Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Beaufighters are STILL LEVELBOMBERS!!!!

 
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] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Beaufighters are STILL LEVELBOMBERS!!!! Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Beaufighters are STILL LEVELBOMBERS!!!! - 11/11/2002 1:09:00 PM   
Possum

 

Posts: 349
Joined: 3/27/2000
From: Adelaide, SA, Australia
Status: offline
And they are still armed with torpedoes!!!!!
As of Version 2.0
I thought that sufficent documentation had been provided that showed that someone at matrix had stuffed up by making these FIGHTERBOMBERS into torpedo carrying level bombers!!!!
Also not fixed are
2) Lack of Spitfire replacements, making these RAAF squadrons useless in short order. (Reminder, Spitfires were being built in Australia by 1943.)
3) Many historically used bases in New Guinia and Australian are missing.
4)Coral reefs still in the wrong locations.
5) Bathhurst class MSW missing their 20mm AA weapons.
6) RAN and RNZN cruisers still missing their float planes, in fact the CA's still don't even have the capacity to carry a floatplane!

Please MATRIX, at least fix the Beaufighter, and the lack of Spitfire replacements, and the Lack of Aircraft capacity on the Australian CA's.
These should be a simple, easilly implimented changes.

If you had provided a decent editor, I'd go through the scenarioes and fix these ahistorical errors myself...
:mad:

_____________________________

"We're having a war, and we want you to come!"
So the pig began to whistle and to pound on a drum.
"We'll give you a gun, and we'll give you a hat!"
And the pig began to whistle when they told the piggies that.
Post #: 1
- 11/11/2002 5:05:37 PM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline
I'll second the motion!

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 2
Beaufighter et al - 11/11/2002 8:16:20 PM   
tanjman


Posts: 717
Joined: 1/26/2002
From: Griffin, GA
Status: offline
Possum,

I agree with you on this. I just have a point to bring up about the Beaufighter upgrade path. Currently both the Huson and Beaufort upgrade to the Beaufighter. If the Beaufighter gets changed to a fighter bomber then only those squadrons which historicaly upgraded to the Beaufighter should.

No. 6 Sqn RAAF from what I've been able to determine used the Hudson through out 1942-43.

No. 7 Sqn RAAF from what I've been able to determine used the Beaufort through out 1942-43.

No. 8 Sqn RAAF from what I've been able to determine used the Beaufort through out 1942-43.

No. 66 Sqn RAAF "Equipped with Avro Ansons, 66 Squadron formed at Bundaberg Queensland in May 1943. The squadron conducted anti-submarine patrols and convoy escort missions off Australia's east coast for the remainder of the year.
Although its operations were for the most part uneventful, 66 Squadron did achieve over 1000 operational flying hours before its disbandment in January 1944." In UV this squadron is equipped with Beauforts. Since Avro Ansons are not availble should be changed to the Hudson.

No. 100 Sqn RAAF from what I've been able to determine used the Beaufort through out 1942-43.

So that leaves us with one Beaufighter squadron, No. 30 Sqn RAAF, that is in the UV OOB.

Missing Beaufighter squadrons are:

No. 31 Sqn RAAF, served in the Northern Territory.
No. 92 Sqn RAAF, formed at Kingaroy Queensland in May 1945.
No. 93 Sqn RAAF, formed at Kingaroy Queensland in January 1945.

The other two RAAF Beaufighter squadrons served in Europe.

This is alot of work for Matrix/2by3 for 16 operational aircraft. If its not done for UV it should be for WitP.

I can't find the link were I obtained this info but I'm attaching the text document.

The lack of Spitfire replacements is a major item. The other RAN OOB changes should be made also.

As far as the missing bases go, any of them south of Cairns will need to be in the 'Malaria Free Zone' and have automatic supply from Brisbane. Something that us players can't do with the editor as I found out after making a test scenario with your list of missing bases.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Gunner's Mate: A Boatswain's Mate with a hunting license.

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 3
RAN & RNZN Ships - 11/11/2002 8:37:16 PM   
tanjman


Posts: 717
Joined: 1/26/2002
From: Griffin, GA
Status: offline
Does any one know where the 5 Queensborough class destroyers served? My source (Jane's Fighting Ships of WWII) shows them all being commissioned by Nov 42.

Does any one know of a site like the Hyperwar: USN Ships, 1940-45 site for the RAN & RNZN?

_____________________________

Gunner's Mate: A Boatswain's Mate with a hunting license.

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 4
- 11/11/2002 10:12:24 PM   
David Heath


Posts: 3274
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Staten Island NY
Status: offline
Hi Guys

I took your data to Rich Dionne how is incharge of all the data in the scenarios. When I talked with him about it he did not agree with the findings. Now before anyone gets their underwear twisted in a knot, lets ask Rich. Rich is away on business for this week so do not expect an answer on this until early next week. I send Rich and email with this thread so he can find it.

David

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 5
ANZAC Ships - 11/12/2002 12:30:38 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
Tut tut...:)

Does everyone remember the problems Rich had regarding missing weapons and ammo fields when we first started changing the ship data? This had a lot to do with differentiating between individual ships within a class (ie Benhams were screwed up because there was an Atlantic "Neutrality Patrol" refit version and an off the stocks Pacific Fleet version. We ended up going with the original to alleviate the problem). As such, differentiating between Canberra's spec's and Australia's, for example, is risky (Australia was more mission capable than Canberra prior to Canberra's loss through refits after battle damage repairs). So, one has to go with a "standard" configuration for a class at this point. Australia class is modelled after a late 1942 refit to Australia and same goes for Hobart (Apollo/Leander class), as both were surviving members of their respective classes. These refits included the removal of their aircraft handling capabilities, and seeing as UV did not give them any (or aircraft squadrons) anyway, so much the easier.

