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: OOB Comments

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: OOB Comments Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: OOB Comments - 8/14/2004 2:52:28 PM   
pry


Posts: 1410
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Overlooking Galveston Bay, Texas
Status: offline
Data Collected

_____________________________


(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 151
RE: OOB Comments - 8/14/2004 5:05:04 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

...
6) the Phillippines had another squadron or 2 in addition to the 6th FS - 1 recon/observation & bomber/FB squadron in use at the start
...


The Philippine Army Air Corps had a total of 11 squadrons, only four of which were operational units. The remainder were Air Base, Depot, or Training units.

The only one of the operational squadrons with any significant equipment was the 6th, with 12 ex-USAAC P-26 fighters. The others:

5th (Photo) with 1 or two ex-civilian aircraft
9th (Observation) with a few small observation planes (O-46, etc) - too small for WITP
10th (Bomber) with two ex-USAAC B-10B

The PAF also had two P-6 Fighters and 1 Keystone B-3A Bomber - all only of use if they decided to open a museum.

(in reply to jcjordan)
Post #: 152
RE: OOB Comments - 8/14/2004 11:15:52 PM   
BPRE

 

Posts: 624
Joined: 10/16/2000
From: Stockholm,Sweden
Status: offline
Hi,

I'm playing Scen. 15 started on ver. 1.21 and after 10 days I noticed that some of my UK/Commonwealth units had 76 mm AT guns.
They are originally equipped with 2pdr's which seems right. The upgrade path for the 2pdr (420) according to the Data Base Editor is to 57 mm AT (424) and from 57 mm AT to 76 mm AT (425).
At start of Scen. 15 the monthly production of 57 mm AT is 222 and 76 mm AT is 268. I don't have any details or sources but I guess that at least the 76 mm AT must be the Russian gun.
Don't think the US had any 76 mm guns at this stage of the war and I presume the British equivalent is the 17pdr.
Looks to me like there are a couple faults in this area:

  • Shouldn't the upgrade path from 2pdr be the 6pdr AT gun? The build rate of the 6pdr is 1/month which seems reasonable since I guess they were all sent to the Middle East anyway.
  • Does anybody know if the US 57 mm was produced this early or is this some kind of Russian gun too?

Please have a look at this.

Best regards
BPRE

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 153
RE: OOB Comments - 8/15/2004 1:17:45 AM   
Herrbear


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

ORIGINAL: Brady

G3M: Looks ok....(Though I nead to look at the endurance figures for it a bit closer with a range of 3,871 st. miles, an endurance of 1,500 seams off.),Cruse spead seams a tad High, listed at 184 mph the game has it at 203.

I agree about the Cruise speed. I also show that it appears you are modeling a combination of both the G3M2 Mod 22 an G3M3 Mod 23. The G3M3 started production in 1941. My figures come from Rene Francillon "Japanese Aircraft in the Pacific War" and David Donald, editor "The Complete Encyclopedia of World Aircraft.
G3M2 Mod 22 - MS 232 CS 173 Alt 29950 End 944 Rng Mi 2722 Rng Hx 45
G3M3 Mod 23 - MS 258 CS 184 Alt 33370 End 1262 Rng Mi 3871 Rng Hx 65


L3Y: Same as the Nell.

I have no comment on the L3Y. Cannot find a source that has any specifications.


G4M1: Endurance again neads to be looked at, with 3,749 miles listed and endurance at 1,500 in the game, crusing spead listed at 196 mph, game alows 226. Torpedo, could arguable considered internal, espichaly if the one the Jill carys is considered internal.

I agree. Francillon shows a Mx Range of 3749 and a CS of 196 making the End of 1148 even though the hex range still works out to 62.


G4M2:3,765 st miles listed, cruse spead listed at 196, game alows 226, endurance in game at 1,500. Their could be a valaid argument for replacing the Beam(blister/side) windo 7.7mm MG's with Type 99 20mm cannons. same note on torpedo stowage as above. Most of which also mounted the Type 99 MK II cannon, while the game shows type 99 MK I's. If this craft is intended to represent the mid war Betty the adation or use of the 7.7mm Nose gun should/could be switched to the 13.2mm type as was often fited for this time frame. The G4M2 should also be a bit more manuaverable than the G4M1 and this is not so in the game in fact it is the opset of how it should be.

I agree with Mx Range of 3749 and a CS of 196 instead of 226. That would make the End 1148 even though the hex range still works out to 62 or rounded up to 63. Again I would make the torpedo storage internal and increase the Mvr over the G4M1. I agree that it coud be shown with the 20mm on the sides giving a GV of 20 or 22 if one of the nose guns is changed to the 13.2 Type 2. I would not change the 20's though to the Mod 2.


G4M2e: See notes above on cruse spead, also I dont see any referances showing that the range was so drasticaly impacted for this model when carrying the Ohka, game show 700 for endurance.

Considering that the CS is overstated, if it is changed to 196 then your End should change to 830 to match what you show as the range. Also, the 20mm should be the Mod 2 for this aircraft.


