RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

JuanG -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (7/30/2009 8:43:03 AM)

All in Scen 1.

Aircraft ID 423 F4F-3 Wildcat has DT ranges defined but no DT devices.

Aircraft ID 424 F4F-3P Wildcat has DT ranges defined but no DT devices.

Aircraft ID 609 A6M3 Zero has DTs and DT ranges for extended and normal, but no maximum.

Aircraft ID 722 P1Y3 Frances has DT ranges defined but no DT devices.

Aircraft ID 768 Ki-44 Tojo has DT ranges defined but no DT devices.

Aircraft ID 838 has DT ranges defined but no DT devices.



pad152 -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (7/30/2009 9:06:57 AM)

Just about every allied airgroup seems to be a squadron reguardless the number of aircraft (3 or 48)?

Do (flight, section, squadron, group, etc) mean anything any more?

What are the number of aircraft in a group based on then? Some B-25 groups have 10, 13, 15, or 16 aircraft?

Airgroups (4258-4265) are listed as squadrons(12-36) yet every air group is different some have 25, 30, even 48 aircraft.









timtom -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (7/30/2009 2:13:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

All in Scen 1.

Aircraft ID 423 F4F-3 Wildcat has DT ranges defined but no DT devices.

Aircraft ID 424 F4F-3P Wildcat has DT ranges defined but no DT devices.

Aircraft ID 609 A6M3 Zero has DTs and DT ranges for extended and normal, but no maximum.

Aircraft ID 722 P1Y3 Frances has DT ranges defined but no DT devices.

Aircraft ID 768 Ki-44 Tojo has DT ranges defined but no DT devices.

Aircraft ID 838 has DT ranges defined but no DT devices.


Antz! Thanks Juan.

...I'm sure all this was in order last week [&:]

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Just about every allied airgroup seems to be a squadron reguardless the number of aircraft (3 or 48)?

Do (flight, section, squadron, group, etc) mean anything any more?

What are the number of aircraft in a group based on then? Some B-25 groups have 10, 13, 15, or 16 aircraft?

Airgroups (4258-4265) are listed as squadrons(12-36) yet every air group is different some have 25, 30, even 48 aircraft.


Other than chrome, the function of "Formation" editor field was and is provide a default unit size if the "Max" field = 0. If the "Max" field has a value, that value will function as an override. In AE all max fields have individual values, so the only function of the "Formation" field is to indicate the type of formation in question, mostly squadrons as you say.

The number of a/c to a unit is based on historical Tables of Organisation. These vary depending on nation, service, unit type and year.



timtom -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (7/30/2009 3:02:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

1. Lancasters.
Listed is B Mk1 (FE), guns are that of a B Mk VII (FE). FE's had a bomb bay fuel tank that took the place of the 4000lb 'cookie' (indeed one questions the need for the 4000lb HC given the experiences of the B-29 raids)



My understanding is that the armament of the B.1 (FE) was 2x.303 Browning MK II in a F.N.5 nose turret, 2x.303 Browning MK II in a F.N.150 mid-upper turret, also removable if the 400 gal BB tank(-s) was carried, and 2x0.5 Browning Mk II in an F.N.82 or 121 rear turret. Don't know how many, if any, came with the F.N.79 turret.

The Mk VII, I believe, had a similar armament suite except the upper turret was a Martin housing 2x0.50's.

What do you hold the correct armament to be, Robert?



quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

I was happy with the guns just that the mark was wrong - of course if you are making an amalgam, then fine that represents the best compromise - especially as chatting to a colleague today has led me to believe that many of the late war B Mk 1's had mods that made a right hotch-potch of gun armaments.



Well, the B.1 isn't really meant to represent an amalgam. There's enough a/c slots to go around. However in practise we had to draw the line somewhere to allow the art team some peace to do their thing.

In your opinion, if we had both a Mk I and a VII (and a X for that matter) what would their gun suites look like?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

The fuselage tank on the other hand that was added to some test aircraft was, by all accounts, problematic as it altered some of the handling characteristics of the Lancaster to such a point that it was disliked by the test crews (and if the test pilots don't do it then who are we to argue). Indeed do not forget that the Lancaster (unlike the B-17, 24 and 29) was a single pilot proposition and if it couldn't be 'trimmed out' taking the weight off the stick then the pilot would be the proverbial 'one armed paper hanger'.



