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: B-17 Endurance

 
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 >> RE: B-17 Endurance Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: B-17 Endurance - 8/19/2004 6:38:43 PM   
Lemurs!


Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline
I actually did increase B17 & B24 ranges slightly in my scenario.
The B17E should be able to fly 2000 miles with a 4,000lb bomb load.

Anyway, i was working on Japanese ships today.
The Notoro which i believe is listed as an AK was actually a purpose built CS i believe of the Nisshin class. It did not have an airgroup permanantly attached. Also, the Chitose class CS top speed was 33kts. not 29. When it converted to a CVL its top speed did drop to 29kts.

The Sagara Maru should be a Sanyo class AV, It had its own airgroup attached, 6F1s, 2E8s. It should be part of the Singora invasion force.

The Asahi(san) Maru should be an AR; it was exactly the same as the Akashi.

Ah, the 5th Base Force and the saipan base force appear to be the same unit.
The 7th base force should probably be at Ominato.
Bonin, as far as i can tell, only had 1 platoon of gurads, 1 dock company, and 1 water distillation company on 8th dec.

The 3rd Base force and the Palau base force appear to be the same thing. The 4th base force and the Truk base force appear to be the same thing.

Mike

_____________________________



(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 181
RE: B-17 Endurance - 8/19/2004 6:41:04 PM   
Lemurs!


Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline
Is there a game reason why the Japanese heavy artillery is all represented as 150mm guns?
Their were several regiments and battalions using 240mm & 280mm guns. Mobile guns.

Mike

< Message edited by Lemurs! -- 8/19/2004 11:41:09 AM >


_____________________________



(in reply to Lemurs!)
Post #: 182
RE: B-17 Endurance - 8/19/2004 8:29:48 PM   
Pascal_slith


Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

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.



I think you are overstating the endurance basing it on the "Tokyo Tanks" as this would tend to increase the Normal and Extended ranges. The max bombload with the extra tanks would be much smaller in reality and you would be reflecting a Normal bombload over a longer distance than possible.

Using your End=1600 and the listed Cruise Spd of 160 a Max (Ferry) Rng=4267 or 71.11 Hexes, Norm=17.75; Ext=20.70. That would produce a Normal Bomb range of over 1000 miles, which is closer to their extended range IMO.

I agree that the Cruising Spd is a little low. Based on the sources below I would guess that 210 would be a better figure. Also I would use a maximum range 3250 (Split between 2 sources that said 3200 and 3300). The resulting figures:
Max=318; Cruise=210; Alt=36600; Climb=700; Mvr & Dur as is; Arm-1; End=929; Max Rng (Mi)=3200; Max Rng (Hx)=54.17; Ext Rng (Hx)=18.1; Norm Rng=13.5; Max Ld=8000; GV=26

The Extended Range will let you bomb Rabul from Cooktown.


Here are a few excellent sites on American and Allied aircraft.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b17.html
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/bomber2.htm
http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/american.htm


Agree with your figures, though I found that the cruising speed you use is the one at 25'000 ft, whereas the ones I found were at 5000 ft. But, yes, the range of 3250 is probably best.

_____________________________

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


(in reply to Herrbear)
Post #: 183
RE: B-17 Endurance - 8/19/2004 8:48:43 PM   
SpitfireIX


Posts: 264
Joined: 1/9/2003
From: Fort Wayne IN USA
Status: offline
Scenario #15, V1.21


Ship Data

I just noticed that the New Mexico class is incorrectly equipped with 14"/45s--the correct guns are 14"/50s (Same as California and Tennessee)

Also, several ships do not have the correct captains at the start of the scenario--the ones I happened to notice are Enterprise (CAPT GW Murray, who is in the database), Arizona (CAPT Franklin Van Valkenburg), and West Virginia (CAPT Mervyn Bennion). I will check for others when I get a chance.

Finally, I noticed that Hughes is commanded by LCDR D. Ramsey, who happens to have the same stats and description as CAPT D. Ramsey, captain of Saratoga. I've seen this a couple other places as well--there appear to be at least two WC Shorts in the US Army.

< Message edited by SpitfireIX -- 8/19/2004 1:49:29 PM >


_____________________________

"I know Japanese. He is very bad. And tricky. But we Americans too smart. We catch him and give him hell."

--Benny Sablan, crewman, USS Enterprise 12/7/41

(in reply to Lemurs!)
Post #: 184
Japanese 1st Parachute Regiment - 8/19/2004 9:22:20 PM   
kbullard

 

Posts: 55
Joined: 5/27/2002
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
In scenario 1, the 1st Parachute Regiment uses the airborne infantry symbol and is air droppable.