The aircraft on board the ANZAC cruisers were of extremely limited value operationally, to boot. Here is a quote from Vice Admiral William Ward Smith, USN, who commanded the USN contingent of joint TF 44, which operated in the Coral Sea in early 1942.

[QUOTE]"I knew that the Australia, like all British men-of-war, was ill equipped for plane operations, primarily because the British Navy had no aviation of its own. On the first morning, she launched her sole aircraft along with ours. As our cruisers recovered the planes after the search, steaming at ten knots, towing alongside a sled resembling a cargo net and whipping the planes on board as they caught their hooks in the netting. Australia, however, stopped dead in the water for more than half an hour. Since we were in submarine infested waters, we were horrified! However, our consternation was even greater when Australia finally succeeded in grappling the plane for hoisting in, and the aircraft simply fell apart. From then on, USN planes did all the searching."[/QUOTE] :)

As for the Bathurst class MSW's, maybe they can be adjusted at a later date. I did not think that a few 20mm was worth Rich's (a very busy dude) time so I did not send him the mods.

Cheers, Ron. :)

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 6
- 11/12/2002 1:22:33 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Heath
[B]Hi Guys

I took your data to Rich Dionne how is incharge of all the data in the scenarios. When I talked with him about it he did not agree with the findings. Now before anyone gets their underwear twisted in a knot, lets ask Rich. Rich is away on business for this week so do not expect an answer on this until early next week. I send Rich and email with this thread so he can find it.

David [/B][/QUOTE]

Fire in the sky also claims that Beaufighters in New Gunieau were used as straffers and light attack bombers because of their attributes, which were mainly great speed at low altitudes, impressive firepower forward but marginal maneuverability and decreased preformance at higher altitudes. If used as fighters at higher altitudes they would be very likely to get the sky cut out from under them or at least, have been less effective vs what their claimed role was. Thus their true calling in the Pacific seemed to be similar to the A20.

No mention of carrying torps though. Admitedly i wasn't gonna look a gift horse in the mouth either when they arrived ;)

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 7
Beaufighter & Torpedoes - 11/12/2002 2:28:14 AM   
tanjman


Posts: 717
Joined: 1/26/2002
From: Griffin, GA
Status: offline
How about replacing the 18in Mk XII Torpedo with 8 x 90lb rocket projectiles? Which is what they were armed with along with up to 2000lbs of bombs.

http://users.chariot.net.au/~theburfs/beauMAIN.html

Is a site that has RAAF Beaufighter specs.

_____________________________

Gunner's Mate: A Boatswain's Mate with a hunting license.

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 8
Fire in the Sky - 11/12/2002 2:28:23 AM   
Wilhammer

 

Posts: 449
Joined: 5/24/2002
From: Out in the Sticks of Rockingham County, North Caro
Status: offline
I just did finish this fine book.

Has Rich read it?

The BFs are strafers and bombers, and no mention was made of torp attacks with them.


They really should be fighter bombers.

Of course, one can argue that Dauntlesses should be fighter bombers with divebombing capability.

First team at Guadalacanal gets into the details of that usage, as does Frank's Gudalcanal. They were used as CAP, especially against torpedo bombers and search planes, and even fighters!

The guy that nailed Sakai was apparently the rear gunner of an SBD who had some experience in the matter. They often counted on enemy pilots mistaking them for Wildcats, and then blasting them with rear guns in a sort of ambush.

It is worth noting that one of the great leaders of the IJN AF was eliminated from the campaign on day one.

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 9
- 11/12/2002 2:36:55 AM   
Wilhammer

 

Posts: 449
Joined: 5/24/2002
From: Out in the Sticks of Rockingham County, North Caro
Status: offline
The solution might be in WiTP to have a more generic way of assigining air missions to planes.

1. BFs were anti-naval fighter bombers and ground fighter bombers, neither purely fighter or purely bomber, and rarely carrying torpedoes.

2. Dauntlesses used as CAP.

As the war progresses, this will become something of a problem.

Both sides investigated and looked to deploy figheters as torpedoe bomber carriers, the F7F Tiger cat was designed with the ability to carry torps.

The medium and light bombers, especially the A-20s and B-25/26 are bombers by design, but took on fighter bomber roles (low level attack combined with strafing).

Fighters were never considered bombers before the war, but they became that.

AMOF, all fighters in UV should be fighter bombers, if only to strafe. AMOF, it was Japanese doctrine to use fighters (the Zero) to strafe warships during anti-naval atacks to supress AAA and command.

P-40s, at this time, were used for ground strikes.

BTW, it is wierd to have B-17s and B-24s at 100 feet STRAFING targets.

A question to the designers; does a strafing bomber contribute ALL of its MG/Cannon armament to a strafe attack or does it just consider the forward guns?

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 10
- 11/12/2002 10:55:01 AM   
Mike Wood


Posts: 2095
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Oakland, California
Status: offline
Hello...

When strafing, bombers only use the forward firing guns. When in air-to-air combat, they only use the guns facing the enemy fighters (who can attack from various directions and angles).

Bye...

Michael Wood
Lead Programmer,
Matrix Games
___________________________________________________

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wilhammer
[B]A question to the designers; does a strafing bomber contribute ALL of its MG/Cannon armament to a strafe attack or does it just consider the forward guns? [/B][/QUOTE]

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 11
Re: RAN & RNZN Ships - 11/12/2002 12:27:13 PM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tanjman
[B]Does any one know where the 5 Queensborough class destroyers served? My source (Jane's Fighting Ships of WWII) shows them all being commissioned by Nov 42.

