RE: Allied Aircraft (RAF issues item)

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Allied Aircraft (RAF issues item)

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: Allied Aircraft (RAF issues item)

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Allied Aircraft (RAF issues item) - 2/7/2006 5:13:07 AM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

If Derfel has it right, the answer is to allow Indomitable to enter the Indian Ocean only in August 1942. That way it never needs to have any Sea Hurricanes. IT also can participate in the Madagascar operation - which it won't do if we let Allied players have it. This is too important to the Pacific Theater to ignore - and Allied players need to be forced to cover that operation. It is a decision taken in London, not the Far East.

(in reply to Derfel)

Post #: 121

RE: Seafires - 2/7/2006 5:18:38 AM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

I had Seafire appearing in May 1942. Since its first unit is June 1942 I have changed that. The problem is that in WITP units appear earlier - that is ships with squadrons outfitted with it do. I need to do a complete air group list for the navy - doing RAF just now - to get it right. But in general I won't allow air units to appear before the plane - and I think the game code won't allow it either. That in turn means some carriers cannot appear on the dates given, or that they appear minus some air units, or that they appear with different air units. And all the fictional Seafire units need to lose them. Only 8 ever were in theater - and 3 of that 8 are not in the list. I will figure it out - after finishing RAF squadrons/planes.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 2/7/2006 1:35:53 PM >

(in reply to TIMJOT)

Post #: 122

RE: Allied Aircraft (RAF issues item) - 2/7/2006 11:12:44 AM

Kereguelen

Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

All the squadrons I list WERE in the Far East - otherwise I would not say they were. And my source for AF type planes is the one I have already cited - Royal Air Force Aircraft Since 1912. I am finding it takes skill to read it - but it is rarely wrong. The problem is when you must fill in the blanks - for which other works are OK when the plane was famous. My problem is that these units (and about 5 times that many more) WERE in the Far East during the war - but I don't know when or where. I have unit histories for USAAF and Japan - not for Commonwealth.

Well, then we have conflicting sources. Just try this site http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/.

It's the homepage of the RAF (historical branch). Not very detailed, but it clearly states that the squadrons you mentioned did not serve in the FE. I would assume that the RAF should know best were its squadrons served (I'm generally sceptical about online sources, but in this case it has some "air of authority")

K

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 123

RE: Allied Aircraft (RAF issues item) - 2/7/2006 12:10:56 PM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

Re 453 & 488 Sqns

These were both Article XV (Empire Air Training Scheme) squadrons and as such were on the strength of the RAF.

More accurate would be 453(Australian)Sqn RAF & 488(New Zealand)Sqn RAF.

The RAAF & RNZAF has seperate numbering sequences.

< Message edited by JeffK -- 2/7/2006 12:38:23 PM >

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 124

RE: Allied Aircraft (RAF issues item) - 2/7/2006 12:40:20 PM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

From Iron Duke
Hi,

453 in game
4 pru not in game but should be [singapore ?]
all others 458,244,521,231,39,55 and 223 didn't serve in FE

52 re formed '44' @ Dum Dum with Dakota's
96 arrive FE May '45' with Dakota's

60 should start with Buffalo I > Blenhiem IV > Hurri IIc > Thunderbolt II

ref RAF Squadrons
wingcommander C.G.Jefford

cheers

In the RAAF Histories, 4PRU gets a mention in February 42 flying Buffalo's

I cant see 60 Sqn flying Buffalo's, the rest of the line is 2/41 Blenhiem, Hurricanes in 1943 and Thunderbolt II in May 1945

Of the others listed, and El Cid says another reference says were in the Far East.
521 & 231 never left the UK
39, 55 & 223 were in the Med. 39 was the Recce unit Warburton flew with.
244 was based at Masrirah in the Near East.

I am also concerned about any reference about 617 being in the Far East, in May 45 it was obliterating the Bielfeld Aqueduct in Northern Germany.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Iron Duke)

Post #: 125

RE: Allied Aircraft (RAF issues item) - 2/7/2006 12:43:10 PM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

Also earlier is a comment that Beaufighter 1C didnt see action in the Pacific.

The first 72 Beaufighters used by the RAAF (A19-1 to A19-72) were Mk 1C with the RADAR removed.

