Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
Speaking of which, does anyone have any data on coastal tankers in the Philippines? Not Hai Kwan or La Estrella Caltex, which were chartered to the army and appear in the list of official vessels, but merchant tankers not taken over by the military.

Same question for Burma and India. Hell, might as well ask about Australia and New Zealand too!

Don, the pdf file at www.uscg.mil/History/webcutters/Onondaga_WPG_79. contains over 25 ships in Alaskan waters not in scenario 6. I can't imagine you don't already have these so I won't list them in an email to JWE, unless you request it.

I have been hunting and pecking for da babes in the areas you requested but they are as scarce as hen's teeth.

We do seem to have most of them. One or two are outside the bounds - Northwestern was a station ship and I think I recongnized a tug. Will check the list.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
Speaking of which, does anyone have any data on coastal tankers in the Philippines? Not Hai Kwan or La Estrella Caltex, which were chartered to the army and appear in the list of official vessels, but merchant tankers not taken over by the military.

Same question for Burma and India. Hell, might as well ask about Australia and New Zealand too!

Don, the pdf file at www.uscg.mil/History/webcutters/Onondaga_WPG_79. contains over 25 ships in Alaskan waters not in scenario 6. I can't imagine you don't already have these so I won't list them in an email to JWE, unless you request it.

I have been hunting and pecking for da babes in the areas you requested but they are as scarce as hen's teeth.

We do seem to have most of them. One or two are outside the bounds - Northwestern was a station ship and I think I recongnized a tug. Will check the list.

Yeah. The problem with the Libertys, etc. is so many just showed for a voyage or 2 and then went away. Long enough to get on a list, but not much else. We probably have several score more Libertys than actually served full-time in the Pacific, so there's enough to fill anyone's Christmas stocking. Just ignore the names, in order to protect the guilty.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
I certainly appreciate your point here JWE about the cycling of the merchant ships between with Pacific and Atlantic theaters. I sort of look at it this way, for every one that we do know left a footprint in the Pacific, there are probably many times that number that similarly made their way to the Pacific from the Atlantic, that we don't know about(including the allusive USAT ships).

I would hope they would balance themselves out if we just show any of those we see in the Pacific as part of the Pacific fleet, UNLESS, we do see a withdrawal date.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
I certainly appreciate your point here JWE about the cycling of the merchant ships between with Pacific and Atlantic theaters. I sort of look at it this way, for every one that we do know left a footprint in the Pacific, there are probably many times that number that similarly made their way to the Pacific from the Atlantic, that we don't know about(including the allusive USAT ships).

I would hope they would balance themselves out if we just show any of those we see in the Pacific as part of the Pacific fleet, UNLESS, we do see a withdrawal date.

Oh, Lord, can you imagine the howls if we did withdrawals and returns for freighters!? Jesus, Mary and Patrick save me from that lynch mob!

What I'll do is go thru the Liberty list and assign all the ones you note to NoPac. If we're missing some, I'll just rename somebody in the alphabetical list, and assign it to NoPac too. Ain't a perfect solution, but should let you and Don have the right bebes at the right place at the right time, all tickety-boo.

btw, got some good sh#t-hot data on USATs in Alaska theater. Keep it coming, pal. Between you and Don, we're down to looking at 250 ton fishing trawlers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
With the push back of the Patch 2 until around November 10, any chance of Da Babes mod will be included or released around that date?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
With the push back of the Patch 2 until around November 10, any chance of Da Babes mod will be included or released around that date?

Maybe some small portions will be included, but the scen, in general, is way out of scope for an official AE release. Release for Da Babes, is as soon as we can do it. I'm as impatient as you are, so ...

There's a lot of stuff to do. Besides all the gazillion ships (on both sides), Don reminded me that we have to do a big revamp of LCUs with NavSup: much like what you are talking about for your Alaska mod.

