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: Call for change input

 
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 >> Scenario Design >> RE: Call for change input Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Call for change input - 4/17/2005 1:26:20 AM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline
quote:

Something absurd about using the QE and QM in amph assaults.


It is absurd. In an amph assault speed and capacity count for zip. The only thing that matters is how many bottoms you have and how fast you can get them all unloaded. Those big fast APs are useful only between ports. Big ports.....

< Message edited by irrelevant -- 4/17/2005 1:28:22 AM >


_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 31
RE: Call for change input - 4/17/2005 1:49:32 AM   
Don Bowen


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


We're reaching the end of my information on the 70th. I know it was two days out at the time of Pearl Harbor, turned around, unloaded, and moved to Hamilton Field. There is was allocated P-39s and the squadron with the P-39s were loaded for transport to Fiji, departing January 12th. If they saw, assembled, or flew the P-39s during this brief period I do not know. A little simple math shows they had very little time: returned 12/9, left 1/12, with unloading and reloading time. However, I am firmly convinced the P-36 is not the proper aircraft for this squadron.


On the 11th Bombardment, I believe they were flying B-17(D?? E??) on December 7th. They did fly LB-30 very soon thereafter, perhaps due to a consolidation of available aircraft to fully equip squadrons. However, they were flying B-17 the day the war broke out.


68th can be P-39 or P-40, or P-39 with upgrade to P-40. Perhaps P-40E is best.


Now, to the interesting part. I can find no data on the cargo of the Ludington. There was a U.S. Army Transport of this name, launched in 1920 and in Army service between the wars and that could be the ship. I can not find her location 12/7/41 nor any of her wartime history except for an undated photograph of her entering San Francisco.

I did find some additional data on P-40 shipments. There were two ships at sea 12/7/41 with P-40s: Mariposa with 19 P-40Es and Coolidge with 32 P-40Es. Both these ships left San Francisco before Pearl Harbor. Note that all U.S. ships destined for the Philippines were first sent to Pearl Harbor for grouping into convoys. These two ships (and others) eventually arrived in Australia as part of the "Phoenix" convoy. It may be Mariposa that was carrying the 70th Squadron's P-40s.


(in reply to TIMJOT)
Post #: 32
RE: Call for change input - 4/17/2005 5:56:52 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline




quote:

We're reaching the end of my information on the 70th. I know it was two days out at the time of Pearl Harbor, turned around, unloaded, and moved to Hamilton Field. There is was allocated P-39s and the squadron with the P-39s were loaded for transport to Fiji, departing January 12th. If they saw, assembled, or flew the P-39s during this brief period I do not know. A little simple math shows they had very little time: returned 12/9, left 1/12, with unloading and reloading time. However, I am firmly convinced the P-36 is not the proper aircraft for this squadron.


Not to belabor this, because ultimately its your decision and certainly your perogative, but I truely dont understand your rational. If war had started the 4th December they would have been equiped with P-36s if they had not embarked on the 5th they most certainly still been equiped with P-36s on the 7th. They did not historically re-embark until the 12th January. Certainly five game weeks gives a player enough time to upgrade them to P-39s if he so wishes. Starting them out with P-39s just allows a player to deploy them all the quicker in a game that already allows the allies too much, too quickly, too early.



quote:

On the 11th Bombardment, I believe they were flying B-17(D?? E??) on December 7th. They did fly LB-30 very soon thereafter, perhaps due to a consolidation of available aircraft to fully equip squadrons. However, they were flying B-17 the day the war broke out.


The 7th BG were flying B-17Ds in the process of upgradeing to B-17Es. When war broke out there were only enough B-17Es to fill out the 9th and 22nd Squadrons. So the 11th BS had to be filled out with LB-30s. In fact three LB-30s of the 11th Squadron were the first Bombers of the 7th group to reach Java via the S.America/Africa/India ferry route. If your not going to have the 11th with LB-30s then frankly dont see the need for them to be in the game since as far as I know the 7th BG was the only USAAF unit to fly them on combat missions in the PTO.




quote:

Now, to the interesting part. I can find no data on the cargo of the Ludington. There was a U.S. Army Transport of this name, launched in 1920 and in Army service between the wars and that could be the ship. I can not find her location 12/7/41 nor any of her wartime history except for an undated photograph of her entering San Francisco.


Yes, I cant find much info on her either. But if she was a week behind the Pencecola convoy it would most likey put her in the group of ships that left SF independently on the 5th ( Pres.Johnson, Pres.Garfield and Etolin ) as this was to be the next big convoy to be formed in Hawaii and sent to the PI.



quote:

I did find some additional data on P-40 shipments. There were two ships at sea 12/7/41 with P-40s: Mariposa with 19 P-40Es and Coolidge with 32 P-40Es. Both these ships left San Francisco before Pearl Harbor. Note that all U.S. ships destined for the Philippines were first sent to Pearl Harbor for grouping into convoys. These two ships (and others) eventually arrived in Australia as part of the "Phoenix" convoy. It may be Mariposa that was carrying the 70th Squadron's P-40s


Don I believe you are mistaken about this. I dont think the Mariposa was carrying P-40s or even at sea on December 7th. Her sister the Lurline was half way to Hawaii on her normal passenger service schedule on the 7th. She quickly turned around for SF upon hearing of the attack. The Coolidge on the otherhand was at sea but off the Solomon Islands along with the USAT Winfield Scott and ecorted by the Louiville. It was returning from the PI after unloading the last major convoy to reach the ilands. Bringing amoung others the 21st and 34th FS, as well as most the personel of the 27th BG and 5th Airbase unit.

