Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Wow. What discrepencies. A closed society - and one disrupted by revolution and invasion - is hard to get information from. I will convert the Albatross to 1944, but leve the other in for 1945 - on the assumption that some record says it was - and it might have (it is already very late - and we no doubt have left vessels out anyway).

I found Soviet materials on those big "monitors." Seems it is very much in doubt exactly what happened? Apparently all lost all their engines and guns near the end of WWI - when Revolution stalked the land. They were rearmed during the First Five Year Plan - for which I have detailed information. Also reengined - or at least 5 of them were. They do not appear to have ended up uniform. Some had single 12cm side mountings. Two had single 13 cm mountings in all four positions, but then these were replaced by 152mm mounts using turrets from the original class. I don't know if that means all four mounts or just the fore and after mounts that originally had 152mm? Apparently all got rebuilt bridges with space for a proper director and an extra 37mm AA gun - which is intrigueing since "extra" implies they already had 37mm AA - but that isn't how they were born. I am tempted to leave this alone in the form Monter reports - just for the sake of simplicity! And no where do I find a record of their deck armor - yet all the smaller monitors had 50mm deck armor - so why would ships with 4.5 inch of teck (and turret) armor not have any deck armor? Very confusing.

I am going to rework the Amur Flotilla - expanding it to include obscure vessels - since I found the naval records for their reconstruction - tonight. This is my last research project. This, eratta, and conversion of minor craft to multiple ship formats - is all that is going to happen before freezing. If we don't freeze tomorrow - we do so Monday. Get any eratta in now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Wow. What discrepencies. A closed society - and one disrupted by revolution and invasion - is hard to get information from. I will convert the Albatross to 1944, but leve the other in for 1945 - on the assumption that some record says it was - and it might have (it is already very late - and we no doubt have left vessels out anyway).

I found Soviet materials on those big "monitors." Seems it is very much in doubt exactly what happened? Apparently all lost all their engines and guns near the end of WWI - when Revolution stalked the land. They were rearmed during the First Five Year Plan - for which I have detailed information. Also reengined - or at least 5 of them were. They do not appear to have ended up uniform. Some had single 12cm side mountings. Two had single 13 cm mountings in all four positions, but then these were replaced by 152mm mounts using turrets from the original class. I don't know if that means all four mounts or just the fore and after mounts that originally had 152mm? Apparently all got rebuilt bridges with space for a proper director and an extra 37mm AA gun - which is intrigueing since "extra" implies they already had 37mm AA - but that isn't how they were born. I am tempted to leave this alone in the form Monter reports - just for the sake of simplicity! And no where do I find a record of their deck armor - yet all the smaller monitors had 50mm deck armor - so why would ships with 4.5 inch of teck (and turret) armor not have any deck armor? Very confusing.

I am going to rework the Amur Flotilla - expanding it to include obscure vessels - since I found the naval records for their reconstruction - tonight. This is my last research project. This, eratta, and conversion of minor craft to multiple ship formats - is all that is going to happen before freezing. If we don't freeze tomorrow - we do so Monday. Get any eratta in now.

Errata,(Hope it's not too late, you have been very busy).
Recently I asked a question about the bombload on the Netherland Fokker T.IV bomber. Your comment was that you believed it carried depth charges.
The plane was a 2 engine pontoon torpedo/recon bomber, as large as the Italian pontoon bombers of the same era. The design was so successful 8 years after it's initial entry in 1927, a further order for 12 more planes was made,giving it a stronger airframe and bigger engines.
The plane was protected by 3 machine gun positions,(7.9 MM), in the nose,dorsal, and ventral positions.
The plane carried either 4x440lb bombs, or 18x110lb bombs(internally), or a single torpedo,slung under the fuselage).
The plane had a range of 1012 miles,top speed of 259 mph with an impressive ceiling of 25260 feet!

Currently, the plane (in RHS) will "go along for the ride" on bombing missions, but with a RHS imaginary load of DC's(?), will accomplish nary a splash.

