Why can't I...

Why can't I... (Full Version)

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

Message

ChezDaJez -> Why can't I... (10/12/2011 4:58:43 AM)
...transfer a few aircraft to this ship without showing it as overloaded? I've been trying to transfer part of a fighter unit and part of a divebomber unit to this CVE for a total of 18 aircraft. Ship capacity is 27 but the number of aircraft onboard reads 38. That says it is severely overloaded. Why is this happening? Chez [image]local://upfiles/14613/E70A356C04F64003A217D35E642EB73A.jpg[/image]

Canoerebel -> RE: Why can't I... (10/12/2011 5:13:18 AM)
Steve, just a guess, but do either or both squadrons have a number of aircraft in reserve so that the actual total number present in both is 38?

LoBaron -> RE: Why can't I... (10/12/2011 5:13:49 AM)
I think this is a game mechanic recently changed by Michael, IIRC from max AC to current AC in squad. Edit: I did a search and turned out empty, I am probably wrong.

witpqs -> RE: Why can't I... (10/12/2011 5:37:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel Steve, just a guess, but do either or both squadrons have a number of aircraft in reserve so that the actual total number present in both is 38? I agree that's a good one to check.

JeffroK -> RE: Why can't I... (10/12/2011 5:37:43 AM)
SWAG I assume you did this in a port, If so, the fragment moves to join its partner If you flew them out to the ship this may not happen. As often happens, I could be wrong.

Puhis -> RE: Why can't I... (10/12/2011 1:36:20 PM)
Right answer is.... A6M3 is not carrier capable!!!

CT Grognard -> RE: Why can't I... (10/12/2011 2:01:16 PM)
Well spotted, Puhis. In WITP-AE A6M3 is used to designate the Type 0 Model 32, and A6M3a is used to designate the Type 0 Model 22. The Model 32 changed from the Model 21 (the A6M2) by removing the folding wing-tips and introducing a two-speed supercharger for better altitude performance and a more powerful engine. It was heavier and longer due to the larger supercharger, this also resulted in a smaller main fuel tank (470 litres as opposed to 518). The change of the wings was significant enough that the Allies thought it was a new plane, which they nicknamed "Hamp". The wing changes led to better roll and the lower drag resulted in a higher diving speed of 420 mph, but maneuverability and lift were reduced as well as range. Because of the lack of folding wing-tips, it was not carrier-capable. The Model 22 was brought out to address these deficiencies, using the Model 21's folding wings and introducing new in-wing fuel tanks that took the internal fuel to 570 litres and brought back the lost range. The folding wings also made the A6M3a carrier-capable.

Erkki -> RE: Why can't I... (10/12/2011 2:49:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CT Grognard Well spotted, Puhis. In WITP-AE A6M3 is used to designate the Type 0 Model 32, and A6M3a is used to designate the Type 0 Model 22. The Model 32 changed from the Model 21 (the A6M2) by removing the folding wing-tips and introducing a two-speed supercharger for better altitude performance and a more powerful engine. It was heavier and longer due to the larger supercharger, this also resulted in a smaller main fuel tank (470 litres as opposed to 518). The change of the wings was significant enough that the Allies thought it was a new plane, which they nicknamed "Hamp". The wing changes led to better roll and the lower drag resulted in a higher diving speed of 420 mph, but maneuverability and lift were reduced as well as range. Because of the lack of folding wing-tips, it was not carrier-capable. The Model 22 was brought out to address these deficiencies, using the Model 21's folding wings and introducing new in-wing fuel tanks that took the internal fuel to 570 litres and brought back the lost range. The folding wings also made the A6M3a carrier-capable. If the folding wingtips were completely removed(ie. cut or "clipped" wings), wouldn't the M3 use as much deck space as M2? [&:] Also less wingspan --> better roll and roll is what Zero needed. My bet is on the Japanese not finding the range, without the wing fuel tanks of the M3a, good enough to install other carrier capability equipment, arrestor hook at least... Full length wings were most probably re-introduced to make carrier takeoffs and landings especially with full fuel and payload easier.

