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: CHS errata

 
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: CHS errata Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: CHS errata - 8/18/2006 2:33:33 AM   
Monter_Trismegistos

 

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline 		Well... for me most stupid thing is using two similliar calibres... For example in US tank guns: 75mm and 76,2mm(3in), navy 102mm(4in) and army 105mm, or 152mm(6in) and 155mm. US also had exotic callibre never used by anyone else: 28mm

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to mikemike)
Post #: 121
RE: CHS errata - 8/18/2006 2:38:09 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		You mean 1.1-inch... The Americans get so confused and fearful if you start throwing milimeters at them...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 122
RE: CHS errata - 8/18/2006 3:53:46 AM   
asdicus

 

Posts: 260
Joined: 5/16/2002
From: Surrey,UK
Status: offline 		For Andrew Brown - I have been testing allied para drops in chs and the 75mm pack howitzers(part of the marine para bns) cannot be transported by air - they always get left behind. This must be because the load cost of this device is 18 - which must be too big for a c-47. Can I suggest that you lower the load cost for this device (which is the same as the standard 75mm field gun) - as the allies definitely deployed the pack howitzer by air during the war.

(in reply to asdicus)
Post #: 123
RE: CHS errata - 8/18/2006 6:53:16 AM   
akdreemer


Posts: 1028
Joined: 10/3/2004
From: Anchorage, Alaska
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: asdicus

For Andrew Brown - I have been testing allied para drops in chs and the 75mm pack howitzers(part of the marine para bns) cannot be transported by air - they always get left behind. This must be because the load cost of this device is 18 - which must be too big for a c-47. Can I suggest that you lower the load cost for this device (which is the same as the standard 75mm field gun) - as the allies definitely deployed the pack howitzer by air during the war.

Total weight was only 1339lbs on carriage M8 and the load breakdown was:
Tube, breech ring, mechanism and wheels, cradle and top sleigh, recoil system and bottom sleigh, fron trail, rear trail and axle. All loads were to be 225lbs or less. Definitely capable of being carried in a C-47 and parachuted or transported to an airfield. I would agree with asdicus on this device. The British also used this.

(in reply to asdicus)
Post #: 124
RE: CHS errata - 8/18/2006 7:26:53 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		As it was, the pack howitzer proved to be quite valuable in the Papuan campaign, as it was often the only artillery the allies were able to bring into the fight. This was not just by airdropping, but because it was designed for carrying in by pack mule it could be broken down into reasonable loads (the aforementioned 225 lbs) for foot troops.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to akdreemer)
Post #: 125
RE: CHS errata - 8/18/2006 9:43:04 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: asdicus

For Andrew Brown - I have been testing allied para drops in chs and the 75mm pack howitzers(part of the marine para bns) cannot be transported by air - they always get left behind. This must be because the load cost of this device is 18 - which must be too big for a c-47. Can I suggest that you lower the load cost for this device (which is the same as the standard 75mm field gun) - as the allies definitely deployed the pack howitzer by air during the war.


Noted. Thanks.

Andrew

(in reply to asdicus)
Post #: 126
RE: CHS errata - 8/20/2006 1:03:11 AM   
VSWG


Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline 		This post deals with AKs of the "Procyon AKA" Class (ID 1537). 13 ships arrive in CHS designated as attack cargo ships of this class. However, several AKs and APs that were converted to this class before Dec. 1941 are also in CHS:

AK Mormacgull (ID 8323) should be taken out of the game, as she is a duplicate of AK Alcyone (ID 8189).

http://www.navsource.org/archives/10/02007.htm
http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/a5/alcyone.htm

AK Mormacdove (ID 6637) should be taken out of the game, as she is a duplicate of AK Alchiba (ID 8188).

http://www.navsource.org/archives/10/02006.htm
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-a/ak23.htm
AP Mormacwren (ID 6634) should be taken out of the game, as she is a duplicate of AK Algorab (ID 8190).

http://www.usmm.org/c2ships.html
http://warships.web4u.cz/lode.php?language=E&stat=USA&typ=AKA&trida=Arcturus
AP Mormachawk (ID 6633) should be taken out of the game, as she is a duplicate of AK Arcturus (ID 8193).

http://www.navsource.org/archives/10/02001.htm
http://www.usmm.org/c2ships.html
The following ship is not a duplicate, but was renamed before Dec. 1941:

