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: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups Page: <<   < prev  46 47 [48] 49 50   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/1/2009 11:24:03 PM   
DBS


Posts: 513
Joined: 4/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq
Done some more research.

Late war models of the Lancaster were fitted to carry the 8000lb and 12000lb HC - the only aircraft that could carry bombs that big without significant modification (as per the aircraft that carried the heavier atomic weapons).

The 12000lb HC is not the same as the tallboy - it has a completely different mode of employment. The tallboy/grandslam were the ultimate penetration weapons of their time - designed to penetrate yards of earth or feet of concrete before exploding. The HC's were designed to have maximum blast effect with an explosive load of around 90% of total weapon weight as opposed to the less than 70% of more conventional HE bombs.

You asked what Tiger Force could be used for, well there is a definite use - carrying large HC bombs which no other aircraft could do.

That would be something worthwhile seeing, especially in the Downfall scenario that Terminus has alluded to. (Else I'll have to mod them in my self to a full war game and then wait the 1400 turns to see what they actually do )


But the 12000lb HC needed a special model of Lancaster, which was only ever issued to 617 Squadron. Used from 1943 until the Tallboy came along in June 1944. They were intended for attacking canal banks and viaducts, but actually proved more effective vs conventional industrial targets. To be honest, I don't see it being a weapon of choice for Tiger Force - it was a swine of a weapon to handle (the bomb trolley only had 4.5 inches of ground clearance and that proved troublesome enough on a nicely built pre-war airfield in Lincolnshire, let alone a rapidly built field somewhere on a Pacific island) - and the only squadron that could use it was better employed with Tallboys and Grand Slams.

The 8000lb HC could be carried by umodified Main Force Lancs and Halifaxes, but again I don't see this being a major Tiger Force option, even if the bomb bay fuel tank would have permitted it. Compared to the 4000lb HC, the 8000lb obviously had greater effect on point targets, but the 4000lb seems to have been more effective for its weight in general city or industrial attacks. The classic late-war bombload for a Main Force Lanc on a city attack was 1 x 4000lb HC, and 1060 4lb incendiaries (the latter in 10 x aimable clusters @106 4lbs). For a precision industrial or transport attack, the incendiaries would be replaced by 16 x 500lb MCs, with perhaps the odd GP swapped in if they wanted a few delayed action fuses to bugger up the enemy's clearance efforts.

During the war, Bomber Command dropped, among many other natures:
41 x Grand Slams
854 x Tallboys
193 x 12000lb HC
1088 x 8000lb HC
68000 x 4000lb HC
28633 x 2000lb HC

3 million 30lb phos incendiaries
80 million 4lb incendiaries


David

(in reply to bsq)
Post #: 1411
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/1/2009 11:35:48 PM   
sven6345789

 

Posts: 1050
Joined: 3/8/2004
From: Sandviken, Sweden
Status: offline
Yokosuka Naval yard
Helen factory and Toka Factory seem to be producing already (14 and 2 respectively); are listed as R&D in the replacement list in the intelligence screen.

_____________________________

Bougainville, November 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. It rained today.

Letter from a U.S. Marine,November 1943

(in reply to DBS)
Post #: 1412
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/2/2009 12:04:30 AM   
Grotius


Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline
I've posted this suggestion before, so apologies for duplicating my thoughts, but this seems to be the "official" thread for air issues. Might the team consider embellishing the combatreport.txt (or maybe in-game animation text) with some indication that CAP disrupted x number of bombing runs? That might reassure people that their now-leaky CAP is still helping protect their ships. Just a thought; obviously not a high-priority thing when compared to bugs etc.

_____________________________


(in reply to sven6345789)
Post #: 1413
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/2/2009 12:34:12 AM   
timtom


Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sven6345789

Yokosuka Naval yard
Helen factory and Toka Factory seem to be producing already (14 and 2 respectively); are listed as R&D in the replacement list in the intelligence screen.


There's an odd one...what scenario is that? Would you mind posting a screenie?

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?


(in reply to sven6345789)
Post #: 1414
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/2/2009 2:04:29 AM   
JeffroK


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

Air Unit 3211 - No 100 Sqn RAF has Australian nationality

The RAAF formed a separate 100 Sqn.

IFF it was done because Australian pilots/crews were in the unit, more than half of the RAF should be tagged as Australian, New Zealand or Canadian.


_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to timtom)
Post #: 1415
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/2/2009 3:14:55 AM   
bsq


Posts: 517
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DBS

quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq
Done some more research.

Late war models of the Lancaster were fitted to carry the 8000lb and 12000lb HC - the only aircraft that could carry bombs that big without significant modification (as per the aircraft that carried the heavier atomic weapons).

The 12000lb HC is not the same as the tallboy - it has a completely different mode of employment. The tallboy/grandslam were the ultimate penetration weapons of their time - designed to penetrate yards of earth or feet of concrete before exploding. The HC's were designed to have maximum blast effect with an explosive load of around 90% of total weapon weight as opposed to the less than 70% of more conventional HE bombs.