Does any one know of a site like the Hyperwar: USN Ships, 1940-45 site for the RAN & RNZN? [/B][/QUOTE]

Queensborough Class? These ships, were known in the RAN as "Q" ships. Of the eight that were produced, only two served in the RAN during WW2, these being the HMAS Quiberon and HMAS Quickmatch, both being commissioned in 1942. In 1945, between october and November another three ships of this class were transfered to the RAN HMAS Quadrant, HMAS Quality and HMAS Queenborough.
A quick search shows that HMAS Quiberon is credited with sinking U411 in 1942.......that puts her in either the Med or the convoy runs to the US (just quessing here guys).

Ahhh...............I just found the following:-

HMAS QUIBERON

Technical Details

Type: Anti-Submarine Frigate (ex-Destroyer)

Displacement: 1705 tons (standard) (as Destroyer) 2020 tons (standard) (as Frigate)

Length: 358 feet 9 inches
Beam: 35 feet 9 inches

Draught: 9 feet 6 inches
Complement: 220
Propulsion: Parsons geared turbines, 2 shafts, 40,000 SHP
Laid Down: 14 October 1940
Launched: 31 January 1942 Mrs Tillard, wife of Rear Admiral S.D. Tillard, Flag Officer in Charge, Southampton
Armament (Main):
As Destroyer
4x4.7 inch guns
4x2 pounder guns
2x40 mm guns
8x21 inch torpedo tubes

As Frigate
2x4 inch guns (twin-mount)
2x40 mm Bofors AA
2 triple-barrel depth charge mortars
Builders: J. Samuel White & Co. Ltd, Cowes, Isle of Wight, UK
Commissioned: 6 July 1942 (as Destroyer)
18 December 1957 (as Frigate)
Speed: 31 knots

Following commissioning at Cowes, Isle of Wight, QUIBERON manned by an Australian crew proceeded to Scapa Flow. Until late August 1942 she was engaged in working up exercises in northern Scottish waters and was then detailed to North Atlantic convoy escort duty. One of her first tasks was to form part of the escort of a twenty-one ship troop convoy bound for Capetown but was detached from this duty to search for a suspected U-Boat supply ship in the Atlantic. After a fruitless cruise over a wide area QUIBERON reached Freetown (Africa) on 27 September, proceeded thence to Gibraltar and back to British home waters having steamed 12,000 miles and spent only three out of forty-two days in harbour.

In October 1942 she formed a unit of the large British naval forces assigned to support the Allied landings in North Africa (Operation 'Torch'). During this period of her service which took her into the Mediterranean for the first time QUIBERON experienced her first contact with the enemy when she became the frequent target of aircraft. On 28 November 1942 while operating off the Tunisian coast north west of Bone in company of HMS QUENTIN she attacked and destroyed the Italian submarine DESSIE.

On 1 December 1942 QUIBERON formed a unit of a force of three cruisers and three destroyers despatched from Bone (Tunisia) to intercept an enemy convoy reported bound from Sicily to Tunis. Contact was made in the early hours of 2 December and all four ships of the convoy and the escorting Italian destroyer LUPO were sunk, but HMS QUENTIN (QUIBERON's sister ship) was sunk by an aircraft torpedo on the way back to Bone and at dawn QUIBERON, while under heavy air attack, was called upon to rescue her complement.

QUIBERON operated in North African waters on convoy and fleet escort duties for the remainder of December 1942 and throughout January 1943. On 21 December, she took off survivors from the burning liner STRATHALLAN which had been torpedoed off the Algerian coast by a U-Boat.

At the end of January 1943, QUIBERON left the Mediterranean as a unit of the escort of a convoy bound from England to Capetown. She arrived at Durban on 27 February and from there proceeded to Australia arriving Fremantle on 29 March, having steamed 51,000 miles on war service.

After refitting at Melbourne, she returned to the Indian Ocean and at Kilindini (Kenya) in June 1943 joined the British Eastern Fleet. She spent the remainder of 1943 almost constantly at sea escorting Indian Ocean convoys.

In 1944, QUIBERON continued serving as an escort destroyer of the Eastern Fleet protecting convoys proceeding mainly between India and Aden. In March 1944, British Indian Ocean naval forces were reinforced, and were able to take the offensive against Japanese held territory. QUIBERON took part in the carrier air strikes against Sabang (April 1944) and Sourabaya (May 1944) before returning to Australia for another refit at Melbourne.

QUIBERON rejoined the Eastern Fleet at Trincomalee (Ceylon) on 1 August 1944 and resumed escort duty in the Indian Ocean. In October 1944 as a unit of the Fleet, she took part in a series of bombardments of the Japanese held Nicobar Islands. In mid December she detached from the Eastern Fleet and returned to Australia where for the next few weeks she operated as an escort and anti-submarine vessel on the Australia Station.

In March 1945 QUIBERON proceeded to Manus, the United States base in the Admiralty Islands, as a unit of the British Pacific Fleet. From Manus she proceeded north to the operational area and was thereafter until the end of hostilities actively engaged in the closing phases of the war at sea against Japan. She took part in operations in support of the American seizure of Okinawa and subsequent attacks on the Japanese homeland. When the war ended in August, she had steamed 236,000 miles of war service.

Peace did not bring immediate respite for QUIBERON. She was present at the re-occupation of Shanghai, and then served in the East Indies until February 1946, troop carrying, retrieving prisoners of war and assisting in the re-establishment of Dutch control in the area.

