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: AE Naval and OOB Issues

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues Page: <<   < prev  15 16 [17] 18 19   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/23/2009 5:56:50 PM   
Zebedee


Posts: 535
Joined: 8/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Thanks.

Do you happen to have any data on an RAFA ship named Dumana? May have been a seaplane tender or base ship in Australia.




British India Steam Navigation Co Ltd ship? Laid down as Melma in 1923, but completed as Dumana?

Dumana (motor vessel, 2 screws, 140 passengers, oc), laid down 1923 by Barclay, Curle & Co ltd (Whiteinch, Glasgow), GRT 8427, deadweight 10400 tons, 464-0' x 58-4' x 28-0', service speed 12.0 knots.

(Source: The World's Merchant Fleets, Robert Jordan)

Originally did the Karachi to Plymouth run until 1939 when chartered by Admiralty. Used as accommodation for Sunderland personnel (also stated by p.17, The Sunderland Flying Boat Queen, John Evans) in the Med and elsewhere [edit: Alexandria and Iceland]. Converted in 1942 to flying-boat mother ship and sent to Bathurst (Gambia) to support two Sunderland squadrons. Sunk doing the Freetown-Takordi-Lagos (STL)run carrying 10000t cargo and 300t RAF supplies.

Could be confusion over Bathurst NSW and Bathurst, Gambia?


< Message edited by Zebedee -- 8/24/2009 4:14:17 AM >

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 481
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/23/2009 6:09:34 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		RFA Ranger 2,600 tons of fuel oil, 550 tons of diesel(could be bunkerage), and 90 tons of petroleum; 6000nm range.

Dale Group I had 880t bunkerage.
Dale Group II & III had 1000t bunkerage

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 482
upgrade question - 8/23/2009 7:07:00 PM   
Jzanes

 

Posts: 471
Joined: 11/18/2004
Status: offline 		It is March 6, 1942 and CV Lexington and CV Saratoga are sitting in Auckland (level 6 port with level 15 repair shipyard). They both have "yes" for their 3/42 upgrades and have been sitting in port since the 1st of the month. The upgrade is listed as needing at least a level 10 repair shipyard but Auckland seems to have this covered. I've repeatedly read thru rule 14.1.1 (upgrades) but can't figure out why they aren't upgrading. Anyone have any ideas as to what the problem is?

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 483
RE: upgrade question - 8/23/2009 8:03:08 PM   
Iridium


Posts: 932
Joined: 4/1/2005
From: Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jzanes

It is March 6, 1942 and CV Lexington and CV Saratoga are sitting in Auckland (level 6 port with level 15 repair shipyard). They both have "yes" for their 3/42 upgrades and have been sitting in port since the 1st of the month. The upgrade is listed as needing at least a level 10 repair shipyard but Auckland seems to have this covered. I've repeatedly read thru rule 14.1.1 (upgrades) but can't figure out why they aren't upgrading. Anyone have any ideas as to what the problem is?


You sure it didn't say level 10 port with enough repair shipyard to hold them both? Each individual CV displaces far more than 10,000 tons (the capacity of a lvl 10 repair yard) so that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

_____________________________

Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.

"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture

(in reply to Jzanes)
Post #: 484
RE: upgrade question - 8/23/2009 8:25:46 PM   
Jzanes

 

Posts: 471
Joined: 11/18/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Iridium


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jzanes

It is March 6, 1942 and CV Lexington and CV Saratoga are sitting in Auckland (level 6 port with level 15 repair shipyard). They both have "yes" for their 3/42 upgrades and have been sitting in port since the 1st of the month. The upgrade is listed as needing at least a level 10 repair shipyard but Auckland seems to have this covered. I've repeatedly read thru rule 14.1.1 (upgrades) but can't figure out why they aren't upgrading. Anyone have any ideas as to what the problem is?


You sure it didn't say level 10 port with enough repair shipyard to hold them both? Each individual CV displaces far more than 10,000 tons (the capacity of a lvl 10 repair yard) so that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.


