Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

...
6) the Phillippines had another squadron or 2 in addition to the 6th FS - 1 recon/observation & bomber/FB squadron in use at the start
...

• Shouldn't the upgrade path from 2pdr be the 6pdr AT gun? The build rate of the 6pdr is 1/month which seems reasonable since I guess they were all sent to the Middle East anyway.
  
• Does anybody know if the US 57 mm was produced this early or is this some kind of Russian gun too?
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

G3M: Looks ok....(Though I nead to look at the endurance figures for it a bit closer with a range of 3,871 st. miles, an endurance of 1,500 seams off.),Cruse spead seams a tad High, listed at 184 mph the game has it at 203.

I agree about the Cruise speed. I also show that it appears you are modeling a combination of both the G3M2 Mod 22 an G3M3 Mod 23. The G3M3 started production in 1941. My figures come from Rene Francillon "Japanese Aircraft in the Pacific War" and David Donald, editor "The Complete Encyclopedia of World Aircraft.
G3M2 Mod 22 - MS 232 CS 173 Alt 29950 End 944 Rng Mi 2722 Rng Hx 45
G3M3 Mod 23 - MS 258 CS 184 Alt 33370 End 1262 Rng Mi 3871 Rng Hx 65


L3Y: Same as the Nell.

I have no comment on the L3Y. Cannot find a source that has any specifications.


G4M1: Endurance again neads to be looked at, with 3,749 miles listed and endurance at 1,500 in the game, crusing spead listed at 196 mph, game alows 226. Torpedo, could arguable considered internal, espichaly if the one the Jill carys is considered internal.

I agree. Francillon shows a Mx Range of 3749 and a CS of 196 making the End of 1148 even though the hex range still works out to 62.


G4M2:3,765 st miles listed, cruse spead listed at 196, game alows 226, endurance in game at 1,500. Their could be a valaid argument for replacing the Beam(blister/side) windo 7.7mm MG's with Type 99 20mm cannons. same note on torpedo stowage as above. Most of which also mounted the Type 99 MK II cannon, while the game shows type 99 MK I's. If this craft is intended to represent the mid war Betty the adation or use of the 7.7mm Nose gun should/could be switched to the 13.2mm type as was often fited for this time frame. The G4M2 should also be a bit more manuaverable than the G4M1 and this is not so in the game in fact it is the opset of how it should be.

I agree with Mx Range of 3749 and a CS of 196 instead of 226. That would make the End 1148 even though the hex range still works out to 62 or rounded up to 63. Again I would make the torpedo storage internal and increase the Mvr over the G4M1. I agree that it coud be shown with the 20mm on the sides giving a GV of 20 or 22 if one of the nose guns is changed to the 13.2 Type 2. I would not change the 20's though to the Mod 2.


G4M2e: See notes above on cruse spead, also I dont see any referances showing that the range was so drasticaly impacted for this model when carrying the Ohka, game show 700 for endurance.

Considering that the CS is overstated, if it is changed to 196 then your End should change to 830 to match what you show as the range. Also, the 20mm should be the Mod 2 for this aircraft.


P1Y: Listed range is given at 1,192-3,338 (normal-Max), cruse spead is given at 230 mph, game has 260, with an endurance of 630 in game, at glance somthing seams off espichaly when compared to the figures given above for the Bettys. Also This plane should be Torpedo Capable and it is not in the game.

I agree with Brady. If you use the Mx Rng of 3338 st. miles gives you and endurance of 871 for a cruise speed of 230. Hx Rng = 56. If you consider this to be the "b" version, the GV could be upgraded to 12 to show 1x20 and 2x13mm.


C5M: Should be 7.7mm Type 92 MG not Type 89.

I agree on the 7.7 and that should apply to the Ki-15 as well. I show that the range is overstated on the C5M. Francillon and Weale indicates that the due to the additional equipment that the c5M weighed more than the Ki-15 causing the lower range. Assuming the game CS of 199
C5M1 - MS 291 CS 199 Alt 27000 Clmb 2030 End 219 Rng Mi 725 Rng Hx 12
C5M2 - MS 298 CS 199 Alt 31430 Clmb 2482 End 208 Rng Mi 691 Rng Hx 12


H6K4: Cruse spead listed at 138 (matches value given in game), Game endurance given as 1,400, Normal/Max range; 2,981/3,779 miles.Torpedos should be external, not internal. Max Load should be 2(1,764)=3,528, game alows for 2,205....now this is only a factor if the later figure impacts the planes abaility to cary two torps as it would on a torp run, it could cary the two torps or 2,205 pounds of bombs.