The RAAF also used 65 Mk VIC, 20 Mk XIC, 62 MkX and 365 Mk 21 (Australian Made)

< Message edited by JeffK -- 2/7/2006 12:50:24 PM >

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 126

RE: Allied Aircraft (RAF issues item) - 2/7/2006 1:19:59 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Well, then we have conflicting sources. Just try this site http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/.

It's the homepage of the RAF (historical branch). Not very detailed, but it clearly states that the squadrons you mentioned did not serve in the FE. I would assume that the RAF should know best were its squadrons served (I'm generally sceptical about online sources, but in this case it has some "air of authority")

I know what you mean - in every sentence. I once decided to look up my name in a database of those who served in Vietnam. Although I went there three times - official enough I got out of paying taxes and received combat pay - I am not in the database. So much for web sources. I know a retired JLSDF captain who works for an official Japanese military history activity. But there are certain things he won't say - period. No matter if I have original documents from participants or not, that didn't happen. And in the 1960s we got so used to press, academic and official stories being unrecognizably different from our on the scene experience we coined the term "real world" to distinguish what actually happened from what was said to have happened. Nevertheless, I agree that RAF should know where its units were. I also have evidence that reference books - no matter how comprehensive and detailed - contain errors. In fact - I sometimes correct them before they get printed! Once I was doing this for the English edition of Flottes des Combat (Combat Fleets of the World), and I took the proof copy with me on a service call to Adak - a remote naval station in the Aleutians (no longer a Naval base, it also is not quite as abandoned as is officially stated). While there we had a tiny conflict with Lybia - and two frigates were burning so badly smoke prevented their identification. A worldwide FLASH message was sent to help 6th Fleet identify them. I saw this come in at the operations center and told a petty officer I could identify the ships. The captain came over and asked me about this. I explained I had a book over in BOQ which had photographs, and that the radar antennas were above the smoke. Since only three ships of this class were in the Lybian navy, it had to be two of them. He said "Let me get this strait: you have a book that isn't published yet. But you don't need to look at it, because you have the information in your head?" He didn't bother to send for the book - he sent off the ID with the comment "If we go to war you are back in the Navy." Regretfully, one cannot know information in great detail for all periods for all services, and so we must depend on our references.

I have just learned that another point is in error in the same reference - although I am sure it was believed: Both Blenheim I and IF are listed as being in Malaya in Bloody Shambles - so they did serve in places other than Greece and North Africa after the war began.

I suppose any large data set must contain errors. And sometimes we don't know if the alleged errors are really errors - or not?

(in reply to Kereguelen)

Post #: 127

RE: Allied Aircraft (RAF issues item) - 2/7/2006 1:37:08 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

The RAAF & RNZAF has seperate numbering sequences.

Mostly. But that would be too easy. So there are exceptions - in the very low number area. RAF and RAAF had some duplicates. If that is not enough, some units were disbanded and reformed several times - particularly FAA units. So WHICH abc squadron do you mean - the first, second or third? What a mess.

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 128

RE: Allied Aircraft (RAF issues item) - 2/7/2006 5:58:04 PM

Iron Duke

Posts: 529
Joined: 1/7/2002
From: UK
Status: offline

Hi

4 PRU [Photo Recon Unit] don't have sources to hand at the moment but if i remember correctly it was formed in singapore early 42 and had only 2 to 4 a/c [Buffalo's]

4AACU was a calibration unit with Swordfish ,Sharks and Queen bee's?

Cheers

_____________________________

"Bombers outpacing fighters - you've got to bloody well laugh!" Australian Buffalo pilot - Singapore

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 129

RE: Allied Aircraft (RAF issues item) - 2/7/2006 6:07:46 PM

Iron Duke

Posts: 529
Joined: 1/7/2002
From: UK
Status: offline

Hi

from RAF Squadrons - Jefford

Squadron number allocations

1-299 raf
353-399 raf
400-445 canadian
450-467 australian
485-490 new zealand
500-509 special reserve
510-599 raf
600-616 auxillery
617-650 raf
674-699 raf
note: not all numbers were used

also australia , new zealand and canada had there own numbered squadrons

cheers

_____________________________

"Bombers outpacing fighters - you've got to bloody well laugh!" Australian Buffalo pilot - Singapore

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 130

RE: Allied Aircraft (RAF issues item) - 2/7/2006 10:18:19 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

4 PRU [Photo Recon Unit] don't have sources to hand at the moment but if i remember correctly it was formed in singapore early 42 and had only 2 to 4 a/c [Buffalo's]

4AACU was a calibration unit with Swordfish ,Sharks and Queen bee's?