In scenario 2, the 1st Parachute Regiment at Miri has the standard infantry symbol and cannot be air dropped. Is this an OOB error, or by design? I could imagine a unit "losing" its parachute capability as a result of combat or some other factor, but it's unclear if another factor is at work here.

Kurt

(in reply to SpitfireIX)
Post #: 185
RE: B-17 Endurance - 8/20/2004 3:31:03 AM   
Herrbear


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

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

I actually did increase B17 & B24 ranges slightly in my scenario.
The B17E should be able to fly 2000 miles with a 4,000lb bomb load.

Anyway, i was working on Japanese ships today.
The Notoro which i believe is listed as an AK was actually a purpose built CS i believe of the Nisshin class. It did not have an airgroup permanantly attached. Also, the Chitose class CS top speed was 33kts. not 29. When it converted to a CVL its top speed did drop to 29kts.

The Sagara Maru should be a Sanyo class AV, It had its own airgroup attached, 6F1s, 2E8s. It should be part of the Singora invasion force.

The Asahi(san) Maru should be an AR; it was exactly the same as the Akashi.

Ah, the 5th Base Force and the saipan base force appear to be the same unit.
The 7th base force should probably be at Ominato.
Bonin, as far as i can tell, only had 1 platoon of gurads, 1 dock company, and 1 water distillation company on 8th dec.

The 3rd Base force and the Palau base force appear to be the same thing. The 4th base force and the Truk base force appear to be the same thing.

Mike



And that may be another map problem. The range from Cooktown to Rabaul is 18 hexes. They were able to bomb that far in the WWII and can in UV but not with your's or WITP's figures. Same for the B-29's. They cannot reach Tokyo from Saipan. In the game it is 21 hexes away. WITP has extended range as 20.31 and you have it as 19.62.

(in reply to Lemurs!)
Post #: 186
RE: B-17 Endurance - 8/21/2004 4:35:59 AM   
Lemurs!


Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline
I am still fiddling with the air ranges.... I have the B17 at 950 minutes/180speed and the B24 at 990 minutes/190speed

mike

< Message edited by Lemurs! -- 8/21/2004 12:17:00 AM >


_____________________________



(in reply to Herrbear)
Post #: 187
RE: B-17 Endurance - 8/22/2004 3:30:51 AM   
Pascal_slith


Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

I am still fiddling with the air ranges.... I have the B17 at 950 minutes/180speed and the B24 at 990 minutes/190speed

mike


B-17E and B-17G range around 3200-3400, compromise at 3250 (see earlier posts). Cruise speed around 180mph (a compromise of different altitude figures), therefore endurance at 1080 minutes.

_____________________________

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


(in reply to Lemurs!)
Post #: 188
RE: B-17 Endurance - 8/22/2004 3:36:24 AM   
Pascal_slith


Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline
Many a/c (both Allied and Japanese) have endurance figures that are a little short, such as B-17, PBY, even the G4M. A closer check here would be worthwhile. I've started a spreadsheet with the calculations. Will try to post in next few days.

_____________________________

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


(in reply to Pascal_slith)
Post #: 189
RE: B-17 Endurance - 8/22/2004 6:45:09 AM   
brisd


Posts: 614
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: San Diego, CA
Status: offline
I noticed in Scenario 15, ver 1.21 that the Sasebo Base Force Engineer unit starts (and stays, it's static) in Nagasaki. There is no Nagasaki base force, seems like an error to me and I've not seen it noted in this thread.

_____________________________

"I propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer."-Note sent with Congressman Washburne from Spotsylvania, May 11, 1864, to General Halleck. - General Ulysses S. Grant

(in reply to Pascal_slith)
Post #: 190
RE: B-17 Endurance - 8/22/2004 3:56:16 PM   
pry


Posts: 1410
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Overlooking Galveston Bay, Texas
Status: offline
Data Collected

_____________________________


(in reply to brisd)
Post #: 191
RE: OOB Comments - 8/22/2004 4:58:02 PM   
Iron Duke


Posts: 529
Joined: 1/7/2002
From: UK
Status: offline
scen 15 v1.21

Looking in the game and editor I've noticed a couple of discrepances

1. There are no tank battalions in the USMC divisions .

2. In the Indian Infantry divisions/brigades their are no British or Gurkha inf squads , general rule of thumb for indian brigades is 1x British battalion and 2x Indian or/and Gurkha battalions .

In fact I've yet to find a formation that includes any Gurkha squads?
Some independant brigades had just Indian/Gurkha battalions i.e. 268th Bde , Lushai Bde , 50th Para Bde.