I take it you're refering to the saddleback tank?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

Personally I would delete the cookie, replace two of the 1000lb bombs with 4lb incendiaries (cheaper to make especially as there was no steel casing and proven to work well on Japanese construction by Lemay).



I'm afraid you're overestimating the ordnance code. It's a good deal more primitive than that (long story).

I guess we went with the cookie because it was different. A decision of how to handle the "hypothetical" period post 8/45 came late in the process and as far as the air OOB is concerned could benefit from a bit of polish. For my own part I'm a tad confused about the proposed role of Tiger Force, other than as a political statement. I can see how the Tallboy could be useful, but 20th AF was perfectly capable of burning down Japan's cities a second time if that was needed.




Joglinks1 -> Resize of Jap CV Air Groups (7/30/2009 5:36:48 PM)

I have been looking through the manual to find what the phrase 'Resize to fit ship' means. When you select an AG from a Jap CV you can choose between 'no resize allowed' and the option above. On land based AG the date and number of AC is displayed but on the the CV AG's

Any advise will be appreciated

Thanks



John Lansford -> RE: Resize of Jap CV Air Groups (7/30/2009 6:47:48 PM)

Can the Devastator carry a 1000# bomb to a target six hexes away?  The SBD's that were on the same antishipping strike were carrying 500# bombs.



pad152 -> RE: Resize of Jap CV Air Groups (7/30/2009 7:00:06 PM)

Doesn't seem very historical calling all air groups a squadron reguardless of size. [&:] This is like calling all land units a company![8|]

I find it very odd in campaign 2, the US is not building any medium bombers (A20, B25, B26) until 42/3? Nothing in the pools no replacement rates. [&:]




romanovich -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (7/30/2009 7:57:38 PM)

Moved to general thread.



bsq -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (7/30/2009 8:01:20 PM)

Working on the guns for the Lancaster Marks with a view to find a source other than that in Wikipedia. -**edit** found it...

B Mk I = 2 x .303 (Nose), 2 x .303 (Mid-Upper) and 4 x .303 (Tail)
B Mk VII = 2 x .303 (Nose), 2 x 50 cal (Mid-Upper) and 2 x 50 cal (Tail)
B Mk X (Canadian version of B Mk III) would be either as the B Mk VII (or just to confuse things it may have the 4 x .303 in the tail)

All would also be fitted with H2S.

FE Variants had a 400 Gal bomb bay tank which would be mounted very near CofG (this weighed around 3900lb when full - pretty close to the weight of the cookie it replaced).

As for what Tiger Force would have been used for, I offer this link to PPRUNE

http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-235805.html

The first post on that page seems to support what I always believed, that Tiger Force would be used in support roles and in the main AAR. I guess that's too hard to factor into AE though.

AAR for what, now that's another thing - B-17's, B-24's and perhaps even Mk I specials - who knows.



R8J -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (7/30/2009 9:19:04 PM)

I did a search to seeif this has been reported. I did not find anything.

Scenario 2.
Aircraft slot 828, Ki-84r does not have art.



Mike Solli -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (7/30/2009 9:22:54 PM)

I never saw comments on these. If you guys did, I just missed it in the rush. Thanks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

A couple of things:

1.  The 3 Ki-102 variants show up as follows:

Ki-102a - Mar 45
Ki-102b - Nov 44
Ki-102c - Oct 45

Did the "b" variant actually come out befor the "a" variant?

2.  In the city of Maebashi, there are 2 Ki-43-Ic factories.  Their sizes are 32(0) and 0(8) respectively.  That's the only place where I've seen a functional factory on 7 Dec 41 that shows damage.  Is this correct?  It may very well be, but it's curious.

Thanks.




JuanG -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (7/30/2009 9:23:01 PM)

Scen 1.

SB2C-1C/3/4 Helldiver (#481-483) all mount an ASB Radar device (#1856). SB2C-5 (#484) does not. Intentional?



R8J -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (7/30/2009 9:24:51 PM)

Scenario 2.

Slot 229, Hurricane XIIb, climb 22450
Slot 187, Hudson I, climb 12820



afspret -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (7/31/2009 5:02:49 AM)

Just curious, why no A-27, the attack version of the T-6, seized while enroute to Siam and sent to the PI before the war started? At least 7 were operational by then.



1EyedJacks -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (7/31/2009 5:28:38 AM)

Hi Elf,

First let me say how cool it is to actually sort the aircraft list by type and have it work <grin>.

