RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

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: AE Naval and OOB Issues

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: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Page: << < prev 19 20 [21] 22 23 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/7/2009 7:31:31 PM

Herrbear

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

IIRC there were two subs in Cavite undergoing refit and in stock started with damage. This no longer seems to be the case. Was this not correct before? Thank you.

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 601

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/7/2009 8:15:38 PM

erstad

Posts: 1944
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: erstad
On the ship screen, the "only show ships with pending upgrades" button also shows ships whose only "upgrade" is a conversion. It would be nice if it only showed upgrades. One generally wants all the upgrades, but not all the conversions, and the more conversions pending the harder it is to find the one or two ships that missed their upgrades.

Interestingly enough, there are five buttons at the bottom of the screen and room for six (two rows of three), so we could even add a "Show ships with available conversions"!

The �pending� note only shows upgrades/conversions that are available RIGHT NOW. If it�s �42 you will not see either upgrades or conversions available in �43. If the �upgrade� button doesn�t show, it means there�s no upgrade scheduled AT THAT TIME. If only conversions show, it means only conversions are available.

Understand that, but my point is that I don't want to see the conversions in the list. As far as i can tell, there's nothing in the list that distinguishes an upgrade from a conversion, so I need to go to each ship one-by-one to see if it's an upgrade (which I will do at the first convenient opportunity) or a conversion (which I may never do for the next five years)

My thought would be to make a separate conversions screen, since there's room for a sixth button

Alternately, since this may be the only screen in the entire game without asterisks

, maybe the "conversion only" ships on the screen could be asterisked.

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 602

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/7/2009 8:56:28 PM

mikemike

Posts: 501
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: a maze of twisty little passages, all different
Status: offline

OOB issue: Most British DDs have incorrect armament.

1: The Admiralty 'V', 'W', 'S', and 'T' classes are defined with 4.5in guns instead of the correct 4in Mk IV; additionally there was no such thing as an Admiralty 'T' class; all those WWI ships with 'T' names belonged to the Admiralty 'S' class (Originally, there were DDs with 'S'- and 'T' names that belonged to the Admiralty 'R' class, but by 1939, the only 'R' class in service was HMS Skate operating in Britain.) The 'S' class should also be readily convertible between the DD form with three guns, four Torpedo tubes, and DC throwers and the DM form with two guns and 40 mines; all the ships of this class in the Far East were modified for that and in the run-up before Pearl Harbor frequently switched between forms as required. HMS Thracian in Hong Kong started off as a DM, laid a mine field on December 8th, and converted to the DD form during the replenishment periods between patrols, so I think conversion delay should be 1-2 days with no Sys damage.

2: The older DDs, 'A' to 'I' class, exchanged their aft Torpedo tubes for a 12pdr AA gun from mid-1940 on, with the exception of the 'D' class that was built with the 12pdr; likewise the 'J' and 'N' class exchanged their aft tubes for a 4in AA gun. In the AE OOB, all these ships have both the additional AA guns and both their torpedo tube sets, which clearly isn't correct.

3: From the 'S' class onwards, all DDs were equipped with a twin 40mm Bofors in a Hazemeyer mount amidships and 20mm Oerlikons in the bridge wings and on both sides of the searchlight; depending on availability, some ships had quad 2pdr or twin 20mm instead of the twin Bofors. When transferred to the Eastern Fleet, most DDs exchanged some or all of the 20mm for single 40mm Bofors or 2pdr guns; many also received a single Bofors instead of the searchlight. HMS Saumarez carried the twin Hazemeyer Bofors, four single 40mm Bofors instead of the searchlight, and twin power-operated 20mm mounts in the bridge wings. The stock OOB doesn't represent that correctly.

4: Stock AE has all British DD carrying six DC throwers and two DC racks. This is incorrect. Many DD, especially the classes equipped with mine-sweeping gear (the 'J' class, for instance), originally carried just two DC throwers and 20 Depth charges. From 1940 onwards, fleet destroyers generally had four DC throwers and two DC racks, while escort conversions had eight DC throwers, two DC racks and a Hedgehog.

_____________________________

DON�T PANIC - IT�S ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!