I wondered the same thing but the manual talks about repair shipyards and not port sizes. It seems that other ships go to "pierside" repair when they are upgrading so I don't think the capacity of the repair shipyard is a factor.

(in reply to Iridium)
Post #: 485
Transport unload bug? - 8/24/2009 1:01:11 AM   
DrewMatrix


Posts: 1429
Joined: 7/15/2004
Status: offline 		Correction- problem is different than what I thought:

I need to check one more thing (one more turn) before wasting your time. Basically an AK that can't unload its cargo (an air group) although docked at a port.



< Message edited by Beezle -- 8/24/2009 1:07:40 AM >

_____________________________


Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

(in reply to Zebedee)
Post #: 486
RE: Transport unload bug? - 8/24/2009 1:55:38 AM   
DrewMatrix


Posts: 1429
Joined: 7/15/2004
Status: offline 		Sorry for the confused last post. But I can't figure this out.

Scen 6 Allies vs AI/ I have a TF at Canton Is for many turns that can't unload its cargo. Cargo is an air group assigned to Seventh Af. Canton has a size 2 port, TF is docked. TF set to unload but doesn't turn after turn.

I suspect some sort of bug/glitch in this one unit, although it's certainly possible I am not seeing something. But all the other similar TFs unload fine.

Is there a limit on how many AC I can unload on an atoll? Canton has (already) 2 AGs of 5 (patrol) and 25 (fighter) A/C respectively.

_____________________________


Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

(in reply to DrewMatrix)
Post #: 487
RE: upgrade question - 8/24/2009 2:48:14 AM   
Kull


Posts: 2625
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline 		I realize the patch is doing something to nerf PT Boats, but I would implore the devs to nerf them all the way down to "one-trick-pony" status. IRL these units were very effective against Barges, and that should stay in AE. But against everything else they were essentially useless. When the AE engine ensures that PT Boats can never be more effective than they were in the Surigao Strait (the "best case" instance of PTs in action against warships), you'll have it right.

(in reply to Jzanes)
Post #: 488
RE: upgrade question - 8/24/2009 4:06:43 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
quote:

I realize the patch is doing something to nerf PT Boats, but I would implore the devs to nerf them all the way down to "one-trick-pony" status. IRL these units were very effective against Barges, and that should stay in AE. But against everything else they were essentially useless. When the AE engine ensures that PT Boats can never be more effective than they were in the Surigao Strait (the "best case" instance of PTs in action against warships), you'll have it right.


Wrong.

(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 489
Oi Torp re loads 9 - 8/24/2009 12:35:21 PM   
Cavalry Corp

 

Posts: 3107
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline 		I noticed the Oi has 9 re loads - nce but I think its an error

Cav

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 490
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/24/2009 2:04:10 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: Zebedee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Thanks.

Do you happen to have any data on an RAFA ship named Dumana? May have been a seaplane tender or base ship in Australia.




British India Steam Navigation Co Ltd ship? Laid down as Melma in 1923, but completed as Dumana?

Dumana (motor vessel, 2 screws, 140 passengers, oc), laid down 1923 by Barclay, Curle & Co ltd (Whiteinch, Glasgow), GRT 8427, deadweight 10400 tons, 464-0' x 58-4' x 28-0', service speed 12.0 knots.

(Source: The World's Merchant Fleets, Robert Jordan)

Originally did the Karachi to Plymouth run until 1939 when chartered by Admiralty. Used as accommodation for Sunderland personnel (also stated by p.17, The Sunderland Flying Boat Queen, John Evans) in the Med and elsewhere [edit: Alexandria and Iceland]. Converted in 1942 to flying-boat mother ship and sent to Bathurst (Gambia) to support two Sunderland squadrons. Sunk doing the Freetown-Takordi-Lagos (STL)run carrying 10000t cargo and 300t RAF supplies.

Could be confusion over Bathurst NSW and Bathurst, Gambia?



Yes, could be "Bathhurst" confusion. I've seen a couple of vague references to Dumana in Australia but this is by far the best data I have ever seen. Thanks.