I noticed the A6M3 Zero is not listed as Carrier Capable. Can you share why that fighter is land based?


TTFN,

Mike



racndoc -> How to stratgic bomb Japan (7/31/2009 6:42:34 AM)

OK....historically over 1000 B-29s were based on Tinian. In WitP, you could base 350 B-29s on Tinian without penalty.

Now with the rule of 12 4E bombers per airfield point you can base 84 B-29s on Tinian in AE without a penalty. I was never able to start a firestorm in WitP even with 600-700 B-29s. What exactly can the Allies do with strategic bombing in AE with 84 B-29s? Has anyone on the air team tested strategic bombing of Japan?



TheElf -> RE: How to stratgic bomb Japan (7/31/2009 6:46:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AdmSpruance

OK....historically over 1000 B-29s were based on Tinian. In WitP, you could base 350 B-29s on Tinian without penalty.

Now with the rule of 12 4E bombers per airfield point you can base 84 B-29s on Tinian in AE without a penalty. I was never able to start a firestorm in WitP even with 600-700 B-29s. What exactly can the Allies do with strategic bombing in AE with 84 B-29s? Has anyone on the air team tested strategic bombing of Japan?

You can base 1000 B-29s on Tinian.



DBS -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (7/31/2009 8:20:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

Working on the guns for the Lancaster Marks with a view to find a source other than that in Wikipedia. -**edit** found it...

All would also be fitted with H2S.


I note that the data for H2S and H2X appear not to have been implemented in AE - there are entries in the database for both but they have ranges listed as 9999. So unless there are special range considerations for nav radars, these would need adjusting before the devices could be modded in?



Terminus -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (7/31/2009 9:53:32 AM)

Bombing radar is not implemented. We have search radar, but that's it.



timtom -> RE: Resize of Jap CV Air Groups (7/31/2009 2:28:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Can the Devastator carry a 1000# bomb to a target six hexes away?  The SBD's that were on the same antishipping strike were carrying 500# bombs.


The old code enabling 1,000lbs to be carried as a random alternate load on naval attack is still in there, AFAIK. Guess that's what you're seeing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Doesn't seem very historical calling all air groups a squadron reguardless of size. [&:] This is like calling all land units a company![8|]




Methinks we're talking past each other here, Pad :)

The chosen echelon for modelling the AE OOB is that of "squadron" in the sense of the echelon between "flight" and "group" (in US parlance). So when I say "squadron" I'm merely refering to the echelon level rather than the name of any given unit.

The term "squadron" (or equalant) was an indication of echelon, not unit size per se. It just meant the unit sat below the group (or equalant) in the chain of command.

Now the bulk of units in AE are either US or British Commonwealth, so obviously "squadron" would also be the appropriate name for most of these these. There are some US and British Commonwealth flights and sections banging about though. If you find one these with "Formation" of "Squadron", it's a hint that this unit will grow into an independent squadron in its own right.

We use other designations like Sentai for IJAAF "squadrons" or Hikotai for IJNAF "squadrons". The IJAAF is the only service that really had a large number of units below the "squadron" echelon. These we term I(ndependent) F(lying) Chutai's which is a sort of AE pidgin for Dokuritsu Hiko Chutai.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

I find it very odd in campaign 2, the US is not building any medium bombers (A20, B25, B26) until 42/3? Nothing in the pools no replacement rates. [&:]



Nasty, huh?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I never saw comments on these. If you guys did, I just missed it in the rush. Thanks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

A couple of things:

1. The 3 Ki-102 variants show up as follows:

Ki-102a - Mar 45
Ki-102b - Nov 44
Ki-102c - Oct 45

Did the "b" variant actually come out befor the "a" variant?

2. In the city of Maebashi, there are 2 Ki-43-Ic factories. Their sizes are 32(0) and 0(8) respectively. That's the only place where I've seen a functional factory on 7 Dec 41 that shows damage. Is this correct? It may very well be, but it's curious.

Thanks.




1. WAD from memory, but can't find it in my notes - yet. Bear in mind that many or most of the variant designations (-Ia, -Ib etc) are ahistorical labels slapped on after the war for expediancy. The IJAAF would go by serial numbers.

2. Bug. Should be a Ki-44-IIa factory.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Scen 1.

SB2C-1C/3/4 Helldiver (#481-483) all mount an ASB Radar device (#1856). SB2C-5 (#484) does not. Intentional?