In March 1946, following a short refit at Sydney, she sailed for Japan to begin the first of three periods of occupation duty. She reached Sydney at the end of her third period of Far East service (March - July 1948) on 22 July 1948 and was there immobilised having steamed 80,000 miles in the post war years and a total of 316,772 miles since commissioning. In six years of seagoing service QUIBERON had been under way 20,452 hours 52 minutes or almost two and a half years. She paid off on 15 May 1950.

In November 1950 the task of converting QUIBERON to a modern anti-submarine frigate was commenced at Cockatoo Dockyard, Sydney. Later the ship was transferred to the Naval Dockyard at Garden Island, Sydney, where the conversion was completed in December 1957. She recommissioned on 18 December 1957.

QUIBERON during her six and a half years commission (December 1957 - June 1964) spent several periods of duty on Far East service as a unit of the British Strategic Reserve based on Singapore and from time to time operated as a unit of the South East Asia Treaty Organisation forces on periodical exercises in Far East waters. Otherwise she operated as a unit of the Australian Fleet (1st Frigate Squadron) on the Australia Station. Her service career ended when she paid off to Reserve on 26 June 1964.

On 15 February 1972 QUIBERON was sold for breaking up to Fujita Salvage Company Limited of Osaka, Japan, for $68,260.00.

On 10 April 1972 the Japanese tug SUMI MARU No 38 left Sydney for Japan with QUIBERON and another former RAN vessel, TOBRUK, in tow.

HMAS QUICKMATCH

Technical Details

Type: Anti-Submarine Frigate (ex-Destroyer)

Displacement: 1705 tons (standard) (as Destroyer) 2020 tons (standard) (as Frigate)

Length: 358 feet 9 inches
Beam: 35 feet 9 inches

Draught: 9 feet 6 inches
Propusion: Parsons geared turbines, 2 shafts, 40,000 SHP
Laid Down: 6 February, 1941
Launched: 11 April, 1942 (Mrs Shearman)
Armament: As Destroyer
4x4 .7 inch guns
4x2 pounder guns
8x21 inch torpedo tubes

As Frigate
2x4 inch guns (twin-mount)
2x40 mm Bofors AA
2 triple-barrel depth charge mortars
Builders: J. Samuel White & Co Ltd. Cowes, Isle of Wight, UK
Complement: 220
Speed: 31 knots

HMAS QUICKMATCH commissioned at Cowes, Isle of Wight on 14 September, 1942 under the command of Lieutenant-Commander Rodney Rhodes, DSC, RAN.

After trials the ship commenced convoy escort duty on 5 October, 1942.

In November, 1942 she proceeded to the South Atlantic station for further convoy escort duty. En route on 1 December, she intercepted the Italian blockade runner CORTELAZZO. Following four months convoy duty on the South Atlantic station QUICKMATCH transferred to the Indian Ocean for similar duty, although she was detached to the South Atlantic station during June, July and August, 1943.

In May, 1944 QUICKMATCH was included in the main force of the British Eastern Fleet based on Ceylon which carried out a successful carrier borne air attack on the Japanese base at Sourabaya on 17 May. This action was followed on 21 June by a similar assault from the air on Port Blair in the Andaman Islands. In these operations QUICKMATCH was a unit of the 4th Destroyer Flotilla, Eastern Fleet. On 25 July 1944 QUICKMATCH,
as part of an inshore force, entered Sabang Harbour (Sumatra) and carried out a close-range bombardment
of Japanese installations.

In October, 1944 QUICKMATCH arrived in Australian waters for the first time. After visiting Espiritu Santo (New Hebrides) she commenced her annual refit at Sydney (November-December 1944). Following the refit QUICKMATCH served mainly in Australian waters, with a visit to New Zealand, until March, 1945. She then proceeded to the Far East as a unit of the British Pacific Fleet as one of the ships screening the Royal Navy carriers whose task it was to neutralise Japanese air fields in support of the United States invasion in Okinawa ('Operation Iceberg'). In July, again screening carriers of the British Pacific Fleet, she took part in further assaults on the Japanese home islands. When hostilities ceased on 15 August, 1945 QUICKMATCH was en route to Manus (Admiralty Islands) after operating in support of attacks on the main Japanese island of Honshu. She had steamed some 224,000 miles on war service.

In the early post-war years QUICKMATCH remained in sea-going service on the Australian station interspersed with several tours of duty in Japanese and Korean waters. In July, 1948 she returned to Sydney following three months as Australian Squadron representative in Japan and was placed in immobilised commission. She paid off on 15 May, 1950.

On 28 March 1951 QUICKMATCH was towed by the tug HMAS RESERVE to Williamstown Naval Dockyard (Vic) where the work of converting her to a modern anti-submarine frigate was commenced. Conversion was completed in 1955 and she re-commissioned on 23 September, 1955 under
the command of Lieutenant Commander Duncan H. Stevens, RAN. She had five tours of duty in Far East waters totalling almost two years of foreign service as a unit of the Commonwealth strategic Reserve and including several periods exercising with the forces of the South East Asia Treaty Organisation. The remainder of her last commission was spent on the Australia station, and in South West Pacific and New Zealand waters.

When QUICKMATCH paid off to Reserve at Williamstown on 26 April, 1963 she had steamed 246,822 miles. After paying off she served as an Accommodation Ship at Williamstown.