Now, here's the kicker. While that plane was used mostly by the NEIAF, another 2 engine pontoon bomber, (with similar bomb or torpedo load, also used solely by the NEIAF is completely missing from the OOB's,I think)..
The Fokker T.VIII-W was created in 1937,(newer plane and certainly better looking!).
There were 36 of them, and the performance was a tad better in all areas.

Source:Combat Aircraft Of The World..John W.R.Taylor ISBN 0-399-50471-0

and Aircraft Of WW2..Stewart Wilson...ISBN 1-875671 35 8

Please consider making this change.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

quote:

ORIGINAL: drw61

As I was playing EOS 6.643 this morning I found that the allied micro AKs (slot 1365) are upgrading to Northampton CAs (slot 191) 

It is also in CVO Scenario 60. Also, about 5 or 6 of these Allied Micro AKs ships named Indian ### have no weapons while the rest have a couple of .30 and .50. The class (1365) has 2 .50. Was it intentional that some were unarmed?

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Wow. What discrepencies. A closed society - and one disrupted by revolution and invasion - is hard to get information from. I will convert the Albatross to 1944, but leve the other in for 1945 - on the assumption that some record says it was - and it might have (it is already very late - and we no doubt have left vessels out anyway).

I found Soviet materials on those big "monitors." Seems it is very much in doubt exactly what happened? Apparently all lost all their engines and guns near the end of WWI - when Revolution stalked the land. They were rearmed during the First Five Year Plan - for which I have detailed information. Also reengined - or at least 5 of them were. They do not appear to have ended up uniform. Some had single 12cm side mountings. Two had single 13 cm mountings in all four positions, but then these were replaced by 152mm mounts using turrets from the original class. I don't know if that means all four mounts or just the fore and after mounts that originally had 152mm? Apparently all got rebuilt bridges with space for a proper director and an extra 37mm AA gun - which is intrigueing since "extra" implies they already had 37mm AA - but that isn't how they were born. I am tempted to leave this alone in the form Monter reports - just for the sake of simplicity! And no where do I find a record of their deck armor - yet all the smaller monitors had 50mm deck armor - so why would ships with 4.5 inch of teck (and turret) armor not have any deck armor? Very confusing.

I am going to rework the Amur Flotilla - expanding it to include obscure vessels - since I found the naval records for their reconstruction - tonight. This is my last research project. This, eratta, and conversion of minor craft to multiple ship formats - is all that is going to happen before freezing. If we don't freeze tomorrow - we do so Monday. Get any eratta in now.

Errata,(Hope it's not too late, you have been very busy).
Recently I asked a question about the bombload on the Netherland Fokker T.IV bomber. Your comment was that you believed it carried depth charges.
The plane was a 2 engine pontoon torpedo/recon bomber, as large as the Italian pontoon bombers of the same era. The design was so successful 8 years after it's initial entry in 1927, a further order for 12 more planes was made,giving it a stronger airframe and bigger engines.
The plane was protected by 3 machine gun positions,(7.9 MM), in the nose,dorsal, and ventral positions.
The plane carried either 4x440lb bombs, or 18x110lb bombs(internally), or a single torpedo,slung under the fuselage).
The plane had a range of 1012 miles,top speed of 259 mph with an impressive ceiling of 25260 feet!

Currently, the plane (in RHS) will "go along for the ride" on bombing missions, but with a RHS imaginary load of DC's(?), will accomplish nary a splash.

Now, here's the kicker. While that plane was used mostly by the NEIAF, another 2 engine pontoon bomber, (with similar bomb or torpedo load, also used solely by the NEIAF is completely missing from the OOB's,I think)..
The Fokker T.VIII-W was created in 1937,(newer plane and certainly better looking!).
There were 36 of them, and the performance was a tad better in all areas.

Source:Combat Aircraft Of The World..John W.R.Taylor ISBN 0-399-50471-0

and Aircraft Of WW2..Stewart Wilson...ISBN 1-875671 35 8

Please consider making this change.