I agree. Based on the Mx Range of 3779 would make End 1643 and a Mx Hx Rng of 63.


H8K:4,445 miles listed as max range, cruse spead given as 184, game alows 1440 for endurance...wtf?....Torpedos should be external, not internal as listed, their should be also more 7.7mm Type 92 mg's at least 4 more two per side this in adation to to the listed in game aramement.

While only picking nits here, a range of 4445 at CS of 184 = End of 1440 still showing 74 hexes for the range. Yes the GV should be upgraded to 30. Arm = 1 x 20 (F, TT, R); 2x 20 (S); 1x7.7 (BR); 4x7.7 (S) - These are in the fuselange sides and the cockpit hatches.


H6K2-L: See notes above on H6K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

The GB 6pdr and the US M5 57mm ATG are basically the same weapon, and are not variants of the Russian 57mm ATG. The Brits developed the 6pdr, and then the US copied it and began producing it a few months after the Brits did.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter

SpitfireIX,

The 2nd Engineer Battalion was indiginous to the 2nd Marine Division, and is assumed, in game terms, to be in San Diego with the division. There has to be alot of compromises in a game this size, especially with the campaign scenarios. The Marine Engineer Regiments were created with the "D-100" Series T/Os (7/1/42), by combining the divisional Engineer and Pioneer Battalions with a Naval Construction Battalion (of 3 companies, as opposed to the usual 4). These regiments were dropped in the "F-100" Series T/Os (5/5/44), with the assigned battalions reverting to their former designations.

Brad

quote:

ORIGINAL: TIMJOT

Just to add to the 31 pages of oob fixes. Dont know if anyone else has mentioned it but I just noticed that VMSB 231, the Vindacater unit that the Lexington was bringing to Midway apparently isnt in Senerio 15. It should start either on board the Lex or at Midway on turn one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpitfireIX

Version 1.21 Scenario 15

... VMSB squadrons should have a max a/c of 24 ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pascal

USS California and USS Tennesee have some weapons facing problems when you look in the database. A bunch of the AA weapons only face to the right side (RS). No left side facing. This is just from a quick look.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pry

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pascal

USS California and USS Tennesee have some weapons facing problems when you look in the database. A bunch of the AA weapons only face to the right side (RS). No left side facing. This is just from a quick look.

SCENARIO and Game VERSION Please...

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pascal

On Dec. 7th, 1941, the 7th USMC Def Batt was posted on Tutuila Island (Pago-Pago in the game). The 1st Samoan Marine Corps Reserve Battalion was also with them. Upolu only contained a small NZ detachment (company sized). The base forces on these islands in the game should not be there at all. They should be located on the West Coast at best. No US forces were located at Tongatabu (misspelled in WitP as Tongatapu). Only a New Zealand cadred Tongan Defense Force was there. Again, the US base force should be on the West Coast at best.

Noumea only contained an Australian garrison and Efate a small Aussie force and small seaplane (not large patrol type like PBY's) base.

There are also far too many militarily significant bases, i.e. port or airfield size 1or greater WITH supplies and fuel, lying around the South Pacific and Southeast Asian islands. Many should be reduced to simple beaches (port and airfield 0) or at a minimum a port level 1 with no supplies or fuel.

Finally, there is much too much fuel on hand in most ports, including major bases, EXCEPT for PH and the US West Coast ports. Considering 1 fuel point = 1 ton of fuel, PH should have about 600'000 (the approx. 4.5 million barrels on hand on Dec. 7th). As the West Coast had about 44.5 million barrels available, at least Los Angeles should have 950'000 fuel points available. (Sources: PH Attack Hearings (see website at www.ibiblio.org) and "The Pacific War Revisited" by Bischof and Dupont). The major Australian, New Zealand, DEI, Malayan (Singapore), and Indian bases also have too much fuel on hand. I'm working through the official histories and other sources for more exact corrections.