You asked what Tiger Force could be used for, well there is a definite use - carrying large HC bombs which no other aircraft could do.

That would be something worthwhile seeing, especially in the Downfall scenario that Terminus has alluded to. (Else I'll have to mod them in my self to a full war game and then wait the 1400 turns to see what they actually do )


But the 12000lb HC needed a special model of Lancaster, which was only ever issued to 617 Squadron. Used from 1943 until the Tallboy came along in June 1944. They were intended for attacking canal banks and viaducts, but actually proved more effective vs conventional industrial targets. To be honest, I don't see it being a weapon of choice for Tiger Force - it was a swine of a weapon to handle (the bomb trolley only had 4.5 inches of ground clearance and that proved troublesome enough on a nicely built pre-war airfield in Lincolnshire, let alone a rapidly built field somewhere on a Pacific island) - and the only squadron that could use it was better employed with Tallboys and Grand Slams.

The 8000lb HC could be carried by umodified Main Force Lancs and Halifaxes, but again I don't see this being a major Tiger Force option, even if the bomb bay fuel tank would have permitted it. Compared to the 4000lb HC, the 8000lb obviously had greater effect on point targets, but the 4000lb seems to have been more effective for its weight in general city or industrial attacks. The classic late-war bombload for a Main Force Lanc on a city attack was 1 x 4000lb HC, and 1060 4lb incendiaries (the latter in 10 x aimable clusters @106 4lbs). For a precision industrial or transport attack, the incendiaries would be replaced by 16 x 500lb MCs, with perhaps the odd GP swapped in if they wanted a few delayed action fuses to bugger up the enemy's clearance efforts.

During the war, Bomber Command dropped, among many other natures:
41 x Grand Slams
854 x Tallboys
193 x 12000lb HC
1088 x 8000lb HC
68000 x 4000lb HC
28633 x 2000lb HC

3 million 30lb phos incendiaries
80 million 4lb incendiaries


David


The specials are in the game and as for 617 being the only ones to drop the 12000lb, that's more down to circumstance than any thing else as they were not the only Lancaster Sqn equipped with specials, 9 Sqn also carried weapons to 12000lb and could have dropped either the Tallboy (as it did on the Tirpitz raids) or the larger HC. It appears that the early testing of this weapon was carried out by 617 and it wasn't used much operationally due to the limited number build and some issues with the weapon in some of its deployment modes (it didn't always go completely 'bang' being made up of 3 x 4000lb modules)

In this case the 'special mod' only required a bulge to be placed in the bomb bay doors to accommodate the weapon, whereas Grandslam required the removal of the doors and the replacement of them with the cradle and fairing for the bomb and this mod was only ever applied to 32 Mk I specials flown from Woodhall Spa.. By the end of the war in Europe only 5 of the original specials (Op Chastise) - the others being replaced with B Mk I or B Mk III (with the door mods).

My research so far has turned up the following Squadrons with B Mk I and B Mk III aircraft which were fitted with the mods to allow the carriage of weapons to 12000lb

9 Sqn
44 Sqn
57 Sqn (from where 617 often had to borrow trolleys!)
75 (NZ) Sqn
617 Sqn

I'm sure there will be others.

Point of fact, whilst the Halifax was the first to carry the 8000lb, it only did so by some local modifications to the bomb bay doors (involving tarpaulin) as they could not completely close around the weapon.

As for the point about operating from island airfields etc, Tiger Force was to operate from Okinawa, hardly an atoll with poorly prepared surfaces. Handling would still have posed the same problems as it did here at Scampton and Woodhall Spa, but no more so. There was also talk about some of the aircraft being fitted as tankers and the others as receivers, so whilst the larger two weapons and the 400 Gal tank were mutually exclusive, the range issue may not have been as big a problem if the tank were not used.

(in reply to DBS)
Post #: 1416
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/2/2009 3:23:40 AM   
bsq


Posts: 517
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Scen 1

Air Unit 3211 - No 100 Sqn RAF has Australian nationality

The RAAF formed a separate 100 Sqn.

IFF it was done because Australian pilots/crews were in the unit, more than half of the RAF should be tagged as Australian, New Zealand or Canadian.



As stated elsewhere, 100 Sqn RAF was based in the far east under RAAF chain of command until it disbanded to be replaced (ultimately) by 100 Sqn RAAF, in the same role. The original, upon reforming in the UK, changed from Light to Heavy Bombers ending up with Lancasters as part of No 1 Group, which would mean that would not have returned as part of Tiger Force.

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 1417
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/2/2009 7:58:47 AM   
sven6345789

 

Posts: 1050
Joined: 3/8/2004
From: Sandviken, Sweden
Status: offline
ORIGINAL: sven6345789

Yokosuka Naval yard
Helen factory and Toka Factory seem to be producing already (14 and 2 respectively); are listed as R&D in the replacement list in the intelligence screen.


There's an odd one...what scenario is that? Would you mind posting a screenie?