On 15 February, 1972 QUICKMATCH was sold for scrap to Fujita Salvage Company Limited of Osaka, Japan. On 6 July, 1972 the Japanese tug SUMI MARU left Melbourne for Japan with QUICKMATCH and another former RAN vessel, GASCOYNE, in tow.

For more info on RAN ships during WW2 goto the following site:-

http://www.navy.gov.au/history/navalhistory.htm


:)

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 12
- 11/12/2002 1:06:09 PM   
Drongo

 

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline
Posted by Raverdave
[QUOTE]For more info on RAN ships during WW2 goto the following site:- [/QUOTE]

Do you mean, what you posted wasn't everything on the site???:p

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 13
- 11/12/2002 6:24:58 PM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drongo
[B]Posted by Raverdave


Do you mean, what you posted wasn't everything on the site???:p [/B][/QUOTE]


And it is comments like the above which go to show why you will always be a mere "Matrix Vet" while [I]I[/I] shall continue onto greater things, past that of my current "Matrix Hero":p

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 14
RAN WWII Site - 11/12/2002 8:51:49 PM   
tanjman


Posts: 717
Joined: 1/26/2002
From: Griffin, GA
Status: offline
Dave,

Thanks for the info and the link.

Have you been beating up on Drongo via PBEM again? ;)

BTW are there any books concerning ANZAC OOBs and WWII you (or anyone else for that matter) could recommend?

_____________________________

Gunner's Mate: A Boatswain's Mate with a hunting license.

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 15
Re: RAN WWII Site - 11/13/2002 1:33:37 AM   
angus

 

Posts: 103
Joined: 9/8/2002
From: Brussels
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tanjman
[B]Dave,

Thanks for the info and the link.

Have you been beating up on Drongo via PBEM again? ;)

BTW are there any books concerning ANZAC OOBs and WWII you (or anyone else for that matter) could recommend? [/B][/QUOTE]

It only covers the situation at the start of the WitP but Leo Niehorster's website is worth a look, it's here :-

http://www.freeport-tech.com/WWII/

There's a really great series of articles on the first AIF in WW1 on the web but nothing that good for WW2. The WW1 stuff is here :-

http://www.unsw.adfa.edu.au/~rmallett/

Peter Dunn's Australia@War page has a fair bit on Oz in WW2. Well worth a dekko :-

http://home.st.net.au/~dunn/

That's all I can think off at the moment.

Cheers,

Angus

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 16
More Beaufighter info - 11/13/2002 6:35:35 AM   
Iron Duke


Posts: 529
Joined: 1/7/2002
From: UK
Status: offline
The RAAF recieved 218 beaufighters from Britain

57 Mk.Ic's strike fighter/long range escort
64 Mk.VIc's Maritime strike fighter
62 TF Mk. X's Maritime strike fighter and Torpedo bomber (this is the variant that is refered to as the 'Torbeau')
20 Mk.XIc's Maritime strike fighter

The Australians also produced 364 beaufighters at the Fishermen's Bend plant.
Mk.20 (for RNZAF )
Mk.21

Out of the above Beaufighters only the 62 TF Mk.X were Torpedo bombers all the other variants did not have a torpedo carrying capacity

Note . Some(about 60) Mk.VIc's were modified to carry torpedoes , these were designated as Mk.VIc (ITF) 'INTERIM TORPEDO FIGHTERS' and as far as I can tell these operated in the ETO only.

The squadrons operating the beaufighters were :-
30 Sqdn formed June 42 with Mk.Ic's
31 Sqdn formed Aug 42 with Mk.Ic's
22 Sqdn formed late 44 with Mk.21's
93 Sqdn formed Jan 42 not operational until jun 45
92 Sqdn not operational


Any comments

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 17
- 11/13/2002 8:52:59 AM   
tanjman


Posts: 717
Joined: 1/26/2002
From: Griffin, GA
Status: offline
Angus,

Thanks for the links the first one I had, the third looks like it will help alot for scenario design, the second one looks interesting but more for my general interest in WWI.

Thanks again.

Iron Duke,

Did the RNZAF operate the Beaufighter in the PTO? If so do you know which squadrons?

BTW from the info I could find I do not think the Beaufort squadrons (Nos. 7, 8, 66 & 100 Sqn RAAF) or the Hudson squadrons (Nos. 6 & 32 Sqn RAAF) in UV should upgrade to the Beaufighter since only No. 30 Sqn RAAF operated in the SWPac during this time period. That and replacing the the torpedo with rocket projectiles should fix the discrepancies. I hesitate asking Martix/2by3 to make it a fighter bomber because I don't think the Beaufighter was used as a CAP fighter, and I would hate to see the AI do so.

_____________________________

Gunner's Mate: A Boatswain's Mate with a hunting license.

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 18
- 11/13/2002 4:11:24 PM   
Reg


Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline
Nice research Iron Duke, right on the money.

The Beaufighter may have replaced the Beaufort on the production lines (which was Fisherman's Bend - Melbourne for the odd serial numbers and Mascot - Sydney for the even numbers) but they certainly did not replace them in the squadrons. Four of the five Beaufighter squadrons only ever operated the Beaufighter aircraft. No. 22 Squadron had always operated alongside the Beaufighter squadrons but only converted to the type after their A-20 Bostons were all destroyed in a Japanese air raid in late '44 and there were no replacements.

I brought this upgrade anomaly up with Rich months ago but I'm sure things aren't that easy to change.

On a very minor issue, A8-1 to A8-365 were all completed as Beaufighter Mk21 aircraft (A8-172 was damaged during a pre-delivery test flight and never repaired). None went to NZ or were intended to as far as I can see in my readings.