We need to redo all Nav HQs, and all existing Nav BFs, and add a bunch of stuff that must be designated as BF, but actually represents Port Service Bns, and other such units. The Japanese get Eng Transport Bns (Brady was instrumental on these), and yadda, yadda. The whole concept of NavSup is going to be redirected. Tons of work, but oh, how worthwhile.

And drydocks (for both sides) of multiple sizes; and data consolidation for gun parameters for SurfCom and AACom; and ship upgrade/convert schedules according to our opinions/schedules; and ... woof!

We want this to happen as much as you do (probably more so).So you must have patience. It won't be much longer.

Ciao. John

quote:

ORIGINAL: Central Blue

I don't know how hard you are looking at the shore side stuff. Some interesting stuff here towards the bottom of the link describing military facilities in California.

http://www.militarymuseum.org/HistoryWWII.html

The naval section seems to have the most detail and separate articles -- almost a shoreside naval OOB really:

http://www.militarymuseum.org/NvPosts.html

Looks like it was taken from this source:

http://www.ibiblio.net/hyperwar//USN/ref/USN-Act/index.html Which I'll bet you guy have already found.

I think the East Bay (Alameda) is under-represented for Naval support, given what should be in that hex: Oakland Army Terminal, Point Molate, Port Chicago, Alameda NAS, and the Coast Guard base at then Government Island.

And the Bay Area should really have some refinery capacity: Shell at Martinez and Standard oil at Richmond. But also Tidewater-Associated at Avon and Amorco, and Union Oil at Oelum. All would be in the Alameda hex. All were supplied by pipeline from inland oil fields.

Anyway. I am really looking forward to this, even if it's just all of the extra vessels to keep track of.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

quote:

ORIGINAL: Central Blue

I don't know how hard you are looking at the shore side stuff. Some interesting stuff here towards the bottom of the link describing military facilities in California.

http://www.militarymuseum.org/HistoryWWII.html

The naval section seems to have the most detail and separate articles -- almost a shoreside naval OOB really:

http://www.militarymuseum.org/NvPosts.html

Looks like it was taken from this source:

http://www.ibiblio.net/hyperwar//USN/ref/USN-Act/index.html Which I'll bet you guy have already found.

I think the East Bay (Alameda) is under-represented for Naval support, given what should be in that hex: Oakland Army Terminal, Point Molate, Port Chicago, Alameda NAS, and the Coast Guard base at then Government Island.

And the Bay Area should really have some refinery capacity: Shell at Martinez and Standard oil at Richmond. But also Tidewater-Associated at Avon and Amorco, and Union Oil at Oelum. All would be in the Alameda hex. All were supplied by pipeline from inland oil fields.

Anyway. I am really looking forward to this, even if it's just all of the extra vessels to keep track of.

I agree with the oil production for the area, but, I think that lies outside the mod in Andrew Brown's world.
As far as the Alameda base originally I thought the same, but, when the war broke out I don't think it had built up yet (same goes for Port Hueneme). They did have the USCG base that was home to the area's Cutters.

USS St. Louis firing on Guam, July 1944. The Cardinals and Browns faced each other in the World Series that year

quote:

ORIGINAL: Central Blue


Point Molate opened at some point in 1941. Port Chicago/CNWS some time in 1942.

Per Oakland Army Terminal:

http://www.militarymuseum.org/OaklandArmyBase.html

1940. The San Francisco Port of Embarkation Board of Officers recommended expanding the Port of Embarkation at Fort Mason, California, and also recommended that waterfront areas in the partially developed Oakland Outer Harbor be acquired to meet expansion needs.

1941. In January, the first land was acquired following War Department approval of the expansion plan. Base operations started on a limited basis in February, using existing site
facilities. Landfill and building construction started in April. “Port and General Depot” was the initial designation of the installation. In December, the “Oakland Sub-Port of the San Francisco Port of Embarkation,” with headquarters at Fort Mason, was officially commissioned.