Can't post one right now, am at work
it is Scenario 1
The factories are listed as (0)14 and (0)2; all other R&D Factories are listed as (3)0 for example; in the replacement list, they are listed as R&D.
how do you post a screenie? never did this before.

_____________________________

Bougainville, November 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. It rained today.

Letter from a U.S. Marine,November 1943

(in reply to timtom)
Post #: 1418
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/2/2009 11:59:36 AM   
JeffroK


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

ORIGINAL: bsq


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Scen 1

Air Unit 3211 - No 100 Sqn RAF has Australian nationality

The RAAF formed a separate 100 Sqn.

IFF it was done because Australian pilots/crews were in the unit, more than half of the RAF should be tagged as Australian, New Zealand or Canadian.



As stated elsewhere, 100 Sqn RAF was based in the far east under RAAF chain of command until it disbanded to be replaced (ultimately) by 100 Sqn RAAF, in the same role. The original, upon reforming in the UK, changed from Light to Heavy Bombers ending up with Lancasters as part of No 1 Group, which would mean that would not have returned as part of Tiger Force.




What RAAF Chain of Command??
Even 1,8,21 & 453 flew under RAF Command?

No. 100 Squadron was formed at RAAF Base Richmond on 15 February 1942. The Squadron was formed from a nucleus of No. 100 Squadron RAF, which had been destroyed during the Malayan Campaign, and was named in this Squadron's honour. Despite this link No. 100 Squadron RAAF was an Australian squadron throughout its existence and should not be confused with its British namesake, which was re-formed as a heavy bomber squadron in Britain on 15 December 1942.

From the RAAF History.
The first unit to receive the new aircraft was No . 100 Squadron R.A.A.F. The
number was derived from the R.A.F. squadron that had fought with forlorn
distinction in Malaya until its obsolete Vildebeeste aircraft and mos t
of its pilots had been lost.


< Message edited by JeffK -- 8/2/2009 12:03:37 PM >


_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to bsq)
Post #: 1419
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/2/2009 12:45:07 PM   
bsq


Posts: 517
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Scen 1

Air Unit 3211 - No 100 Sqn RAF has Australian nationality

The RAAF formed a separate 100 Sqn.

IFF it was done because Australian pilots/crews were in the unit, more than half of the RAF should be tagged as Australian, New Zealand or Canadian.



As stated elsewhere, 100 Sqn RAF was based in the far east under RAAF chain of command until it disbanded to be replaced (ultimately) by 100 Sqn RAAF, in the same role. The original, upon reforming in the UK, changed from Light to Heavy Bombers ending up with Lancasters as part of No 1 Group, which would mean that would not have returned as part of Tiger Force.




What RAAF Chain of Command??
Even 1,8,21 & 453 flew under RAF Command?

No. 100 Squadron was formed at RAAF Base Richmond on 15 February 1942. The Squadron was formed from a nucleus of No. 100 Squadron RAF, which had been destroyed during the Malayan Campaign, and was named in this Squadron's honour. Despite this link No. 100 Squadron RAAF was an Australian squadron throughout its existence and should not be confused with its British namesake, which was re-formed as a heavy bomber squadron in Britain on 15 December 1942.

From the RAAF History.
The first unit to receive the new aircraft was No . 100 Squadron R.A.A.F. The
number was derived from the R.A.F. squadron that had fought with forlorn
distinction in Malaya until its obsolete Vildebeeste aircraft and mos t
of its pilots had been lost.



Post 1355 in this thread would seem to indicate something slightly different and that after the Malaya campaign, 100 Sqn RAF was based in NSW until it's personnel were subsumed into another Sqn and the name plate 'retired' until it stood up again in the UK. At the point of 100 Sqn RAF's demise, 100 Sqn RAAF stood up using the aircraft previously assigned to the now defunct 100 Sqn RAF.
Reading between the lines of the RAAF Stn Cdr's letter, there appears to be a feeling that after the beating 100 Sqn took in Malaya, the intense dislike of the new frame and the fact that the RAF Personnel had been in 'exile' for 4 years, the best bet was to start afresh.
So for the purists perhaps a withdrawal of 100 Sqn RAF follow by the arrival of 100 Sqn RAAF is the exact answer.

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 1420
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/2/2009 6:46:47 PM   
timtom


Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline
I agree with Robert that a "purist" interpretation would properly be to set up the two sqns in "withdraw -> return as" relationship.

Sqns which were reformed in the UK are generally called on to withdraw on the date which this happened rather than their historical dates of disbandment since there's no knowing what the exact situation will be in any one game. Further to this attempt to built a bit of elasticity into an OOB which is properly more purist than some might prefer, 100 Sqn RAF is set up to become 100 Sqn RAAF to smoothe the flow ofthe game. In any case I believe there's a reasonable argument for doing this on historical grounds. Along similar lines, 488 Sqn is set up to become 14 Sqn RNZAF which I grant is something more of an interpretation.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?