The Beaufighter was definitely a strike aircraft using guns/rockets and standard practice when encountering Japanese fighters was to dive to low level and simply out distance the pursuers ("Down low, nothing could touch a Beaufighter at that stage of the war"). However when cornered, the Beaufighter was still quite capable of inflicting losses on the attacking fighters as recorded by unit histories.

Cheers,
Reg.

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 19
Beaufighters and aircraft upgrades - 11/14/2002 6:39:10 AM   
Iron Duke


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

As far as I can tell the RNZAF did not operate the Beafighter but in a couple of books there have been references to the Mk.XX going to them , by including that info in the post I was hoping somebody may have additional info.

I hope Matrix/2by3 change the beaufigter from a torpedo bomber . I think it should be a fighter/bomber , if anybody uses it for cap they will only have themselves to blame for heavy losses, but at least we will be able to use it in its correct role .

Aircraft upgades are handled far to simply in UV , and will be in WitP also.
i.e RAAF Hudson sqdn's upgraded to Beauforts and PV-1 Ventura's not Beaufighters. But i'm not sure how they can manage an auto-upgrade to two different a/c. Unless they hard code sqdn a/c upgrades( which I think would be a bad idea).

Another a/c that will have problems with upgrade path will be the
Hurricane . In India/Burma not all Hurricane sqdn's upgraded to the spitfire about 9 sqdns upgraded to Thunderbolt Mk.I and Mk.II's
Cheers

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 20
Aircraft upgrade paths - 11/14/2002 7:42:10 AM   
tanjman


Posts: 717
Joined: 1/26/2002
From: Griffin, GA
Status: offline
Iron Duke,

How about have aircraft upgrade like in PacWar? Using Mika's editor you can have a default upgrade path by aircraft type or upgrade path by air group. Of course this goes without saying that it should be included in the WitP editor. :D I don't know if they programed UV this way, if not I doudt it would ever be done to fix the Beaufort and Hudson upgrade nitpicking. ;)

_____________________________

Gunner's Mate: A Boatswain's Mate with a hunting license.

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 21
we're up to V2.1 - 12/3/2002 5:00:20 AM   
Possum

 

Posts: 349
Joined: 3/27/2000
From: Adelaide, SA, Australia
Status: offline
And Beufighters are still being treated as LevelBombers!!!!!!:mad:

_____________________________

"We're having a war, and we want you to come!"
So the pig began to whistle and to pound on a drum.
"We'll give you a gun, and we'll give you a hat!"
And the pig began to whistle when they told the piggies that.

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 22
- 12/3/2002 5:02:49 AM   
David Heath


Posts: 3274
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Staten Island NY
Status: offline
Guys

Rich and I think Ron told me why this was being done. I can not for the life of me remember why? I try to get one of them to post here and explain.

David

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 23
Convoy Escort - 12/3/2002 7:58:52 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
Hi, I think part of the assignment is the fact this aircraft flew more missions as convoy/ASW escort then any other type of mission. I'm not sure fighter/bombers can fly ASW

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 24
Re: Beaufighter et al - 12/3/2002 8:21:07 AM   
Jeremy Pritchard

 

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tanjman
[B]Possum,

I agree with you on this. I just have a point to bring up about the Beaufighter upgrade path. Currently both the Huson and Beaufort upgrade to the Beaufighter. If the Beaufighter gets changed to a fighter bomber then only those squadrons which historicaly upgraded to the Beaufighter should.

No. 6 Sqn RAAF from what I've been able to determine used the Hudson through out 1942-43.

No. 7 Sqn RAAF from what I've been able to determine used the Beaufort through out 1942-43.

No. 8 Sqn RAAF from what I've been able to determine used the Beaufort through out 1942-43.

No. 66 Sqn RAAF "Equipped with Avro Ansons, 66 Squadron formed at Bundaberg Queensland in May 1943. The squadron conducted anti-submarine patrols and convoy escort missions off Australia's east coast for the remainder of the year.
Although its operations were for the most part uneventful, 66 Squadron did achieve over 1000 operational flying hours before its disbandment in January 1944." In UV this squadron is equipped with Beauforts. Since Avro Ansons are not availble should be changed to the Hudson.

No. 100 Sqn RAAF from what I've been able to determine used the Beaufort through out 1942-43.

So that leaves us with one Beaufighter squadron, No. 30 Sqn RAAF, that is in the UV OOB.

Missing Beaufighter squadrons are:

No. 31 Sqn RAAF, served in the Northern Territory.
No. 92 Sqn RAAF, formed at Kingaroy Queensland in May 1945.
No. 93 Sqn RAAF, formed at Kingaroy Queensland in January 1945.

The other two RAAF Beaufighter squadrons served in Europe.

This is alot of work for Matrix/2by3 for 16 operational aircraft. If its not done for UV it should be for WitP.

I can't find the link were I obtained this info but I'm attaching the text document.

The lack of Spitfire replacements is a major item. The other RAN OOB changes should be made also.

As far as the missing bases go, any of them south of Cairns will need to be in the 'Malaria Free Zone' and have automatic supply from Brisbane. Something that us players can't do with the editor as I found out after making a test scenario with your list of missing bases. [/B][/QUOTE]

From what I can read...

#7 Squadron used the Hudson, then was re-equipped with the Beaufort.

#8 Squadron use the Hudson, then Beaufort.

#14 Squadron use the Hudson, then Beaufort.

So, it does seem that the Hudson was being gradually replaced by the Beaufort. However, the Beaufort was not replaced by the Beaufighter (I believe that starting in PacWar version 3.1 the Beaufort-Beaufighter upgrade no longer exists).