Ocean Island has been missed as a beach/buildable base. It's on the map graphically (see hex 77,89). And Nauru was an important source of phosphates for Japanese agriculture, so it should have a resource production industry.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pry

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pascal

On Dec. 7th, 1941, the 7th USMC Def Batt was posted on Tutuila Island (Pago-Pago in the game). The 1st Samoan Marine Corps Reserve Battalion was also with them. Upolu only contained a small NZ detachment (company sized). The base forces on these islands in the game should not be there at all. They should be located on the West Coast at best. No US forces were located at Tongatabu (misspelled in WitP as Tongatapu). Only a New Zealand cadred Tongan Defense Force was there. Again, the US base force should be on the West Coast at best.

Noumea only contained an Australian garrison and Efate a small Aussie force and small seaplane (not large patrol type like PBY's) base.

There are also far too many militarily significant bases, i.e. port or airfield size 1or greater WITH supplies and fuel, lying around the South Pacific and Southeast Asian islands. Many should be reduced to simple beaches (port and airfield 0) or at a minimum a port level 1 with no supplies or fuel.

Finally, there is much too much fuel on hand in most ports, including major bases, EXCEPT for PH and the US West Coast ports. Considering 1 fuel point = 1 ton of fuel, PH should have about 600'000 (the approx. 4.5 million barrels on hand on Dec. 7th). As the West Coast had about 44.5 million barrels available, at least Los Angeles should have 950'000 fuel points available. (Sources: PH Attack Hearings (see website at www.ibiblio.org) and "The Pacific War Revisited" by Bischof and Dupont). The major Australian, New Zealand, DEI, Malayan (Singapore), and Indian bases also have too much fuel on hand. I'm working through the official histories and other sources for more exact corrections.

Ocean Island has been missed as a beach/buildable base. It's on the map graphically (see hex 77,89). And Nauru was an important source of phosphates for Japanese agriculture, so it should have a resource production industry.

Pascal

Most of these items need to done in a PBEM only scenario, The AI needs help here and there and part of that help is that it needs existing bases to utilize and also fuel and supply to help it out, as long as the AI is involved then 100% historical accuracy and game play don't mix. I personally don't see any of the above being changed in any of the Existing Official Scenarios.

Once we get caught up with the OOB issues I would be glad to work with you and any others to design a PBEM only campaign scenario that things like could be done in without any harm to game play.

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

Don, yep those are the squadrons that some of my research had come up with but the a/c for the 5th & 10th seemed to indicate a little higher but it could be wrong. I like to get info from several sources to cross check totals & such but had a hard time on the Phil & Chinese units so far.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pascal

According to the section on the B-17E and F versions in volume 4 of "Aircraft in Profile", the B-17E and F versions had a range of 3'300 miles with the full 2'492 gallons of fuel and 4'420 miles with the additional "Tokyo Tanks" (fuel containers in the bomb bay, total fuel 3'612 gallons). This distances and the cruise speed was at 5000 ft.

The maximum speed at altitude was 318 mph (as in the WitP database), but the cruising speed was 160 mph. Thus the endurance should be 1'235 without Tokyo Tanks and 1'655 with Tokyo Tanks, far more than the 815 of the database. Given the caculations for Normal and Extended Range (1/4 and 1/3 of Ferry Range), I would change the endurance of the B-17E to 1600.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pascal

According to the section on the B-17E and F versions in volume 4 of "Aircraft in Profile", the B-17E and F versions had a range of 3'300 miles with the full 2'492 gallons of fuel and 4'420 miles with the additional "Tokyo Tanks" (fuel containers in the bomb bay, total fuel 3'612 gallons). This distances and the cruise speed was at 5000 ft.

The maximum speed at altitude was 318 mph (as in the WitP database), but the cruising speed was 160 mph. Thus the endurance should be 1'235 without Tokyo Tanks and 1'655 with Tokyo Tanks, far more than the 815 of the database. Given the caculations for Normal and Extended Range (1/4 and 1/3 of Ferry Range), I would change the endurance of the B-17E to 1600.