P1Y: Listed range is given at 1,192-3,338 (normal-Max), cruse spead is given at 230 mph, game has 260, with an endurance of 630 in game, at glance somthing seams off espichaly when compared to the figures given above for the Bettys. Also This plane should be Torpedo Capable and it is not in the game.

I agree with Brady. If you use the Mx Rng of 3338 st. miles gives you and endurance of 871 for a cruise speed of 230. Hx Rng = 56. If you consider this to be the "b" version, the GV could be upgraded to 12 to show 1x20 and 2x13mm.


C5M: Should be 7.7mm Type 92 MG not Type 89.

I agree on the 7.7 and that should apply to the Ki-15 as well. I show that the range is overstated on the C5M. Francillon and Weale indicates that the due to the additional equipment that the c5M weighed more than the Ki-15 causing the lower range. Assuming the game CS of 199
C5M1 - MS 291 CS 199 Alt 27000 Clmb 2030 End 219 Rng Mi 725 Rng Hx 12
C5M2 - MS 298 CS 199 Alt 31430 Clmb 2482 End 208 Rng Mi 691 Rng Hx 12


H6K4: Cruse spead listed at 138 (matches value given in game), Game endurance given as 1,400, Normal/Max range; 2,981/3,779 miles.Torpedos should be external, not internal. Max Load should be 2(1,764)=3,528, game alows for 2,205....now this is only a factor if the later figure impacts the planes abaility to cary two torps as it would on a torp run, it could cary the two torps or 2,205 pounds of bombs.

I agree. Based on the Mx Range of 3779 would make End 1643 and a Mx Hx Rng of 63.


H8K:4,445 miles listed as max range, cruse spead given as 184, game alows 1440 for endurance...wtf?....Torpedos should be external, not internal as listed, their should be also more 7.7mm Type 92 mg's at least 4 more two per side this in adation to to the listed in game aramement.

While only picking nits here, a range of 4445 at CS of 184 = End of 1440 still showing 74 hexes for the range. Yes the GV should be upgraded to 30. Arm = 1 x 20 (F, TT, R); 2x 20 (S); 1x7.7 (BR); 4x7.7 (S) - These are in the fuselange sides and the cockpit hatches.


H6K2-L: See notes above on H6K.



My sources are:
Rene Francillon "Japanese Aircraft in the Pacific War"
David Donald, editor "The Complete Encyclopedia of World Aircraft
Elke C. Weale, et al "Combat Aircraft of World War II"

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 154
RE: OOB Comments - 8/15/2004 8:25:56 AM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline
The GB 6pdr and the US M5 57mm ATG are basically the same weapon, and are not variants of the Russian 57mm ATG. The Brits developed the 6pdr, and then the US copied it and began producing it a few months after the Brits did.

_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to Herrbear)
Post #: 155
RE: OOB Comments - 8/15/2004 9:21:25 AM   
SpitfireIX


Posts: 264
Joined: 1/9/2003
From: Fort Wayne IN USA
Status: offline
Version 1.21 Scenario 15

VMSB-231 should start on 12/7/41, with 18 Vindicators aboard Lexington, and a detachment of six more at PH. (And VMSB squadrons should have a max a/c of 24). In March 1942, VMSB-231 was split, with half the squadron leaving to transition to SBDs and form the nucleus of a new squadron, and half staying at Midway with the remaining Vindicators. Oddly enough, the half that stayed active was redesignated VMSB-241, and the half that was stood down retained the old squadron number. I know that WitP doesn't support changing unit designations during the game, so I suggest that as a fix, have VMSB-241 appear at PH with SBDs at the time VMSB-231 currently does in the database. This will give the USMC the correctly equipped units at the correct times--just the squadron numbers will be reversed. And it will quickly become irrelevant as VMSB-231 upgrades to SBDs. Finally, if having a Marine air unit start aboard a carrier is some kind of problem, the next-best solution would be to have VMSB-231 start at Midway (though historically the Lex took them back to PH).

http://www.vought.com/heritage/special/html/ssb2u2.html

Correct air groups for US CVs:

Lexington:

VF-2 16 x F2A
VB-2 15 x SBD
VS-2 15 x SBD
VT-2 12 x TBD
(Plus VMSB-231--see above)

Saratoga:

VF-3 19 x F4F
VB-3 21 x SBD
VS-3 22 x SBD
VT-3 12 x TBD
(note--I'm pretty sure the 7 x F4F-3 in the linked page is supposed to be 17--there are a couple of other obvious typos)


Enterprise:

VF-6 16 x F4F
VB-6 17 x SBD
VS-6 18 x SBD
VT-6 18 x TBD

Enterprise should be closer to PH--she launched her scouts to fly in ahead of her; five or six were shot down by the Japanese or by "friendly" flak; several others were damaged. IMO, the best way to simulate this would be to have VS-6 start at PH--the damage the planes would take from being caught on the runway should approximate what happened historically.