AFAIK the Dash-5 didn't have an inbuilt radar but had the option of fitting an AN/APS-4 pod under the wing. The SB2C was an early example of an a/c pointing the way forward in the sense that it had a bewildering number of loadout options. The Dash-5 was stressed/shackled to mount various combinations of bombs from 2,000lbs to 100lbs, a Mk-13 torpedo, DC's and/or a fuel tank in the bay, and/or bombs from 1,000lbs to 100lbs, DC's, rockets, drop tanks and/or the AN/APS pod under the wings.

Would you prefer the AN/APS-4 over a 250lbs bomb?

From time to time the idea of multiple loadouts gets tabled and everybody thinks that would be soooo cool, which undenialy it would. But guess who'd be doing the legwork [;)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: afspret

Just curious, why no A-27, the attack version of the T-6, seized while enroute to Siam and sent to the PI before the war started? At least 7 were operational by then.


The methodology for including or excluding a/c (other than time constraints) is whether we can establish that a particular a/c was used as the primary a/c of a unit. I don't know of any unit that actually operated the A-27 in a combat role, which isn't to say that it didn't happen of course.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

I noticed the A6M3 Zero is not listed as Carrier Capable. Can you share why that fighter is land based?

Mike


Ah tricky one...

There's some evidence that model 32's were used aboard Shok & Zui during the autumn of '42. The Kodochosho (air group logs) of their Sentokitai's (VF's) appearently don't indicate what type of A6M was used during this period, only that a number of replacement a/c were recieved. We know from pictorial evidence that model 32's were onboard and there's some personal testimony to suggest that this was more than in a ferrying capacity, but that's about it.

What we can say is that the model 32 was used primarily by landbased units and only, if at all, in limited capacity by carrier based units.

Aircraft capabilities in AE are driven more by historical usage than potential. If you want to make the A6M3 carrier-capable, you should probably do the same with F4U-1 for consistancy.








Mike Solli -> RE: Resize of Jap CV Air Groups (7/31/2009 3:49:32 PM)

I've got a pilot replacement question.  I assume it goes here.....

I tried to add pilots to the Tainan daitai hoping to get Saburo Sakai or some of the other elite pilots that are assigned to that unit but in the Reserve pilot pool.  Here's what the manual says about drawing replacement pilots:

When a pilot is required in a group, he is selected in the following order:
1. Pilot is in the group’s pool assigned by editor, or
has returned from being wounded, etc
2. Pilot is in the pilot reserve, has not been assigned to a particular group
and has flown a similar type of plane (fighter, Level bomber, etc.)
3. Pilot is pulled from the Trained pool
4. Pilot is in the Pilot reserve but has flown a different
type of plane (experience penalty)
5. Pilot is pulled from the Trainee pool

I ended up getting "trained" pilots with avg experience in the 30s.  Doesn't #1 say we'll get pilots who are assigned to that particular unit but in the group's pool?  What's the group's pool, anyway?  It's all very confusing. 

Thanks.



BeastieDog -> RE: Resize of Jap CV Air Groups (7/31/2009 6:34:01 PM)

I had the same results: click on add a pilot and I get 3x experienced pilots.



Hard Sarge -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (7/31/2009 7:53:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DBS


quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

Working on the guns for the Lancaster Marks with a view to find a source other than that in Wikipedia. -**edit** found it...

All would also be fitted with H2S.


I note that the data for H2S and H2X appear not to have been implemented in AE - there are entries in the database for both but they have ranges listed as 9999. So unless there are special range considerations for nav radars, these would need adjusting before the devices could be modded in?


Bombing radar is not implemented. We have search radar, but that's it.

if that part of the code is still the same as BTR, that is correct, it is a Nav radar, not a bombing radar (you could pick out a AREA target with a Nav Radar)

BoB and BTR used the same numbers for Search radars



timtom -> RE: Resize of Jap CV Air Groups (7/31/2009 9:45:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I've got a pilot replacement question.  I assume it goes here.....

