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: Seafires

 
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: Seafires Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Seafires - 2/9/2006 12:15:17 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		Think you'll enjoy it as long as you don't mind the Sea Hurricanes being army colored.

_____________________________


(in reply to TIMJOT)
Post #: 151
RE: Sea Hurricane and 880 Squadron - 2/9/2006 12:33:41 AM   
el cid again

 

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

Madagascar and Mediteranean ops are simulated by RN ship withdrawl.


Are they? I read in the forum Allied players disregard these - buy them off with "political points" or something like that. DO RN ships have to withdraw - or not? In any case, note that I have Indomitable in the mod, and with Sea Hurricanes.

(in reply to TIMJOT)
Post #: 152
RE: Sea Hurricane and 880 Squadron - 2/9/2006 12:48:54 AM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline 		Most months after about feb/mar 42, the RN will ask for a capital ship and 2 destroyers to be withdrawn. The allied player can choose to ignore this, but they will lose a LOT of political points. So many, in fact, that the player will now be hampered when wanting to change the HQ on any unit or even changing leaders. This is not trivial. Choosing to keep an RN ship when it's asked to be withdrawn really hampers other strategic decisions.

I agree with the original poster that this issue is taken care of by the withdrawl function. Maybe it's another type of capital ship. Maybe it's still a carrier, but the player chooses a different ship.

Just because historically, that ship was an aircraft ferry for a few months, then went to Madagascar doesn't mean that is what will happen in any given WITP game. maybe all carriers (US and UK) are sunk in 2/42? What then? Would the admiralty have made it cover the Madagascar mission? Maybe they would have kept it in Ceylon.

Let the player decide what happens to the ship. If it's asked to be withdrawn, they may let it go or they may keep it. If they keep it, a division in Australia will stay in Australia instead of reinforcing Port Morseby. It's give and take. (btw, a carrier is worth almost as much as a division in political points)

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 153
RE: Allied Aircraft (RAF issues item) - 2/9/2006 4:20:23 AM   
bbbf

 

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

ORIGINAL: el cid again

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].


1 sqn may have had Hudsons 1st, then Beauforts (42), then Mosquitos.
2 sqn didn't fly beauforts ever,as far as I can tell.
6 sqn Hudson to Beauforts
7 sqn Hudson to Beauforts
8 sqn Hudson to Beauforts
14 sqn Hudson to Beauforts
32 sqn Hudson to Beauforts
15 sqn Beauforts for entire Pacific War
100 sqn Beauforts for entire Pacific War

_____________________________

Robert Lee

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 154
RE: Allied Aircraft (RAF issues item) - 2/9/2006 11:17:37 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline 		2 Sqn RAAF was based at Hughes in March 1944 equipped with Beauforts

In June 1944 it re-equipped with Mitchells

Air War against Japan 1943-1945......George J Odgers

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to bbbf)
Post #: 155
Missing unit??? - 2/9/2006 1:53:33 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		The Hudson listing shows a 139 RAF Squadron in the Far East theater.
It is not in the CHS listing. Was this unit in the Pacific? If so, when and where?


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 156
This discussion is now moot - did you know that? - 2/9/2006 2:01:24 PM   
el cid again

 

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

Most months after about feb/mar 42, the RN will ask for a capital ship and 2 destroyers to be withdrawn. The allied player can choose to ignore this, but they will lose a LOT of political points. So many, in fact, that the player will now be hampered when wanting to change the HQ on any unit or even changing leaders. This is not trivial. Choosing to keep an RN ship when it's asked to be withdrawn really hampers other strategic decisions.

I agree with the original poster that this issue is taken care of by the withdrawl function. Maybe it's another type of capital ship. Maybe it's still a carrier, but the player chooses a different ship.

Just because historically, that ship was an aircraft ferry for a few months, then went to Madagascar doesn't mean that is what will happen in any given WITP game. maybe all carriers (US and UK) are sunk in 2/42? What then? Would the admiralty have made it cover the Madagascar mission? Maybe they would have kept it in Ceylon.

Let the player decide what happens to the ship. If it's asked to be withdrawn, they may let it go or they may keep it. If they keep it, a division in Australia will stay in Australia instead of reinforcing Port Morseby. It's give and take. (btw, a carrier is worth almost as much as a division in political points)


Sir - I have posted twice in this thread that the carrier is back in. I don't think it is entirely right that the Allies get to have their cake and eat it too: they can FAIL to send ships really used somewhere off map, but STILL get the assumed IDENTICAL event sequence! Nevertheless, that is the scenario as designed by Matrix, and it is going to be in place for RHS.
I do not particularly like it. But until I can do something with code to penalize players who don't withdraw, I will leave this alone.