(in reply to Herrbear)

Post #: 603

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/7/2009 9:49:44 PM

Monter_Trismegistos

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline

Could someone change names of SU submarines from ShCh to Shch - to depict that Shch is a single letter in Russian.

Also in seydlitz's AAR I saw a DD Revanch and DD Buistro - what's that? Could someone give a screenshot of Soviet Navy. I hope there isn't more misspellings.

< Message edited by Monter_Trismegistos -- 9/8/2009 10:22:11 AM >

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to mikemike)

Post #: 604

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/8/2009 1:44:07 AM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

mikemike i agree, just one thing but i never saw a British DD that went from 20mm to 2 Pdr single mounts. I have seen the inverse 2pdr to 20mm. Looking at specifications of 2pdr Low Velocity single mount shows why.

In my list for war in Med i have 12 pdr in spring 1940 replacing the last TT bank.
20mm arriving in 1941 March/April.
40mm Bofors i don't have any in 1942.

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)

Post #: 605

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/8/2009 2:17:45 AM

Iridium

Posts: 932
Joined: 4/1/2005
From: Jersey
Status: offline

You probably all know this but British DDs sorely lacked in AA. They rarely got DP mounts as their main armament and even when they did they were usually hampered by bad fire control systems. Even in 1945 the UK was building DDs with low angle guns...something about an inability to make them iirc. Seems strange to me but eh, must have been something to do with the mounts themselves rather than the gun barrels. Getting DP mounts to move fast, without technical problems and with low maintenance.

I recall reading some of their DDs getting refits including the removal of a main gun for a dual 3" DP mount or some silliness like that. Not impressive but better than nothing I guess.

Where's Tiornu when you need him? I think it was his book I read this in, he probably remembers it better than I.

< Message edited by Iridium -- 9/8/2009 2:22:20 AM >

_____________________________

Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.

"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 606

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/8/2009 12:25:10 PM

eMonticello

Posts: 525
Joined: 3/15/2002
Status: offline

Shouldn't Nimitz' old command (AD-13 Rigel) actually be the repair ship AR-11 Rigel (although I would add system damage to reflect that she was still being converted on Dec 7)?

http://ibiblio.net/hyperwar/USN/ships/AR/AR-11_Rigel.html

http://wapedia.mobi/en/USS_Rigel_(AR-11)

_____________________________

Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example. -- Pudd'nhead Wilson

(in reply to Iridium)

Post #: 607

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/8/2009 2:47:11 PM

drw61

Posts: 894
Joined: 6/30/2004
From: South Carolina
Status: offline

Moved to the List of User Requested Gameplay Changes thread

< Message edited by drw61 -- 9/8/2009 3:31:30 PM >

(in reply to eMonticello)

Post #: 608

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/8/2009 9:29:42 PM

Monter_Trismegistos

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline

Another changes of names of Soviet Navy ships.

CA Lazar Kaganovich should be simply Kaganovich without first name
DD Tblisi should be Tbilisi.
DD Rezhtelnyi should be Reshitelnyi
DD Rezhvyi should be Rezvyi
DD Revostnyi should be Revnostnyi

And there are missing:
DDL Baku (withdrawal mid 42)
DD Razumnyi (withdrawal mid 42)
DD Razyashchyi
DD Razyaryonnyi (withdrawal mid 42)

< Message edited by Monter_Trismegistos -- 9/8/2009 9:30:41 PM >

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to drw61)

Post #: 609

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/9/2009 6:17:42 AM

Pascal_slith

Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

SCEN 1

Ship 14070 Ha-232 has a delay of 460230. February has only 28 days in 1946 (and every other year )�

Except for leap years which have 29! 1940 and 1944 were leap years...

_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(

(in reply to Bliztk)

Post #: 610

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/9/2009 8:46:21 AM

Akos Gergely

Posts: 733
Joined: 4/8/2004
From: Hungary, Bp.
Status: offline

I've already mentioned this but seems it did not get fixed in the Patch 1 beta: in the Guadalcanal scenario USS Maryland arrives in her original fit, whereas Colorado arrives in her 10/1942 fit- They should be the same - there is photographic evidence that Maryland had a cut down main cagemast by Nov.

