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: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers

 
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: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/3/2006 7:23:46 PM   
Ol_Dog


Posts: 317
Joined: 2/23/2003
From: Southern Illinois
Status: offline 		My comment was aimed at the 2 items, (1) the use of 17,600 for the B-17F as compared to 8,800 for the B-24 and 20,000 for the B-29 for max load. You are using the internal and external racks for the 17, while using the internal for the 24 and 29. That is inconsistent. For most/all bomb loads, range, speed and other capabilites, the internal loads should be used. The 17 and 24 had empty weights of 36,000 and 37,000 resp., but if you want to compare max takeoff weights, use 65,000, 71,500 and 100,000+ for airfield usage. This max load may? be significant if it is used now or in the future to determine extended, short range or normal bomb loads for weight or type.

The (2) item is the actual bomb load. For game play, I doubt that it is material if you use 5,000 for the 17 and 24 or if you use 6,000 for the 17 and 8,000 for the 24. I think using 5,000 for the 29 could be material vs 20,000 as normal payload and normal range. On the 29, I have no information or opinion as to the combat load or range with combat or max load.

In my notes on the 17, it started with an internal 2,000 lb bomb load, then went to 4,000 for the C and D. For the E and beyond, they increased the size and weight of the plane and the bomb load to 6,000, but the extra weight of the plane alone made a significant decrease in speed and range. Thus, they normally reduced the bomb load. I show the normal (internal) loadout to be 26x100 lb bombs, or 12x500 lb bombs or 8x1000 lb bombs for the 17. I think you are probably right that they did use 5,000 as combat bomb load for the 17.

For the 24, I personally think they used 8,000 for the normal bomb load. The plane was originally designed to carry that load internally. I think the normal loadout above for 100, 500 and 1,000 lb bombs was actually used for the 24. The 24 could also carry 2,000 lb bombs internally, but I do not know if they carried 3 or 4 of those bombs. The only real things I have to support that though is (a) my Dad, who rode in a 24, but did not load bombs or drop them, said "Depending upon range, we carried all the bombs we could carry. We did't want to go back any more than neccessary.", and (b) on the back cover of the Group history, there is a beautiful almost full frame picture of a single B-24 H or J with a bomb string falling away - you can count 14 bombs in the string until they get out of the frame.

_____________________________

Common Sense is an uncommon virtue.
If you think you have everything under control, you don't fully understand the situation.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 181
RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/4/2006 1:36:58 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Tankbuks M.38? An AT Rifle?



Good enough for 15 rating, maybe more. Can you provide a source of your data?

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 182
RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/4/2006 1:39:33 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Ol_Dog

My comment was aimed at the 2 items, (1) the use of 17,600 for the B-17F as compared to 8,800 for the B-24 and 20,000 for the B-29 for max load. You are using the internal and external racks for the 17, while using the internal for the 24 and 29. That is inconsistent.

I would not be surprised. It may well be in the reference books in this form. This is often the case: different standards even in the same book - and quite often between different ones. I will investigate. I like this sort of criticism - it does not smack of favoritism and it is investigatable - not entirely a matter of opinion.

(in reply to Ol_Dog)
Post #: 183
RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/4/2006 1:42:00 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

Some comments about version 2.593

The Soviet 1 SepFlight/POFAFlot is on board of the British Cruiser Shropshire.

I know that they where allieds, but to my knowledge was never a Soviet plane on a British Cruiser.


Also some or most of the Airslots between 1000 to about 1064 are hardcoded. I the Soviets become active then most of these slots changed in Soviet Airunits, what also happend by some locationslots.


Then the Airgroup of the Carrier Midway exist out:
VF-74
VBF-74
VB-74
VT-74


I have added the 74 air squadrons - with low experience - to increase operational attrition given too little time to work up.

(in reply to Jo van der Pluym)
Post #: 184
RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/4/2006 1:43:59 AM   
el cid again

 

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

There is also a Dutch Rifle Squad in 376


If you have a good copy, 376 is a Philippine Engineer Squad.

