RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (Full Version)

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

Message

LargeSlowTarget -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (12/17/2012 11:21:34 AM)
Your input is highly appreciated - until today I did not even realize that RAN dates and locations of stock and even DBB were incorrect. However, I found a few glitches though most of the data looks ok. Mmh, until now I have had blind faith in the data you have provided... [;)] quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK 3236 Hobart 411206 Aden 411206 Hobart http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-06CL-Hobart.htm#convoy has CL Hobart in the Med on 411206: 1941 December 7th - Escorted Supply Ship HMS BRECONSHIRE from Malta to Alexandria. 9th - Under air attack at Tobruk with HM Sloops FLAMINGO and YARRA (RAN). 10th - Recalled to rejoin RAN after Japan entered war and took passage to Colombo. 18th - Diverted to carry out patrol in Maldives area following reports of unrest. 24th - Joined escort for military convoy BM9A with HM Cruisers DURBAN and DRAGON for passage to Singapore from Bombay. 1 9 4 2 January Transferred to ABDA Command for convoy defence. 3rd - Arrived at Singapore with convoy BM9A quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK 3729 Nepal 420812 Cape Town 420103 Aden Not possible: 1 9 4 2 May Contractors trials 11th - Commissioned for service by Royal Australian Navy in 7th Destroyer Flotilla. 29th - Build completion and commenced Acceptance Trials June On completion of trials and storing took passage to Scapa Flow to work-up with ships of Home Fleet. Passage to Clyde for rectification of defects prior to operational service. July Under repair in commercial shipyard. Nominated as part of escort for military convoy during passage to Indian Ocean. 17th - Joined Convoy WS21P in Clyde with HM Cruiser ORION and Dutch destroyer TJERK HIDDES (Ex HMS NONPAREIL) as Ocean Escort during passage to Freetown. (Note: Both destroyers were taking passage to join 7th Destroyer Flotilla which was also to include sister ships HMAS NIZAM, NAPIER and NORMAN.) 27th - Arrived at Freetown with WS21P. August 2nd - Sailed with same ships as Ocean Escort for WS21P on departure from Freetown. 4th - Continued as Ocean escort after mercantiles from US Convoy AS4 joined. (Note: Convoy AS4 was escorted by US Navy warships and was made up of ships carrying supplies to Alexandria via Cape of Good Hope.) 12th - Arrived at Cape Town and detached from WS21P. http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-10DD-45N-Nepal-ex-Norseman.htm#convoy quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK 4414 Lismore 420115 Trincomalee 421216 Aden I think she should start at Aden on 411206 or at Colombo end of Dec 41. She also must get a withdrawal date and return delay [ditto Ipswich and the missing ships Gawler and Maryborough]. "They [Lismore and Bathurst - LST] arrived at Colombo on 3 June. Shortly afterwards the ships sailed to take up duty with the Red Sea Force. Thereafter, until mid December 1941, Lismore was employed on East African coastal patrol duty which included, from August to December 1941, patrols in the Gulf of Tadjoura as a unit of the forces employed in maintaining a blockade of French Somaliland. On 16 December 1941 Lismore detached from the Red Sea Force and proceeded for Colombo to join the Eastern Fleet for Indian Ocean escort duty. From January 1942 to April 1943 Lismore served as an escort vessel for Indian Ocean convoys including duty in the Persian Gulf area in the second half of 1942. On 3 May 1943 she arrived at Aden en route for the Mediterranean where with her sister ships HMA Ships Gawler, Ipswich and Maryborough, she formed the 21st Minesweeping Flotilla. Her service in the Mediterranean, however, was mainly confined to escort duty. She once, in August 1943, proceeded into the Atlantic to form part of the escort of an Alexandria bound convoy. Despite numerous air attacks in the Mediterranean en route to the Atlantic the ship escaped damage. On 25 September 1943 Lismore departed Suez for Kilindini to rejoin the Eastern Fleet for further Indian Ocean escort duty. For the following fifteen months she was almost constantly at sea protecting convoys moving between India and Africa. On 3 December 1944 Lismore arrived at Fremantle, her first call at an Australian port since leaving Darwin for Singapore on 20 March 1941. Her absence from Australia was longer than that of any other Royal Australian Navy ship of World War II." http://www.navy.gov.au/hmas-lismore quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK 4418 Rockhampton 420915 Melbourne 420121 Melbourne "Rockhampton commissioned at Maryborough* on 21 January 1942 under the command of Lieutenant Robert T. Salmon )."* http://www.navy.gov.au/hmas-rockhampton Btw, the commanding officers of most if not all corvettes are wrong in the game - AE has "Russ, V.J." as CO of Rockhampton for example. But I for my part will not go that far in my quest for historical accuracy... Additional missing ship: Maryborough 411206 Singapore