Pls copy+paste the link as navsource does not allow for direct linking.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/014640a.jpg

http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/014640b.jpg

_____________________________

My blog: https://warshipprojects.com/

(in reply to Pascal_slith)

Post #: 611

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/10/2009 1:17:50 AM

mikemike

Posts: 501
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: a maze of twisty little passages, all different
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

mikemike i agree, just one thing but i never saw a British DD that went from 20mm to 2 Pdr single mounts. I have seen the inverse 2pdr to 20mm. Looking at specifications of 2pdr Low Velocity single mount shows why.

In my list for war in Med i have 12 pdr in spring 1940 replacing the last TT bank.
20mm arriving in 1941 March/April.
40mm Bofors i don't have any in 1942.

Yes, 'A' to 'I' class ships swapped their amidships 2pdr or quad .5in MG for 20mm early in the war - post-Dunkirk. 1941 seems plausible.

Ships destined for the Eastern Fleet were intended to exchange their 20mm for 40mm Bofors due the Kamikaze threat. As not enough Bofors guns could be made available, some ships received power-driven 2pdr single mounts (Mk XV or Mk XVI) instead, for instance several 'W' class ships including HMS Wizard. Whelp and Wessex had quad 2pdr instead of the Hazemeyer twin. The 'Z' class carried 2pdr single mounts in varying configurations in addition to the Hazemeyer mount - Myngs had 2 2pdr, one Bofors and 2 20mm, Zephyr had four 2pdr. The whole 'CA' class had four 2pdr single mounts.

The light AA armament of Eastern Fleet DDs is a mess - practically every ship seems to have had its own configuration.

The first class equipped with 40mm Bofors was the 'S' class - first ship in service was Scorpion in May, 1943.

< Message edited by mikemike -- 9/10/2009 1:44:44 AM >

_____________________________

DON�T PANIC - IT�S ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 612

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/10/2009 1:41:29 AM

mikemike

Posts: 501
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: a maze of twisty little passages, all different
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iridium

You probably all know this but British DDs sorely lacked in AA. They rarely got DP mounts as their main armament and even when they did they were usually hampered by bad fire control systems. Even in 1945 the UK was building DDs with low angle guns...something about an inability to make them iirc. Seems strange to me but eh, must have been something to do with the mounts themselves rather than the gun barrels. Getting DP mounts to move fast, without technical problems and with low maintenance.

I recall reading some of their DDs getting refits including the removal of a main gun for a dual 3" DP mount or some silliness like that. Not impressive but better than nothing I guess.

The Tribals that survived into 1941 swapped their 'X' 4.7in mount for a Mk XIX 4in twin; the Australian and Canadian Tribals were built that way. Four ships of the 'L' class had four 4in twin mounts, the 'O' class had five single 4in DP mounts. There are those that argue the British DDs would have been better served with an armament consisting of twin 4in DP mounts instead of 4.5 or 4.7 in low-angle mounts, as most of the threat came from aircraft, not surface ships. The last utility-size class, the 'Weapon' or 'Battleaxe' class, had that kind of armament.

Concerning medium-caliber DP mounts, Savage (in service June 8th, 1943) had a 4.5in twin DP mount forwards for trial purposes; the Battle class (in service from 1945) had two twin 4.5in DP mounts forwards, and the 'Daring' class was designed for those Mk VI twin turrets that were the hallmark of postwar RN frigates; however this class was ordered only a few months before the end of the war. You're correct in saying it took the Britons quite a while to get their act together, but at least they managed - in contrast to the Kriegsmarine.

_____________________________

DON�T PANIC - IT�S ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!

(in reply to Iridium)

Post #: 613

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/10/2009 3:55:14 PM

Iridium

Posts: 932
Joined: 4/1/2005
From: Jersey
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikemike

The Tribals that survived into 1941 swapped their 'X' 4.7in mount for a Mk XIX 4in twin; the Australian and Canadian Tribals were built that way. Four ships of the 'L' class had four 4in twin mounts, the 'O' class had five single 4in DP mounts. There are those that argue the British DDs would have been better served with an armament consisting of twin 4in DP mounts instead of 4.5 or 4.7 in low-angle mounts, as most of the threat came from aircraft, not surface ships. The last utility-size class, the 'Weapon' or 'Battleaxe' class, had that kind of armament.