Correct. I figured this out last night - and added 4 PRU planes to a squadron. I probably should do the same for the 4AACU as well. To free a slot. Unless very special I prefer to have squadrons or groups to independent flights. Less dirt for players to manage too.

(in reply to Iron Duke)

Post #: 131

RE: Allied Aircraft (RAF issues item) - 2/7/2006 10:21:44 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Hi

from RAF Squadrons - Jefford

Squadron number allocations

1-299 raf
353-399 raf
400-445 canadian
450-467 australian
485-490 new zealand
500-509 special reserve
510-599 raf
600-616 auxillery
617-650 raf
674-699 raf
note: not all numbers were used

also australia , new zealand and canada had there own numbered squadrons

cheers

All correct - except for the tiny little detail that some units are omitted.
Note, for example, all the RAAF units in the low range: most numbers between 1 and 120 are duplicated. RNZAF also causes most numbers from 1 to 31 to triplicate!!! Plus 75. Then RCAF does a lot of numbers from 1 to 165 - permitting up to four identical numbers in the "unified Commonwealth" numbering scheme!

(in reply to Iron Duke)

Post #: 132

RE: Allied Aircraft (RAF issues item) - 2/7/2006 11:18:27 PM

Don Bowen

Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

There are separate numbering systems at work here.

The RAF included a number of squadrons (in the 400 number range) that were:
1. Formed by the RAF
2. Equipped by the RAF
3. Manned primarily by pilots from various commonwealth nations
4. Under the command and control of the RAF

An Example of this is No. 453 Squadron RAF at Singapore. Since the pilots were Australian, this squadron is sometimes called an RAAF squadron, but it was Royal Air Force.

The various commonwealth countries also had their own air forces, with their own numbering schemes. There was a No. 1 RAAF squadron, a No. 1 RNZAF Squadron, a No. 1 RCAF squadron as well as a No. 1 RAF squadron.

There are no duplicates.

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 133

Beaufort Query - 2/8/2006 4:14:53 AM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

CHS has Beaufort I and VI. It has them each in two units. But my RAF reference says none were in theater.

Can anyone confirm any of the following units had Beaufort in the Pacific?

No 22 RAF
No 15 RAAF
No 100 RAAF
No 149 RCAF

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 134

RE: Allied Aircraft (RAF issues item) - 2/8/2006 4:17:09 AM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

The various commonwealth countries also had their own air forces, with their own numbering schemes. There was a No. 1 RAAF squadron, a No. 1 RNZAF Squadron, a No. 1 RCAF squadron as well as a No. 1 RAF squadron.

There are no duplicates.

Well, the numbers are certainly duplicated. And someone said that the numbers were different for each nation - but it isn't so. And it matters - because references sometimes say one and mean another. In the game a RNZAF unit is called RAF - for example - presumably because of this sort of confusion.

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 135

RE: Allied Aircraft (RAF issues item) - 2/8/2006 4:19:48 AM

Don Bowen

Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

In the game a RNZAF unit is called RAF

Which unit please.

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 136

RE: Allied Aircraft (RAF issues item) - 2/8/2006 4:30:27 AM

Hipper

Posts: 254
Joined: 6/15/2004
Status: offline

quote:

If Derfel has it right, the answer is to allow Indomitable to enter the Indian Ocean only in August 1942. That way it never needs to have any Sea Hurricanes. IT also can participate in the Madagascar operation - which it won't do if we let Allied players have it. This is too important to the Pacific Theater to ignore - and Allied players need to be forced to cover that operation. It is a decision taken in London, not the Far East.

Hmm so because the sea Hurricane is too unimportant ! to put in the game we will delete an aircraft carrier from its historical availibility date !!!

withdrawal of RN carriers is already modeled

If you absolutly cannot have the Sea Hurricane in the CHS put martlets in instead. seems a shame however !