(in reply to bsq)
Post #: 1421
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/2/2009 6:57:42 PM   
dwbradley

 

Posts: 197
Joined: 3/21/2004
Status: offline
Initial thoughts on the new A2A system.

SUMMARY: HURRAH!!

My experience with AE is limited to a two scenario runs so far, one with the Coral Sea scenario and one with the Guadalcanal scenario. Both were against the AI and I played the Japanese side in both. I completed Coral Sea and have gotten into early September in the Guad. scenario. So what I am offering are obviously early impressions based upon limited data. I hope it isn’t too soon to be offering these impressions.

Overall impression of the new A2A routines:
I am very, very impressed to say the least. The overall sense that I get from each A2A encounter is of a fragmented battle, broken down into individual mini-battles. The breakdown can vary from encounter to encounter so that one cannot expect advantage based solely on weight of numbers in the overall encounter. The dynamic nature of the CAP response adds to the sense of quasi-chaos that is my idea of what it would have been like in the cockpit of one of these machines (especially in the battles of ’42)

Detail thoughts and impressions in no particular order:

1.Wildcats slaughter Bettys. Exactly what one should expect although still a lesson I had to learn. Escort can keep the fighters away from the Bettys but when/if they get to them expect to lose a bunch.

2. Zeros are about where I would expect in fighter vs. fighter duels. About even with Wildcats, a little better than P-40s, and a little better than P-39s. The last is a little bit surprising since I would have ranked the P-39 below the P-40 in its performance and would have expected a bit more Zero kills against this plane. Yes, yes, I know altitude matters, etc., etc. blah, blah. Remember I’m just giving impressions here not fact-based research.

3. Zeros against B-17s. A bit of underperformance by the Zero is my impression. The Japanese inability to deal with the tough and well-armed B-17 is well known. So I would expect Zero CAP to be largely ineffective against these planes. And so it works in AE. But with hundreds of B17 sorties (mostly unescorted) in the books I have not yet seen a single B-17 fall. A few (approx 5) damaged aircraft have not made it back to base. I have seen a few Zeros destroyed by the defensive firepower of the B-17 and I would indeed expect that. I would equally expect to see the occasional downing of a B-17. So this is working well in my estimation but may (repeat MAY) require some tuning of something or other (don’t know what).

4. One of the nice features of the new A2A routines is the relatively high probability that an individual engagement may be broken off. This is in sharp contrast to the duel-to-the-death engagements of its predecessor. The little messages are nice also, or were for a while. This is carping, I know, but after a while the messages detract from the overall fun of watching the battle proceed as they seem to be repeated endlessly. If the messages truly reflect the results of discrete events then I would say there is good purpose in keeping them. If they are window dressing, randomly chosen, when the result of the engagement is the retirement of one of the planes from the battle then maybe a different scheme could be looked at long term. Don’t know exactly what that might be, maybe mostly a standard message (e.g., “Wildcat breaks off engagement”), mixed in with the other messages a low frequency.


Overall, high marks indeed, and please don’t take my comments as anything but constructive (I hope) criticism. This total revamp of the A2A system is a major advance.

Dave Bradley

edit: just ran a few more turns and I did see a Zero on B-17 kill. So the probability is non-zero (no pun intended). Further playing ( maybe a lot more playing) will help me firm up some sort of opinion as to whether this might deserve some tweaking.


< Message edited by dwbradley -- 8/2/2009 10:39:26 PM >

(in reply to timtom)
Post #: 1422
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/2/2009 7:16:55 PM   
R8J


Posts: 238
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: Shelby County, Tennessee
Status: offline
Curious. Why no SC Seahawk?

_____________________________

Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.

Who Dares Wins.

You smell like dead bunnies.

(in reply to dwbradley)
Post #: 1423
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/2/2009 11:02:16 PM   
langleyCV1

 

Posts: 61
Joined: 9/6/2008
From: Berkshire UK
Status: offline
May I start by saying THANKYOU AE IS JUST GREAT!

Now I would like to point out that 488 Sqn RNZAF upgrades to Hurricanes which it should do, But why are they the Dutch artwork version?

Now I will shut up and go back to this Great Game.

Many thanks again.

MJT

(in reply to R8J)
Post #: 1424
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/3/2009 7:02:48 AM   
ussdefiant

 

Posts: 60
Joined: 6/18/2009
Status: offline
Hey there, really good game this is, but a few nit picky things i've noticed while playing Scenario 2 as the Japs:

1. Is it really meant for the one Tojo unit in Canton and the R&D factory in Harbin to be set to the Ki-44, which has no upgrade path at all, instead of the Ki-44-IIa, which activates at the same time and upgrades through all the rest of the Tojo models?

2. The 266th Sentai, for whatever reason, appears to be set to come onto the board with 122 Helens in reserve.

3. The withdrawal date for the Mogami's second floatplane detachment came up, so i sent them off. However, i am failing to see them on the reinforcement list to come back later, whether in December or ever. Is this a bug of some kind, or something to do with Mogami having historically turned into a FP carrier after Midway?