(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 157
Thank you for data - 2/9/2006 2:03:52 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		BBBF - and all others who have contributed unit data - thank you for helping me understand possible missing or extra or misassigned units.
It is impossible to be totally accurate, but I like to make each edition better than the one on which it was built. This helps me do it faster.

(in reply to bbbf)
Post #: 158
RE: Missing unit??? - 2/9/2006 2:09:47 PM   
Kereguelen


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

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The Hudson listing shows a 139 RAF Squadron in the Far East theater.
It is not in the CHS listing. Was this unit in the Pacific? If so, when and where?




Correct, No. 139 RAF was in FE flying Hudsons. Was dispatched from the ETO in Dec 1941, started operations in Burma in Feb 1942. Was absorbed by No. 62 RAF Squadron on 30th April 1942 after both squadrons had taken heavy lossen. No. 139 RAF was later reformed as a Pathfinder squadron equipped with Mosquitos (originally it was to receive Blenheim V) and fought over Germany for the rest of the war.

K

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 159
RE: Missing unit??? - 2/9/2006 3:36:25 PM   
Iron Duke


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

139 RAF in FE feb/mar 42 with Hudson III's
APR 42 Disbanded [ re named 62 sqdn RAF ]

62 RAF disbaned feb 42 [ merged with 1 Sqdn RAAF ]
62 RAF Reformed apr 42 at DUM DUM with Hudsom III's

ref RAF Squadrons . Jefford.

to slow !

_____________________________

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

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 160
RE: Missing unit??? - 2/11/2006 9:22:07 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline 		Please note this Australian site page which lists the planes actually used by the RAAF.. While Australians themselves flew all, some of the planes were never part of the RAAF.
Note the numbers used and the dates of actual service with the RAAF.
It shows they only had one Hawker Hurricane, but did have the Mosquito in 1943 !
Also please note the numbers of Avro Ansons they used.
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-air-support/ww2-allied/aircraft-raaf.htm

_____________________________




(in reply to Iron Duke)
Post #: 161
RE: Missing unit??? - 2/11/2006 11:39:14 PM   
JeffroK


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

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Please note this Australian site page which lists the planes actually used by the RAAF.. While Australians themselves flew all, some of the planes were never part of the RAAF.
Note the numbers used and the dates of actual service with the RAAF.
It shows they only had one Hawker Hurricane, but did have the Mosquito in 1943 !
Also please note the numbers of Avro Ansons they used.
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-air-support/ww2-allied/aircraft-raaf.htm


This includes aircraft used in Europe.

The Mossie (Australian built) only saw service in 1945.

For the Pacific also take out:(Combat Aircraft)
Lancaster
Battle (Though used in large numbers as a trainer, I think that given an Invasion the RAAF would have used these as light bombers and they would be as effective as the 1E Light Bombers of the Japanese)
Gladiator Used in the Western Desert Only





_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 162
RE: Allied Aircraft (updated at end) - 2/17/2006 4:58:12 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I have found the Allied Air OB of CHS to have about 75% correct records.
About 1 unit in 4 is wrong in some field. The US tends to have some units not in theater, while British forces tend to need to add units which were in theater but are not listed. [For example, I found 3 US bomber squadrons which the USAF does not list as ever being in the Pacific, and this listing is comprehensive by date for basing. But I just added 2 Spitfire squadrons, and have added 2 Aussie squadrons, and probably others.]

The aircraft data itself was a much more mixed bag - probably reflecting the number of persons who created it - many of them without proper definitions of what to use in a field. My worst horror story is a couple of cases with service ceilings more than twice the actual service ceiling! But not all the errors were in the Allies favor. Just as with Japan, the data was mixed, and some of it restricted planes in performance or armament - particularly the latter. Allied bombers should have be more effective - even much more effective - in many cases. Another class of errors was date of service. I am using initial date of operations in the Pacific Theater. This is sometimes a year or more later than what was in the data set. Yet another error was aircraft production rates. This is hard - we often don't know the theater data per se - and it usually is not uniform. I took the total number known or estimated to be in theater and divided it by the number of months between service introduction in theater and August 1945. Any fraction is reverse multiplied by that number of months and put in the pool. Unless I have exact data - in which case the total in units is subtracted from the total and that difference is in the pool - with zero production. [This applies to a few early types which are not in production at all or which are not being sent to this theater other than what is already there. The most important case is the B-17D - which is not in production - and all of which are in the theater in one form or another - unit or pool. UNTIL the B-17E/F is sent to this theater (a few months into the war), there will be NO more B-17s.]