Hipper

_____________________________

"Gefechtwendung nach Steuerbord"

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 137

RE: Hurricanes - 2/8/2006 4:47:02 AM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

quote:

have added a Hurricane I to represent that- and changed the IIb to the IIc - but let it represent the IIb - and then kept the IId/IV - but gave it rockets. The first fighter in the world with rockets.

Actually...The Nieuport models 11 and 17 had rockets..(1916).

http://www.firstworldwar.com/atoz/leprieur.htm

http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/nieuport.html

< Message edited by m10bob -- 2/8/2006 4:49:55 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 138

RE: Beaufort Query - 2/8/2006 10:40:33 AM

bbbf

Posts: 493
Joined: 7/16/2000
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

CHS has Beaufort I and VI. It has them each in two units. But my RAF reference says none were in theater.

Can anyone confirm any of the following units had Beaufort in the Pacific?

No 22 RAF
No 15 RAAF
No 100 RAAF
No 149 RCAF

I doubt very much that 100 RAAF flew the I, VI apparently flew first with 100 RAAF.

Really not much difference between all the Australian built Beaufort's anyway.

An interesting variant is the Beaufort IX which was nicknamed the Beaufreighter - dorsal turret removed to allow nine seats and cargo carrying capability. 46 made, well remade actually, I believe they were all early Mark converted. You would have thought that more than enough c-47's were being churned out to not require this, but obviously not.

_____________________________

Robert Lee

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 139

RE: Beaufort Query - 2/8/2006 11:00:07 AM

bbbf

Posts: 493
Joined: 7/16/2000
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline

More digging around, and the Mk VIII was well and truly the most produced (520 units), Mk I only 1 delivered, Mk V 50 units, Mark VI 40 units, Mk VIA 30 units, Mk VII 60 units.

Mk V's come in 41, all the others in 42. You could probably just call them all Mk VIII's for the RAAF.

_____________________________

Robert Lee

(in reply to bbbf)

Post #: 140

RE: Allied Aircraft (RAF issues item) - 2/8/2006 11:32:47 AM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

In the game a RNZAF unit is called RAF

Which unit please.

488 Squadron.

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 141

Sea Hurricane and 880 Squadron - 2/8/2006 11:38:11 AM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Hmm so because the sea Hurricane is too unimportant ! to put in the game we will delete an aircraft carrier from its historical availibility date !!!

Actually, this was not my reasoning - and I did explain myself. My reasoning was "because the carrier went to cover the landing on Madagascar it is not available until after that operation is over - so the issue of the Sea Hurricane is moot" - not quite the same thing.

However, I have put the Sea Hurricane back in the list. I am offended to do so for a single nine plane squadron - but I decided that wise players might take some of the awful carrier fighter units available in early 1942 in the area and upgrade them to Sea Hurricane. There won't be a lot of these planes - but more than nine! I don't like the fact that the ship is available early - it was ONLY used as a ferry - and players surely will use it as a carrier! Players surely will also NOT withdraw it to cover Madagascar. But in the end, I do not believe ANY carrier was needed at Madagascar. IF real world events had sent none the outcome would be the same. So I can live with players "cheating" in this way. And I have a dream - one day to put Madagascar on our map. I made a proposal yesterday - it failed - but I will keep trying.

(in reply to Hipper)

Post #: 142

RE: Allied Aircraft (RAF issues item) - 2/8/2006 12:14:57 PM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

El Cid,

I mean they had independent numbering systems so there was a 1 Sqn RAF, RAAF, RNZAF & RCAF

Whoops, Don beat me.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 143

RE: Allied Aircraft (RAF issues item) - 2/8/2006 12:31:10 PM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: el cid again

CHS has Beaufort I and VI. It has them each in two units. But my RAF reference says none were in theater.

Can anyone confirm any of the following units had Beaufort in the Pacific?

No 22 RAF
No 15 RAAF
No 100 RAAF
No 149 RCAF

The following RAAF units flew Beauforts.