Actually - the change in loadout was made in response to data in the Forum that it ONLY operated with that loadout in NEI. And your data on a different plane is not germane UNLESS it was in NEI service. I can check Taylor - since I have him - but I don't remember it in any of the squadrons - and it does not appear to be in CHS either. CHS had a very detailed update to NEI aircraft -and since we have had significant reviews for RHS - because of Dutch participants who won't let us get even a tiny thing wrong without comment. Anyway - we would have a slot problem - unless the type could be combined - except in EOS AFTER Cobra finishes the new art set (when Allied plane slots will free up).

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I found both your planes - in Aircraft of the Second World War (Weal et al).

The only datum I can confirm on the VIII is that 36 were made. Only 11 ever went into Dutch service - and all of those in ETO. [The rest - and indeed most of those 11 - also served with UK or Germany - also entirely ETO]. As was SOP for colonial powers, they relieved the older plane - which was then sent to NEIAF. I speculate that the torpedoes of the older planes were retained in ETO as well - which would explain the following.

I was able to confirm the older plane in NEIAF service - in two variants (IV and IVa - 12 each). And indeed the report they were used for ASW and recon - but not for torpedo bombing or other bombing (land or sea) is also correct. I bet there were no torpedoes available for it in that theater - and that it was not regarded as effective as a day bomber - nor was it fitted with radar (so it could, like Swordfish, be effective at night). [The RNN did primary research on radar and some of its radar was put into production by UK during the war - but aircraft radar does not seem to have been part of the package.]

Now I have no problem giving players options. It was pointed out these planes should not be torpedo bombers in NEIAF service - and I removed the torpedoes for that reason. But there were plenty of 50 kg (and 10 kg) bombs -
so we can fit it with these - and let players specify an AS mission if they want to. It is not clear just what code does in that case? But it will fly an ASW mission, for sure.

Follow up: OK - the problem - which may explain historical usage - is not weight carrying - but hard points. You cannot fit a significant fraction of the load with the bombs available - although you might rob some 250 pound bombs from B-10s - otherwise you have to use 110 pound (50 kg) bombs. Now these are indeed dangerous - and also useful in ASW work - so I gave the plane a mixed loadout - but only 2 DC and 2 bombs - so it won't be a great bomber. But it will fly more mission types if you wish it to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Sorry, I just don't see why you *feel* they had no torpedoes. The Dutch were basing torpedo equipped destroyers and cruisers,with more than one large naval base there.
While the plane could be used in ASW work, it was purpose-designed as a *torpedo-bomber*..

http://www.dutch-aviation.nl/index5/Military/index5-1%20T4.html

quote:



REPLY: The torpedoes used by surface ships (and submarines and PT boats) are generally different from the torpedoes used by aircraft. For one thing, most aircraft operated lighter weight torpedoes of a different caliber.
This wasn't always the case: the Japanese midget subs used the same torpedo as aircraft - but note that it is a lighter and smaller torpedo from those used by surface ships or full sized submarines. The midgets actually were like aircraft in that they lacked torpedo tubes! [They just had round torpedo holders - they were loaded externally like aircraft torpedoes - there was no door or elaborate mechanism as is usually the case on a submarine. As a result firing one torpedo almost always forced the submarine to surface!] Anyway - this aircraft began WITP as torpedo armed, and posters complained it was ahistorical - that it was not used in that way. I confirmed that - and I confirmed that again yesterday. I had the impression you wanted to carry bombs - and it turns out this isn't an efficient bomber - but I have to agree it could carry a few - and some were available. Exactly why they were not used with torpedoes I do not know - but they were not - and no suitable ones seems a reasonable guess as to why?

(in reply to m10bob)

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


I have found another page showing where each of them were destroyed,(most by bombing), so, (like the rest of the Allies early on), they were unprepared, but an assumption that the planes might not be used as designed once the firing started, is IMHO flawed.
Not looking for compromise, but an approach to what should be more historically accurate.
In the event they had no torpedoes, they still had internal bomb bays, with a capacity of near 1800 lbs,(hardly a "couple of hundred-pounders").........

This next thread shows their were torpedoes available in the Dutch East Indies,and when used by Dutch subs, were very potent.(Yeah, I know aerial torps can differ, but I include this site for the sake of history.

http://www.avalanchepress.com/DutchSubs.php

As far as how many torps were in the NEI, I found another site that shows the American U.S.S. Alden used Dutch torpedoes when they ran out of American torps.
(The Dutch torps were FAR superior to those used by the U.S. at that time.)

