in the Far East "by the outbreak of the war" (being replaced by IV models). "Overseas it served in the Western Desert and Greece."
Blenheim IF and IV are listed as night fighters. But the IV is not a night fighter - although there were "fighter" variants with extra guns (not radar) - and the IF did not serve overseas "by the outbreak of the war" as stated above - in fact it appears to have served only in 25 Squadron at home. Further, squadrons are listed as "bomber" or "fighter" - and only three "fighter" Blenheim units served in the Far East ever: 27, 30 and 203. I think we can get rid of the Blenheim I slot, and turn the IF into a Blenheim "fighter" slot with the extra gun pack (4 x 303).

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 112
RE: Allied Aircraft (RAF issues item) - 2/6/2006 7:54:18 PM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Missing RAF squadrons:

453 & 458 (Buffalo)
No 4 PRU Flight (Buffalo)
244 & 521 (Wellington)
231 (Liberator)
39, 55 and 223 (Blenheim)

ALL are Far East units. IF they belong in WITP, WHEN do they appear and WHERE do they appear? If not, why not?




No. 453 RAAF is in the game (even in stock 15). No. 4 PRU is missing (or maybe represented by No. 4 AACU?; I think that No. 3 PRU replaced No. 4 somewhen). The other squadrons were never in the Far East. What are your sources?

K

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 113
RE: Allied Aircraft (RAF issues item) - 2/6/2006 10:48:00 PM   
Iron Duke


Posts: 529
Joined: 1/7/2002
From: UK
Status: offline 		Hi,

453 in game
4 pru not in game but should be [singapore ?]
all others 458,244,521,231,39,55 and 223 didn't serve in FE

52 re formed '44' @ Dum Dum with Dakota's
96 arrive FE May '45' with Dakota's

60 should start with Buffalo I > Blenhiem IV > Hurri IIc > Thunderbolt II

ref RAF Squadrons
wingcommander C.G.Jefford

cheers

_____________________________

"Bombers outpacing fighters - you've got to bloody well laugh!" Australian Buffalo pilot - Singapore

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 114
RE: Allied Aircraft (RAF issues item) - 2/6/2006 11:00:05 PM   
Hipper

 

Posts: 254
Joined: 6/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

"Seafires first entered service with 807 Squadron in June 1942..."



Hms Indomidable entered the Indian Ocean in December 1941 and was ferrying land based hurricanes to Singapore in January 1942

880 squadron was on board at the time

if the above quote is true how can 880 squadron be issued with seafires !!!

Hipper


_____________________________

"Gefechtwendung nach Steuerbord"

(in reply to Iron Duke)
Post #: 115
RE: Seafires - 2/6/2006 11:34:23 PM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Not so. See Bloody Shambles. It gives a figure of 9 in 880 Squadron FAA - the ONLY air cover for the operation.



Not sure what your copy of Bloody Shambles states but my copy of Vol. 2 states specifically on page 54 and again page 385 that the Indomitable's 880 squadron were equiped with 9 "SEA HURRICANES" The FAA website comfirms this and several other oob list as well. If your copy of Shores says Seafires I think it must be a misprint of some sort.



(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 116
RE: Seafires - 2/6/2006 11:39:31 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		TIMJOT!

you still around you grizzled old seadog you.

(my copy of Shores says what yours says...been to FAA website too.)



_____________________________


(in reply to TIMJOT)
Post #: 117
RE: Allied Aircraft (RAF issues item) - 2/6/2006 11:46:38 PM   
Derfel


Posts: 85
Joined: 6/19/2005
From: Aalborg, Denmark
Status: offline 		A quick search on the net and I stumbled upon this site:
http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/squadrons/880.html

Here it says that:
"The squadron formed at Arbroath in January 1941 as a Fleet Fighter squadron with 3 Martlet Is, intended for the still uncompleted HMS Indomitable.

The squadron was augmented with 3 Sea Gladiators and 9 Sea Hurricane IAs until replaced with Sea Hurricane Ibs in July 1941 the squadron then embarked on HMS Furious that month for the strike on Petsamo in the Arctic, when the CO L/C FEC Judd RN shot down a Do 18. Part of the squadron remaining at St Merryn, Twatt and Sumburgh.

In October 1941 the full squadron embarked on the completed HMS Indomitable and sailed to join the Eastern Fleet, calling in at Palisadoes, Norfolk, Khormaksar, Port Sudan, Ratmalana, Khormaksar and China Bay.

In May 1942, the squadron left Port Reitz, East Africa onboard HMS Indomitable and took part in the Madagascar landings, including an attack on the Vichy French sloop D’Entrecaseaux, and subsequently took part in Operation Pedestal convoy to Malta when the ship was badly damaged by enemy attacks. During the operation the squadron destroyed 8 enemy aircraft and damaged 3 aircraft, but lost 3 squadron aircraft.

In August 1942 the squadron disembarked at Stretton and re-equipped soon after with 12 Seafire IICs."

Maybe that clears some confusion.

A further source in English is also listet at the page:
Sturtivant, R & Ballance, T (1994). 'The Squadrons of the Fleet Air Arm' Published by Air Britain (Historians) Ltd, 1994 ISBN: 0 85130 223 8

Happy gaming

(in reply to Hipper)
Post #: 118
RE: Allied Aircraft (RAF issues item) - 2/7/2006 4:59:55 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

No. 453 RAAF is in the game (even in stock 15). No. 4 PRU is missing (or maybe represented by No. 4 AACU?; I think that No. 3 PRU replaced No. 4 somewhen). The other squadrons were never in the Far East. What are your sources?


I see 453 RAAF. For some reason it was listed as 453 RAF - this happens sometimes. Sometimes units even change countries (I found two that become RNAF).

I think your guess is good - 4 PRU may be 4 AACU.

All the squadrons I list WERE in the Far East - otherwise I would not say they were. And my source for AF type planes is the one I have already cited - Royal Air Force Aircraft Since 1912. I am finding it takes skill to read it - but it is rarely wrong. The problem is when you must fill in the blanks - for which other works are OK when the plane was famous. My problem is that these units (and about 5 times that many more) WERE in the Far East during the war - but I don't know when or where. I have unit histories for USAAF and Japan - not for Commonwealth.

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 119
RE: Allied Aircraft (RAF issues item) - 2/7/2006 5:08:51 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

453 in game
4 pru not in game but should be [singapore ?]
all others 458,244,521,231,39,55 and 223 didn't serve in FE

52 re formed '44' @ Dum Dum with Dakota's
96 arrive FE May '45' with Dakota's

60 should start with Buffalo I > Blenhiem IV > Hurri IIc > Thunderbolt II

ref RAF Squadrons
wingcommander C.G.Jefford

This is good - except for the fact it contradicts listings for units in the Far East in a significant reference on RAF. I am inclined to add the units formally listed - but I will definitely add those that we can get dates and locations for. I note a surprising amount of contradictory material on RAF/FAA and commonwealth air forces.

Is PRU "photo recon unit"? How many planes were in it?



cheers

(in reply to Iron Duke)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: 2nd USMC Para Btn Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.562