http://www.bluejacket.com/ww2_12-07-41_carriers.html

Also, where are the Marine Engineer Regiments? The 2nd was at Pearl Harbor on 12/7/41.

http://www.bluejacket.com/ww2_12-07-41_usmc.html

Minneapolis, Chandler, Hovey, Boggs, and Lamberton should start in a TF one hex south of PH. (Unless these ships were deliberately made reinforcements to avoid attracting KB's attention)

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/misc/non-ph.html

Waters should be available on 12/7/41 at San Diego--she escorted Saratoga to PH. Alternatively, if you want to convert her to an APD, which is what has been done with her sisters Dent and Talbot, she should be available 2/10/43.

http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/destroy/dd115txt.htm

[edited to fix typo and move note on Saratoga's air group]

< Message edited by SpitfireIX -- 8/15/2004 10:09:34 AM >


_____________________________

"I know Japanese. He is very bad. And tricky. But we Americans too smart. We catch him and give him hell."

--Benny Sablan, crewman, USS Enterprise 12/7/41

(in reply to pry)
Post #: 156
RE: OOB Comments - 8/15/2004 12:04:16 PM   
BPRE

 

Posts: 624
Joined: 10/16/2000
From: Stockholm,Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

The GB 6pdr and the US M5 57mm ATG are basically the same weapon, and are not variants of the Russian 57mm ATG. The Brits developed the 6pdr, and then the US copied it and began producing it a few months after the Brits did.


OK,

The 6pdr and the 57mm are equal in the database so that upgrade is not a problem as such. The amount of guns available plus the fact that the 57mm is upgraded immediately (or maybe it goes straight from the 2pdr to the 76mm in some cases. I saw in another thread that it's possible for ACs) to 76mm is not very good. From that point of view it's probably better if the path is 2pdr to 6pdr.

Regards
BPRE

(in reply to Tankerace)
Post #: 157
RE: OOB Comments - 8/15/2004 3:06:02 PM   
Montbrun


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

The 2nd Engineer Battalion was indiginous to the 2nd Marine Division, and is assumed, in game terms, to be in San Diego with the division. There has to be alot of compromises in a game this size, especially with the campaign scenarios. The Marine Engineer Regiments were created with the "D-100" Series T/Os (7/1/42), by combining the divisional Engineer and Pioneer Battalions with a Naval Construction Battalion (of 3 companies, as opposed to the usual 4). These regiments were dropped in the "F-100" Series T/Os (5/5/44), with the assigned battalions reverting to their former designations.

Brad

(in reply to BPRE)
Post #: 158
RE: OOB Comments - 8/15/2004 5:04:02 PM   
SpitfireIX


Posts: 264
Joined: 1/9/2003
From: Fort Wayne IN USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter

SpitfireIX,

The 2nd Engineer Battalion was indiginous to the 2nd Marine Division, and is assumed, in game terms, to be in San Diego with the division. There has to be alot of compromises in a game this size, especially with the campaign scenarios. The Marine Engineer Regiments were created with the "D-100" Series T/Os (7/1/42), by combining the divisional Engineer and Pioneer Battalions with a Naval Construction Battalion (of 3 companies, as opposed to the usual 4). These regiments were dropped in the "F-100" Series T/Os (5/5/44), with the assigned battalions reverting to their former designations.

Brad


Doh! That's what I get for finishing my post at 2:30 a.m.

_____________________________

"I know Japanese. He is very bad. And tricky. But we Americans too smart. We catch him and give him hell."

--Benny Sablan, crewman, USS Enterprise 12/7/41

(in reply to Montbrun)
Post #: 159
USMC Defense Battalions - 8/15/2004 5:06:43 PM   
kmussler

 

Posts: 69
Joined: 6/12/2002
From: Rensselaer, Indiana, USA
Status: offline
My Dad was in the USMC 9th Defense Battalion. I've done a bit of research on those units, and the 9th in particular. The TO&E for the 9th (and later units) is a bit different from that in the game.

The TO&E in my books for the 9th is (in game terms):
8 - 155 Field Guns (M-1)
12 - 90mm AA guns
16 - 40mm AA guns
28 - 20mm AA guns
35 - .50 cal. HMG
30 - .30 cal. HMG
8 - M3 Stuart Light Tanks
1 - #270 Radar
Commanding Officer (Oct 1942 activation) Col. David Nimmer

The 9th was the first USMC DB to have tanks - used to great effect on New Georgia, along with those of the 10th and 11th USMC DB.
(Primary book source - Melson, Maj. Charles. The Ninth Marine Defense and AAA Battalions. Chadwick, Frank (editor). Paducah, KY: Turner Publishing, 1989.)

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 160
RE: OOB Comments - 8/15/2004 6:04:15 PM   
SpitfireIX


Posts: 264
Joined: 1/9/2003
From: Fort Wayne IN USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TIMJOT

Just to add to the 31 pages of oob fixes. Dont know if anyone else has mentioned it but I just noticed that VMSB 231, the Vindacater unit that the Lexington was bringing to Midway apparently isnt in Senerio 15. It should start either on board the Lex or at Midway on turn one.