"A smoking gun?"

This site shows the Dutch did indeed have aerial torpedoes in theatre:

http://www.netherlandsnavy.nl/Shinonome.htm

REPLY: Sometimes a torpedo can mount in a similar sized tube - German attempts to use Japanese ones (when theirs failed maintenance tests at Penang) failed - the torpedoes were not compatable. But sometimes you can do it. That should not be confused with attempting to use a surface ship torpedo on an aircraft. Different kettle of fish entirely.

The reason we removed torpedoes from this aircraft is that it was considered ahistorical - so we have a problem: not all posters agree about what is historical! I cannot please you both.

The reason we are limited about bombs is mounting points. A torpedo can be replaced by 1, 2, 3 or 4 bombs - depending on the specific hardware available. While a torpedo plane can carry bombs, it is a bit like a fighter doing so - it never carries very many (at least not in that age). A purpose built bomber of that period, on the other hand, would have typically 10 or more hard points, so if you wanted to carry more smaller bombs, or if you were going to carry a maximum load (not permitted in WITP theoretically speaking) - you could do so. As far as I know no torpedo bomber had such a provision - and in the absence of specific data otherwise - the general rules seem best to apply.
IF there were heavy bombs available it might be different. But NEIAF used the B-10 (Martin 339) as its "bomber" - and other than that only had 50 kg bombs for "heavy" work (10 kg was also used). I don't have any specific knowledge, but it seems unlikely in the age of dissimilar measurement systems (metric and English) that American bombs would be mountable on a European aircraft. Even if that is not a germane issue, there were not very many 250 pound bombs purchased - and it is hard to believe the rather numerous B-10 units would be robbed of their primary ordnance in favor of an old, slow aircraft delivering them. If we made that the "standard" loadout - players would use it - be forced to use it - so it would not be some rare, exceptional thing - it would be the rule. I couldn't rationalize that far. But carrying a couple of 50 kg bombs in lieu of DC might actually make sense - they are deadly to submarines, transports, destoyers, patrol craft, etc. Also much more useful than DC vs a land target.

(in reply to m10bob)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Making a big deal over availability of torpedoes in the DEI when we can't govern the availability of torpedoes for any other aircraft, especially the strategic like strike force Nells and Bettys have been designed as in this game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

Another Dutch areial torpedo..but should the T-IV be allowed to carry them???

IV45
Used aboard submarines, and kept in reserve for the new Fokker T-8W torpedoaircraft




Specifications

Diameter
45 cm ( 18 inch )

Origin
British

Manufacturer
Horten, Norway

Length
5,43 m

Engine
4-cylinder radial

Charge
180 kg trotyl

Overall weight
820 kg

Range
2500 m @ 40 knots
6000 m @ 28,5 knots
6700 m @ 28 knots
7500 @ 26,5 knots

Service
1928 - 1946

Total number purchased
64

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Making a big deal over availability of torpedoes in the DEI when we can't govern the availability of torpedoes for any other aircraft, especially the strategic like strike force Nells and Bettys have been designed as in this game.

This seems to be an incomplete sentence - but we may guess at its thrust.

The original objection to torpedoes for this aircraft is that it never was used in that role. This is confirmed - unusually so - in reference materials that normally would not say such a thing - so it must be considered an important note.
We removed the torpedoes in favor of DC because we were asked to do so for historical reasons. I have now shifted to a mixed torpedo/bomb loadout to please this poster. But that seems not to his liking. He wants the torpedoes back.

If there were no torpedoes in theater for this aircraft, it is certainly ahistorical to permit them. If there were torpedoes in theater for them, but they were not used, it is likely they could not be used (like the German torpedoes at Penang - in these conditions torpedoes do not last very long). Comparing a total lack of capability with a supply rate is comparing apples and fried prawns - a different kettle of fish altogether. IF we could control torpedo inventories - I prefer to do so - and in my games we track every one - by type. That we cannot does not justify giving torpedoes to an aircraft no longer used with them. Since the aircraft was relieved by a more modern aircraft in NEAF - I suspect that the plane was sent to NEIAF for other duties - and the expensive fish retained in Europe - where conditions permit storage for many years. This is the pattern of colonial powers of the period: send older planes to the colonies - and update the homeland striking force with the newer ones. I could be persuaded otherwise by specific data - and have been.