I tried to add pilots to the Tainan daitai hoping to get Saburo Sakai or some of the other elite pilots that are assigned to that unit but in the Reserve pilot pool.  Here's what the manual says about drawing replacement pilots:

When a pilot is required in a group, he is selected in the following order:
1. Pilot is in the group’s pool assigned by editor, or
has returned from being wounded, etc
2. Pilot is in the pilot reserve, has not been assigned to a particular group
and has flown a similar type of plane (fighter, Level bomber, etc.)
3. Pilot is pulled from the Trained pool
4. Pilot is in the Pilot reserve but has flown a different
type of plane (experience penalty)
5. Pilot is pulled from the Trainee pool

I ended up getting "trained" pilots with avg experience in the 30s.  Doesn't #1 say we'll get pilots who are assigned to that particular unit but in the group's pool?  What's the group's pool, anyway?  It's all very confusing. 

Thanks.


Looks like we might be dealing with a bug. If you have a savegame, Michael will delve into it -> http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/showprofile.asp?memID=3086



pad152 -> RE: Resize of Jap CV Air Groups (7/31/2009 10:19:20 PM)

Of the 9 different Allied RC aircraft listed in the replacement pool for 12/41, none of them have any production, replacements or spares, is this correct?

Blenheim IF - get "0" production/replacements ?

No US medium bomber production, replacements, spares for 4 months 12/41-3/42.  How is this historic ?

Yes I know you still get new airgroups but, with varible replacements set to max you could end up with no medium bombers for 90 days!





Terminus -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (8/1/2009 12:19:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

quote:

ORIGINAL: DBS


quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

Working on the guns for the Lancaster Marks with a view to find a source other than that in Wikipedia. -**edit** found it...

All would also be fitted with H2S.


I note that the data for H2S and H2X appear not to have been implemented in AE - there are entries in the database for both but they have ranges listed as 9999. So unless there are special range considerations for nav radars, these would need adjusting before the devices could be modded in?

Bombing radar is not implemented. We have search radar, but that's it.


if that part of the code is still the same as BTR, that is correct, it is a Nav radar, not a bombing radar (you could pick out a AREA target with a Nav Radar)

BoB and BTR used the same numbers for Search radars


Like I said, not implemented. And not the same as BTR; I thought so too at first, but sadly, no...



JeffroK -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (8/1/2009 12:45:13 PM)

In lieu of check 47 pages, maybe already noted

scen 1

Aircraft type 187 Hudson I (RAAF version)

Has a climb rate of 12820

I think this should be 1280 (Same as C IV version)



bsq -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (8/1/2009 1:38:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

1. Lancasters.
Listed is B Mk1 (FE), guns are that of a B Mk VII (FE). FE's had a bomb bay fuel tank that took the place of the 4000lb 'cookie' (indeed one questions the need for the 4000lb HC given the experiences of the B-29 raids)



My understanding is that the armament of the B.1 (FE) was 2x.303 Browning MK II in a F.N.5 nose turret, 2x.303 Browning MK II in a F.N.150 mid-upper turret, also removable if the 400 gal BB tank(-s) was carried, and 2x0.5 Browning Mk II in an F.N.82 or 121 rear turret. Don't know how many, if any, came with the F.N.79 turret.

The Mk VII, I believe, had a similar armament suite except the upper turret was a Martin housing 2x0.50's.

What do you hold the correct armament to be, Robert?



quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

I was happy with the guns just that the mark was wrong - of course if you are making an amalgam, then fine that represents the best compromise - especially as chatting to a colleague today has led me to believe that many of the late war B Mk 1's had mods that made a right hotch-potch of gun armaments.



Well, the B.1 isn't really meant to represent an amalgam. There's enough a/c slots to go around. However in practise we had to draw the line somewhere to allow the art team some peace to do their thing.

In your opinion, if we had both a Mk I and a VII (and a X for that matter) what would their gun suites look like?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

The fuselage tank on the other hand that was added to some test aircraft was, by all accounts, problematic as it altered some of the handling characteristics of the Lancaster to such a point that it was disliked by the test crews (and if the test pilots don't do it then who are we to argue). Indeed do not forget that the Lancaster (unlike the B-17, 24 and 29) was a single pilot proposition and if it couldn't be 'trimmed out' taking the weight off the stick then the pilot would be the proverbial 'one armed paper hanger'.



I take it you're refering to the saddleback tank?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

Personally I would delete the cookie, replace two of the 1000lb bombs with 4lb incendiaries (cheaper to make especially as there was no steel casing and proven to work well on Japanese construction by Lemay).



I'm afraid you're overestimating the ordnance code. It's a good deal more primitive than that (long story).