(in reply to langleyCV1)
Post #: 1425
Oops - 8/3/2009 8:08:32 AM   
vettim89


Posts: 3615
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline
Please look at screenie and tell me if I screwed up by having "accept replacements" on or did the game do this by accident. GC scenario vs AI

Oh, the question is how did so many pilots end up in this unit?




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to ussdefiant)
Post #: 1426
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/3/2009 8:42:54 AM   
DBS


Posts: 513
Joined: 4/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq
The specials are in the game and as for 617 being the only ones to drop the 12000lb, that's more down to circumstance than any thing else as they were not the only Lancaster Sqn equipped with specials, 9 Sqn also carried weapons to 12000lb and could have dropped either the Tallboy (as it did on the Tirpitz raids) or the larger HC.
My research so far has turned up the following Squadrons with B Mk I and B Mk III aircraft which were fitted with the mods to allow the carriage of weapons to 12000lb
[snip]
9 Sqn
44 Sqn
57 Sqn (from where 617 often had to borrow trolleys!)
75 (NZ) Sqn
617 Sqn


I may be wrong, but I am by no means convinced that the aircraft modified for 617 to use the 12000 lb HC actually equates to those modified for Tallboy and Grand Slam carriage; the problem may be in the use of "special" vs "Special" to describe the mods. My source for the statement that only 617 were equipped to carry the 12000 HC is the excellent history of UK bombs by Hogben and MacBean, and given the latter was the wartime armament officer for 57 Sqn, I think he might be expected to know whether his own squadron could carry the weapon!

Anyway, the bottom line remains that the 12000 HC was a weapon which had been wholly superseded by Tallboy by 1945. The only use considered vs Japan was for harbour attack, in 1944, but that required a weapon which could carry a delayed action fuse and tests confirmed that the 12000 HC instead would break up on impact so the idea was binned.

The interest in AAR was chiefly a little earlier in the war when the RAF was exploring the possibility of bombing Japan from Burmese bases. Although the experiments had worked well, I think it would have been another matter entirely to have refuelled even small formations reliably.

As for the 8000lb HC, relatively few were carried since it was of dubious effectiveness over and above what could be achieved with the 4000lb, and also it was incompatible with H2S - the diameter of the 8000lb was 4" greater than the 4000lb and I believe the doors had to be slightly bulged as a result.

< Message edited by DBS -- 8/3/2009 9:05:28 AM >

(in reply to bsq)
Post #: 1427
Air units transfer - 8/3/2009 9:49:57 AM   
Fletcher


Posts: 3386
Joined: 10/26/2006
From: Jerez, Spain, EU
Status: offline
Could an air group to jump to other air base and to realize anywhere air operation the same day or it must wait next day to do it. ?
In this case, how many hexes must be considered to avoid any air operations after transfer ?. This is to my own home rules, of course.




_____________________________



WITP-AE, WITE

(in reply to DBS)
Post #: 1428
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/3/2009 12:05:12 PM   
bsq


Posts: 517
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DBS

quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq
The specials are in the game and as for 617 being the only ones to drop the 12000lb, that's more down to circumstance than any thing else as they were not the only Lancaster Sqn equipped with specials, 9 Sqn also carried weapons to 12000lb and could have dropped either the Tallboy (as it did on the Tirpitz raids) or the larger HC.
My research so far has turned up the following Squadrons with B Mk I and B Mk III aircraft which were fitted with the mods to allow the carriage of weapons to 12000lb
[snip]
9 Sqn
44 Sqn
57 Sqn (from where 617 often had to borrow trolleys!)
75 (NZ) Sqn
617 Sqn


I may be wrong, but I am by no means convinced that the aircraft modified for 617 to use the 12000 lb HC actually equates to those modified for Tallboy and Grand Slam carriage; the problem may be in the use of "special" vs "Special" to describe the mods. My source for the statement that only 617 were equipped to carry the 12000 HC is the excellent history of UK bombs by Hogben and MacBean, and given the latter was the wartime armament officer for 57 Sqn, I think he might be expected to know whether his own squadron could carry the weapon!

Anyway, the bottom line remains that the 12000 HC was a weapon which had been wholly superseded by Tallboy by 1945. The only use considered vs Japan was for harbour attack, in 1944, but that required a weapon which could carry a delayed action fuse and tests confirmed that the 12000 HC instead would break up on impact so the idea was binned.

The interest in AAR was chiefly a little earlier in the war when the RAF was exploring the possibility of bombing Japan from Burmese bases. Although the experiments had worked well, I think it would have been another matter entirely to have refuelled even small formations reliably.

As for the 8000lb HC, relatively few were carried since it was of dubious effectiveness over and above what could be achieved with the 4000lb, and also it was incompatible with H2S - the diameter of the 8000lb was 4" greater than the 4000lb and I believe the doors had to be slightly bulged as a result.