I regard making a big deal about 2 dozen wholly obsolete secondary aircraft exclusively used for recon and patrol work as something of a waste of time - and have done so as a courtesy. Had I just taken this poster's suggestion - we would be flying T VIIIs which never were in theater - and giving the Dutch more than 3 times the number that ever served with them (even in ETO). I have considered the suggestions - found the addition of the T VIII unwarranted - and the idea of making the planes have more possible missions a reasonable one - so I added bombs which permits that. It is as far as I am prepared to go absent specific information that we can reasonably give players a further capability (which we need to admit is ahistoric in the sense it was not used - but which we might want to do if it was technically possible).

• 70 Jaar Marineluchtvaartdienst by N. Geldhof (1987)

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

Another Dutch areial torpedo..but should the T-IV be allowed to carry them???

IV45
Used aboard submarines, and kept in reserve for the new Fokker T-8W torpedoaircraft




Specifications

Diameter
45 cm ( 18 inch )

Origin
British

Manufacturer
Horten, Norway

Length
5,43 m

Engine
4-cylinder radial

Charge
180 kg trotyl

Overall weight
820 kg

Range
2500 m @ 40 knots
6000 m @ 28,5 knots
6700 m @ 28 knots
7500 @ 26,5 knots

Service
1928 - 1946

Total number purchased
64

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus



The Dutch used a Norwegian torpedo?

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

There is also this website-

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/waf/neth/mld/types/fokker_TVIII-W.htm


Fokker T.VIII-W * Retired *
Five T.VIII W/G1 ordered 23 September 1938 (R-1 to R-5) and nineteen T.VIII W/G2 ordered 1 January 1939 (R-6 to R-24). Total of 24 ordered. Delivered 25 April 1939 - 28 July 1939 and 10 May 1940 - 12 May 1940. Only 6 of second batch actually delivered (making a total of 11 aircraft) due to German invasion. Torpedo-bomber reconnaissance floatplane. Eight escaped to UK on 14 May 1940, and used to form 320 sqn RAF on 1 June 1940.
Twelve T.VIII W/M version ordered 1 February 1940 for use in NEI. Serials R-25 to R-36 allocated but not used. Captured by Germans before any completed. Total ordered was 36. Two further aircraft, under construction for Finland as FW-160 and FW-161, were taken over by the MLD as R-37 (c/n 5636) and R-37 (c/n 5637) respectively, but were not completed before capture by the Germans.
One example (R-25?) escaped from the Netherlands to the UK on 6 May 1941. This aircraft was then used for covert flights into occupied Europe, before being struck off charge.

REPLY: That text is word for word lifted from Weal - so it is what I was reading. I think it is pretty close.

(in reply to treespider)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

Another Dutch areial torpedo..but should the T-IV be allowed to carry them???

IV45
Used aboard submarines, and kept in reserve for the new Fokker T-8W torpedoaircraft




Specifications

Diameter
45 cm ( 18 inch )

Origin
British

Manufacturer
Horten, Norway

Length
5,43 m

Engine
4-cylinder radial

Charge
180 kg trotyl

Overall weight
820 kg

Range
2500 m @ 40 knots
6000 m @ 28,5 knots
6700 m @ 28 knots
7500 @ 26,5 knots

Service
1928 - 1946

Total number purchased
64

The Dutch used a Norwegian torpedo?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

According to Tom Womack's book The Dutch Naval Air Force Against Japan, the T-IVs could carry torpedeos but was not used that way in the NEI. According to him "...several of these planes were used for bombadier training; most were modified shortly after the outbreak of war to carry three depth charges and were assisgned to fly A/S and reconnaissance patrols along the north coast of Java and over the Java Sea."

The new loadout that Sid has of only 2 DC and 2 bombs is a reasonable load.