There is no Dutch squad in 376.


(in reply to Jo van der Pluym)
Post #: 185
RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/4/2006 1:49:02 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		The Tankbuks M.38 was (as far as I've been able to find) the Dutch designation for the Swiss Solothurn 20mm AT rifle. I'm sure Jo can fill in more data, but I'd think that would equate to a fairly high rating.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 186
RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/4/2006 6:30:52 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		If it is the slothern it probably has an AT rating a lot higher than 15 - more like 35. I will look it up.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 187
RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/4/2006 6:31:17 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Duplicated posting - please  remove.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 6/4/2006 1:12:12 PM >

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 188
RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/4/2006 10:17:46 AM   
Jo van der Pluym


Posts: 834
Joined: 10/28/2000
From: Valkenburg Lb, Netherlands
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Tankbuks M.38? An AT Rifle?


Good enough for 15 rating, maybe more. Can you provide a source of your data?


They had the same weapons as the Army, only more automatic weapons.
http://www.geocities.com/dutcheastindies/weapons.html

_____________________________

Greetings from the Netherlands

Jo van der Pluym
CrazyDutch

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 189
RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/4/2006 10:20:49 AM   
Jo van der Pluym


Posts: 834
Joined: 10/28/2000
From: Valkenburg Lb, Netherlands
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


There is also a Dutch Rifle Squad in 376

If you have a good copy, 376 is a Philippine Engineer Squad.

There is no Dutch squad in 376.



I have the versions 2.59.4

By me is 366 a Philippine Engineer Squad.

_____________________________

Greetings from the Netherlands

Jo van der Pluym
CrazyDutch

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 190
RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/4/2006 11:22:11 AM   
Herrbear


Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again



There is also a Dutch Rifle Squad in 376


If you have a good copy, 376 is a Philippine Engineer Squad.

There is no Dutch squad in 376.




I agree with van der Pluym. I have 376 say it is a Dutch squad.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 191
RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/4/2006 1:14:18 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


There is also a Dutch Rifle Squad in 376

If you have a good copy, 376 is a Philippine Engineer Squad.

There is no Dutch squad in 376.



I have the versions 2.59.4

By me is 366 a Philippine Engineer Squad.


I understand. It is not a good file. Download 2.595 now - or send your address to trevethans@aol.com. It has some air unit issues addressed as well as a slightly better device file anyway - in response to your comments the Dutch Marine Squad upgrades to itself. It is not yet rated for AT weapons - have not yet looked them up - but will in a few hours (after sleep).

(in reply to Jo van der Pluym)
Post #: 192
RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/4/2006 3:23:06 PM   
CobraAus


Posts: 2322
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Geelong Australia
Status: offline 		V2.59.5 for CVO-RAO posted in link page
no update for BBO at this time

Cobra Aus

(in reply to Ol_Dog)
Post #: 193
RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/4/2006 9:42:33 PM   
Jo van der Pluym


Posts: 834
Joined: 10/28/2000
From: Valkenburg Lb, Netherlands
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The Tankbuks M.38 was (as far as I've been able to find) the Dutch designation for the Swiss Solothurn 20mm AT rifle. I'm sure Jo can fill in more data, but I'd think that would equate to a fairly high rating.

[
quote]ORIGINAL:  el cid again

If it is the slothern it probably has an AT rating a lot higher than 15 - more like 35.  I will look it up.


Yes. It's the Swiss Sollthurn 20mm AT Rifle. I have find new info. It was not a squad weapon.
There where 2 pieces held on each Platoon or each Companie HQ in the KNIL and Marines.

But I suggest still to made the Anti-Armor 35, because the Mariniers Brigade was equiped with the Bazooka (In the scenario still equiped with Dutch Rifle Squad)

Also was the Mariniers Brigade full US equiped, including a Tank Companie



P.s. Every Marine Squad was equiped with 2 or 3 LMG's.