JeffroK -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (12/18/2012 7:07:41 AM)
Thanks Some of this is blamed on trabferring things from paper to excel to forum. I think I got Nepal wrong in a cut and paste, checking my excel sheet I had Nestor down twice and have Hobart blank, Rockhampton is due to old age, my excel sheet has it correct. NEXT TIME i'll check what i type[:D]

LargeSlowTarget -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (12/18/2012 10:29:59 AM)
Well, my history studies have taught me that faith is good but control is better [;)] You really got me started on the RAN: I have learned (from the RAN website which is quite informative) that the RAN took over a couple of ex-Chinese coastal craft which played important "supporting roles" in the war - see http://www.navy.gov.au/media-room/publications/hindsight-march-2011 Thee of the four ships mentioned in the article are in DBB - but Ping Wo as wrong class (Pacific M Cargo). But this is probably something for the Modding subforum.

Buck Beach -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (12/19/2012 2:38:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget Well, my history studies have taught me that faith is good but control is better [;)] You really got me started on the RAN: I have learned (from the RAN website which is quite informative) that the RAN took over a couple of ex-Chinese coastal craft which played important "supporting roles" in the war - see http://www.navy.gov.au/media-room/publications/hindsight-march-2011 Thee of the four ships mentioned in the article are in DBB - but Ping Wo as wrong class (Pacific M Cargo). But this is probably something for the Modding subforum. Well other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play. In other words, except for those few items, is Jeff's data input good to go?

JeffroK -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (12/19/2012 6:29:18 AM)
I've updated the table, more than welcome for any corrections which can be found.

LargeSlowTarget -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (12/19/2012 8:50:48 AM)
Yes, apart from the few glitches I mentioned Jeff's data looks good. Kudos to him, since stock/DBB has quite a few errors in the delay dates / start locations of the RAN ships, esp. of the Bathurst class "corvettes". In some cases the delay date is the historical commissioning date of the ship in question, but in many cases the delay date is a month or more after the commission date (maybe a trial / training period before declared operational?) and in quite a few cases the delay and starting location are plain wrong. JeffK uses the commissioning date as delay date consistently and that is ok IMO. While taking closer looks at the RAN I have found quite a few "small ships" (AMc, HDML classes etc.) are missing even in DBB (Don, how comes HMAS Lolita is not in DaBabes? [:'(]) But that is for the Mod subforum as well.

JeffroK -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (12/19/2012 10:08:28 AM)
IMHO, as I mentioned in the Land OOB, I think some areas were thought of as outside the main batlle zones. But as we now see, invasions of Australia & India are common. I would imagine the West Coast USA should have a lot more of these seemingly minor units. There is a limit to available slots, but I reckon there is space for a lot more units.

Don Bowen -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (12/19/2012 5:03:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget Don, how comes HMAS Lolita is not in DaBabes? Because http://www.amazon.com/Australian-New-Zealand-warships-1914-1945/dp/0868240958 does not list her! Where did you find her? P.S. Thanks to Jeff for all the good data. Some obvious errors in the corvettes. But many of the arrival date and even some arrival location "errors" were intentional. A working-up period was indeed estimated for new construction. Also those that served in the Pacific, went (temporarily) to the Med, and returned were just put in one time (the return) instead of troubling the player with witherdraw-return for smaller ships. Lastly, completion dates for ships completed after the war were accelerated. Everything slowed down once the war ended but would have been much faster had it continued. P.P.S. Happy to hear any more corrections.