With respect your bottom line is nothing of the sort. The Tall Boy was an AP weapon whereas all of the Cookies were HC's or blast weapons, both could be carried by aircraft that were not specials, just modified with the bulged doors. The original specials were designed with the Upkeep in mind, with the latter batch being built specifically with Grand Slam in mind.

We are dealing here with what ifs... so who is to say that only 617 would carry the bombs in a what if scenario. The fact that a Sqn had modified (modified mind not specials) means that it was fitted for the weapon...

My sources, apart from the various books, relate to the fact that I grew up within a couple of miles of where a lot of these weapons were filled and for the last 14 years I have lived at the spiritual home of the aircraft itself. Many of my 'word of mouth' sources are now regrettably 'gone'

There is a lot of hype about 617 Sqn and they may have been the first specialised Lancaster Sqn and the most famous outside of RAF circles, but they were not the only ones. The critical component is not the Sqn's or the crews, it was the ubiquitous nature of the aircraft and it's single uninterrupted weapons bay.

The Lancasters with the bulged doors could carry the 8000lb or 12000lb weapon and it was designed for area effect not pinpoint destruction. The tests were discontinued because of a lack of need as much as the fact that there were issues with the fusing. Technical issues would (had the need been there) have been overcome.

There are a myriad of sources out there claiming this and that, but they relate to what actually happened and in this context we are dealing with potential capability.

(in reply to DBS)
Post #: 1429
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/3/2009 12:34:59 PM   
DBS


Posts: 513
Joined: 4/29/2004
Status: offline
Fine. We will have to agree to disagree. Don't mistake me for a 617 worshipper please.

But my bottom line is indeed sound if one is talking about what should go into the game for official release - there is no evidence that I am aware of that the 12000lb HC featured in the plans for Tiger Force. If you choose to mod it in, good luck.

My basic point is that Tiger Force was drawn from a Bomber Command that had become the peerless destroyer of cities (with all due respect to the B-29s' efforts). They knew what worked. And what worked was the 4000lb HC and the 4lb incendiary. Of course other weapons could and were carried for specific targets. But this game cannot, as I understand it, model that level of flexibility. So if one had to choose one loadout as representative of Tiger Force, it isn't going to be the larger sizes of Cookie. Nor should every squadron be toting Tallboys.

(in reply to bsq)
Post #: 1430
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/3/2009 2:20:31 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSImperator

Hey there, really good game this is, but a few nit picky things i've noticed while playing Scenario 2 as the Japs:

1. Is it really meant for the one Tojo unit in Canton and the R&D factory in Harbin to be set to the Ki-44, which has no upgrade path at all, instead of the Ki-44-IIa, which activates at the same time and upgrades through all the rest of the Tojo models?

2. The 266th Sentai, for whatever reason, appears to be set to come onto the board with 122 Helens in reserve.

3. The withdrawal date for the Mogami's second floatplane detachment came up, so i sent them off. However, i am failing to see them on the reinforcement list to come back later, whether in December or ever. Is this a bug of some kind, or something to do with Mogami having historically turned into a FP carrier after Midway?



1. This is correct. That unit did exist, made up of prototypes.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to ussdefiant)
Post #: 1431
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/3/2009 3:24:07 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline
My only minor gripe so far about AE's air combat is the dearth of fighters in Australia early on.  There are absolutely no squadrons anywhere!  It makes getting ships to Port Moresby much more difficult once Rabaul is handling long range attack planes; even a squadron of Buffalos would help since from time to time Betty comes without her little friends...

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 1432
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/3/2009 3:43:24 PM   
bsq


Posts: 517
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DBS

Fine. We will have to agree to disagree. Don't mistake me for a 617 worshipper please.

But my bottom line is indeed sound if one is talking about what should go into the game for official release - there is no evidence that I am aware of that the 12000lb HC featured in the plans for Tiger Force. If you choose to mod it in, good luck.

My basic point is that Tiger Force was drawn from a Bomber Command that had become the peerless destroyer of cities (with all due respect to the B-29s' efforts). They knew what worked. And what worked was the 4000lb HC and the 4lb incendiary. Of course other weapons could and were carried for specific targets. But this game cannot, as I understand it, model that level of flexibility. So if one had to choose one loadout as representative of Tiger Force, it isn't going to be the larger sizes of Cookie. Nor should every squadron be toting Tallboys.


We are, perhaps, closer to agreement than this trail would suggest. When I modded in the Lancaster in WITP, I used a cookie, 6 x 1080lb incendiary clusters (although I placed them in as individual 4lb devices) and 4 x 1000lb GP's. I didn't even consider the special devices.

I think more than anything, I wanted to point out the fact that the load-out of the Sqns with the special/modified Lancaster's could include these interesting weapons. Equally, the bit that's been overlooked, if the bomb bay fuel tank is being used then the points are all moot as it occupied the space and the weight of the weapon.