Sorry, TIMJOT, I somehow missed your post my first time through the thread. I should have given you credit for initially pointing out this problem.

_____________________________

"I know Japanese. He is very bad. And tricky. But we Americans too smart. We catch him and give him hell."

--Benny Sablan, crewman, USS Enterprise 12/7/41

(in reply to TIMJOT)
Post #: 161
RE: OOB Comments - 8/15/2004 7:01:48 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: SpitfireIX

Version 1.21 Scenario 15

... VMSB squadrons should have a max a/c of 24 ...


VMSB (and VMF) squadrons were allocated 18 aircraft at the beginning of the war. The increase to 24 occurred late in 1944.

(in reply to SpitfireIX)
Post #: 162
7th USMC Defence Battalion - 8/15/2004 10:56:39 PM   
Pascal_slith


Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline
On Dec. 7th, 1941, the 7th USMC Def Batt was posted on Tutuila Island (Pago-Pago in the game). The 1st Samoan Marine Corps Reserve Battalion was also with them. Upolu only contained a small NZ detachment (company sized). The base forces on these islands in the game should not be there at all. They should be located on the West Coast at best. No US forces were located at Tongatabu (misspelled in WitP as Tongatapu). Only a New Zealand cadred Tongan Defense Force was there. Again, the US base force should be on the West Coast at best.

Noumea only contained an Australian garrison and Efate a small Aussie force and small seaplane (not large patrol type like PBY's) base.

There are also far too many militarily significant bases, i.e. port or airfield size 1or greater WITH supplies and fuel, lying around the South Pacific and Southeast Asian islands. Many should be reduced to simple beaches (port and airfield 0) or at a minimum a port level 1 with no supplies or fuel.

Finally, there is much too much fuel on hand in most ports, including major bases, EXCEPT for PH and the US West Coast ports. Considering 1 fuel point = 1 ton of fuel, PH should have about 600'000 (the approx. 4.5 million barrels on hand on Dec. 7th). As the West Coast had about 44.5 million barrels available, at least Los Angeles should have 950'000 fuel points available. (Sources: PH Attack Hearings (see website at www.ibiblio.org) and "The Pacific War Revisited" by Bischof and Dupont). The major Australian, New Zealand, DEI, Malayan (Singapore), and Indian bases also have too much fuel on hand. I'm working through the official histories and other sources for more exact corrections.

Ocean Island has been missed as a beach/buildable base. It's on the map graphically (see hex 77,89). And Nauru was an important source of phosphates for Japanese agriculture, so it should have a resource production industry.

< Message edited by Pascal -- 8/15/2004 11:39:04 PM >


_____________________________

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


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 163
RE: 7th USMC Defence Battalion - 8/16/2004 12:08:15 AM   
Subchaser


Posts: 1201
Joined: 11/15/2002
Status: offline
Technical data correction

Type KD3A/B (Kaidai 3a/b)

- These boats had 6 forward torpedo tubes and 2 aft tubes, in game all 8 tubes are forward.

Type KD6A/B (Kaidai 6a/b)

- In game boats of this type have 6 forward tubes with 2 ammo, this should be changed to 4 forward tubes with 2 ammo and 2 aft tubes with 3 ammo. These boats carried 14 torpedoes not 12.
- Submarines I-171 - I-175 should have 4,7in/45 3YT gun instead of 3,9in/50 type 88.
- Submarines I-168 – I-173 should have 1 x 2x13,2mm type 93 AA mg, and I-174 – I-175 subs should have 2 x 2x13,2mm mgs.

Type KD5 (Kaidai 5)

- The same problem as with kaidai 6 type, there should be 4 forward tubes with 2 ammo and 2 aft tubes with 3 ammo.

Type KD7 (Kaidai 7)

- These subs had twin 25mm mount not single.

Type J1 (Junsen 1)

I-5, I-6 were the first Japanese submarines designed to carry an aircraft and if aircraft containers on I-5 were removed and additional gun was mounted in 1940, I-6 entered pacific war duly equipped for air reconnaissance missions.

- I-6 should have 1 aircraft capacity and 1 Glen float plane, 4 forward tubes with 3 ammo, 2 aft tubes with 3 ammo and one 4,7in/45 3YT gun.
- Subs I-2, I-4 and I-6 had one 13,2mm type 93 AA mg mount

Type J3 (Junsen 3)

- These subs carried 22 torpedoes not 18, torpedo ammo should be increased to 4.
- In game these subs have two twin 13,2mm mounts and one single 13,2mm mg, this should be changed to one twin 25mm mount, one twin and one single 13,2mm mgs mounts.

Type KRS (Kirai-sen)

- Durability should be changed from 20 to 24.

Type L4 (Vickers L3 Mod)

- ammo for 2 aft torpedo tubes tube must 1 instead of 2, this type has only 10 torpedoes.