(in reply to Zebedee)
Post #: 491
RE: upgrade question - 8/24/2009 2:04:47 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: Jzanes

It is March 6, 1942 and CV Lexington and CV Saratoga are sitting in Auckland (level 6 port with level 15 repair shipyard). They both have "yes" for their 3/42 upgrades and have been sitting in port since the 1st of the month. The upgrade is listed as needing at least a level 10 repair shipyard but Auckland seems to have this covered. I've repeatedly read thru rule 14.1.1 (upgrades) but can't figure out why they aren't upgrading. Anyone have any ideas as to what the problem is?


Post a save in the Tech Support Thread.

(in reply to Jzanes)
Post #: 492
RE: upgrade question - 8/24/2009 2:12:38 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline 		PT Boats are overemphasized in AE; not only do they get far more hits than they should, but the AI won't send TF's into any port that there are sizable numbers of them present. 

OTOH, I would like someone to look at the "withdrawing from combat" routine as it relates to both PT's and larger warships.  Far, far, far too many times in my campaign I've had ships withdraw from combat one hex, the other side "reacts" to their presence, the ships "withdraw" again, and this cycle repeats several times.  I once had an MTB squadron 'pursued' by a 'reacting' TF for more than 5 hexes, all in one 12 hour phase, and just in my last few turns had another one 'pursued' for 4 hexes.  Both times my PT boats were run out of fuel by these 'withdrawal/react' cycles.  I've also had surface TF's withdraw from combat and then move right back into the combat hex, repeating this until they ran out of allowable move.

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 493
RE: upgrade question - 8/24/2009 4:01:21 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline 		Seems like some ships have more ammo than their max allows in the Aleutians Scenario anyhow.....?




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 494
RE: oob question - 8/24/2009 4:50:29 PM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline 		Just wondering why USAT SS President Johnson doesn't appear to be included in the oob? It spent the entire war in the Pacific including 8 round trips to Hawaii. It was at sea delivering troops to the PI when war broke out. The President Garfield also doesnt appear but I think that ship's name may have changed during the war and may be in under that name.

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 495
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/24/2009 5:25:39 PM   
Herrbear


Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline 		I noticed that Singapore starts on Scen 1 with Port Damage of 50. Was that intentional? If it is, not questioning, but curious as to what caused it?

I thought that two US subs in Asiatic fleet was undergoing refit, but it does not seem to have any submarines damaged in Scen 1.

Thanks and sorry if this has been asked about before.

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 496
RE: oob question - 8/24/2009 5:42:19 PM   
Herrbear


Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TIMJOT

Just wondering why USAT SS President Johnson doesn't appear to be included in the oob? It spent the entire war in the Pacific including 8 round trips to Hawaii. It was at sea delivering troops to the PI when war broke out. The President Garfield also doesnt appear but I think that ship's name may have changed during the war and may be in under that name.


I think the Garfield is under that name of Thomas Jefferson.

(in reply to TIMJOT)
Post #: 497
RE: oob question - 8/24/2009 10:13:51 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
[
quote:

ORIGINAL: TIMJOT
Just wondering why USAT SS President Johnson doesn't appear to be included in the oob?

I'm sorry, there was no President Johnson in the APL fleet.

502/522 design:
Pres Hayes (1st) – renamed Pres Tyler (1st) 1940 – requisitioned and renamed Howard McCurdy.
Pres Monroe (1st) – renamed Pres Buchanan (1st) 1940 – renamed AH Emily Weder 7/44.
Pres Polk (1st) – renamed Pres Taylor (1st) 1940 – sunk 02/14/42.
Pres Adams (1st) – renamed Pres Grant (2nd) 1940 – USAT troopship.
Pres Garfield (1st) – renamed Pres Madison (2nd) 1940 – renamed Kenmore 08/42.
Pres Harrison (1st) – captured 12/09/41.
Pres Van Buren (1st) – renamed Pres Fillmore (2nd) 1940 – renamed AH Marigold 6/44.
535 design:
Pres Cleveland (1st) – renamed USS Tasker Bliss, 7/41.
Pres Grant (1st) – renamed USS Harris, 8/40.
Pres Jackson (1st) – renamed USS Zeilin, 7/40.
Pres Jefferson (1st) – renamed USS Henry Allen, 12/41.
Pres McKinley (1st) – renamed USS Franklin Bell, 12/41.
Pres Pierce (1st) – renamed USS Hugh Scott, 7/41.
Pres Taft (1st) – renamed USS Willard Holbrook, 9/41.