At no point did I state that every Lancaster Sqn should go round toting Tallboys, I said that this was for 9 and 617 Sqns. What I actually said was that the 8000 HC and even the 12000 HC should be considered as well as the 4000 HC. Point of fact for the official release - it uses a 4000lb GP - wrong - it should be HC, higher explosive content and less shrapnel. So perhaps at the expense of its anti armour stats it should have its anti-soft one increased?

The proposed role of Tiger Force appears muddled. As you point out they were the ultimate proponents of total war, but as stated earlier - what was left to burn?

They would have required a niche, something they could do and no one else could or they would have been sidelined. The big bay and variety of weapons would have provided that.

One final point here concerns the special as modelled in the stock game. It carries Tallboys but only appears to have the range of a Lancaster carrying a Grandslam. With the smaller weapon it would have had the range of the standard (non-FE) model.

(in reply to DBS)
Post #: 1433
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/3/2009 3:49:51 PM   
DBS


Posts: 513
Joined: 4/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

At no point did I state that every Lancaster Sqn should go round toting Tallboys, I said that this was for 9 and 617 Sqns.

Apologies, misunderstood your listing of squadrons earlier.

quote:


Point of fact for the official release - it uses a 4000lb GP - wrong - it should be HC, higher explosive content and less shrapnel. So perhaps at the expense of its anti armour stats it should have its anti-soft one increased?

Good point.

quote:


One final point here concerns the special as modelled in the stock game. It carries Tallboys but only appears to have the range of a Lancaster carrying a Grandslam. With the smaller weapon it would have had the range of the standard (non-FE) model.

Another good point.

(in reply to bsq)
Post #: 1434
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/3/2009 3:58:37 PM   
bsq


Posts: 517
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline
When looking at the drop tanks for all aircraft, the weight seems to be on the light side across the board...

Just taking the 100 litre tank as an example.

100 Litres of AVGAS = 70 Kg (assuming average SG of 0.7 (I know the range is 0.65 - 0.72 but most use 0.7 as best average))

70 Kg = 154 lb

Load cost of the 100 Litre tank is 150 lb - like I say a bit light as an empty tank weighs something.

Nit picking maybe, but as the tanks get larger so does the discrepancy.  By the time you get to the largest tank you're looking at 50lb out just on the fuel...  so probably nearer 200lb when the tank weight is considered.

(in reply to DBS)
Post #: 1435
RE: Oops - 8/3/2009 5:24:56 PM   
ART11

 

Posts: 22
Joined: 7/27/2009
From: Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Please look at screenie and tell me if I screwed up by having "accept replacements" on or did the game do this by accident. GC scenario vs AI

Oh, the question is how did so many pilots end up in this unit?




I got the same bug. VF-3 and VF-6 have almost 60 pilots. Strange but VF-71 pilots remains at normal level (25). It happends after carrier battle and severe casualities on my side.
It looks like that accept replacements did this.
Also I have a problem with Havoc groups, which on their own decided to move to Port Moresby. I did not anything with this groups, because I have PM overloaded by fighters. After this I move them back to Australia but somee of the damaged planes stay for a while in PM. Game without my involvement created Transport TF to bring them back. How it can happend?

(in reply to vettim89)
Post #: 1436
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/3/2009 5:43:38 PM   
ussdefiant

 

Posts: 60
Joined: 6/18/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli


quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSImperator

Hey there, really good game this is, but a few nit picky things i've noticed while playing Scenario 2 as the Japs:

1. Is it really meant for the one Tojo unit in Canton and the R&D factory in Harbin to be set to the Ki-44, which has no upgrade path at all, instead of the Ki-44-IIa, which activates at the same time and upgrades through all the rest of the Tojo models?

2. The 266th Sentai, for whatever reason, appears to be set to come onto the board with 122 Helens in reserve.

3. The withdrawal date for the Mogami's second floatplane detachment came up, so i sent them off. However, i am failing to see them on the reinforcement list to come back later, whether in December or ever. Is this a bug of some kind, or something to do with Mogami having historically turned into a FP carrier after Midway?



1. This is correct. That unit did exist, made up of prototypes.


oh, i knew about the prototype squadron and such, i just question the factory in Harbin only building more of them without upgrading to anything better.

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 1437
Blenheim IF - 8/3/2009 6:12:44 PM   
DBS


Posts: 513
Joined: 4/29/2004
Status: offline
Sad to say, fear you have been far too generous in giving 27 Sqn's Blenheim IFs AI III radar. I have never come across any evidence that they sported radar; neither Bloody Shambles nor Warner's encyclopedic history of the Blenheim mention the radar; the one photo I have seen of a 27 Sqn aircraft shows it very much minus the aerial fit; and in any case only 25 sets of AI III were ever built and they were used by Fighter Command 1939-40. Given that 27 Squadron converted to the Blenheim in India; had not been home since; the struggle to equip the entire Fighter Command night fighter force with radar in 1941; and the absence of any major perceived Japanese night bombing threat, I would be very surprised if the squadron had any AI sets or personnel trained in its use.

