Dutchgy2000
Posts: 175
Joined: 2/3/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
I have seen a number of contradictory sources on the squadrons of 2 and 3 Group. Several specifically mention the movement of one of 2nd Group's squadrons to 3rd Group for the purpose of building a three-squadron group for use in Singapore.
As far as I know there were indeed 3 squadrons send to Singapore: 1-VLG-III (bombers), 3-VLG-III (bombers) and 3-VLG-V (fighters).
3-VLG-III was originally the tranfered and renamed 2-VLG-II but that happened way before and had nothing to do with singapore, 2-VLG-II being rebuilt in the meantime to fill VLG-II as a 2 suadron group again.
I note that the extra squadron formed at the outbreak of the war is named "7th Squadron" and have decided to go with a total of seven squadrons:
2 in 1st Group
1 in 2nd Group
3 in 3rd Group
7th Squadron
In my opinion (but i might be wrong here) I, II and II were bombers, IV and V were fighters, VI was your later mentioned transport and that´s why the newly formed bomber ´squadron´ was named 7th (VII) before it was attached/merged with VLG-III to make up a 2 squadron group again.
In addition to the Lockheed 212s of VkAfdeling-4 the Dutch operated a number of Lockheed Lodestar L18-40 pure transports. I do not know the source of these aircraft but they are in addition to the force of DC-3s taken over from the civilian air company (KNLM?). These are usually listed as being in "Depot Vliegtuig Afdeling of the ML-KNIL" but I have seen at least one reference placing them in a "6th" squadron and have used VkAfdeling-6 in our OOB. I would appreciate any suggestions for a better name for this unit. The Depot Vliegtuig Afdeling transferred to Australia in February, 1942 and many of these Lodestars ended up with US or Australian forces in Australia:
The Lockheed L18-40´s were formed in D-VL-A (Depot Vliegtuig Afdeling), my guess would be the DC-3´s were added to these and thats why the number is sometimes given as 12 till as high as 19. According to ´official´ listings there were only 12 L18-40´s in depot and maybe another 2 pure training/flightschool which would leave some Dc-3´s to make up the numbers)
LT9-07 (c/n 18-2102), radio call sign VHCAA, went to the USAAF as 42-68347 and was operated by Qantas. It served in Australia and New Zealand after the war before going to the USA where it was current in 2004 as N796G.
LT9-08 (c/n 18-2103), radio call sign VHCAB, went to the USAAF as 42-68348 and was operated by Qantas. It was written off on 26 November 1943 at Port Moresby.
LT9-09 (c/n 18-2104), radio call sign VHCAC, went to the USAAF as 42-68349 and was operated by Guinea Airways. It served in Australia and New Zealand after the war and was written off on 10 February 1947 at Palmerston, New Zealand.
LT9-14 (c/n 18-2109), radio call sign VHCAD, went to the USAAF as 42-68350. It was written off either on 14 July 1942 or in January 1944 at Tennant Creek.
LT9-15 (c/n 18-2110) was withdrawn from use in Darwin in March 1942 whilst still in ML-KNIL service.
LT9-16 (c/n 18-2120), radio call sign VHCAE, went to the USAAF as 42-68351 and was operated by Ansett. It was written off on 11 October 1942 at Archerfield.
LT9-17 (c/n 18-2121), radio call sign VHCAF, went to the USAAF as 42-68352 and was operated by ANA. It was written off on 23 February 1944 at Archerfield.
LT9-18 (c/n 18-2122) was written off on 3 March 1942 at Broome whilst still in ML-KNIL service.
LT9-19 (c/n 18-2123), radio call sign VHCAG, went to the USAAF as 42-68353 and was operated by ANA (?). It was written off on 18 August 1942 at Maple.
LT9-21 (c/n 18-2125), radio call sign VHCAH, went to the USAAF as 42-68354 and was operated by ANA. It was written off on 30 November 1942 at Dobodura, New Guinea.
LT9-22 (c/n 18-2126) was written off on 15 February 1942 at Brisbane whilst still in ML-KNIL service.
LT9-23 (c/n 18-2127), radio call sign VHCAI, went to USAAF as 42-68355. It was written off on 18 August 1942 at Maple. Sometimes reported as current as N7001 but that aircraft is c/n 2427.
LT9-24 (c/n 18-2128), radio call sign VHCAJ, went to the USAAF as 42-68356 and was operated by ANA. It was written off on 26 February 1943 at Garbutt.
LT9-25 (c/n 18-2129), radio call sign VHCAK, went to the USAAF as 42-68357 and was operated by Qantas. It was written off on 15 May 1944 at Bundaberg.
Also, the 212s are usually listed as "light transport - used for recon" and Matrix has listed them as transports (with an upgrade to Dakotas). I feel this is appropriate.
Well in my Dutch sources they are usually listed as recon flight (VKA-4) but i aggree with their designation as transports and eventual upgrade.
So yes, there were three transport groups in the NEI:
Light Transport/Recon 212s of VkAfdeling-4
Lockheed Lodestars of Depot Vliegtuig Afdeling
Impressed DC-3 Civilian aircraft (assignment not known).
Well that´s a matter of symantics, officially VKA-4 is a recon flight and I still assume the DC-3´s and L18-40 together form D-VL-A so that would make it one transport group in name total.
Only the first two are included in our OOB.
There is no method to split groups in the scenario editor so the options are:
several small flights
ignore history and only use full squadrons
Matrix has chosen the former and I agree.
We will have to aggree to dissagree on this one then, the only detached flights I know of were meanth as a ´token´ resistance (show of force) and assumed to return to their squadrons as soon as hostillities broke out. So just for that we now have to fly useless 4 plane groups till 1945 while irl they would have returned to their parent squadrons and made up 12 plane groups again. (And don´t tell me people don´t bunch them together again anyway instead of leaving out 4 plane groups out in the cold alone). So as they were only inteneded to show token resistance, run and reform I would much prefer full strenght squadrons for the rest of the war (come on.. it´s 12 full strenght planes at most!)
Btw, technical question, why can´t they start out as /a /b parts that just reform later?
Although you did not mention it in your reply, I assume from the data in your post that I should rename the squadrons "VLG" without a period (NOT VL.G) - and I will do so.
Yes I think that might be most clear 1-VLG-IV for examle looks better to me then 1.Vl.G IV. which is still confusing as it looks like VI or a Roman numeral.
Thanks
edit:
oops.. forgot my usual whine and the reason this tread started..so here we go again:
quote:
Oh.. and might as well add the original point that started this:
F4-VLG-IV (??) 12 Hawker Hurricane II (12) Bandoeng (Java) ... arriving 16 Feb. 1942
F5-VLG-IV (??) 12 Hawker Hurricane II (12) Bandoeng (Java) ... arriving 16 Feb. 1942
I can see now why the pilots came from VLG-IV, All other fighter pilots were either in Borneo or Malay so it stands to reason these planes were attached to this flightgroup.
< Message edited by Dutchgy2000 -- 3/6/2005 12:46:31 AM >
_____________________________
Our business in the field of fight, Is not to question, but to prove our might.
|
Printable Version
Dutch hurricanes - 
I am shocked!! I started up the game just to check... and the whole dutch airforce is a mess!! Actually the whole VLG-IV isn´t even it it!!... there´s VLG-III acting as a fighter group that VLG-IV should be... VLG-I has to many bomber groups... VLG-II has to many bomber groups... and i guess those would be the bombers of what VLG-III should be. And on a first glance I am sure the numbers are wrong too... dear oh dear how ever did I miss that for so long. *sigh* Starting to think a few missing hurricanes is peanuts now. 
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