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 25
- 12/3/2002 8:45:19 AM   
jrcar

 

Posts: 3613
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Seymour, Australia
Status: offline
Ok Guys, getting into this late as I just found "Wispering Death" by Parnell in the library.

First thing noted, Australian built Beaufighters weren't in combat use until November 1944.

Second thing noted Australian built airctaft did not have torpedo equipment. Instead a 908kg bomb could be fitted or a 91 L drop tank.

54? British built machines were to be acquired by March 1942. Total finally procured is 183? Their doctrinal use was to be as fighters. This and the primative conditions of the bases they operated from meant that they never used torpedoes, even if the Brit built ones still had the capability. In fact a specific "lesson learnt" says

"Suggested that the attack aircraft could be split into two forces to attack from both sides, each comprising high-level medium bombers, Beaufighers, low-level bombers and torpedo aircraft in that order"

This is the Brit built version. They were just used to strafe the ships so the bombers and torpedo aircraft could get in unmolested.

In the desriptions I have read so far show them being used as fighter escort to medium bombers and for low level strafing. in fact there wasn't even a mention of using bombs! Cannon and MG's only.

[edit]Looks like I posted too soon, bombs were fitted from Sept 43 onwards, 2 x 45kg, or 2 x 113kg or 2 x136kg. This is at the end of the UV timeframe however and guns still appear to be the main weapon used [edit]

So maybe they should just be fighters with no bombing capacity.

Cheers

Rob

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 26
Re: RAN WWII Site - 12/3/2002 12:41:59 PM   
tohoku

 

Posts: 415
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: at lunch, thanks.
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tanjman

BTW are there any books concerning ANZAC OOBs and WWII you (or anyone else for that matter) could recommend?

[/QUOTE]

If you want the NZ organisations and equipment (actual, as opposed to book) then simply buying the Brigade histories from the NZ Government Printer and get a day by day account.





tohoku
YMMV
waiting for the day when a US-produced game acknowledges that there was no such thing as an 'ANZAC OOB'.

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 27
Re: Convoy Escort - 12/3/2002 5:34:55 PM   
Reg


Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, I think part of the assignment is the fact this aircraft flew more missions as convoy/ASW escort then any other type of mission. I'm not sure fighter/bombers can fly ASW [/B][/QUOTE]

I think that it must be clarified that the just because the Beaufort and Beaufighter were designed by the same company, were built in the same factories with the Beaufighter ramping up as the Beaufort was being phased out doesn't mean they were meant for the same role. The two types were meant to be built side by side but delays in tooling prevented that. The local Beaufighter manufacture was intended to replace British imported aircraft (which it did).

Local production of the Mosquito FB.40 fighterbomber was also being developed though delays prevented operational use to the very last days of the war (Australian timbers proved to be very different to European materials). Licenced manufacture of the P-51 was also being put in place by this stage also.

If there is to be an upgrade path it must be from the Hudson to the Beaufort!! In fact, the only reason Hudsons were bought at all were because of delays in the Beaufort program. (The first order for 100 a/c was placed in Nov '38 for delivery in late 39. A second batch of 50 (later 146) was ordered in Mar '41 due further delays in the Beaufort program.) Note the absence of ongoing attrition replacements as they were only ever intended to be an interim measure to replace the Avro Anson in front line units. In service, there were several examples of squadrons trading in their Hudsons for locally produced Beauforts after they finally became available in mid '42.

The Beaufort remained in production for the entire period of UV and new squadrons were being formed/re-equipped with the type whilst the number of squadrons with Beaufighters remained constant until local production kicked in.

There seems to be a lot of delays in the locally built aircraft deliveries but it must be pointed out that the whole aviation manufacturing industry had to be built from the ground up. (You probably didn't know the first motor car wasn't built in Australia until 1948 - The Holden FX for the interested..)

Hope you find this info useful...
Reg.

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 28
Australian WWII Info Site - 12/5/2002 3:39:35 PM   
Reg


Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tanjman
[B]BTW are there any books concerning ANZAC OOBs and WWII you (or anyone else for that matter) could recommend? [/B][/QUOTE]

Try the Australian Airpower Series of books from the Australian Aviation wesite at the link below (follow the military link...).

[URL=http://www.ausaviation.com.au/books/books.html]http://www.ausaviation.com.au/books/books.html[/URL]

[IMG]http://www.ausaviation.com.au/books/images/spit.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.ausaviation.com.au/books/images/ans.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.ausaviation.com.au/books/images/boston.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.ausaviation.com.au/books/images/squad.jpg[/IMG]

There is a North American distributor (according to info inside the front cover):
Motorbooks International,
729 Prospect Ave,
Osceola,
Wisconsin, 54020
Fax: 715 294 4448

[IMG]http://www.awm.gov.au/images/logo/awm_logo_lt_green.gif[/IMG]
Also try the [URL=http://www.awm.gov.au/shop/index.asp]Australian War Memorial Shop[/URL] which has some interesting Pacific Theatre material.

Cheers,
Reg.

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 29
Re: Convoy Escort - 12/7/2002 5:12:12 PM   
Reg


Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, I think part of the assignment is the fact this aircraft flew more missions as convoy/ASW escort then any other type of mission. I'm not sure fighter/bombers can fly ASW [/B][/QUOTE]

I assume that you referring here to the Beaufighter conducting convoy/ASW missions. Easily disproved I'm afraid.

[B]Aircraft Design[/B]

The Hudson was originally ordered by the British Purchasing Commission in Apr '38 which recognised it's potential as a 'Maritime Reconnaissance Bomber' with a crew of four and the aircraft was regularly used by RAAF for these type of duties.