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 163
RE: Allied Aircraft (updated at end) - 2/17/2006 10:35:03 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I took the total number known or estimated to be in theater and divided it by the number of months between service introduction in theater and August 1945.


There are a number of models that cease production long prior to 1945. Applying the formula you cited rigorously would result in a severe shortage of airframes early on. Although I do not know how to change the production system myself, I suggest that you need instead to divide the total number in theater by the number of months the type was produced.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 164
RE: Allied Aircraft (updated at end) - 2/17/2006 10:35:55 PM   
Black Mamba 1942


Posts: 510
Joined: 12/7/2005
Status: offline 		I just want to know one thing.

Have you fixed the Ventura's range?

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 165
RE: Allied Aircraft (updated at end) - 2/18/2006 12:55:00 AM   
el cid again

 

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

There are a number of models that cease production long prior to 1945. Applying the formula you cited rigorously would result in a severe shortage of airframes early on. Although I do not know how to change the production system myself, I suggest that you need instead to divide the total number in theater by the number of months the type was produced.


The model is too simple and forces us to compromise. It really is about how many per month arrive in theater - not entirely the same as the rate of production. And both the actual production rate and the transfer to theater rate are anything but uniform: most if not every case is actually a different number every month. So we have to come up with an average that cannot be truly right for any given month - but which can be right on the average, if you see what I mean. IF an aircraft ceased production before 12/41, I feel production is zero, so I simply see how many ever were in theater, and subtract from that how many are in units on 12/8/41? The difference is in the pool. This applies in particular to Dutch aircraft, and will apply to Thai aircraft of American origin, etc.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 166
RE: Allied Aircraft (updated at end) - 2/18/2006 12:57:34 AM   
el cid again

 

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

I just want to know one thing.

Have you fixed the Ventura's range?


Yes - but only incidentally. That is, I did not set out to do that, and I didn't ever "know" it was wrong either (except I noted someone said so).
I made the range (endurance) for all aircraft be accurate, on principle, and to the extent it was wrong, it isn't any more! But not specifically because I set out to fix that one plane in that one respect. I do note, however, that many of the Allied twin engine bombers were pretty restricted in both range and payload, compared to history. Not any more.

(in reply to Black Mamba 1942)
Post #: 167
RE: Allied Aircraft (updated at end) - 2/18/2006 3:35:58 AM   
Black Mamba 1942


Posts: 510
Joined: 12/7/2005
Status: offline 		Can't wait to check out your interpretation.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 168
RE: Allied Aircraft (updated at end) - 2/18/2006 5:20:16 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

There are a number of models that cease production long prior to 1945. Applying the formula you cited rigorously would result in a severe shortage of airframes early on. Although I do not know how to change the production system myself, I suggest that you need instead to divide the total number in theater by the number of months the type was produced.


The model is too simple and forces us to compromise. It really is about how many per month arrive in theater - not entirely the same as the rate of production. And both the actual production rate and the transfer to theater rate are anything but uniform: most if not every case is actually a different number every month. So we have to come up with an average that cannot be truly right for any given month - but which can be right on the average, if you see what I mean. IF an aircraft ceased production before 12/41, I feel production is zero, so I simply see how many ever were in theater, and subtract from that how many are in units on 12/8/41? The difference is in the pool. This applies in particular to Dutch aircraft, and will apply to Thai aircraft of American origin, etc.


This is good. There is another kind of case. Many aircraft models in the game are produced during the game but also stop during the game. I'm going to make up an example so I don't have to look up data. The Model T (how's that for original) is manufactured until 3/43 at the rate of 50 per month. If instead of 50 per month until 3/43 you spread that out (lesser number) until 8/45 there will be way too few of the Model T available in '42, with consequent impact on the game.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 169
RE: Allied Aircraft (Soviet Aircraft/units) - 2/18/2006 12:43:18 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Cobra has done some work on the Russians, and he sent it to me. One aspect of this was to revise which aircraft are used in air units, and to add minor air units (apparently for the Kirov class cruisers). His work does not use some older planes, and this frees up some slots - which I like - and while the Soviets still are flying 1937 vintage planes - they are not quite so obsolete as the old OB had it. In keeping with my policy of using whatever is better than what we have now, I have adopted these changes. I also intend to add naval air units using the PBY - I use the designation PBN for the Russians to keep a separate pool (most of the designation really went to the Russians anyway - N stands for Naval Aircraft Factory - as in USN).