< Message edited by Jo van der Pluym -- 6/4/2006 9:50:39 PM >

_____________________________

Greetings from the Netherlands

Jo van der Pluym
CrazyDutch

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 194
RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/4/2006 10:20:02 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The Tankbuks M.38 was (as far as I've been able to find) the Dutch designation for the Swiss Solothurn 20mm AT rifle. I'm sure Jo can fill in more data, but I'd think that would equate to a fairly high rating.

[
quote]ORIGINAL:  el cid again

If it is the slothern it probably has an AT rating a lot higher than 15 - more like 35.  I will look it up.


Yes. It's the Swiss Sollthurn 20mm AT Rifle. I have find new info. It was not a squad weapon.
There where 2 pieces held on each Platoon or each Companie HQ in the KNIL and Marines.

But I suggest still to made the Anti-Armor 35, because the Mariniers Brigade was equiped with the Bazooka (In the scenario still equiped with Dutch Rifle Squad)

Also was the Mariniers Brigade full US equiped, including a Tank Companie



P.s. Every Marine Squad was equiped with 2 or 3 LMG's.






To insure we are all on the same page, it was the pre-WWII era convention that a squad had an LMG. With rare exceptions (probably "light squads" are exceptions), all WITP infantry squads have at least one LMG or SMG - and some may well have two (if army type) or three (if Marine type) - one per fire team. For this reason, LMGs do NOT show up ANYWHERE as separate weapons. LMGs (using rifle rounds) and SMGs (using pistol rounds) DO count toward the anti-infantry rating of a squad, however.

Also, the comment about the Bazooka has me confused - because that weapon does not exist at the time the Pacific War began. By the time it was invented - never mind mass produced and distributed to an Allied army - the NEI formations in question no longer existed (with possible rare exceptions that evacuated - something our particular political point/restricted command rules make quite hard for us to do). There were anti-tank weapons in the period - and virtually none of them in the Far East. British and Dutch and American units were routinely wholly outclassed by even the lightest armor - and knew they were. In Malaya the sound of Japanese INFANTRY riding on bikes (whose tires were no longer present - it was the rims of the wheels on the pavement) often resulted in British/Indian/Commonwealth units abandoning their positions.
The game OBs probably grossly overstate the number of 2 pounders available - and it correctly states the US Army lacked even its "standard" AT weapons in the Philippines. IF the Allies had such weapons on the scale they should have - and did later - the Japanese offensive would probably have had a much harder time of it. Even the presence of one or two light tanks was often decisive - largely because there was no easy way to deal with them.

(in reply to Jo van der Pluym)
Post #: 195
RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/4/2006 10:42:47 PM   
Jo van der Pluym


Posts: 834
Joined: 10/28/2000
From: Valkenburg Lb, Netherlands
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Also, the comment about the Bazooka has me confused - because that weapon does not exist at the time the Pacific War began. By the time it was invented - never mind mass produced and distributed to an Allied army - the NEI formations in question no longer existed (


I mean the Dutch Mariniers Brigade. This Brigade was in the US raised, trained and equiped.

_____________________________

Greetings from the Netherlands

Jo van der Pluym
CrazyDutch

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 196
RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/4/2006 10:50:11 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Also, the comment about the Bazooka has me confused - because that weapon does not exist at the time the Pacific War began. By the time it was invented - never mind mass produced and distributed to an Allied army - the NEI formations in question no longer existed (


I mean the Dutch Mariniers Brigade. This Brigade was in the US raised, trained and equiped.


I failed to note the date - December 1945. I have NO units at such a date - and am about to remove this unit altogether - UNLESS it appears sooner. RHS allows NO units after Sept 30 1945 - and recommends the game end on 1 Nov 1945 if no atom bombs are used (and 1 Sep 1945 if they are used). The scenario permits players to ignore these recommendations as late as 1 Jan 1946 - if for any reason they want an end of year report or automatic victory calculation. But we do not give slots to units appearing in the last quarter of 1945 or in 1946. Was this unit really a Dec 1945 unit?