I guess we went with the cookie because it was different. A decision of how to handle the "hypothetical" period post 8/45 came late in the process and as far as the air OOB is concerned could benefit from a bit of polish. For my own part I'm a tad confused about the proposed role of Tiger Force, other than as a political statement. I can see how the Tallboy could be useful, but 20th AF was perfectly capable of burning down Japan's cities a second time if that was needed.



Done some more research.

Late war models of the Lancaster were fitted to carry the 8000lb and 12000lb HC - the only aircraft that could carry bombs that big without significant modification (as per the aircraft that carried the heavier atomic weapons).

The 12000lb HC is not the same as the tallboy - it has a completely different mode of employment. The tallboy/grandslam were the ultimate penetration weapons of their time - designed to penetrate yards of earth or feet of concrete before exploding. The HC's were designed to have maximum blast effect with an explosive load of around 90% of total weapon weight as opposed to the less than 70% of more conventional HE bombs.

You asked what Tiger Force could be used for, well there is a definite use - carrying large HC bombs which no other aircraft could do.

That would be something worthwhile seeing, especially in the Downfall scenario that Terminus has alluded to. (Else I'll have to mod them in my self to a full war game and then wait the 1400 turns to see what they actually do [>:])



timtom -> RE: Resize of Jap CV Air Groups (8/1/2009 7:45:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Of the 9 different Allied RC aircraft listed in the replacement pool for 12/41, none of them have any production, replacements or spares, is this correct?



RC? Roman Catholic? But yeah, the Allied player will find himself tight up for replacements over the first few months.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Blenheim IF - get "0" production/replacements ?



AHQFE had 12 IF's on hand at the outbreak of war with Japan, all of which with 27 Sqn. The sqn was knocked out of the running pretty much immediatly and was disbanded 18/02/42. With any luck the player will find himself forced to do the same [evil cackle].

The early-war Allied air OOB is deliberately designed to lack depth, which IMO is an accurate representation of the historical situation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

No US medium bomber production, replacements, spares for 4 months 12/41-3/42.  How is this historic ?



Below is an extract from Table 91: Airplanes on Hand in Theaters vs Japan, by Type and Principel Model from the Army Air Force Statistical Digest, World War II.

[image]local://upfiles/8484/D23D6786023E4DCC8CB11C695A29119D.jpg[/image]

"On hand" just means "allocated to theatre" and could as well be a crated aircraft somewhere in CONUS as over Rabaul.

The MB "other" category is actual B-26's because this is how 5th AF categoried them for some reason. "2nd Line and Misc." by a process of elimination must be the B-18. Curiously the A-24 is booked as a fighter, maybe because its single-engined.

What you're essentially seeing is the arrival of 3rd (A-20, A-24, B-25) & 22nd BG's (B-26) plus a few 7th & 11th AF squadrons. As is evident, bar the B-18, medium bombers weren't available in any kind of numbers until March.

To make matters worse, the Dutch, Americans, and Ozzies have to share the early, meager allocation of B-25's...

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Yes I know you still get new airgroups but, with varible replacements set to max you could end up with no medium bombers for 90 days!



With respect, isn't that the point of the variable reinforcement option?



Kull -> RE: Resize of Jap CV Air Groups (8/1/2009 9:25:59 PM)

I'm moving this here from my Aleutians thread since there may be some kind of bug at work:

The Rufe unit was moved from Kiska to Attu early in the scenario, and no matter what CAP settings I give it, the unit frequently shifts over to LR CAP in support of a nearby Task Force (in the graphic, it is flying from Attu to Kiska). This happens even if I set the max range at one hex. The only way to stop the activity is to put the unit on standby. For three turns in a row, I changed the settings to Escort, 50% CAP, 0% LRCAP, and target at "Commander Discretion" - yet every following turn it reset to LRCAP 100% and target "TF 4" (the transport group slowly unloading at Kiska).

Under the assumption that "commander discretion" was responsible for the behaviour, I set the Target as "Attu", but it flipped back to "commander discretion" on the next turn. On the other hand, the next three turns in a row passed with no LRCAP events, even though Kiska was raided twice.

Not sure what's going on, but I'd really like to know if the air code now allows air unit commanders to arbitrarily wander off on Long Range CAP missions.

[image]local://upfiles/25668/FB159362EC6342469ABDB6B0E8F5B09B.jpg[/image]



Page: <<   < prev  45 46 [47] 48 49   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.625