Symon -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (12/19/2012 7:36:22 PM)
What Don said, but I will own up to not paying the most particular attention to some things. A lotta stuff is just as Don says, other stuff could use a skoosh of Brylcreem. Have no idea, after all these years, why we did this to that, and that to this. For my Fault, for my Fault, for my most Grevious Fault. I must be shot at dawn. [sm=innocent0009.gif] Ciao, JWE

JeffroK -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (12/19/2012 9:31:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen quote: ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget Don, how comes HMAS Lolita is not in DaBabes? Because http://www.amazon.com/Australian-New-Zealand-warships-1914-1945/dp/0868240958 does not list her! Where did you find her? P.S. Thanks to Jeff for all the good data. Some obvious errors in the corvettes. But many of the arrival date and even some arrival location "errors" were intentional. A working-up period was indeed estimated for new construction. Also those that served in the Pacific, went (temporarily) to the Med, and returned were just put in one time (the return) instead of troubling the player with witherdraw-return for smaller ships. Lastly, completion dates for ships completed after the war were accelerated. Everything slowed down once the war ended but would have been much faster had it continued. P.P.S. Happy to hear any more corrections. Don, I can totally understand your comment but it is far from the facts. We have ships arriving on their Commisioning date, but at the wrong location. We have ships arriving up to a year in advance of their Commisioning date. We have at least 6 which dont show at all. Especially in DBB where a myriad of smaller ships were put into the database, this is not up to the standard of the mod. Why cant people just say "we got it wrong, thanks for the update" just as DBB is an update on Vanilla and AE is an update on WITP.

JeffroK -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (12/19/2012 9:32:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Symon What Don said, but I will own up to not paying the most particular attention to some things. A lotta stuff is just as Don says, other stuff could use a skoosh of Brylcreem. Have no idea, after all these years, why we did this to that, and that to this. For my Fault, for my Fault, for my most Grevious Fault. I must be shot at dawn. [sm=innocent0009.gif] Ciao, JWE Are there queues forming to provide the firing party?

witpqs -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (12/19/2012 9:46:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen quote: ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget Don, how comes HMAS Lolita is not in DaBabes? Because http://www.amazon.com/Australian-New-Zealand-warships-1914-1945/dp/0868240958 does not list her! Where did you find her? P.S. Thanks to Jeff for all the good data. Some obvious errors in the corvettes. But many of the arrival date and even some arrival location "errors" were intentional. A working-up period was indeed estimated for new construction. Also those that served in the Pacific, went (temporarily) to the Med, and returned were just put in one time (the return) instead of troubling the player with witherdraw-return for smaller ships. Lastly, completion dates for ships completed after the war were accelerated. Everything slowed down once the war ended but would have been much faster had it continued. P.P.S. Happy to hear any more corrections. Don, I can totally understand your comment but it is far from the facts. We have ships arriving on their Commisioning date, but at the wrong location. We have ships arriving up to a year in advance of their Commisioning date. We have at least 6 which dont show at all. Especially in DBB where a myriad of smaller ships were put into the database, this is not up to the standard of the mod. Why cant people just say "we got it wrong, thanks for the update" just as DBB is an update on Vanilla and AE is an update on WITP. Well I think he's just remembering as best he can without diving back into all the details... [8D]

Don Bowen -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (12/20/2012 4:05:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK Don, I can totally understand your comment but it is far from the facts. We have ships arriving on their Commisioning date, but at the wrong location. We have ships arriving up to a year in advance of their Commisioning date. We have at least 6 which dont show at all. Especially in DBB where a myriad of smaller ships were put into the database, this is not up to the standard of the mod. Why cant people just say "we got it wrong, thanks for the update" just as DBB is an update on Vanilla and AE is an update on WITP. Humm...