Concerning medium-caliber DP mounts, Savage (in service June 8th, 1943) had a 4.5in twin DP mount forwards for trial purposes; the Battle class (in service from 1945) had two twin 4.5in DP mounts forwards, and the 'Daring' class was designed for those Mk VI twin turrets that were the hallmark of postwar RN frigates; however this class was ordered only a few months before the end of the war. You're correct in saying it took the Britons quite a while to get their act together, but at least they managed - in contrast to the Kriegsmarine.

Indeed, I recall reading that the Admiralty was at fault to a degree. They were willing to shell out the cash for torpedoes but not for expensive, high maintenance DP mounts. This attitude changed eventually but the damage was done and they fell behind in design and construction of these turrets.

Odd considering that the UK were the first to invent Radar and apply it to early warning systems etc but ignore weapons to take down said aircraft on ships.

Yes, the Tribals and their successors were perhaps the only DDs well equipped for AA during the war. I really need to find that book somewhere but it's packed away for moving...

_____________________________

Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.

"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture

(in reply to mikemike)

Post #: 614

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/10/2009 6:03:15 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

This stuff is very interesting, but could I ask you guys to move it to a better place? This is supposed to be for bugs and issues. I know this is supposed to be an issue, but a single mention is enough. This is a big game, with big code, and big data. Please leave room. Thank you.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Iridium)

Post #: 615

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/10/2009 6:12:56 PM

John Lansford

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline

Has anyone found a US tanker that wouldn't load fuel or oil? I've got one at LA that no matter what I do, won't load anything. I noticed this when I had it in a TF with another tanker loading oil for Brisbane, and saw the other tanker had loaded oil but not the other one.

Thinking I'd added it later, I ordered the oil unloaded, then started the load process anew. One loaded oil, the other sat there. Unloaded the oil again, started loading fuel. Again, one loaded fuel, the other sat there.

I'm at work now so I don't have the name, but it's a typical commercial tanker, nothing special about it.

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 616

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/10/2009 6:28:39 PM

Jzanes

Posts: 471
Joined: 11/18/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Has anyone found a US tanker that wouldn't load fuel or oil?� I've got one at LA that no matter what I do, won't load anything.� I noticed this when I had it in a TF with another tanker loading oil for Brisbane, and saw the other tanker had loaded oil but not the other one.

Thinking I'd added it later, I ordered the oil unloaded, then started the load process anew.� One loaded oil, the other sat there.� Unloaded the oil again, started loading fuel.� Again, one loaded fuel, the other sat there.�

I'm at work now so I don't have the name, but it's a typical commercial tanker, nothing special about it.

I had the same thing happen when trying to load oil for oz from LA. In my case, I had two large tankers and neither one of them loaded oil no matter what I tried. I finally gave up after 4 or 5 turns. I haven't had this problem anywhere else other than LA. Is there something off with LA and loading oil/fuel?

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 617

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/10/2009 9:10:37 PM

Monter_Trismegistos

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline

Please delete Soviet ships (old Noviks):
DD Buistro
DD Strelstsvo
DD Revanch.

There were no such ships. Where did you (the devs) found them?

You should add 5 escort ships of Shtorm/Uragan/Tayfun class instead.

Rename Soviet minesweepers:
AM Strela to Stryela (to be consistent with Conways)
AM Podsekate to Podsekatyel (missing L, Y added to be consistent with Conways)

Add 8th Soviet minesweeper:
AM Paravan

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to Jzanes)

Post #: 618

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/10/2009 9:52:41 PM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jzanes

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Has anyone found a US tanker that wouldn't load fuel or oil?� I've got one at LA that no matter what I do, won't load anything.� I noticed this when I had it in a TF with another tanker loading oil for Brisbane, and saw the other tanker had loaded oil but not the other one.

Thinking I'd added it later, I ordered the oil unloaded, then started the load process anew.� One loaded oil, the other sat there.� Unloaded the oil again, started loading fuel.� Again, one loaded fuel, the other sat there.�

I'm at work now so I don't have the name, but it's a typical commercial tanker, nothing special about it.