1942. The Administration Area was officially commissioned and designated as “Camp John T. Knight.”

1943. The Integrated Terminal Facility was completed at a cost of $35 million. All waterfront areas of the base, including the piers, wharves, and warehouses, received the name “Oakland Army Base,” effective January 1944.



Per Alameda: http://www.militarymuseum.org/NASAlameda.html

In 1934 the city of Alameda built an air strip called Benton Field on reclaimed land at the north end of the island. It was built for two reasons; for the immediate use of Pan American Airways, and as an incentive to attract the Navy to the community of Alameda. The Navy studied the site, accepted Alameda's offer, and in 1938 began building a large air station here that could support four aircraft carrier groups, five patrol squadrons, two utility squadrons, have facilities for complete plane and engine overhaul, piers to dock two aircraft carriers and several outlying air fields. The new naval station, named U.S. Naval Air Station, Alameda, became the Navy's "Aviation Gateway to the Pacific". Construction wasn't yet complete when the U.S. went to war in Dec. 1941, but the air station's personnel began performing wartime duties with what they had available. Offshore and inshore air patrols were begun, air cover for convoys was provided and the station became a ferry point for fleet air units going elsewhere.In late March 1942 the aircraft carrier "Hornet" arrived at NAS, Alameda and 16 Army B-25 bombers were hoisted aboard. The Hornet then departed under great secrecy on April 2. These were the planes of General Jimmy Doolittle's Raiders that bombed Tokyo and other cities in Japan on April 18, 1942.

During World War II, this was one of the Navy's busiest air stations with air units, carrier groups, supplies, numerous naval personnel and sometimes VIP's passing through on their way to the Pacific or to points east. Actually, construction never stopped at NAS, Alameda during the war and by 1945 it was a huge facility with 3600 officers and 29,000 enlisted personnel.


All of those facilities are in the hex labeled Alameda. So yeah, starts medium, but got really, really big. But maybe I should go beat this drum in another thread.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
Cool John, I am waiting patiently.

I have toyed with using the addition of an adjusted USN Port Svc Det (TOE ID 2406 making them static), to some locations w/o naval BFs, to represent cargo handlers but I really have no basis for the numbers. I choose to wait for the mod and then tweak to add USCG base units and support.

Thanks you guys I will very much enjoy the Mod when you get it done.

Buck

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
John - this naval support stuff sounds interesting (I haven't read the rest of the thread, so I'm not saying the rest isn't!). After you've had a chance to flesh it out and bounce it around, do you guys plan to lobby for retrofitting into the main scenario (#1, etc.)?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
John - this naval support stuff sounds interesting (I haven't read the rest of the thread, so I'm not saying the rest isn't!). After you've had a chance to flesh it out and bounce it around, do you guys plan to lobby for retrofitting into the main scenario (#1, etc.)?

No, Sir. Da Babes has some significant differences that the official scenarios can't support (they would kill the AI).

Da Babes is contemplated as a PBEM specific alternative to the official AE scenarios. It will be as close as humanly possible to 'official' AE, but have a wealth of 'side dishes' for folks to feed off. Very much like WiTP's CHS, but hopefully more tightly integrated into the base AE model.

Time will tell, but I'm hopeful, because those same CHS people are the ones gnawing on my butt to make Da Babes korekt.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drw61
It would be nice for us that play against the AI if you could do a version with just the extra ships (Da Babes Lite version)
Thanks

Daryl

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: drw61
It would be nice for us that play against the AI if you could do a version with just the extra ships (Da Babes Lite version)
Thanks

Daryl

That's a thought.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: drw61
It would be nice for us that play against the AI if you could do a version with just the extra ships (Da Babes Lite version)
Thanks

Daryl

That's a thought.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
And the adjusted Naval Support/Shore Party support at port bases.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

And drydocks (for both sides) of multiple sizes; and data consolidation for gun parameters for SurfCom and AACom; and ship upgrade/convert schedules according to our opinions/schedules; and ... woof!
Ciao. John