3. 50th Armoured (Tank) Brigade not in OOB
4. Lushai Brigade not in OOB

_____________________________

"Bombers outpacing fighters - you've got to bloody well laugh!" Australian Buffalo pilot - Singapore

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 192
RE: OOB Comments - 8/22/2004 6:48:21 PM   
Montbrun


Posts: 1498
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: offline
Iron Duke,

1. I pointed this out on the first page of this thread.
2. British battalions serving with the Indian forces were on an the same "Indian Estblishment" as the Indian battalions.
3. There are many OoB and TOE discrepencies to be addressed....

Brad

(in reply to Iron Duke)
Post #: 193
RE: OOB Comments - 8/22/2004 7:33:02 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline
TY Pascal, I had planed on going through and doing the math, but frankely it was at a glance a daunting task, that is why in part I listed all the data neaded to do the calculations for the Japanaese planes in my posts, I am happy to hear you will do a spread sheat on it.

_____________________________





Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view

(in reply to Montbrun)
Post #: 194
RE: OOB Comments - 8/23/2004 5:04:45 AM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline
I didn't even notice this, until I was collecting data for my Plan Orange mod.

In the WiTP OOB, the New Mexico class BB is using the 14"/45 cal Mk 8 gun, when in fact it should (like the Tennessee) be using the 14"/50 cal Mk 7 gun. In building all three ships were slated to use the 45 cal, but before completion they were fitted with the improved 50 cal gun.

Source: Jane's Fighting Ships of World War I

_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 195
RE: OOB Comments - 8/23/2004 9:26:09 AM   
Ron Saueracker


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

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

I didn't even notice this, until I was collecting data for my Plan Orange mod.

In the WiTP OOB, the New Mexico class BB is using the 14"/45 cal Mk 8 gun, when in fact it should (like the Tennessee) be using the 14"/50 cal Mk 7 gun. In building all three ships were slated to use the 45 cal, but before completion they were fitted with the improved 50 cal gun.

Source: Jane's Fighting Ships of World War I


45...50, guess the original armament was off. Never thought twice about it. Good catch guys.

_____________________________





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

(in reply to Tankerace)
Post #: 196
RE: OOB Comments - 8/23/2004 10:58:45 AM   
Pascal_slith


Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

TY Pascal, I had planed on going through and doing the math, but frankely it was at a glance a daunting task, that is why in part I listed all the data neaded to do the calculations for the Japanaese planes in my posts, I am happy to hear you will do a spread sheat on it.


Brady, I have all your posts. What were your sources? I'm including the sources in the spreadsheet.

_____________________________

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


(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 197
RE: OOB Comments - 8/23/2004 11:16:33 AM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline
I will List them Tomarow, late hear now....

_____________________________





Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view

(in reply to Pascal_slith)
Post #: 198
RE: OOB Comments - 8/23/2004 12:24:53 PM   
strawbuk


Posts: 289
Joined: 4/30/2004
From: London via Glos
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter

Iron Duke,
2. British battalions serving with the Indian forces were on an the same "Indian Estblishment" as the Indian battalions.

Brad


See excellent stuff by McNaughton on Burma/Brits/CW, first &cond pages of thsi thread.

And... http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=646566&mpage=9&key=�

In danger of becoming the Forgotten Army again.

_____________________________



Twinkle twinkle PBY
Seeking Kido Bu-tai
Flying o' the sea so high
An ill-omen in the sky
Twinkle twinkle PBY
Pointing out who's next to fry

(in reply to Montbrun)
Post #: 199
RE: OOB Comments - 8/23/2004 2:24:47 PM   
Montbrun


Posts: 1498
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: offline
^^^...not if I can help it - scrounging up my Indian Army sources this week...

(in reply to strawbuk)
Post #: 200
RE: OOB Comments - 8/23/2004 5:24:49 PM   
strawbuk


Posts: 289
Joined: 4/30/2004
From: London via Glos
Status: offline
Without suggesting actions or bravery on Tarawa or Saipan were any less, I hearby apologise for hijacking thread as to why Gurkhas, Indians, West Africans et al should get proper recognition in the game OOB. My great uncle was also a Chindit so hence bias on Burma!