Maneuverability of the following types should be changed (mvr ratings of US subs also should be also be changed):
Type STo – 51,
Type AM – 52,
Type A2 – 54,
Type A1 – 56,
Type B3/4 – 57,
Type B2 – 58,
Type B1 – 58,
Type C3/4 – 57,
Type C2 – 59,
Type C1 – 59,
Type KD7 – 63,
Type KD6A/B – 64,
Type KD5 – 65,
Type J3 – 58,
Type J1 – 63,
Type KRS – 59,
Type ST – 92,
Type STS – 95,
Type L4 – 73.

OOB Corrections

Type K6 (Kaichu 6)
2 submarines are missing - RO-55 (Built at Tamano Zosensho shipyard, commissioned 23 april 1944) and RO-56 (Built at Tamano Zosensho shipyard, commissioned 5 july 1944).

Type C2 (Kaidai Hei-Gate C2)

I-49, I-50, I-51 - these are the phantom subs, none was even laid down. Order for them was really placed in 1941, under fleet replacement program, but it was canceled in may 1943. However these are in the game, this supposes that in game I-48 will be laid down in september ’43, I-50 in july ’43 and I-51 in february ’44. If these subs were included to beef up IJN submarine force in 1945, when it probably will be already mauled, then I must admit that this is strange choice. May be it would better to give player submarines which were really laid down and by spring ’45 were almost ready. I-404 was 95% ready when she was sunk by US carrier planes in Kure on 28 july ’45; I-1 (type AM) 70% ready; I-15 (type AM) 90% ready; I-204 90% ready; I-205 -80% ready; I-206 was 85% ready in march ’45 etc. Or to launch more perspective boats from the canceled order list than these kaidais in late 43, there were so many plans… any ideas?

Where is japanese transport submarine fleet?

28 IJN transport submarines are missing, (since IJA vessels are completely ignored there is no wonder why 26 army transport submarines also weren’t included).

The number of transport submarines Japanese built during the war and the number of subs converted ito undersea transports actually deserves additional ship type – SST, transport submarine.

Type Sen-Ho (2 subs - I-351, I-352)
Max Speed - 16
Cruise Speed - 10
Mvr - 59
Dur- 34
End- 27 500
Fuel- 750
Cap - 365 tons (FUEL)
Torps - 4x 21in type 95 –F (1)
AA guns - 2 x 3x25mm type 96 + 1 x 1x25mm type 96

Type Tei-Gata 2 (2 subs - I-373, I-374)
Max Speed - 13
Cruise Speed - 10
Mvr - 58
Dur - 33
End - 15 000
Fuel - 350
Cap - 120 (Supplies)
Naval guns - 1 x 5.5in/40 QF
AA guns - 1 x 2x25mm type 96

Type Tei-Gata (12 subs - I-361 – I-372)
Max Speed - 13
Cruise Speed- 10
Mvr - 58
Dur - 33
End - 15 000
Fuel - 350
Cap - 120 (Supplies)
Torps - 2 x 21in type 95 –F (1) only I-361
Naval guns - 1 x 5.5in/40 QF
AA guns - 1 x 2x25mm type 96

Type Sen-Yuso-Sho (12 subs - Ha-101 – Ha-112)
Max Speed - 10
Cruise Speed - 8
Mvr- 61
Dur - 31
End - 3 500
Fuel - 75
Cap - 60 (Supplies)
AA guns - 1 x 25mm type 96

< Message edited by Subchaser -- 8/16/2004 10:41:30 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Pascal_slith)
Post #: 164
IJN Submarines - 8/16/2004 12:41:53 AM   
Pascal_slith


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

< Message edited by Pascal -- 8/15/2004 11:42:21 PM >


_____________________________

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


(in reply to Subchaser)
Post #: 165
RE: IJN Submarines - 8/16/2004 12:59:51 AM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline
WTG Subchaser.

_____________________________





Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view

(in reply to Pascal_slith)
Post #: 166
RE: IJN Submarines - 8/16/2004 1:05:02 AM   
Pascal_slith


Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline
USS California and USS Tennesee have some weapons facing problems when you look in the database. A bunch of the AA weapons only face to the right side (RS). No left side facing. This is just from a quick look.

< Message edited by Pascal -- 8/16/2004 12:06:08 AM >


_____________________________

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


(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 167
RE: IJN Submarines - 8/16/2004 1:15:20 AM   
pry


Posts: 1410
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Overlooking Galveston Bay, Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pascal

USS California and USS Tennesee have some weapons facing problems when you look in the database. A bunch of the AA weapons only face to the right side (RS). No left side facing. This is just from a quick look.



SCENARIO and Game VERSION Please...

_____________________________


(in reply to Pascal_slith)
Post #: 168
RE: IJN Submarines - 8/16/2004 1:43:13 AM   
Pascal_slith


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

ORIGINAL: pry

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pascal

USS California and USS Tennesee have some weapons facing problems when you look in the database. A bunch of the AA weapons only face to the right side (RS). No left side facing. This is just from a quick look.



SCENARIO and Game VERSION Please...