LargeSlowTarget -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (12/20/2012 5:09:00 PM)
Hey, stay nice - we all work together for a better game. It is easy to cause data glitches, or sometimes the sources have wrong data already. Don, re HMAS Lolita - she is even in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_of_the_Royal_Australian_Navy When I saw her in the list, I did some furher googeling (taking care to erase the surfing history - don't want to explain to my wife why I have googeld for "Lolita"... [:D]) Found bits of info in other forums, Amazon book sneakpeaks (esp. on the Midget attack at Sydney which involved HMAS Lolita) etc. and in that course also some more ships to add. Strangely, the only full Wikipedia article for her is in Polish: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Lolita Also see http://www.worldnavalships.com/forums/showthread.php?p=126180 or http://www.afloat.com.au/afloat-magazine/2010/august-2010/Letters

Kull -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (12/20/2012 7:44:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget Don, re HMAS Lolita - she is even in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_of_the_Royal_Australian_Navy When I saw her in the list, I did some furher googeling (taking care to erase the surfing history - don't want to explain to my wife why I have googeld for "Lolita"... [:D]) My chuckle for the day - thanks! [sm=happy0065.gif]

LargeSlowTarget -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (12/21/2012 8:36:44 AM)
Glad to be of service [:)]. Just to avoid any misunderstandings, I should underline the fact that I have been searching for RAN ships, found the Wikipedia list, noticed a ship called "Lolita" and then googled for her - and not the other way round. And I used the search term "HMAS Lolita" to avoid potentially distracting results [:-]. Don, I'm a bit proud that I have found something that is not in Zygotes. I mean, you have this obscure "Southern Cross" mission supply ship and even HMAS Kuru in your mod [X(].

witpqs -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (12/21/2012 3:52:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget Glad to be of service [:)]. Just to avoid any misunderstandings, I should underline the fact that I have been searching for RAN ships, found the Wikipedia list, noticed a ship called "Lolita" and then googled for her - and not the other way round. And I used the search term "HMAS Lolita" to avoid potentially distracting results [:-]. Don, I'm a bit proud that I have found something that is not in Zygotes. I mean, you have this obscure "Southern Cross" mission supply ship and even HMAS Kuru in your mod [X(]. We'll back you up with your wife! [:D]

BigDuke66 -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (1/1/2013 8:32:09 AM)
What about the range of the SD Radar, looks to me like it is much to high: http://www.hnsa.org/doc/radar/part4.htm#pgSD-5 Further down at that page you get the max range for detecting small planes above 1000 feet, that is 15 miles, in game it is 25. Ok the value for large planes would be 20 miles but "large" would to me at least be some kind of level bomber I'm not sure if the Japanese Player would use them for hunting subs, they sure have something better to do with the bigger planes.

rjopel -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (3/16/2013 9:45:08 PM)
Allied CVE issues 699 Bougue Wpn 3 and 4 two sets of 40mm on Right side. This should be Wpn 3 Right Side Wpn 4 Left Side 701 Sangamon Wpn 7 and 9 two sets of 20mm on Right side. This should be Wpn 7 Right Side Wpn 8 Left Side 703 Casablanca Wpn 4 and 5 two sets of 20mm on Right side. This should be Wpn 4 Right Side Wpn 5 Left Side Found this in Scen 6 and 28. Suspect it's in the other scenarios as well.

Jace11 -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (4/2/2013 9:55:57 AM)
Repeat Benson 8/42 upgrade has two air search radars and no SG-SS. Seems to be in all scenarios.

Heeward -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (5/6/2013 12:59:42 AM)
Unit 5656 LST Type II has two sets of 4x 1540 - 20mm Oeriklon AA Guns RS - Wpn 8 and 9. Need to change Wpn 9 to to LS

BigDuke66 -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (5/10/2013 10:58:21 PM)
In Scenario 001 Ships 9967 & 9970 carry the same Name "Sumac".

BigDuke66 -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (6/10/2013 11:55:22 PM)
Just for the Chrome: The CL class called "Helena" should be named "St. Louis" at least that is the class name I usually found when I searched for them.

JeffroK -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (6/11/2013 8:35:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BigDuke66 Just for the Chrome: The CL class called "Helena" should be named "St. Louis" at least that is the class name I usually found when I searched for them. Both should be modified Brooklyn class.

BigDuke66 -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (6/11/2013 4:42:20 PM)
They are, but as they have there own class names I would go for them.

czert2 -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (7/2/2013 3:16:36 PM)
ship class 1384/5 momi - deep charge launchers it have 2x right side + 1x left side, but i think he should have 1xright/left/rear.