_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to TIMJOT)
Post #: 498
RE: oob question - 8/24/2009 10:45:34 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
There does seem to have been a USAT named President Johnson. Apparently an ex-APL liner of 1904. Very little data on her, except that she was at sea enroute Hawaii with the 2nd/138th FA Battalion on December 7, 1941.

Data is given as 615' length, 16,111 Gross Tons, twin screwed, 11,000 hp = 16 kts. Build Camden, NJ in 1904 and still on the APL lists in 1939. She is listed as allocated to the army (not a time or bare boat charter).

One source indicates she was transfered to the Navy after Pearl Harbor but I can find no data on her in Navy lists. She survived the war and was renamed Santa Cruz under Panamanian flag in 1947.

Bit of a mystery. Anyone got more data??

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 499
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/24/2009 11:15:20 PM   
mikemike

 

Posts: 501
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: a maze of twisty little passages, all different
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
The Cimarron (AO-22) is shown as a Neosho class oiler when it should be reversed.
<snippy, snippy>

Buck (an ex AO-22 swabby 1963)

Yep, Quite right. Woof! What a brain fart.

Probably too late for the patch, so .. next time.


Reading the book BuckBeach quotes, I think you should put Cimarron and Neosho in classes of their own, based on armament. Cimarron, Platte and Salamonie essentially had the armament that the game now has for the Neosho class, except that Cimarron had four twin .50 MG until October, 1942, when the two twin mounts on the pilot house were exchanged for 20 mm Oerlikons, two further 20 mm were mounted on the main deck, and the .50 MG on the aft deckhouse were exchanged for quad 1.1 in guns; these were later (1944) swapped for 40 mm twins. BTW, both 5in mounted aft were open mounts. The Cimarrons also had Mk37 directors while the other oilers had to make do with less sophisticated fire control arrangements.

Neosho, now, received one five-inch gun on the stern and three 3 in/23 AA guns. These were swapped sometime post-PH for a 5in/38 and four 3 in/50; essentially the same armament as the game has for the Kennebec class, quote
quote:

since the standard armament of all future oilers commissioned prior to mid-1943 included four 3-inch guns and one 5-inch gun.


From December 1944,
quote:

still more AA guns were being fitted to the latest oilers of the Ashtabula class so that the total armament aboard these ships consisted of one 5"/38 dual-purpose gun, four 3750 AA guns, four 40mm AA guns, and eight 20mm AA guns.


Seems like you should revise the US AO classes.

_____________________________

DON´T PANIC - IT´S ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 500
RE: oob question - 8/24/2009 11:40:14 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
There does seem to have been a USAT named President Johnson. Apparently an ex-APL liner of 1904. Very little data on her, except that she was at sea enroute Hawaii with the 2nd/138th FA Battalion on December 7, 1941.

Yep, you're right. Originally Manchiria, built 1904 for Pacific Mail. Confused her with her sister Mongolia also built 1904 for Pacific Mail, transfered to Panamanian registry in 1940. Oopsy daisy.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 501
RE: oob question - 8/24/2009 11:56:42 PM   
Zebedee


Posts: 535
Joined: 8/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


There does seem to have been a USAT named President Johnson. Apparently an ex-APL liner of 1904. Very little data on her, except that she was at sea enroute Hawaii with the 2nd/138th FA Battalion on December 7, 1941.