Scenario 15, version 1.21

_____________________________

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


(in reply to pry)
Post #: 169
RE: 7th USMC Defence Battalion - 8/16/2004 2:49:48 AM   
pry


Posts: 1410
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Overlooking Galveston Bay, Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pascal

On Dec. 7th, 1941, the 7th USMC Def Batt was posted on Tutuila Island (Pago-Pago in the game). The 1st Samoan Marine Corps Reserve Battalion was also with them. Upolu only contained a small NZ detachment (company sized). The base forces on these islands in the game should not be there at all. They should be located on the West Coast at best. No US forces were located at Tongatabu (misspelled in WitP as Tongatapu). Only a New Zealand cadred Tongan Defense Force was there. Again, the US base force should be on the West Coast at best.

Noumea only contained an Australian garrison and Efate a small Aussie force and small seaplane (not large patrol type like PBY's) base.

There are also far too many militarily significant bases, i.e. port or airfield size 1or greater WITH supplies and fuel, lying around the South Pacific and Southeast Asian islands. Many should be reduced to simple beaches (port and airfield 0) or at a minimum a port level 1 with no supplies or fuel.

Finally, there is much too much fuel on hand in most ports, including major bases, EXCEPT for PH and the US West Coast ports. Considering 1 fuel point = 1 ton of fuel, PH should have about 600'000 (the approx. 4.5 million barrels on hand on Dec. 7th). As the West Coast had about 44.5 million barrels available, at least Los Angeles should have 950'000 fuel points available. (Sources: PH Attack Hearings (see website at www.ibiblio.org) and "The Pacific War Revisited" by Bischof and Dupont). The major Australian, New Zealand, DEI, Malayan (Singapore), and Indian bases also have too much fuel on hand. I'm working through the official histories and other sources for more exact corrections.

Ocean Island has been missed as a beach/buildable base. It's on the map graphically (see hex 77,89). And Nauru was an important source of phosphates for Japanese agriculture, so it should have a resource production industry.


Pascal

Most of these items need to done in a PBEM only scenario, The AI needs help here and there and part of that help is that it needs existing bases to utilize and also fuel and supply to help it out, as long as the AI is involved then 100% historical accuracy and game play don't mix. I personally don't see any of the above being changed in any of the Existing Official Scenarios.

Once we get caught up with the OOB issues I would be glad to work with you and any others to design a PBEM only campaign scenario that things like could be done in without any harm to game play.

_____________________________


(in reply to Pascal_slith)
Post #: 170
RE: Aircraft Types - 8/16/2004 7:01:28 AM   
Herrbear


Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline
I can see your point in using the Model 22 instead of the 32. What would be the stats for the aircraft. I cannot find a source that that supplies much facts on it.

In UV it was listed as the following:
MS 336; CS 220; Alt 32810; Cli 2700; Mvr 36; Dur 22; Arm 0; End 453; Max Rng (mi) 1661; Hx 27; Ld 500; GV 12

I think the load is high and should only be 264.

Why not keep both the Model 22 and Model 32 and eliminate the D1A in slot 15. I did not locate on Scen 15 that there is a unit or factory that has that aircraft.

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 171
RE: OOB Comments - 8/16/2004 9:45:01 AM   
Tanaka


Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline
Saburo Sakai should be based at Tainan in the Tainan Squadron on Dec 7th.

http://www.frenkenstein.com/ww2/japan/Aces/Saburo_Sakai.htm


On December 8, 1941, only hours after Pearl Harbor, Sakai flew one of 45 Zero’s from Tainan Squadron that attacked Clark airfield in the Philippines. "We started our day at 0200 hours. Our take off was ordered by the commander Saito, but a fog came in and we were delayed. We stayed with our planes waiting, and had breakfast. We received the news of the attack on Pearl Harbor and the Aleutians, and we wondered if the Americans would be expecting us during our attack. Finally at 1000 we were ordered to take off. The mission started badly when a bomber crashed on take-off killing all of the crew. We took off and reached 19,000 feet when I saw a formation of American bombers coming towards our airfield. The Americans always had great reconnaissance and knew where we were. Our orders as the top fighter cover were to attack any aircraft coming towards the base, so we attacked and allowed the others to continue on. Then we saw that these planes were Japanese Army bombers on a routing flight, and no one had informed the navy that they were coming or even in the area. This was almost tragic. We reformed and continued on. When we arrived over Clark Field we were amazed that we had not been intercepted, although there were five American fighters below us who did not attack, and we could not; our orders were to not engage until all of our bombers were in the area. I was also amazed that all of the American planes were in perfect alignment for an attack, and we strafed and bombed, and thoroughly destroyed everything. After the bombers destroyed the base I saw two B- 17s and went into a strafing attack. We had already dropped our empty external fuel tanks, and we swept in with guns blazing. My two wing men and I shot them up, and as we pulled out the five P-40s we had seen jumped us. This was my first combat against Americans, and I shot down one. We had destroyed four in the air and thirty-five on the ground. This was my third air victory, and the first American, but not the last. I flew missions the next day, and the weather was terrible, a rainstorm that blinded us. The third day was 10 December and we had twenty-seven fighters on this sweep, and this was when I caught a B-17 that was flown by Captain Colin P. Kelley. This was the first B-17 shot down during the war."