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 170
RE: Allied Aircraft (updated at end) - 2/18/2006 12:51:27 PM   
el cid again

 

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

Many aircraft models in the game are produced during the game but also stop during the game. I'm going to make up an example so I don't have to look up data. The Model T (how's that for original) is manufactured until 3/43 at the rate of 50 per month. If instead of 50 per month until 3/43 you spread that out (lesser number) until 8/45 there will be way too few of the Model T available in '42, with consequent impact on the game.


OK. You caught me. My explanation was oversimplified. It is my original idea. But in practice, I had to modify it for two cases:

1) Planes not in production at all and severely limited in availability (already covered).

2) This case. In this case I actually look at the introduction to theater date (or 12/41 if they start the war) and the introduction to theater of the REPLACEMENT machine - and use THAT number of months to determine the monthly rate. OK?


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 171
RE: Allied Aircraft (updated at end) - 2/18/2006 9:46:51 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Yes okay. Wasn't trying to catch you, just prevent a mistake that would be a PITA to fix later. Sorry for misunderstanding you.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 172
RE: Allied Aircraft (Tempest updated at end) - 2/19/2006 6:50:14 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		There is an amazing aircraft, specified in 1941 and produced since 1943, which barely made it to the theater - the Tempest V. A variation of it - later but called Tempest II for some reason - was to be in Tiger Force. Now I oppose planes not operational until after the historical war ended. But proposing to eliminate the British Lancasters was not popular. IF we are putting Tiger Force in, why do it without the fighters??? Problem: how to know what units would have been sent? Is there any record?

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 173
RE: Allied Aircraft (Soviet PBYs) - 2/19/2006 6:53:01 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Can anyone identify the name(s) of Soviet Navy units in the Far East using the PBY (actually, PBN as I am interpreting it)?

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 174
RE: Allied Aircraft (Soviet DC-3s) - 2/19/2006 6:55:47 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		The Russian licenced produced DC-3 was overweight, with less payload, speed and range. Some reasons for this were the addition of a gun turret and bomb bays! We cannot have a transport-bomber as such. But bombers can move supplies. Would Soviet-Allied players prefer to be able to move troops - or have transport-bombers that can only move supplies? We could add a different transport for some units if paras were to also be dropped. Are there Soviet Paras in the Far East?

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 175
RE: Allied Aircraft (Tempest updated at end) - 2/19/2006 3:50:53 PM   
keeferon01


Posts: 334
Joined: 6/18/2005
From: North Carolina
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

There is an amazing aircraft, specified in 1941 and produced since 1943, which barely made it to the theater - the Tempest V. A variation of it - later but called Tempest II for some reason - was to be in Tiger Force. Now I oppose planes not operational until after the historical war ended. But proposing to eliminate the British Lancasters was not popular. IF we are putting Tiger Force in, why do it without the fighters??? Problem: how to know what units would have been sent? Is there any record?