Data is given as 615' length, 16,111 Gross Tons, twin screwed, 11,000 hp = 16 kts. Build Camden, NJ in 1904 and still on the APL lists in 1939. She is listed as allocated to the army (not a time or bare boat charter).

One source indicates she was transfered to the Navy after Pearl Harbor but I can find no data on her in Navy lists. She survived the war and was renamed Santa Cruz under Panamanian flag in 1947.

Bit of a mystery. Anyone got more data??


WWI vintage USS Manchuria? http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/m3/manchuria.htm edit: well I guess there's a bit more info at the USN link, sorry to repeat jwe's post - should refresh before posting heh.

< Message edited by Zebedee -- 8/24/2009 11:59:32 PM >

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 502
RE: oob question - 8/25/2009 12:18:52 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
Good data. Thanks!

(in reply to Zebedee)
Post #: 503
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/25/2009 1:07:12 AM   
Zebedee


Posts: 535
Joined: 8/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Yes, could be "Bathhurst" confusion. I've seen a couple of vague references to Dumana in Australia but this is by far the best data I have ever seen. Thanks.




Have been doing some digging about and although Dunmana may not have been to Oz (absent proof positive), her sister ship Manela (same yard, 1921) was a tender (officially Seaplane Depot Ship) in the Pacific. (Sorry not checked for her being in the game already.) She kept nipping in and out of the theatre (Africa - Aden - Madagascar during 1942)until the Burmese and Malayan invasions of the latter stages of the war.

World Merchant Shipping 1939 gives the following on her:

Steam turbine, two screws, 135 passengers, 1921 by Curle (Glasgow), grt 8303, deadweight 10695, 465-2' x 58-4' x 28-0', 13 knots.

Hope it's of use.

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 504
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/25/2009 1:32:15 AM   
Herrbear


Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zebedee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Yes, could be "Bathhurst" confusion. I've seen a couple of vague references to Dumana in Australia but this is by far the best data I have ever seen. Thanks.




Have been doing some digging about and although Dunmana may not have been to Oz (absent proof positive), her sister ship Manela (same yard, 1921) was a tender (officially Seaplane Depot Ship) in the Pacific. (Sorry not checked for her being in the game already.) She kept nipping in and out of the theatre (Africa - Aden - Madagascar during 1942)until the Burmese and Malayan invasions of the latter stages of the war.

World Merchant Shipping 1939 gives the following on her:

Steam turbine, two screws, 135 passengers, 1921 by Curle (Glasgow), grt 8303, deadweight 10695, 465-2' x 58-4' x 28-0', 13 knots.

Hope it's of use.



Manela is in the game as a Dominion L Cargo xAK class ship. Ship #9257

(in reply to Zebedee)
Post #: 505
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/25/2009 2:03:40 AM   
Zebedee


Posts: 535
Joined: 8/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

Manela is in the game as a Dominion L Cargo xAK class ship. Ship #9257


Thanks Herrbear. I'm still a clutz at trying to use the editor. According to John Evans (The Sunderland vol 3), Manela was called into service in October 1939 and was used as a base for London flying-boats in the Shetlands originally. Pre-war she did the Karachi-Bombay run and the Calcutta - Oz run. During the Burma/Malaya campaigns, she supported 230 squadron's Sunderlands.

edit: links to a couple of pics. Manela and her profile

< Message edited by Zebedee -- 8/25/2009 2:25:58 AM >

(in reply to Herrbear)
Post #: 506
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/25/2009 3:13:03 AM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline
This thread makes me wish I had more interest in ships other than the wooden types growing up. Still pretty much an age of sail junkie, but Witp has certainly expanded my horizons there.