_____________________________


(in reply to pry)
Post #: 172
ICB Cluster Bombs - 8/16/2004 7:03:02 PM   
BartM


Posts: 107
Joined: 7/18/2004
Status: offline
not familiar how the game uses these, which a/c use them and their actual purpose ?

Looking at the editor, they show a low effect damage, no penatration (expected that), but how does the game use these ? would a higher Effect damage, along with a soft-target value offer these a better use ?

(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 173
RE: 7th USMC Defence Battalion - 8/17/2004 12:45:48 AM   
Pascal_slith


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

ORIGINAL: pry

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pascal

On Dec. 7th, 1941, the 7th USMC Def Batt was posted on Tutuila Island (Pago-Pago in the game). The 1st Samoan Marine Corps Reserve Battalion was also with them. Upolu only contained a small NZ detachment (company sized). The base forces on these islands in the game should not be there at all. They should be located on the West Coast at best. No US forces were located at Tongatabu (misspelled in WitP as Tongatapu). Only a New Zealand cadred Tongan Defense Force was there. Again, the US base force should be on the West Coast at best.

Noumea only contained an Australian garrison and Efate a small Aussie force and small seaplane (not large patrol type like PBY's) base.

There are also far too many militarily significant bases, i.e. port or airfield size 1or greater WITH supplies and fuel, lying around the South Pacific and Southeast Asian islands. Many should be reduced to simple beaches (port and airfield 0) or at a minimum a port level 1 with no supplies or fuel.

Finally, there is much too much fuel on hand in most ports, including major bases, EXCEPT for PH and the US West Coast ports. Considering 1 fuel point = 1 ton of fuel, PH should have about 600'000 (the approx. 4.5 million barrels on hand on Dec. 7th). As the West Coast had about 44.5 million barrels available, at least Los Angeles should have 950'000 fuel points available. (Sources: PH Attack Hearings (see website at www.ibiblio.org) and "The Pacific War Revisited" by Bischof and Dupont). The major Australian, New Zealand, DEI, Malayan (Singapore), and Indian bases also have too much fuel on hand. I'm working through the official histories and other sources for more exact corrections.

Ocean Island has been missed as a beach/buildable base. It's on the map graphically (see hex 77,89). And Nauru was an important source of phosphates for Japanese agriculture, so it should have a resource production industry.


Pascal

Most of these items need to done in a PBEM only scenario, The AI needs help here and there and part of that help is that it needs existing bases to utilize and also fuel and supply to help it out, as long as the AI is involved then 100% historical accuracy and game play don't mix. I personally don't see any of the above being changed in any of the Existing Official Scenarios.

Once we get caught up with the OOB issues I would be glad to work with you and any others to design a PBEM only campaign scenario that things like could be done in without any harm to game play.


Definitely agree, Pry. I already thought this would be the problem. Yes, a PBEM game with much more accurate historical bases, supplies, etc. is most likely the only solution. This PBEM-only version would also allow the map modifications to include the missing Pacific and Indian Ocean islands.

_____________________________

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


(in reply to pry)
Post #: 174
RE: OOB Comments - 8/17/2004 12:53:22 AM   
jcjordan

 

Posts: 1900
Joined: 6/27/2001
Status: offline
Don, yep those are the squadrons that some of my research had come up with but the a/c for the 5th & 10th seemed to indicate a little higher but it could be wrong. I like to get info from several sources to cross check totals & such but had a hard time on the Phil & Chinese units so far.

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 175
B-17 Endurance - 8/17/2004 1:51:49 AM   
Pascal_slith


Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline
According to the section on the B-17E and F versions in volume 4 of "Aircraft in Profile", the B-17E and F versions had a range of 3'300 miles with the full 2'492 gallons of fuel and 4'420 miles with the additional "Tokyo Tanks" (fuel containers in the bomb bay, total fuel 3'612 gallons). This distances and the cruise speed was at 5000 ft.

The maximum speed at altitude was 318 mph (as in the WitP database), but the cruising speed was 160 mph. Thus the endurance should be 1'235 without Tokyo Tanks and 1'655 with Tokyo Tanks, far more than the 815 of the database. Given the caculations for Normal and Extended Range (1/4 and 1/3 of Ferry Range), I would change the endurance of the B-17E to 1600.

_____________________________

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


(in reply to jcjordan)
Post #: 176
RE: OOB Comments - 8/17/2004 2:11:58 AM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

Don, yep those are the squadrons that some of my research had come up with but the a/c for the 5th & 10th seemed to indicate a little higher but it could be wrong. I like to get info from several sources to cross check totals & such but had a hard time on the Phil & Chinese units so far.