SQUADRONS


3 Squadron Re-equipped from Typhoons to Tempest in April 1944. First Tempest operation 23 April. Re-equipped to Vampires F.1s from 10 April 1948, last Tempest flown to UK 21 June 1948. "QO", changing to "JF" 5 June 1944, and "J5" post-war.
5 Squadron Received Tempest IIs 5 March 1946 at Bhopal, India, replacing Thunderbolts. Disbanded 1 August 1947. "OQ"
6 Squadron Tempest VIs replaced Mustangs at Nicosia, Cyprus, and were first flown 31 Dec 1946. Last Tempest sortie flown 12 Nov 1949. "JV"
8 Squadron First Tempest VIs arrived at Khormaksar, Aden, 27 March 1947. The last Tempest was ferried back to UK 11 March 1950. "RT"
16 Squadron Reformed with Tempests Vs by renumbering 56 Squadron at Fassberg 1 April 1946. Re-equipment began Aug 1946 to Tempest II. Last Tempests were flown Jan 1949. "EG"
20 Squadron First Tempest IIs received at Agra, India, 19 May 1946. Disbanded 31 July 1947. "HN"
26 Squadron: Reformed with Tempest Vs by renumbering 41 Squadron at Wunstorf 1 April 1946. First Tempest II arrived 19 June 1946, full conversion taking place in July. Last Tempest returning to UK 6 May 1949. "XC"
30 Squadron First Tempest IIs received at Bhopal, India, 4 March 1946, replacing Thunderbolts. Disbanded 1 Dec 1946. "RS"
33 Squadron Received first Tempest Vs at Predannack 20 Dec 1944, replacing Spitfire IXs. Re-equipped with Tempest IIs from Oct 1946. It was the last operational Tempest squadron in the RAF, the final sorties being flown 6 June 1951. "5R"
39 Squadron Reformed as a Tempest VI unit, assembling at Manston June 1948 to convert to type and ferry their aircraft to Khartoum, Sudan, arriving 4 July 1948. Tempest flying ceased 28 Feb 1949. No squadron codes carried.
41 Squadron Received Tempest Vs at Lubeck 13 sept 1945. Renumbered 26 Squadron 1 April 1946. "EB"
54 Squadron Reformed 15 Nov 1945 to Tempest IIs by renumbering 183 Squadron at Chilbolton. Last Tempest being ferried to Aston Down 14 Oct 1946. "HF"
56 "Punjab" Squadron First Tempest Vs received at Newchurch 25 June 1944 and first operation these flown 2 July 1944. Renumbered 16 Squadron 1 April 1946. "US"
80 Squadron Borrowed four Tempest Vs for familiarization at West Malling 9 Aug 1944, receiving further Tempests to replace its Spitfire IXs from 27 Aug 1944. Tempests replaced by Spitfire F.24s Jan 1948. "W2"
152 "Hyderabad" Squadron First Tempest IIs received at Risalpur 22 July 1946. Disbanded 31 Jan 1947. "UM"
174 "Mauritius" Squadron First Tempest IIs received at Risalpur 22 July 1946. Disbanded 31 Jan 1947. "XP"
183 "Gold Coast" Squadron Re-equipped to Tempest IIs from Spitfire IXs during Aug 1945. Renumbered 54 Squadron 1945. "HF"
213 "Ceylon" Squadron First Tempest VIs received at Nicosia 21 Jan 1947, replacing Mustangs IVs. The last Tempests flown out Feb 1950. "AK"
222 "Natal" Squadron Exchanged Spitfires XIs for Tempest Vs at Predannack, commencing 18 Dec 1944. Left the Tempests at Wenston Zoyland 23 Oct 1945 and re-equipped to Meteors at Molesworth the next day. "ZD"
247 "China-British" Squadron Re-equipped with Tempest IIs at Chilbolton at end of Aug 1945. Tempests exchanged for Vampires F.1s April 1946. "ZY"
249 "Gold Coast" Squadron Tempest VIs received at Habbaniya 23 Dec 1946. The last Tempests departing for UK March 1950. "GN"
274 Squadron Exchanged Spitfire IXs for Tempest Vs at West Malling 7 Aug 1944, the first sorties flown five days later. Renumbered 174 Squadron at Warmwell 7 Sept 1945. "JJ"
486 Squadron RNZAF Received five Tempest Vs Jan 1944 but these were transferred to 3 Squadron the following month. Full re-equipment took place at Castle Camps April 1944. Tempests handed over to 41 Squadron 14 Sept 1945 and officially disbanded 12 Oct 1945. "SA"
501 "County of Gloucester" Squadron First Tempest Vs received at Westhampnett 18 July 1944. Disbanded 20 April 1945. "SD"

Miscellaneous Units:

Fighter Interception Unit First Tempest V received 22 June 1944 and two days later a detachment was formed at Newchurch to operate by night against V-1 flying bombs. Pilots and aircraft absorbed by 501 Squadron at Manston 10 Aug 1944. "ZQ"
287 Squadron An anti-aircraft co-operation squadron which operated Tempest V, alongside several other types, from Nov 1944 to June 1946. "KZ"
485 Squadron RNZAF Began conversion to Tempest Vs at Predannack Feb 1945. First Tempest flown 28 Feb, but this type was withdrawn early in March and replaced by Typhoons.