1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 15, 32 & 100 Sqns RAAF.......RAAF Official History

22 Sqn RAF was on Beauforts in the UK but "In 1942, No. 22 Squadron moved to the Far East, re-equipping with Beaufighters in the process and undertaking anti-shipping rocket attacks" http://www.raf.mod.uk/squadrons/h22.html

< Message edited by JeffK -- 2/8/2006 12:35:27 PM >

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 144

RE: Allied Aircraft (RAF issues item) - 2/8/2006 1:03:28 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

The following RAAF units flew Beauforts.

1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 15, 32 & 100 Sqns RAAF.......RAAF Official History

OK. But what I need to know is

Did they fly them DURING the Pacific War IN THEATER?

For example, 22 Squadron seems to have been in theater but with Beaufighters. Are any others like that? Are any others never in theater?
Of those in theater - when do they come -and where do they go?

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 145

RE: Allied Aircraft (RAF issues item) - 2/8/2006 4:09:00 PM

Don Bowen

Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

In the game a RNZAF unit is called RAF

Which unit please.

488 Squadron.

This is not a RNZAF Squadron. This is a Royal Air Force Squadron with primarily New Zealand Pilots.

The other 400 series squadron at Singapore is also RAF but with Australian Pilots. In the game it is designated as an RAAF squadron purely to allow it to be merged with No. 21 Squadron. It could be more accurately designated as RAF/British but that would not allow the historical merging of squadrons.

400 Series are all RAF, equipped by RAF, under orders of RAF, but using commonwealth pilots. They are separate and distinct from the Commonwealth Air Forces.

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 146

RE: Allied Aircraft (RAF issues item) - 2/8/2006 11:18:28 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

The following RAAF units flew Beauforts.

1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 15, 32 & 100 Sqns RAAF.......RAAF Official History

All these squadrons are in the CHS database. Only 15 and 100 are
assigned Beauforts. They are assigned the right version - interpreting
V-IX as VIII.

But I have a statement it had been withdrawn before the Pacific Campaign began. I do not see it in an OB listing after it began.
Did 15 and 100 have Beaufort during the war? Did any of the others have it during the war? [All are assigned Hudsons].

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 147

RE: Allied Aircraft (RAF issues item) - 2/8/2006 11:22:46 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

This is not a RNZAF Squadron. This is a Royal Air Force Squadron with primarily New Zealand Pilots.

The other 400 series squadron at Singapore is also RAF but with Australian Pilots. In the game it is designated as an RAAF squadron purely to allow it to be merged with No. 21 Squadron. It could be more accurately designated as RAF/British but that would not allow the historical merging of squadrons.

400 Series are all RAF, equipped by RAF, under orders of RAF, but using commonwealth pilots. They are separate and distinct from the Commonwealth Air Forces.

Thanks. This is helpful. Bloody Shambles lists 488 as an RNZAF unit.
If it really had NZ pilots, I am inclined to do so as well, for honor's sake.
[NZ does not get a whole lot of units anywhere - much less those that fight. Its entire land contingent expedition to Italy engaged only once - at Monte Cassino - and withdrew and went home in about 48 hours! It had exceeded its casualty threshhold. But it seems a logistic waste to commit a fine, expensive, mechanized land division after coming so far after doing so little.] Is there any reason to want 488 to merge with RAF units, vice RNZAF units?

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 148

RE: Sea Hurricane and 880 Squadron - 2/8/2006 11:32:12 PM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

[Actually, this was not my reasoning - and I did explain myself. My reasoning was "because the carrier went to cover the landing on Madagascar it is not available until after that operation is over - so the issue of the Sea Hurricane is moot" - not quite the same thing.

What are you talking about the ship was in theater for over 5 months before it took part in the Madagascar ops. During which time it not only ferried aircraft it patrolled the bay of Bengal and was certainly available for op during this time period and in fact tried to engage KB during its Indian ocean raid. Whats so moot about that? Madagascar and Mediteranean ops are simulated by RN ship withdrawl. Of course you can do whatever you want in your own mod but what exactly does RHS stand for? Real Historic Senerio? If so IMHO you decisions seem a bit arbitrary for that claim to fame.

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 149

RE: Seafires - 2/8/2006 11:34:11 PM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

yeah Nik I drag these old bones to take a peek in here from time to time. Been hearing good things about your mod, have to try it sometime.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 150

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: Allied Aircraft (RAF issues item)