As far as I can tell the total available aircraft for the PAF was:
12 P-26A
2 P-6E
2 B-10B (a third was stripped down for use as an instructional airframe)
1 B-3A
1 or 2 Beech D18 (Photo recon)
4 O-46 Observation
About 50 assorted models of Stearman Trainers
1 Stinson Reliant (whatever that is).

Somewhat larger numbers of P-6, B-3, and B-10 had been transferred but the remainder were no longer serviceable. It is probable that the PAF followed the USAAC practive of assigning a few utility aircraft to operational squadrons so the actual totals of the opertional squadrons might be a little higher but the extras would be non-combatant.

Don

Don

(in reply to jcjordan)
Post #: 177
RE: B-17 Endurance - 8/17/2004 7:09:43 AM   
Herrbear


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

ORIGINAL: Pascal

According to the section on the B-17E and F versions in volume 4 of "Aircraft in Profile", the B-17E and F versions had a range of 3'300 miles with the full 2'492 gallons of fuel and 4'420 miles with the additional "Tokyo Tanks" (fuel containers in the bomb bay, total fuel 3'612 gallons). This distances and the cruise speed was at 5000 ft.

The maximum speed at altitude was 318 mph (as in the WitP database), but the cruising speed was 160 mph. Thus the endurance should be 1'235 without Tokyo Tanks and 1'655 with Tokyo Tanks, far more than the 815 of the database. Given the caculations for Normal and Extended Range (1/4 and 1/3 of Ferry Range), I would change the endurance of the B-17E to 1600.



I think you are overstating the endurance basing it on the "Tokyo Tanks" as this would tend to increase the Normal and Extended ranges. The max bombload with the extra tanks would be much smaller in reality and you would be reflecting a Normal bombload over a longer distance than possible.

Using your End=1600 and the listed Cruise Spd of 160 a Max (Ferry) Rng=4267 or 71.11 Hexes, Norm=17.75; Ext=20.70. That would produce a Normal Bomb range of over 1000 miles, which is closer to their extended range IMO.

I agree that the Cruising Spd is a little low. Based on the sources below I would guess that 210 would be a better figure. Also I would use a maximum range 3250 (Split between 2 sources that said 3200 and 3300). The resulting figures:
Max=318; Cruise=210; Alt=36600; Climb=700; Mvr & Dur as is; Arm-1; End=929; Max Rng (Mi)=3200; Max Rng (Hx)=54.17; Ext Rng (Hx)=18.1; Norm Rng=13.5; Max Ld=8000; GV=26

The Extended Range will let you bomb Rabul from Cooktown.


Here are a few excellent sites on American and Allied aircraft.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b17.html
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/bomber2.htm
http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/american.htm

(in reply to Pascal_slith)
Post #: 178
RE: OOB Comments - 8/18/2004 9:32:42 PM   
Tom G.

 

Posts: 65
Joined: 5/2/2001
From: San Francisco
Status: offline
i am sure there are more, but just in case this is not reoported yet. Sqn 243 (#1169) gets updated to a Dakota from a Buffalo.

Nope this upgrade path appears correct. Sorry.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/h243.html

< Message edited by Tom G. -- 8/18/2004 7:56:47 PM >

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 179
RE: B-17 Endurance - 8/19/2004 5:09:19 AM   
JohnK

 

Posts: 285
Joined: 2/8/2001
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pascal

According to the section on the B-17E and F versions in volume 4 of "Aircraft in Profile", the B-17E and F versions had a range of 3'300 miles with the full 2'492 gallons of fuel and 4'420 miles with the additional "Tokyo Tanks" (fuel containers in the bomb bay, total fuel 3'612 gallons). This distances and the cruise speed was at 5000 ft.

The maximum speed at altitude was 318 mph (as in the WitP database), but the cruising speed was 160 mph. Thus the endurance should be 1'235 without Tokyo Tanks and 1'655 with Tokyo Tanks, far more than the 815 of the database. Given the caculations for Normal and Extended Range (1/4 and 1/3 of Ferry Range), I would change the endurance of the B-17E to 1600.


Yet another example of the real danger in going by sole sources regarding aircraft, and also not applying the same standards for all aircraft...and also not recognizing the reality that WITP stats are a very simplified compromise among a VAST array of fuel/bombload combos for a given aircraft.

Back when the B-17 got really badly screwed up in the Matrix Pacific War databases when it was turned into an uberplane close to the B-29 in range and bombload, it wouldn't surprise me if the "Tokyo Tanks" data was used (in addition to the bombload including the almost never used and range-killing underwing bomb option.)

As pointed out, the bombload with "Tokyo Tanks" had to be tiny. And I'd suspect only a tiny tiny fraction of the missions in the Pacific used them at all. It's a real problem when you take a rare aircraft load or modification and make it a standard.

ANY change to the B-17 that results in it having a longer range, OR bombload, than the B-24 is, by definition, wrong. The problem is if you use standard B-24 ranges and bombload and compare them to rare options/modifications of the B-17s.

(in reply to Pascal_slith)
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: OOB Comments Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   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

0.828