CT Grognard -> RE: Why can't I... (10/12/2011 3:15:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Erkki quote: ORIGINAL: CT Grognard Well spotted, Puhis. In WITP-AE A6M3 is used to designate the Type 0 Model 32, and A6M3a is used to designate the Type 0 Model 22. The Model 32 changed from the Model 21 (the A6M2) by removing the folding wing-tips and introducing a two-speed supercharger for better altitude performance and a more powerful engine. It was heavier and longer due to the larger supercharger, this also resulted in a smaller main fuel tank (470 litres as opposed to 518). The change of the wings was significant enough that the Allies thought it was a new plane, which they nicknamed "Hamp". The wing changes led to better roll and the lower drag resulted in a higher diving speed of 420 mph, but maneuverability and lift were reduced as well as range. Because of the lack of folding wing-tips, it was not carrier-capable. The Model 22 was brought out to address these deficiencies, using the Model 21's folding wings and introducing new in-wing fuel tanks that took the internal fuel to 570 litres and brought back the lost range. The folding wings also made the A6M3a carrier-capable. If the folding wingtips were completely removed(ie. cut or "clipped" wings), wouldn't the M3 use as much deck space as M2? [&:] Also less wingspan --> better roll and roll is what Zero needed. My bet is on the Japanese not finding the range, without the wing fuel tanks of the M3a, good enough to install other carrier capability equipment, arrestor hook at least... Full length wings were most probably re-introduced to make carrier takeoffs and landings especially with full fuel and payload easier. Hi Erkki, I've gone to look at it - you're right, the wingspan on the AM3 was much shorter than the Model 21 and the Model 22 since the wings were clipped. One of the concerns was apparently that the roll rate was not as good as on Allied fighters at the time. I concede my comment was incorrect then that the lack of folding wing-tips was why it was not carrier-capable - your explanation makes much more sense.

Commander Stormwolf -> RE: Why can't I... (10/13/2011 2:17:48 AM)
A6M3 - tail hook removed to save weight, non-carrier capable, clipped wings to improve roll pilot complaints: not enough range, less maneuverable result: A6M3a - tail hook put back in, wing-tips put back in to reduce wing loading, more fuel capacity A6M3 is some type of easy-rolling, fast diving, shorter range, non-carrier version A6M3a is basically an A6M2 with a different engine

Commander Stormwolf -> RE: Why can't I... (10/13/2011 2:34:58 AM)
while we're on the subject: can this be confirmed? http://lemairesoft.sytes.net:1945/weben/avion/avion1/-353.html#100144 the encyclopedia says the A6M3-32 was produced from 7/41 to 2/42, its prototype flying in june 1941. the website author disagrees with these figures saying the A6M2 was being produced during this time, the book "Zero Fighter" only complains about the frequent model changes (Nagoya works told to change the zero model under production back and forth many times, reducing output) Is the encyclopedia wrong or were these zeroes produced in 1941? and sort of shelved until mid 1942 when they saw combat (sort of like the P1Y frances was shelved for a while, even though hundreds were produced and sitting in the pools)

ChezDaJez -> RE: Why can't I... (10/13/2011 3:14:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel Steve, just a guess, but do either or both squadrons have a number of aircraft in reserve so that the actual total number present in both is 38? As to your supposition, it's possible that the game is considering parts B and C of the fighter unit to be fragments and therefore counting the entire unit towards the total aircraft onboard. Here's the thing... I have 3 CVEs ready to transport 1 fighter unit and 1 divebomber unit to a lush, tropical island somewhere in the Pacific. I wanted to have the DB unit available to perform ASW duty along the way so I divided it to fit 9 DBs to each CVE. I then also wanted to transport the fighter unit to the same location but didn't want to overload any of the CVEs so I divided it also and put 9 fighters on each CVE. As you can seee, the CVE became overloaded. In fact each ship I tried it with became overloaded. And knowing the A6M3's won't fly from carriers, I expected them to be damaged when loaded aboard inport but only half became damaged. And I can assign CAP missions to the unit onboard the CVEs. BTW, Puhis and CT grognard: I did the vast majority of the Japanese aircraft research during AE development and have a very strong knowledge of Japanese aircraft. I know the A6M3 wil not fly missions from carriers. Chez