LargeSlowTarget -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (7/19/2013 2:21:38 PM)
In the game, USS Allen (Sampson class DD) is armed with 4x4in/50 guns and 4x triple torpedo tubes. However, her after action report for Dec. 7 mentions that her crew "manned Guns No. 5 and No. 6 � 3"-50 caliber" and that she expended 57 round of 3in ammo, splashing one plane (see http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ships/logs/DD/dd66-Pearl.html ). Google comes up with conflicting info, apparently she lost half her torpedo tubes in exchange for either DC projectors and 20mm guns or the 3in/50 guns. Does someone has more definite info about her armament?

LargeSlowTarget -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (7/19/2013 4:54:36 PM)
Found a database glitch: There are two Liberty ships named John L(.) McCarley - slots 7400 (Balboa 450301) and 8559 (Portland 450413) in Scen 01. In DBB, they are at slots 13743 and 13381. Since she was built in Panama City, FL and launched 14th February 1945, I will go with Balboa 450301. Another duplicate is Liberty ship William J(.) Riddle - slots 7398 and 8854. In DBB, slot numbers are 13745 and 13746 - and there is a third William J. Riddle at 13676 No wonder the Allies have an abundance of shipping [:D] [;)]

LargeSlowTarget -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (7/20/2013 3:58:58 PM)
After the chance findings above I have run the ships csv file through Excel's duplictae values function. Found a couple more duplicates of ships of same class (mostly Liberty ships). This is the data for the DBB mod - haven't checked stock, assume same issue is there, just with differnt slot numbers. 13062 BjarneALia 13747 BjarneALia 13065 CFrancisJenkins 13731 CFrancisJenkins 8484 CHa-195 > just a typo, should be Cha-194 8485 CHa-195 13075 CharlesADraper 13751 CharlesADraper 13079 CharlesDWalcott 13739 CharlesDWalcott 13085 CharlesHMarshall 13740 CharlesHMarshall 13140 DudleyHThomas 13744 DudleyHThomas 13154 EdwardKCollins 13730 EdwardKCollins 13166 EdwinDHoward 13741 EdwinDHoward 13250 GranvilleSHall 13738 GranvilleSHall 13255 HHRaymond 13718 HHRaymond 13328 JamesHKimball 13713 JamesHKimball 13344 JamesWWheeler 13753 JamesWWheeler 13536 RafaelRRivera 13752 RafaelRRivera 13607 TAJohnston 13719 TAJohnston 13626 VernonSHood 13742 VernonSHood 13641 WendellLWillkie 13748 WendellLWillkie

JeffroK -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (7/21/2013 5:18:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget In the game, USS Allen (Sampson class DD) is armed with 4x4in/50 guns and 4x triple torpedo tubes. However, her after action report for Dec. 7 mentions that her crew "manned Guns No. 5 and No. 6 � 3"-50 caliber" and that she expended 57 round of 3in ammo, splashing one plane (see http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ships/logs/DD/dd66-Pearl.html ). Google comes up with conflicting info, apparently she lost half her torpedo tubes in exchange for either DC projectors and 20mm guns or the 3in/50 guns. Does someone has more definite info about her armament? No definite mention about rearming but: From http://www.destroyers.org/Histories/h-DD-66.htm On 23 August 1940, the ALLEN was recommissioned. While others of her vintage, such as the CONWAY (DD-70), CONNER (DD-72), and STOCKTON (DD-73), were among the fifty destroyers transferred to Great Britain in exchange for naval bases, the ALLEN was ordered to join Destroyer Division 80 on the West Coast. In December 1940, she proceeded to Pearl Harbor, and on the morning of 7 December 1941, she was moored in East Loch, to the northeast of Ford Island and just southeast of the hospital ship SOLACE (AH-5). During the Japanese attack, Elliot R. Milliken was gun captain of the No. 6, 3-inch/.50-caliber gun. When a shell jammed in the gun, he gave no thought to his personal safety and forcibly rammed the fused projectile from the barrel of the gun, promptly putting it back in action. The destroyer went on to assist in splashing three enemy planes, sustaining neither casualties nor damage. The ALLEN remained on antisubmarine patrol in the Pearl Harbor Defensive Sea Area where, on 27 December, she rescued twelve of the crew from a merchant ship sunk by an enemy submarine

Page: << < prev 38 39 [40] 41 42 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

6.09375