The Beaufort was designed to meet both British Air Ministry Specifications M.15/35 (a three seat torpedo bomber) and G.24/35 (a four seat general purpose/reconnaissance bomber). Once again the aircraft was extensively used in these roles as reflected in unit histories.

The Type 156 Beaufort Fighter (it's original designation) was not developed to a specification but as a private proposal by Bristol due to the recogition of an "obvious and urgent need for a long range fighter of decisive striking power", which could be developed quickly using components from an existing design. The two man crew would make it a poor choice as a reconnaissance machine and I cannot find any reference in No.s 30 or 31 Squadron histories to the Beaufighter ever being used in the maritime patrol role. (Note, I did not say it wasn't used for maritime strike where it's strafing with 20mm guns was most effective).

[B]Operational Doctrine[/B]

[QUOTE]
GHQ Operations Instruction No. 12, dated 1st October [1942], had assigned to the RAAF general reconnaissance, bomber and torpedo squadrons the responsibility for keeping open the sea lanes to New Guinea; for "effecting the maximum posible dislocation" of Japanese shipping, supply lines and sea communications; and for maintaining reconnaissance of all "hostile sea approaches to New Guinea within range". The burden for this huge task fell on No. 6 Squadron [Hudsons] and No. 100 Squadron [Beauforts]. In addition to daily searches, the two units conducted innumerable anti-submarine patrols on which the crews were airborne for many hours.

[B]Royal Australian Air Force 1939-1942, Douglas Gillison, Australian War Memorial, Canberra, 1962, page 639 (Official History) [/B][/QUOTE][B]Examples[/B]

On the same page as the above reference, the history describes how on 26th September, a No. 6 Squadron Hudson led four Beaufighters of No. 30 Squadron to a ship which had been spotted and disabled earlier in the day by No. 6 Squadron patrols. The Beaufighters then conducted a strafing attack after the Hudson had attacked with bombs.

Page 642 describes how a four destroyer troop transport convoy is spotted by a No.100 Squadron Beaufort approching Buna on the morning of 2nd December. Six Beaufighters from No.30 Squadron take off from Port Moresby for a joint mission with B-17s but fail to locate the target. That night accompanied by a Hudson to provide flare illumination, the same Beaufighters conduct a strafing mission with unobserved results. As they were leaving, six Beauforts from No.100 Squadron arrive to conduct a torpedo strike. Three Bostons from No.22 Squadron had attacked earlier that night with bombs. Next morning the destroyers had gone but the Beaufighters returned and wrought carnage on the recently arrived troop barges with further strafing attacks. On the 14th, the allies launched 96 attack sorties against the enemies new beach head and the Beaufighters alone fired 2,500 rounds of 20mm and 71,000 rounds of 0.303 inch ammunition.

The Beaufighters were extensively used in airfield attacks and page 650 describes how No.31 Squadron achieved notable success when they attacked the Japanese staging base at Penfui on Timor (based on radio intercepts) and caught on the ground a large raid from Kendari bound for Darwin. No.30 Squadron was achieving similar results at Lae airfield (page 637).

Generally Beaufighters avoided contact with enemy fighters,
[QUOTE] "After a similar operation over Lae on the 22nd three of six unescorted Beaufighters that made the raid were attacked by Zeros from whom they were able to draw away in straight and level flight at almost sea level at an indicated speed of between 255 and 260 knots." (Official History page 638). [/QUOTE] though when circumstances demanded it [QUOTE]
On this occasion a Beaufighter manned by Flight Lieutenant Little (pilot) and Pilot Officer Spooner turned on a Zero that was attacking two other Beaufighters. Little's cannon fire caught the enemy aircraft, which was last seen trailing smoke from its engine." (Official History page 638) [/QUOTE] and
[QUOTE]
[HMAS] Castlemaine and [HMAS] Armidale were attacked by Japanese bombers of the morning of the 30th [Nov '42], and attacks continued at intervals during the day. They dodged the bombs, however, and Beaufighters of No.31 Squadron arrived and drove off a force of 8 bombers and 6 fighters (Official History page 647). [/QUOTE] [B]Summary[/B]

I cannot find any evidence to support that the Beaufighters conducted any sort of maritime/reconnaissance or torpedo bombing role. The Beaufighters were called in on strafing attacks only after the Hudsons/Beauforts had located a target in all of the instances above. If the game requires a torpedo/level bombing aircraft for game mechanics, then upgrade path should be made from the Hudson to Beaufort which remained in front line service until the end of the war. The Beaufighter is a strike aircraft and was teamed up with No.22 Squadron Bostons and was used against the same targets despite the Beaufighter relying on strafing tactics whilst the Boston used bombs (Official History page 638). The Beaufighter was an upgrade from the Australian Bostons for No. 22 Squadron but not until Dec '44. In game terms, there is ample evidence the Beaufighter should be treated as a fighter bomber and the HMAS Castlemaine incident above certainly sounds like a LRCAP mission which happened off the coast of Timor (out of range of single engine fighter cover from Darwin perhaps??).

These changes should not affect things like game balance too much as they will not affect the fundamentals of the game but they will go a long way to satisfy the historically pedantic fans out there.

I can understand that the things may have been set up this way for reasons not obvious to us (for British users of the same aircraft types in WITP for instance) but if that is the case, please tell us and put us out of our misery.

Cheers,
Reg.

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Beaufighters are STILL LEVELBOMBERS!!!! Page: [1] 2   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

1.078