ChezDaJez -> RE: Why can't I... (10/13/2011 4:05:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf A6M3 - tail hook removed to save weight, non-carrier capable, clipped wings to improve roll pilot complaints: not enough range, less maneuverable result: A6M3a - tail hook put back in, wing-tips put back in to reduce wing loading, more fuel capacity A6M3 is some type of easy-rolling, fast diving, shorter range, non-carrier version A6M3a is basically an A6M2 with a different engine The A6M3 was basically a re-engined Model 21 with a smaller fuselage fuel tank and the folding wingtips removed. The wingtips were originally retained on the A6M3 prototype but were deleted starting with the 5th production model at the request of operational units. The A6M3 upgraded to the NK1F Sakei 21 engine which produced about 180 hp more than the Sakei 12 and had a 2-speed supercharger vice the single speed unit on the -12. The Sakei 21 was a very reliable and forgiving engine but it had greater fuel consumption than did the Sakei 12 and the new engine required that the firewall be moved back 8 inches causing a reduction in the size of the fuselage fuel tank from 98 liters to 60 liters. On the plus side, the A6M3 sported 100-20mm rounds for its cannon vice the 60 rounds found on the A6M21. What you ended up with was an aircraft that had only a marginally better roll rate above 200kts, a slightly faster top speed, a marginally decreased rate of climb and a much reduced range. Dive speeds did not change as the problem was with the thickness of the duraluminum skin on the wings, not the wingtips themselves. A total of 343 Model 32s were produced beginning in the summer of 1941 but many were relegated to training duties in Japan after the Solomons campaign demonstrated its weaknesses especially in regards to range. The 904th A6M produced had a thicker wing skin and a redesigned wing structure which finally allowed the Zero to dive faster than 400mph. The wingspan fell between the original A6M21 and the shortened A6M32. This aircraft also incorporated new type exhaust stacks and had 2-45 liter wing tanks installed outboard of the wing cannon. This new Reisen became known as the Model 52 (A6M5). It could hold its own against the new Hellcat when piloted by an experienced pilot but its inability to absorb punishment ensured that there wouldn't be many experienced pilots left to fly it. Chez

witpqs -> RE: Why can't I... (10/13/2011 4:19:26 AM)
Chez, I think that non-carrier planes take up more room on a carrier. I remember being puzzled about that quite a number of months back and Michael tutored me. Later when I have time I'll search tech support and see what I can find.

CT Grognard -> RE: Why can't I... (10/13/2011 8:18:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez quote: ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf A6M3 - tail hook removed to save weight, non-carrier capable, clipped wings to improve roll pilot complaints: not enough range, less maneuverable result: A6M3a - tail hook put back in, wing-tips put back in to reduce wing loading, more fuel capacity A6M3 is some type of easy-rolling, fast diving, shorter range, non-carrier version A6M3a is basically an A6M2 with a different engine The A6M3 was basically a re-engined Model 21 with a smaller fuselage fuel tank and the folding wingtips removed. The wingtips were originally retained on the A6M3 prototype but were deleted starting with the 5th production model at the request of operational units. The A6M3 upgraded to the NK1F Sakei 21 engine which produced about 180 hp more than the Sakei 12 and had a 2-speed supercharger vice the single speed unit on the -12. The Sakei 21 was a very reliable and forgiving engine but it had greater fuel consumption than did the Sakei 12 and the new engine required that the firewall be moved back 8 inches causing a reduction in the size of the fuselage fuel tank from 98 liters to 60 liters. On the plus side, the A6M3 sported 100-20mm rounds for its cannon vice the 60 rounds found on the A6M21. What you ended up with was an aircraft that had only a marginally better roll rate above 200kts, a slightly faster top speed, a marginally decreased rate of climb and a much reduced range. Dive speeds did not change as the problem was with the thickness of the duraluminum skin on the wings, not the wingtips themselves. A total of 343 Model 32s were produced beginning in the summer of 1941 but many were relegated to training duties in Japan after the Solomons campaign demonstrated its weaknesses especially in regards to range. The 904th A6M produced had a thicker wing skin and a redesigned wing structure which finally allowed the Zero to dive faster than 400mph. The wingspan fell between the original A6M21 and the shortened A6M32. This aircraft also incorporated new type exhaust stacks and had 2-45 liter wing tanks installed outboard of the wing cannon. This new Reisen became known as the Model 52 (A6M5). It could hold its own against the new Hellcat when piloted by an experienced pilot but its inability to absorb punishment ensured that there wouldn't be many experienced pilots left to fly it. Chez Nice explanation. I see you were a naval aviator on Orions!