Naik (Corporal) Gian Singh VC 15th Punjab Regiment

Naik Gian Singh was awarded the Victoria Cross for his bravery in Burma on 2nd March 1945. On that day the Japanese were strongly entrenched in fox-holes on the Kame-Myingyan Road. Naik Singh was in command of the leading section of one of the platoons that was ordered to attack the Japanese positions. On seeing the enemy troops some twenty yards ahead, Naik Singh requested covering fire and then rushed forward to attack enemy fox-holes. Despite being wounded, he continued with his attack and killed several of the enemy. He then attacked an enemy anti-tank gun which he captured after killing the crew. His bravery inspired his men and they were able to successfully capture all the enemy positions

Rifleman Ganju Lama
7th Gurkha Rifles
Ninthoukhong, Burma June 1944
… B Company, 7th Gurkha Rifles, was ordered to counter-attack and restore the situation. Shortly after passing the starting line it came under heavy enemy medium machine-gun and tank machine-gun fire at point blank range, which covered all lines of approach. Rifleman Ganju Lama, the No.1 of the PIAT gun, on his own initiative, with great coolness and complete disregard for his own safety, crawled forward and engaged the tanks single handed. In spite of a broken left wrist and two other wounds, one in his right hand and one in his leg, caused by withering cross fire concentrated upon him, Rifleman Ganju Lama succeeded in bringing his gun into action within thirty yards of the enemy tanks and knocked out first one and then another, the third tank being destroyed by an anti-tank gun. In spite of his serous wounds, he then moved forward and engaged with grenades the tank crews, who now attempted to escape. Not until he hand killed them all, thus enabling his company to push forward, did he allow himself to be taken back to the Regimental Aid Post to have his wounds dressed…….

....and most amazingly...

Havildar Lachhiman Gurung
8th Gurkha Rifles
Taungdaw, Myanmar (Burma)
12-13 May 1945

… Before assaulting, the enemy hurled innumerable grenades at the position from close range. Once grenade fell on the lip of Rifleman Lachhiman Gurung’s trench; he at once grasped it and hurled it back at the enemy. A second grenade landed in his trench. Again this Rifleman snatched to throw it back but it exploded in his hand, blowing off his finger, shattering his right arm and severely wounding him in the face body and right leg. His two comrades were also badly wounded and lay helpless in the button of the trench. The enemy, screaming and shouting, now formed up shoulder to shoulder and attempted to rush the position by sheer weight of numbers. Rifleman Lachhiman Gurung, regardless of his wounds, fires and loaded his rifle with his left hand, maintaining a continuous and steady rate of fire. Wave after wave of fanatical attacks were thrown in by the enemy during the next four hour and all-were repulsed with heavy casualties…

(Mostly from http://www.nepalesekhukuri.com/vcs.html )

_____________________________



Twinkle twinkle PBY
Seeking Kido Bu-tai
Flying o' the sea so high
An ill-omen in the sky
Twinkle twinkle PBY
Pointing out who's next to fry

(in reply to Montbrun)
Post #: 201
RE: OOB Comments - 8/23/2004 8:25:00 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline
Pascal, Below is a list of referances for my post's above:

Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War: Francillion

Japanese Naval Aces and Fighter Units: Hata/Izawa

The Japanese Naval Avaitor 1937-45: Tagaya

Mitsubishi Type 1 Rikyo "Betty" units of WW2: Tagaya

Japanese Aircraft Code Names and Designations: Mikesh

Japanaese Naval Airforce Camuflage and Markings WW2: Thorpe

Flying Guns of WW2: Williams/Gustin

Combat Aircraft of WW2: Gunston

NakiJima Ki-84: Aero Detail # 24

Kawanishi N1K2-J "George": Aero Detail # 26

Kawasaki Ki-61 HEIN: Bueschel

Mitisubishi A6M1/2/-2N ZERO-SEN: Bueschel

Mitsubishi Ki-67/Ki-109 HIRYU: Bueschel

Nakijima Ki-84 a/b HAYATE: Bueschel

Nakijima Ki-44 SHOKI: Bueschel

Mitsubishi/Nakijima G3M1/2/3 96 RIKYO: Bueschel

Nakijima Ki-49 DONRYU: Bueschel

Mechanic of World Aircraft # 7

Mechanic of World Aircraft # 14

Gakken Series # 6,29,22

Zero Fighter: Mikesh/Watanabe

Bombers of WW2: Donald

_____________________________





Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view

(in reply to strawbuk)
Post #: 202
Where's Matson Line? - 8/24/2004 3:46:52 AM   
Central Blue

 

Posts: 695
Joined: 8/20/2004
Status: offline
Dollar Line is well represented with all those president AP's, where are the Matson Line ships?

Dear old Dad sailed to the South Pacific on the Lurline.

I would have "complained" during PacWar--if we had had the internet back then.

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 203
lineage - 8/24/2004 11:16:22 AM   
Central Blue

 

Posts: 695
Joined: 8/20/2004
Status: offline
more niggling....

lineage features....