_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to Zebedee)
Post #: 507
RE: oob question - 8/25/2009 5:01:14 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline 		Thanks Don, I believe the 70th Pursuit squadron and ground elements of the 7th BG were also embarked. Does this mean that the Johnson may be included in the next oob update? Also sources say that "a" President Garfield left with the President Johnson (albeit separately) with reinforcements for USAFFE as well. Now the old Garfield became the Madison and that we know was in the proximity of the PI when war broke out. So I assume that it must be the C3-A President Garfield prior being taken over by the navy and renamed President Jefferson, but in the game the President Jefferson doesnt enter the game until March 42 at Balboa. So I guess I am a bit confused. Any clarification?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


There does seem to have been a USAT named President Johnson. Apparently an ex-APL liner of 1904. Very little data on her, except that she was at sea enroute Hawaii with the 2nd/138th FA Battalion on December 7, 1941.

Data is given as 615' length, 16,111 Gross Tons, twin screwed, 11,000 hp = 16 kts. Build Camden, NJ in 1904 and still on the APL lists in 1939. She is listed as allocated to the army (not a time or bare boat charter).

One source indicates she was transfered to the Navy after Pearl Harbor but I can find no data on her in Navy lists. She survived the war and was renamed Santa Cruz under Panamanian flag in 1947.

Bit of a mystery. Anyone got more data??


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 508
RE: oob question - 8/25/2009 5:11:00 AM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: TIMJOT

Thanks Don, I believe the 70th Pursuit squadron and ground elements of the 7th BG were also embarked. Does this mean that the Johnson may be included in the next oob update? Also sources say that "a" President Garfield left with the President Johnson (albeit separately) with reinforcements for USAFFE as well. Now the old Garfield became the Madison and that we know was in the proximity of the PI when war broke out. So I assume that it must be the C3-A President Garfield prior being taken over by the navy and renamed President Jefferson, but in the game the President Jefferson doesnt enter the game until March 42 at Balboa. So I guess I am a bit confused. Any clarification?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


There does seem to have been a USAT named President Johnson. Apparently an ex-APL liner of 1904. Very little data on her, except that she was at sea enroute Hawaii with the 2nd/138th FA Battalion on December 7, 1941.

Data is given as 615' length, 16,111 Gross Tons, twin screwed, 11,000 hp = 16 kts. Build Camden, NJ in 1904 and still on the APL lists in 1939. She is listed as allocated to the army (not a time or bare boat charter).

One source indicates she was transfered to the Navy after Pearl Harbor but I can find no data on her in Navy lists. She survived the war and was renamed Santa Cruz under Panamanian flag in 1947.

Bit of a mystery. Anyone got more data??




Ships for Convoy 4003 were beginning to assemble. I think three or maybe four had left the West Coast for Hawaii. Somewhere I have the ships and what they carried, but no idea where. I don't believe I have the exact ship for some of the units. I assume there would have been other ships in the convoy as several other army units were alerted to load at West Coast ports in the next few days.

Convoy 4002 (the Pensacola Convoy) was of course still enroute and 4001 (the Boise Convoy) had already arrived and dispersed.

And, of course USAT Ludington was proceeding independently with a high-value cargo of 20 P-40E.


(in reply to TIMJOT)
Post #: 509
RE: oob question - 8/25/2009 5:59:49 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
As far as I can tell, the army ships are sea were:
Transports Etolin, Tasker H Bliss, President Johnson, and President Garfield - enroute Hawaii from West Coast.
Luriline, enroute West Coast from Hawaii
Hugh L Scott and President Coolidge returning West Coast from Philippines
Republic and W.A. Holbrook enroute Philippines in the Pensacola Convoy

Freighters Cynthia Olson, Malama, Jupiter, and Montgomery City enroute Hawaii from West Coast (not sure of destination for last two)
Ludington enroute Philippines via Christmas and Canton Islands and then the Torres Strait.
Bloemfontein and Meigs in the Pensacola Convoy
Mauna Loa, Portmar and Jane Christenson, destinations unknown but probably Philippines. Diverted to Australia.
James (or John?) Lykes enroute Hawaii from Philippines, having been part of Boise Convoy. Diverted to Cebu, then NEI. Not sure, may have been voyage chartered and charter expired upon unload in Manila.


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 510
Page:   <<   < prev  15 16 [17] 18 19   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues Page: <<   < prev  15 16 [17] 18 19   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

1.984