RE: A question for you Royal Navy types (I know you are out there) (Full Version)

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



Message


Dixie -> RE: A question for you Royal Navy types (I know you are out there) (5/11/2014 7:20:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

These were my late war FAA airgroup types. There's a lot of room for what-if type and the Royal Navy, aircraft that were in development and ships that were cancelled or delayed. I did have art for quite a bit of the RN in the Korean War/early Cold War somewhere, most of it's gone now though.




I have data on the US-style Carrier Air Groups that were being formed for the Royal Navy Pacific Fleet. About 19 of them specified, some with intended ships and others just classes. I "assumed" the series would continue and made up more if I needed them - starting with the next higher number.

As for squadrons, I "extended" the squadron number series in use at the end of the war:
170x for amphibious Bomber-Recon (Sea Otters)
177x for 2-seat fighters (Firefly)
179x for Night Fighters (Firefly NF)
18xx for single seat fighters (mostly US Types)
8xx for early squadrons of most types, with several sub ranges.

In the end, I literally "assumed" that squadrons in the 8xx range that were disbanded in Europe late-war would be reformed when needed in the Pacific.

Impossible to replicate the movement of squadrons from carrier to carrier that happened in real life.

Anyway, I "assigned" CAGs to all CV and CVL (except Hermes I) and "found" squadrons to fill them out.

Don

P.S. What's that aircraft in the upper left?


Sounds like the info I've got. All I'll add is that the Fleet Air Arm Handbook has the additional single seat fighter squadrons in the 1830-1899 range. Dive bombers would have made the 1810-1829 squadrons. 1700-1749 were intended to be TBR squadrons, there's a gap in the intended numbering at 1750-1769 with no types assigned.

The top left is a Sea Mosquito, which is basically what it says on the tin. Folding wings, stronger landing gear and four blade props were added to the 'standard' Mosquito.




oldman45 -> RE: A question for you Royal Navy types (I know you are out there) (5/11/2014 7:22:11 PM)

Dixie was faster than me. [;)]




Don Bowen -> RE: A question for you Royal Navy types (I know you are out there) (5/11/2014 7:55:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

Sounds like the info I've got. All I'll add is that the Fleet Air Arm Handbook has the additional single seat fighter squadrons in the 1830-1899 range. Dive bombers would have made the 1810-1829 squadrons. 1700-1749 were intended to be TBR squadrons, there's a gap in the intended numbering at 1750-1769 with no types assigned.

The top left is a Sea Mosquito, which is basically what it says on the tin. Folding wings, stronger landing gear and four blade props were added to the 'standard' Mosquito.



I don't have any data at all on the gap between 1703 and 1700. Also, not aware of any pure dive bomber squadrons that made it to the Pacific Fleet (or were intended to). SB2C didn't make the cut for the Royal Navy.
Appreciate anything you got on either...




wdolson -> RE: A question for you Royal Navy types (I know you are out there) (5/11/2014 10:58:39 PM)

Looks like a De Havilland Sea Hornet. It was an evolution of the Mosquito.

Bill




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.03125