(in reply to Jo van der Pluym)
Post #: 197
RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/4/2006 11:11:06 PM   
Jo van der Pluym


Posts: 834
Joined: 10/28/2000
From: Valkenburg Lb, Netherlands
Status: offline 		The Dutch Mariniers Brigade (6250 men) was equiped with

1657x M1 Garand
2695x M1 Carabine
243x BAR
646x Colt M1911A1
54x M1917A1 .30
103x M1917A4 .30
31x M2 .50
62x M19A1 Bazooka
48x M2 60mm Mortar
12x M1 80mm mortar
8x 37mm AT Gun
12x M2-2 Flamethrowers
15x M4A3 Tank
3x Flamethrower Tank
? Tankdozer
? M3 Halftrack
? 105mm Howitzer
? M8 Armored Car
? Amtrack

The Organisation was
3x Infantry Battalion
1x Genie Battalion (1x Combat Engineer, 1x Engineer, 1x Construction Companie)
1x Artillery Battalion (3 Batteries)
1x Motortransport Battalion
1x Medical Battalion
1x Recon Companie
1x Tank Companie
1x Regimental Heavy Weapons Companie
1x Amtrac Companie

_____________________________

Greetings from the Netherlands

Jo van der Pluym
CrazyDutch

(in reply to Jo van der Pluym)
Post #: 198
RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/4/2006 11:23:52 PM   
Jo van der Pluym


Posts: 834
Joined: 10/28/2000
From: Valkenburg Lb, Netherlands
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I failed to note the date - December 1945. I have NO units at such a date - and am about to remove this unit altogether - UNLESS it appears sooner. RHS allows NO units after Sept 30 1945 - and recommends the game end on 1 Nov 1945 if no atom bombs are used (and 1 Sep 1945 if they are used). The scenario permits players to ignore these recommendations as late as 1 Jan 1946 - if for any reason they want an end of year report or automatic victory calculation. But we do not give slots to units appearing in the last quarter of 1945 or in 1946. Was this unit really a Dec 1945 unit?




The unit is formed on 17 May 1943. Commander is Colonel de Bruyne.
They started training october 1943 in Camp Lejeune later also Camp Davis. Januari 1945 Battleready and waiting for orders by Norfolk.

According Dutch warplans against Japan was estimated that the Unit must be in the NEI medio 1945. But they must wait on shipping.

< Message edited by Jo van der Pluym -- 6/4/2006 11:24:09 PM >

_____________________________

Greetings from the Netherlands

Jo van der Pluym
CrazyDutch

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 199
RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Minor Version 2.51 Released to te... - 6/4/2006 11:54:50 PM   
Jo van der Pluym


Posts: 834
Joined: 10/28/2000
From: Valkenburg Lb, Netherlands
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym
There where also the following Dutch units active agains the Japanse.
- From 1 Augustus 1942 Korps Insulinde. A reinforced Company of Commando's, some Marines/Infantry.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
OK - any more data on them? I need a TO&E.


Korps Insulinde is about 4 platoons, included 1 platoon Marines. Armed with Small Arms. Commander is Molders. In game terms 10 Dutch Squads, 3 Sapper Squads, 4 Marine Squad


Interesting note
The Dutch 321st Squadron and RAF 357 SD squadron where used for actions by Korps Insulinde
also the submarine O24.

< Message edited by Jo van der Pluym -- 6/4/2006 11:55:52 PM >

_____________________________

Greetings from the Netherlands

Jo van der Pluym
CrazyDutch

(in reply to Jo van der Pluym)
Post #: 200
RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Minor Version 2.51 Released to te... - 6/5/2006 1:49:40 AM   
CobraAus


Posts: 2322
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Geelong Australia
Status: offline 		V 2.59.5.1 posted on link page medium upgrade for CVO and RAO

Cobra Aus

(in reply to Jo van der Pluym)
Post #: 201
RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/5/2006 3:35:27 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I failed to note the date - December 1945. I have NO units at such a date - and am about to remove this unit altogether - UNLESS it appears sooner. RHS allows NO units after Sept 30 1945 - and recommends the game end on 1 Nov 1945 if no atom bombs are used (and 1 Sep 1945 if they are used). The scenario permits players to ignore these recommendations as late as 1 Jan 1946 - if for any reason they want an end of year report or automatic victory calculation. But we do not give slots to units appearing in the last quarter of 1945 or in 1946. Was this unit really a Dec 1945 unit?