I had the same thing happen when trying to load oil for oz from LA. In my case, I had two large tankers and neither one of them loaded oil no matter what I tried. I finally gave up after 4 or 5 turns. I haven't had this problem anywhere else other than LA. Is there something off with LA and loading oil/fuel?

I've had this happen once or twice. Put the ships in a new TF and the problem went away.

(in reply to Jzanes)

Post #: 619

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/11/2009 12:46:11 PM

JuanG

Posts: 906
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline

Scenario 10 Ironman has two ships called 'Asama' for Japan. One Tone class and one Mogami class.

_____________________________

Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 620

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/11/2009 3:37:33 PM

Roko

Posts: 36
Joined: 4/4/2008
Status: offline

Typo : ship 1370 Bankok Maru AMC ( and class 2024 )

should be Bangkok Maru
http://www.combinedfleet.com/Bangkok_c.htm

(in reply to JuanG)

Post #: 621

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/11/2009 4:15:52 PM

oldman45

Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

This got missed in patch 1

ID 11316 AFDB-2 starts in Portland. The dry dock is too big to make it down the river.

(At least I could not get it to move) Suggest it start in Seattle or Mare Island like the others.

(in reply to Roko)

Post #: 622

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/11/2009 5:29:47 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

This got missed in patch 1

ID 11316 AFDB-2 starts in Portland. The dry dock is too big to make it down the river.

(At least I could not get it to move) Suggest it start in Seattle or Mare Island like the others.

Missed that one. Ok, patch-2. Seattle, or maybe Astoria.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to oldman45)

Post #: 623

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/11/2009 7:43:34 PM

Buck Beach

Posts: 1973
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline

A few items relating to various devices on primarily U.S. ship classes. I am certainly far from being an expert so I will just throw these out for consideration.

Class 732 &733 Aux have their DC device 1617 (& 1620 for the 733) as a Center facing (should these be rear?)

747 Gearing DDR AA has is it's DC device 1620 facing left (should this be rear?)

753 & 754 Active DC devices (1617 & 1620 respectively) facing Center (should these be rear)

764 Tacoma DC devices 1620 (times 8) facing Center (the ship already has 2 DC 1617 racks, shouldn't these 8 be throw weapons K or Y guns with facing determined by the weapon?)

778 SC-453 has DC device 1616 (K-gun x 2) facing Center (shouldn't there be one on each right and left side?)

802 & 804 have their DC devices 1614 (Y-guns) on each side of the ship (aren't these center line weapons)

(in reply to Herrbear)

Post #: 624

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/11/2009 7:46:29 PM

Montbrun

Posts: 1498
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: offline

v1084d - Dutch PG "Soerabaja" shows a capacity of 500 Troops / 500 Cargo, which it doesn't have...

(in reply to Buck Beach)

Post #: 625

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/11/2009 7:54:41 PM

Don Bowen

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter

v1084d - Dutch PG "Soerabaja" shows a capacity of 500 Troops / 500 Cargo, which it doesn't have...

Not sure about how much capacity, but she was used as a transport to move troops from Java to Timor.

(in reply to Montbrun)

Post #: 626

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/11/2009 7:54:58 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

A few items relating to various devices on primarily U.S. ship classes. I am certainly far from being an expert so I will just throw these out for consideration.

Understand Buck, and will fix as we can, for patch-2. fyi, DC facings have nothing to do with nothing. ASW routine looks at # of DCs, # of ammo, and goes boom, boom, boom. In this case, the editor is way more grainy than the code, so tweaking data will have no impact on effect, so it's a trivial change and will be done. Ciao. John

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Buck Beach)

Post #: 627

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/11/2009 7:58:34 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter
v1084d - Dutch PG "Soerabaja" shows a capacity of 500 Troops / 500 Cargo, which it doesn't have...

Not sure about how much capacity, but she was used as a transport to move troops from Java to Timor.

Which it does have.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 628

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/11/2009 9:06:40 PM

Montbrun

Posts: 1498
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter
v1084d - Dutch PG "Soerabaja" shows a capacity of 500 Troops / 500 Cargo, which it doesn't have...

Not sure about how much capacity, but she was used as a transport to move troops from Java to Timor.

Which it does have.