AK Mormaclark (ID 8324) should be renamed to AK Betelgeuse. This ship should have its class changed from "USMC C1 Cargo" to either "Procyon AKA" Class" (ID 476) or to "USMC C2 Cargo" (ID 476) and then upgrade to "Procyon AKA" - see below.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/10/02011.htm
http://www.usmm.org/c2ships.html
According to the sources I cited, all ships that arrive in CHS as "Procyon AKA" Class started the war as regular AKs and were recommissioned as AKAs. Does that mean that they received their armament lateron? If so, these ships should start the game with the following class and upgrade to "Procyon AKA Class":
  • AK Fomalhaut (ID 8196): "USMC C1 Cargo" Class (ID 1539)
  • AK Alchiba (ID 8188): "USMC C2 Cargo" Class (ID 476)
  • AK Alcyone (ID 8189): "USMC C2 Cargo" Class (ID 476)
  • AK Algorab (ID 8190): "USMC C2 Cargo" Class (ID 476)
  • AK Alhena (ID 8191): "USMC C2 Cargo" Class (ID 476)
  • AK Arcturus (ID 8193) "USMC C2 Cargo" Class (ID 476)
  • AK Bellatrix (ID 8194): "USMC C2 Cargo" Class (ID 476)
  • AK Electra (ID 8195): "USMC C2 Cargo" Class (ID 476)
  • AK Libra (ID 8197): "USMC C2 Cargo" Class (ID 476)
  • AK Oberon (ID 8198): "USMC C2 Cargo" Class (ID 476)
  • AK Procyon (ID 8199): "USMC C2 Cargo" Class (ID 476)
  • AK Titania (ID 8200): "USMC C2 Cargo" Class (ID 476)
  • AK Almaack (ID 8192): "USMC C3 Cargo" Class (ID 1540)
http://www.usmm.org/c1ships.html
http://www.usmm.org/c2ships.html
http://www.usmm.org/c3ships.html
Finally, AK Mormacland (ID 7670) was converted to a CVE prior to Dec. 1941. She was transferred to the Royal Navy as CVE Archer and never saw action in the PTO. The ship should be removed from the database.

http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/ships/Archer.html

< Message edited by VSWG -- 8/20/2006 3:50:19 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 127
RE: CHS errata - 8/20/2006 1:04:26 AM   
VSWG


Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline 		Now, would someone PLEASE be so kind and tell me what a "Mormac" is?!? This is driving me insane...

_____________________________


(in reply to VSWG)
Post #: 128
RE: CHS errata - 8/20/2006 2:49:32 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

Now, would someone PLEASE be so kind and tell me what a "Mormac" is?!? This is driving me insane...


Check this out...Mormac line

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to VSWG)
Post #: 129
RE: CHS errata - 8/20/2006 3:02:37 AM   
VSWG


Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline

Now I can die in peace...

-----------
Class ID 1538 ("USMC C1-M-AV1 Cargo") is unused. It upgrades to Class ID 1605 (same name, better AA), which is used by 12 AKs with funny names.


< Message edited by VSWG -- 8/20/2006 3:10:15 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 130
RE: CHS errata - 8/20/2006 3:30:06 AM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: VSWG

Finally, AK Mormacland (ID 7670) was converted to a CVE prior to Dec. 1941. She was transferred to the Royal Navy as CVE Archer and never saw action in the PTO. The ship should be removed from the database.

http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/ships/Archer.html


The problem here is the renaming of ships. The original Mormacland became the Archer but two more were built. One would have to research the histories of each one to determine which one is in the game. This is rather a large amount of work and there are not a lot of sources for the data.

Another example is the Mount McKinley - a transport at the start of the war and an AGC later. But not the same ship - just the same name (the first one went on the rocks).

Fixing this will be alot of fun - for someone.




< Message edited by Don Bowen -- 8/20/2006 3:31:55 AM >

(in reply to VSWG)
Post #: 131
RE: CHS errata - 8/20/2006 4:01:16 AM   
VSWG


Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline 		Hi Don,

thanks for the reply. You just killed me. I checked for duplicates, and lo and behold, all those names have been used twice.

Only my point - or rather my question - about the recommissioning still stands: should those duplicate ships arrive als "Procyon AKA" Class ships, or as "USMC C1/C2/C3 Cargo" Class ships that can be converted to AKAs?

Boy, this is fun indeed.

_____________________________


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 132
RE: CHS errata - 8/20/2006 5:48:02 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG
Boy, this is fun indeed.


Isn't it just...

(in reply to VSWG)
Post #: 133
RE: CHS errata - 8/20/2006 9:31:45 AM   
Helpless


Posts: 15793
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline 		I still think this is an error:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1228371

Sally shouldn't autoconvert to Helen



_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 134
RE: CHS errata - 8/20/2006 9:57:24 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Helpless

I still think this is an error:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1228371

Sally shouldn't autoconvert to Helen




My knowledge of Japanese aircraft production is not good enough for me to act on this myself. If I did I would probably just screw something up. Time permitting I will try to chase this up to see what needs to be changed.

Andrew

< Message edited by Andrew Brown -- 8/20/2006 9:58:04 AM >

(in reply to Helpless)
Post #: 135
RE: CHS errata - 8/20/2006 10:02:10 AM   
Helpless


Posts: 15793
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline 		Andrew,

There is nothing serious to be changed. Just change back Sally's upgrade path to Peggy. This would allow to choose between Sally and Helen as it was historically.

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 136
RE: CHS errata - 1/8/2008 10:21:04 PM   
engineer

 

Posts: 590
Joined: 9/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Re: F8Fs

Pretty sure that an improved model of the F8F (Bearcat) was produced post-war too...after a pause in production brought on by the end of the war with Japan. It's inconceivable that such a pause would have occurred had the war dragged on.


I've been digging on the F8F. The initial F8F-1 had 4 0.50 cal MG's for the main armament. The F8F-2 had a more powerful engine, a taller rudder, and 4 20 mm cannon, but it dates from the late 40's. There was also a night fighter version from the late 40's/early 50's that fitted a radar onto the F8F-2. I think for a 1946 scenario, the F8F-1 is the only plausible version to see combat.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 137
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: CHS errata Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
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

2.000