The unit is formed on 17 May 1943. Commander is Colonel de Bruyne.
They started training october 1943 in Camp Lejeune later also Camp Davis. Januari 1945 Battleready and waiting for orders by Norfolk.

According Dutch warplans against Japan was estimated that the Unit must be in the NEI medio 1945. But they must wait on shipping.



OK = very good - this means they are available at Colon Panama from 15 January 1945 - (I provide free shipping that far) - and the Allied player either ignores them or ships them from there. They are in the game - and get the Bazooka too! - but it must be a special weapon of some kind - since the Dutch Marine Squad cannot have it - perhaps we give them US Marine Squads? The Dutch Marine Squad is used in 1941 - so it is stuck with historical weapons of that period. Which brings us back to the question - what is THAT squad's anti-armor weapon? The Slothern?

(in reply to Jo van der Pluym)
Post #: 202
RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/5/2006 9:37:49 AM   
akdreemer


Posts: 1028
Joined: 10/3/2004
From: Anchorage, Alaska
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


The game OBs probably grossly overstate the number of 2 pounders available - and it correctly states the US Army lacked even its "standard" AT weapons in the Philippines.



Where did you get this information? First off the US Army did not use 2 pdrs. It used a 37mm ATG. There are photographs of pre-war Phillipine Army troops training with it ans it was standard equipment way back in 1938. (The War Against Japan- Pictorial record.. Army Green Book, Page 26) It looks like a "real" 37mm ATG to me.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 203
RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/5/2006 10:05:16 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


The game OBs probably grossly overstate the number of 2 pounders available - and it correctly states the US Army lacked even its "standard" AT weapons in the Philippines.



Where did you get this information? First off the US Army did not use 2 pdrs. It used a 37mm ATG. There are photographs of pre-war Phillipine Army troops training with it ans it was standard equipment way back in 1938. (The War Against Japan- Pictorial record.. Army Green Book, Page 26) It looks like a "real" 37mm ATG to me.


I don't think I said the US Army used 2 pounders. But the ALLIES did, at least in theory, and in WITP too. Except they didn't very often have them.
The US Army was using a new 57mm by the time the war began - it had ended development in 1941 - a lengthened version of the British 6 pounder. Otherwise it nominally used the 37mm you mention - which is NOT in the game. Instead an apparently fictional 47mm ATG is! [OK - here is a test: what country BESIDES Japan had a 47mm ATG? If none, why are there TWO 47mm ATGs? 280 and 422.] I replaced this gun with the 37mm M3 ATG. Still figuring out who actually had it in theater? But I bet those guys in Hawaii had some for one. And I think I have an inventory for the Philippines - I bet there are some there too. Need to check.

(in reply to akdreemer)
Post #: 204
RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/5/2006 10:16:23 AM   
akdreemer


Posts: 1028
Joined: 10/3/2004
From: Anchorage, Alaska
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


The game OBs probably grossly overstate the number of 2 pounders available - and it correctly states the US Army lacked even its "standard" AT weapons in the Philippines.



Where did you get this information? First off the US Army did not use 2 pdrs. It used a 37mm ATG. There are photographs of pre-war Phillipine Army troops training with it ans it was standard equipment way back in 1938. (The War Against Japan- Pictorial record.. Army Green Book, Page 26) It looks like a "real" 37mm ATG to me.


