Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735
This means the Brit gun can not penetrate most other CA armor, even at 1,000 yards.

Hyperbolic vaporizations are counter productive.
Your statement is in error.
The largest Jap CA armor thickness in the database is 140mm for the Mogami belt. The others are around 100. One of the math classes I took suggests that 180 is bigger than 100 and even bigger than 140.

quote:

I'm not sure if the penetration is accurate.

And neither is anyone else. All sources indicate the major loadout of Brit 8" guns was SAPC. All US sources indicate SAPC had penetration characteristics somewhere in the neighborhood of 60-70% that of an equivalent APC/APCBC round.

You find better balistics and penetration data for UK SAPC rounds, you will win a prize.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford
If the developers are using the "70% of AP penetration" for the RN SAP 8" shells, then their 180 value is really only 126, which explains why the ships couldn't penetrate Mogami's main belt thickness.  As for the CL's damaging Graf Spee, IIRC the damage was all in the superstructure and unarmored sections; their 6" shells did not penetrate any armored portion of that ship.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Whisper

The tower armor for the Helena class goes away in 1944 it was 125 up to than.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EasilyConfused
Shark Class submarines have incorrect ammo for the XT 21in Mk 14 Torp device (18 instead of 1)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Pollard

Because the Pamir did not have engines, it might be impossible to model its fuel consumption properly in AE. One possibility would be to give it enough fuel to circle the globe several times, but in that case it would be possible to "cheat" by unloading the fake fuel and turning it into real fuel.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel
The War Room thread about loading supply into the US AV-type ships (eg Curtiss and Tangier) indicates that they are to receive a cargo capacity so they can support seaplane operations. Can I make a plea for this also to be applied to the Japanese seaplane tenders, including the CS-type ships Chitose, Chiyoda, Mizuho and Nisshin? This would also make it possible for these to play a useful part in fast transport TF's, a role which they fulfilled historically, but of which they are currently incapable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wpurdom

I would request that when the meet command and the refuel command is fixed that we get a more detailed explanation than normal of the change and/or that one of the programmers (Dan Bowen, I hope) reads the manual on the commands carefully and make sure that the explanation of the function fully explains how each command is supposed to work.
(Dan Bowen consistently provides lucid explanations when he appears on the forum)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

Shouldn't USS Boise and Marblehead (amongst other USN ships) have a withdrawl date?  They both spent time in the Med after repair work.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

Scenario 002 has all ACM Chimo class boats present on 1941, but perhaps they shouldn't.

(snip)

The perfect solution would be to make them available as Army MP class, and then upgrade to ACM by 1944. If not possible, I reckon it is ok to have both the Army mine planters and the Chimo ACM as a single entry, but they should be available from Apr-42 onwards, not from Dec-41.


Cheers
fbs

We are aware of the deployment of American ACM at the start of the war. There were, in fact, only three of them (one each at Manila, San Franciso, Puget Sound). Also one converted into an inter-island transport and a named working boat at Manila. There were however, large numbers of smaller carft that were used in this war. Unnamed US Army "L" and "M" boats that serviced the mines themselves and electrical connections/junction boxes to them. A similar situation existed for most countries.

We certainly weren't going to put in a fleet of these small boats. So that left us three options:
1. Build mine maintenance directly into the port size. Similar to what WITP did but was in conflict with our basic decision to separate civilian port functions (port size) from military ones (Naval Support).
2. Use Naval Support for mine maintenance. Too general, and we already have a number of functions lumped into Naval Support (one of which I would have liked to move to yet another Support type - Shore Parties).
3. Expand the ACM fleets using ships that historically could have been used in that role. This is what we did.

The two main groups of US ACM are the US Army Mine Planters (represented by the Chino Class) and US Coast Guard Buoy/Lighthouse Tenders (Alders).

Japan also has an extensive force of ACM that includes could-have-beens.

The intent is to provide the player the ability to use a reasonable force of ACM to offset the unavailability of all those working boats and to allow the use of ACM to protect the harbors that the player decides to protect.

Having said that, I am a fanatic for historical accuracy and it will probably change when my buddies and I get around to doing a mod. Still not sure what to do about the working boat issue though.

Incidentally, the DANFS history for the ex-USAMP only starts when acquired by the navy. They were in army service earlier in the war - until the threat to US ports was considered to have abated and they were no longer deemed needed. The dividing line between army and navy in minelaying has always been "interesting".