PaxMondo -> RE: Why can't I... (10/13/2011 4:18:56 PM)
Chez, Michael said sometime back that CV max ac tallies were looking at potential group size NOT the actual planes to determine if a CV was actually overstacked or not. I beleive (not positive though) that he changed that to look at the actual planes about 3 updates ago.

witpqs -> RE: Why can't I... (10/13/2011 5:32:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs Chez, I think that non-carrier planes take up more room on a carrier. I remember being puzzled about that quite a number of months back and Michael tutored me. Later when I have time I'll search tech support and see what I can find. I couldn't find the posts Chez. Sorry.

ChezDaJez -> RE: Why can't I... (10/14/2011 5:59:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs Chez, I think that non-carrier planes take up more room on a carrier. I remember being puzzled about that quite a number of months back and Michael tutored me. Later when I have time I'll search tech support and see what I can find. I couldn't find the posts Chez. Sorry. Thanks for looking though. And you may very well be right. I tried a different CVE with A6M2 Zeros and every thing loaded fine. Here's a screen shot... [image]local://upfiles/14613/E55824A3670E4312B3345C1DD252A1C7.jpg[/image] Chez

ChezDaJez -> RE: Why can't I... (10/14/2011 6:04:51 AM)
quote: I see you were a naval aviator on Orions! Yup, I flew in all versions of the P-3C. I primarily operated the active and passive acoustic systems and was a relief operator for the electronic warfare systems. Loved chasing submarines. Too bad there is no need in the civillian world for this particular skill! Chez

CT Grognard -> RE: Why can't I... (10/14/2011 8:11:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez quote: I see you were a naval aviator on Orions! Yup, I flew in all versions of the P-3C. I primarily operated the active and passive acoustic systems and was a relief operator for the electronic warfare systems. Loved chasing submarines. Too bad there is no need in the civillian world for this particular skill! Chez Your knowledge on Soviet/Russian submarines must be quite impressive!

ChezDaJez -> RE: Why can't I... (10/14/2011 1:54:11 PM)
quote: Your knowledge on Soviet/Russian submarines must be quite impressive! If it sailed during the 70's through the 90's then I pretty much knew them like the back of my hand. Don't know much about the newer subs. Chez

Nikademus -> RE: Why can't I... (10/14/2011 6:08:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CT Grognard quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez quote: I see you were a naval aviator on Orions! Yup, I flew in all versions of the P-3C. I primarily operated the active and passive acoustic systems and was a relief operator for the electronic warfare systems. Loved chasing submarines. Too bad there is no need in the civillian world for this particular skill! Chez Your knowledge on Soviet/Russian submarines must be quite impressive! Yes it is....however Chez still has a thing or two or three or four to learn about ASW from Sid. [:'(] [:'(] [:'(] [:'(]

ChezDaJez -> RE: Why can't I... (10/15/2011 3:43:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus quote: ORIGINAL: CT Grognard quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez quote: I see you were a naval aviator on Orions! Yup, I flew in all versions of the P-3C. I primarily operated the active and passive acoustic systems and was a relief operator for the electronic warfare systems. Loved chasing submarines. Too bad there is no need in the civillian world for this particular skill! Chez Your knowledge on Soviet/Russian submarines must be quite impressive! Yes it is....however Chez still has a thing or two or three or four to learn about ASW from Sid. [:'(] [:'(] [:'(] [:'(] Smartazz!!! [:D][:D][:D][&o] Chez

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.859375