I can't speak for the other Nationalities represented, but maybe it would be cool for the US to distinguish between National Guard, reserve, and regular units? Fans of other nationalities will know where I'm going I think.

Por exemple... The 200th AA in the Philippines was a New Mexico National Guard outfit. The 164th, adopted by the Marines at Guadalcanal was a NG outfit from North Dakota. I've read that their motto is "Je Suis Pret." I suspect they will be remembered as the 164th Marines. The 200th went by "Pro Civitate Et Patria"

What I'm talking about doesn't change the game engine, it just requires a little more look up and data entry, maybe some formatting. Check the cool crest for the 200th here:

http://members.aol.com/bcmfofnm/200thdetails.html

volunteers would come out of the woodwork to enhance the game this way; I think.

(in reply to Central Blue)
Post #: 204
RE: OOB Comments - 8/24/2004 4:24:38 PM   
UncleBuck

 

Posts: 633
Joined: 10/31/2003
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: offline
Scenario 10- Jan. 1945 to end of war.

This Scenario has NO MLE ships for Allied side. There are no MLE's on the ship list at all. This makes it tough to conduct mine warfare ops. There shoudl be a few I woudl think.

UB

_____________________________


(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 205
RE: OOB Comments - 8/25/2004 1:05:24 AM   
Lemurs!


Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline
Oops, my bad... The Notoro was a purpose built CS but it was not of the Nisshin class. It was a one-of that was comparable to the requistioned Sanyo Maru.
8 Aircraft capacity.

Will the Akitsushima work correctly in the game? It was made to carry 1 Mavis flying boat. I do not have a air unit with 1 Mavis so i am unsure what to do with these ships. Also, when i convert an AK to an AV in game, i get another Akitsushima. I agree that 2 more Akitsushima class vessels should be on the build list from game start, however, when we convert a merchant ship to an AV we should probably get another Sanyo Maru, especially considering the worthlessness of the Akitsushima.

Mike

_____________________________



(in reply to UncleBuck)
Post #: 206
RE: OOB Comments - 8/25/2004 1:43:48 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
Actually Notoro was an oiler. Notoro, her near sister Tsurumi and the somewhat larger Kamoi were oilers converted to auxiliary seaplane carriers pre-war. Tsurumi reconverted to an oiler in 1931, Notoro in 1942 and Kamoi in 1943.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lemurs!)
Post #: 207
RE: OOB Comments - 8/25/2004 2:28:10 AM   
Lemurs!


Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline
But it was built to be easily convertible to a seaplane tender. And had already beenconverted pre war. And i would rather have another seaplane tender rather than a high speed oiler. Besides, Japan had virtually no use for oilers beyond fall '42. And there should be half a dozen tankers converted to oilers already as the Pearl Harbor replenishment group was oilers not tankers.

Mike

_____________________________



(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 208
Peggy and Frances bombers - 8/25/2004 4:29:44 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
I posted this on the main board, but will repeat it here, so that developers take notice

Both Peggy and Frances according to literature were able to carry torpedo payload, yet in game they are unable to. Anybody knows why? Peggy's combat payload is especially laughable - 3 250kg bombs? Three? What is extended range payload then? 1 bomb? Gimme a break And it's supposedly a "best Japanese WW2 bomber" in every aircraft book I've seen.

Also their production/arrival dates are a bit strange.

IJN receives many Frances squadrons beginning of 44, and the aircraft itself is available for production Dec 43, yet most literature says Frances wasn't available till very late 44, and due to further problems was first used operationally no earlier than Okinawa campaign in Spring 45. (?) In WITP you receive ~150+ operational Franceses almost year and a half earlier?

With Peggy it's the opposite - it is available in Oct 44 in game, yet in fact that is when the aircraft was fisrt used operationally, though it was available for production some months before that. I noticed IJA gets one squadron of Peggies mid-42 (!!). Isn't a bit strange you get fully operational squadron of aircraft - that is scheduled to get into production and operational use more than 2 years later (according to game database)?

Oleg

_____________________________


(in reply to Lemurs!)
Post #: 209
RE: B-17 Endurance - 8/25/2004 4:32:08 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
I posted this on the main board, flying boats carry two torpedos each (Catalinas, and Japanese Mavis and Emily flying boats) even on patrol/ASW missions and are apparently unable to damage or sink a sub.

PBY Catalina, when it attacks a sub - what ordnance it uses? The only payload given for Catalina is two 22in torpedos, not very suitable to attack a sub. Same goes for IJN Mavis and Emily flying boats...

Oleg

_____________________________


(in reply to Lemurs!)
Post #: 210
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: B-17 Endurance Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   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

1.250