Instead, the IF should have a residual bombing capability - this is the role in which they served when Malaya was invaded. Although the bomb bay was unavailable thanks to the MG pack, they could carry two external Light Series Carriers further aft, each carrying 4x20lb (Device 1875) or 4x40lb GPs (not in database as far as I can see).

Difficult to say whether or not the Blenheim IVs should have the chin turret or not - 24 Sqn's in 1941 did not, but 113 Sqn's aircraft did in 1942.

Lastly, the Blenheim V comes on stream too late - currently Dec 42. 113 had already re-equipped with Vs by October 42. Given that the Mk V was available in squadron strength by June 42, I would suggest a start date in this game of say July or August 42, since it will take a little time to get enough replacements to convert a squadron.

David

< Message edited by DBS -- 8/3/2009 6:54:24 PM >

(in reply to ussdefiant)
Post #: 1438
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/3/2009 11:00:27 PM   
timtom


Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: R8J

Curious. Why no SC Seahawk?


I blame the naval team...

An oversight, but the time this was pointed out the art team was already in lockdown, lets-just-get-the-other-550+-sides/tops done, awright-mode.

Tomlabel is the resident Seahawk fanboy and I doubt he'll leave it alone :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: langleyCV1

Now I would like to point out that 488 Sqn RNZAF upgrades to Hurricanes which it should do, But why are they the Dutch artwork version?



Deliberately set up that way (long story), but you question has caused me to rethink it...fiddle, fiddle...right, sorted - from patch 1 anyway :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSImperator

3. The withdrawal date for the Mogami's second floatplane detachment came up, so i sent them off. However, i am failing to see them on the reinforcement list to come back later, whether in December or ever. Is this a bug of some kind, or something to do with Mogami having historically turned into a FP carrier after Midway?



Bug (typo). Wrong value in withdraw field.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Please look at screenie and tell me if I screwed up by having "accept replacements" on or did the game do this by accident. GC scenario vs AI

Oh, the question is how did so many pilots end up in this unit?



Hmm, the player is supposed to be able to to allocate a 1/3 (IIRC) pilot overstrength, but this might be a bug. Please post with tech support.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

My only minor gripe so far about AE's air combat is the dearth of fighters in Australia early on. There are absolutely no squadrons anywhere! It makes getting ships to Port Moresby much more difficult once Rabaul is handling long range attack planes; even a squadron of Buffalos would help since from time to time Betty comes without her little friends...


Well, there's a reason why the US send three PG's to Ozland post-haste ;)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

When looking at the drop tanks for all aircraft, the weight seems to be on the light side across the board...

Just taking the 100 litre tank as an example.

100 Litres of AVGAS = 70 Kg (assuming average SG of 0.7 (I know the range is 0.65 - 0.72 but most use 0.7 as best average))

70 Kg = 154 lb

Load cost of the 100 Litre tank is 150 lb - like I say a bit light as an empty tank weighs something.

Nit picking maybe, but as the tanks get larger so does the discrepancy. By the time you get to the largest tank you're looking at 50lb out just on the fuel... so probably nearer 200lb when the tank weight is considered.



All true, but DT load costs don't actually do anything AFAIK :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ART_11

Also I have a problem with Havoc groups, which on their own decided to move to Port Moresby. I did not anything with this groups, because I have PM overloaded by fighters. After this I move them back to Australia but somee of the damaged planes stay for a while in PM. Game without my involvement created Transport TF to bring them back. How it can happend?


Bug. Please post in tech forum.


quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSImperator


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli


quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSImperator

1. Is it really meant for the one Tojo unit in Canton and the R&D factory in Harbin to be set to the Ki-44, which has no upgrade path at all, instead of the Ki-44-IIa, which activates at the same time and upgrades through all the rest of the Tojo models?



1. This is correct. That unit did exist, made up of prototypes.


oh, i knew about the prototype squadron and such, i just question the factory in Harbin only building more of them without upgrading to anything better.


Ah, I'm not entirely up to speed with everything the Scot has done on scn 2. An Ki-44 -> Ki-44-IIa autoupgrade would seem to be in order for this scenario.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DBS

Lastly, the Blenheim V comes on stream too late - currently Dec 42. 113 had already re-equipped with Vs by October 42. Given that the Mk V was available in squadron strength by June 42, I would suggest a start date in this game of say July or August 42, since it will take a little time to get enough replacements to convert a squadron.



Hmm, I have 113 Sqn receiving Mk V's from October and phasing the Mk IV's out by end December (from Jefford)

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?


(in reply to R8J)
Post #: 1439
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/3/2009 11:40:20 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
This is a good place for UK squadrons info http://www.rafweb.org/SqnMark113-115.htm#113

Clicking in Aircraft & Markings shows side views of planes and it's employ dates.

Also 113sqn Website:

http://113squadron.com/home_of_113_squadron.htm

(in reply to timtom)
Post #: 1440
Page:   <<   < prev  46 47 [48] 49 50   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups Page: <<   < prev  46 47 [48] 49 50   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

0.656