I don't think I said the US Army used 2 pounders. But the ALLIES did, at least in theory, and in WITP too. Except they didn't very often have them.
The US Army was using a new 57mm by the time the war began - it had ended development in 1941 - a lengthened version of the British 6 pounder. Otherwise it nominally used the 37mm you mention - which is NOT in the game. Instead an apparently fictional 47mm ATG is! [OK - here is a test: what country BESIDES Japan had a 47mm ATG? If none, why are there TWO 47mm ATGs? 280 and 422.] I replaced this gun with the 37mm M3 ATG. Still figuring out who actually had it in theater? But I bet those guys in Hawaii had some for one. And I think I have an inventory for the Philippines - I bet there are some there too. Need to check.


I do know that the dutch had a 47mm atg, at least in 1940.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 205
RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/5/2006 10:25:00 AM   
Jo van der Pluym


Posts: 834
Joined: 10/28/2000
From: Valkenburg Lb, Netherlands
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

OK = very good - this means they are available at Colon Panama from 15 January 1945 - (I provide free shipping that far) - and the Allied player either ignores them or ships them from there. They are in the game - and get the Bazooka too! - but it must be a special weapon of some kind - since the Dutch Marine Squad cannot have it - perhaps we give them US Marine Squads?
The Dutch Marine Squad is used in 1941 - so it is stuck with historical weapons of that period. Which brings us back to the question - what is THAT squad's anti-armor weapon? The Slothern?


There where 2 Slothern held on Platoon and/or Companie HQ.

But I suggest a compromise, give the Dutch Marine Squad the AT value of 35. Mayby also a higher AP value. And use this squad for both units. This does then form a sort balance the higher value in 1941 and then the lower value end of the war, for no adding the Bazooka. Or add a second Dutch Marine Squad.

_____________________________

Greetings from the Netherlands

Jo van der Pluym
CrazyDutch

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 206
RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/5/2006 10:29:59 AM   
akdreemer


Posts: 1028
Joined: 10/3/2004
From: Anchorage, Alaska
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


I don't think I said the US Army used 2 pounders. But the ALLIES did, at least in theory, and in WITP too. Except they didn't very often have them.




The 2 pdr was a heavy bugger, weighing 1700 lbs in action. Whereas the US 37mm was 970 lbs in action, a much handier gun in places like jungles or in amphib assaults, and plenty capable of dealing with most of the Japanese tanks. It also fired a useful HE and a wicked canister. The 57mm was generally not issued to the Pacific units till late war because there was not apparent need.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 207
RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/5/2006 11:53:07 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Oddly, our regiment in Alaska has a battery of very old 37mm - the kind used at Wounded Knee in fact - and the gunners say it is the actual GUNS used at Wounded Knee (although that sounds like a Sea Story to me - complete with the mandatory first line "this is no s...")

And we believe the cannister would be effective if used on a mob. I don't want to find out.

(in reply to akdreemer)
Post #: 208
RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/5/2006 12:32:21 PM   
Jo van der Pluym


Posts: 834
Joined: 10/28/2000
From: Valkenburg Lb, Netherlands
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
OK = very good - this means they are available at Colon Panama from 15 January 1945 - (I provide free shipping that far) - and the Allied player either ignores them or ships them from there.


I think that 15 February 1945 is a better date. Because I not know when in January the unit is Battleready.

_____________________________

Greetings from the Netherlands

Jo van der Pluym
CrazyDutch

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 209
RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/5/2006 3:07:44 PM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Not sure why you think it is wrong to have CVLs with 801 Squadron?

I mean that the 801 squadron is not attached to a ship/CVL but on the header RN CVL's waht only os txt but no ship.


OK - 801 Squadron NEVER was in PTO. I only served on ONE carrier - Furious - which never went to PTO. Otherwise it served in UK. So we should delete 801 squadron - and I guess I didn't do that effectively enough. Thanks.


801 Sqn was flying Seafires when it arrived in the Pacific in June 1945 and saw service in the Sakishima/Okinawa area.

(I have no record of prior to this)

From The British Pacific & East Indies Fleets (50th Anniversary)

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 210
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   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

1.344