No Tempest V was used in anger against the japs, wish they was though would love to use these beasts in the game, best fighter bomber ever, just my opinion.

_____________________________


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 176
RE: Allied Aircraft (Soviet DC-3s) - 2/19/2006 7:06:19 PM   
timtom


Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Would Soviet-Allied players prefer to be able to move troops - or have transport-bombers that can only move supplies?



Pure transports any day - got enough aircraft to bomb the Japanese, while the ability to airlift troops (more so that merely paradropping them) is a force-multiplier if there ever was one.


_____________________________

Where's the Any key?


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 177
P-51 Problems - 2/20/2006 1:43:53 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		This is an unusual case. Usually it seems the references all quote the same sources. Not this time!

My best RAF reference has the P-51B with a maximum speed 50 mph slower than my best comprehensive (all aircraft) reference does. It also shows the P-51D as slightly faster than the other reference. But the all aircraft reference I regard as my standard for all planes (if possible) has the P-51D as actually slower than the B, slightly, instead of significantly faster.

This is not the worst of it: the British ROC is 1500 feet per minute vs 5555 for the other reference (for the B model). Talk about a variation!

And the RAF book says the D model had FEWER machine guns. The ONLY advantages of the D seem to be range and altitude - it is a "high altitude fighter."

Yet another discrepancy is a 100% variation in bomb load.

These are non-trivial differences for a plane of great significance. I fear whatever I do will be unpopular and "wrong" in someone's opinion. I also don't believe there is that much slop in the data - some of this may be misprints. I am seeking opinions about what to do?

I see no justification for three P-51 slots - there is not much difference for the H model - and not many were made - and almost none got into action.
I think the D will do fine.

I am inclined to go with the British speed data - but the ROC really has me mystified. Theoretically - if I can get it - I like initial ROC. Otherwise we need to calculate ROC from "time to abcd feet" data.


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 178
RE: Allied Aircraft (Soviet DC-3s) - 2/20/2006 1:46:02 AM   
el cid again

 

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

Pure transports any day - got enough aircraft to bomb the Japanese, while the ability to airlift troops (more so that merely paradropping them) is a force-multiplier if there ever was one.


This is also my view. Players are going to notice the addition of transport types to both sides in my Air OB. I added heavy transports and gliders with tugs as well as more regular transports to both sides. But the turret on the Soviet DC-2 may be nice.

(in reply to timtom)
Post #: 179
RE: Allied Aircraft (Soviet DC-3s) - 2/20/2006 3:20:04 AM   
Hipper

 

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

My best RAF reference has the P-51B with a maximum speed 50 mph slower than my best comprehensive (all aircraft) reference does. It also shows the P-51D as slightly faster than the other reference. But the all aircraft reference I regard as my standard for all planes (if possible) has the P-51D as actually slower than the B, slightly, instead of significantly faster


Cid I got this off one of the aircraft Simulator sites

the top speed data is probably accurate My big book of aircraft gives flight test speeds of 442 mph However this was not a war loaded aircraft

The 51B is very fast though the performance curve is quite different from the 51D. Sea-level cruise speed is 348mph, 359mph with WEP, which is very good and easily in the top 10 of non-perked aircraft. Speed increases smoothly with altitude improvement until a 422mph at 17K, after which you get a pretty bad drop in performance until you climb above 24K. The gearing of the superchargers is obviously different than the 51D. Top speed is around 430mph at 30K, impressive but very high. Acceleration is not brisk but improves with altitude, ranking in the lower 1/3 of aircraft at low levels but almost cracking the top 1/3 at higher levels (18K). Climb rates are fair and actually improve with altitude, starting at 3,200ft/min at sea-level and gaining ground to over 3,300ft/min up to 17K. As you can tell, that 17K number is a critical one for the P-51B, either fly under it over quite a bit over it, so as to be in the best performance zone. Fuel duration is exceptional, 54 minutes on internal fuel alone with the option to add 2 external drop tanks that add another 30 minutes. The drop tanks are loaded in pairs although it is common to immediately drop one as carrying both is typically unnecessary. You should ensure that if you take heavy internal fuel that you burn the AUX tank first, even if you have drop tanks aboard, as it seriously unbalances the aircraft, making combat much more difficult. 50% internal will leave the AUX tank dry to start with and eliminate any concerns. Considering the high cruise speed and long fuel duration, the P-51B has exceptional range and is perfect for escorting, just like the 51D.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 180
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: Seafires Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.609