The Phoenix convoy did include the Mariposa and Coolidge but that didnt leave SF until January 10th and it was carrying mainly the 49th Pursuit group it's and assorted other aircraft (including 6 DB-7s for the Dutch) along with 808th EAB other personel.

Not trying to nitpick here just offering some information for your consideration.

Regards

PS I will send you the BMPs as soon as I can.

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 33
RE: Call for change input - 4/17/2005 7:53:27 AM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: TIMJOT

Not to belabor this, because ultimately its your decision and certainly your perogative, but I truely dont understand your rational. If war had started the 4th December they would have been equiped with P-36s if they had not embarked on the 5th they most certainly still been equiped with P-36s on the 7th. They did not historically re-embark until the 12th January. Certainly five game weeks gives a player enough time to upgrade them to P-39s if he so wishes. Starting them out with P-39s just allows a player to deploy them all the quicker in a game that already allows the allies too much, too quickly, too early.
Yes, but the war did not begin on 12/4 or 12/5 and by the time it did I believe the 70th had turned in their P-36s and therefore I do not believe it is appropriate to assign them P-36s.


quote:

The 7th BG were flying B-17Ds in the process of upgradeing to B-17Es. When war broke out there were only enough B-17Es to fill out the 9th and 22nd Squadrons. So the 11th BS had to be filled out with LB-30s. In fact three LB-30s of the 11th Squadron were the first Bombers of the 7th group to reach Java via the S.America/Africa/India ferry route. If your not going to have the 11th with LB-30s then frankly dont see the need for them to be in the game since as far as I know the 7th BG was the only USAAF unit to fly them on combat missions in the PTO.

I will review this. The need to upgrade to B-25 makes a mid-process update to LB-30 impossible.

There are four Squadrons in CHS with the LB-30 and one more that specifies the LB-30 as an upgrade. Three of these (21, 27, 392) were part of the 30th Bomb Group which was flying primariy A-29 on December 7th (the 392nd had some B-17s and apparently some LB-30). Most of the group was equipped with LB-30 in 1942 (one squadron kept A-29 until upgrading to B-24 in 1943). With no A-29 I made the decision to assign LB-30 to all of the squadrons of the group.

The 435th Bombardment was formed with LB-30 in early 1942 and the 9th Bombardment upgraded from B-17 to LB-30 in 1942.


quote:


Don I believe you are mistaken about this. I dont think the Mariposa was carrying P-40s or even at sea on December 7th. Her sister the Lurline was half way to Hawaii on her normal passenger service schedule on the 7th. She quickly turned around for SF upon hearing of the attack. The Coolidge on the otherhand was at sea but off the Solomon Islands along with the USAT Winfield Scott and ecorted by the Louiville. It was returning from the PI after unloading the last major convoy to reach the ilands. Bringing amoung others the 21st and 34th FS, as well as most the personel of the 27th BG and 5th Airbase unit.

You are correct, I am indeed mistaken. I found a reference that gave a December 1st sailing date and missed the year, which was 1942. That's what I get for composing a reply during a commercial break.

*** Correction: the sailing date was not December 1st, it was 12/1 but that is in European format so it's January 12th ***

That's what I get for composing a reply during another commercial break!

< Message edited by Don Bowen -- 4/17/2005 3:45:42 PM >

(in reply to TIMJOT)
Post #: 34
Oil and Supply Changes - 4/17/2005 7:23:15 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
There have been a number of posts concerning possible problems with oil and supply distribution. These include:

  1. Possible Oil at Middle East
  2. Compensating reductions in oil at Indian and Australian Ports
  3. Changing supply in U.S. bases
  4. Moving supply from ports to inland bases.
  5. Others??


These are not areas of my expertise (nor particular interest) and I do not consider myself capable of such decisions. If anyone would like to provide a complete set of recommendations for such changes, I would be grateful.

Don

< Message edited by Don Bowen -- 4/17/2005 11:38:12 PM >

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 35
RE: Oil and Supply Changes - 4/17/2005 9:56:22 PM   
Lemurs!


Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline
What do you mean 'No A29' Don?

Mike

_____________________________



(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 36
RE: Oil and Supply Changes - 4/17/2005 11:36:19 PM   
Don Bowen


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

What do you mean 'No A29' Don?

Mike


The A-29 is not defined in the CHS database.



(in reply to Lemurs!)
Post #: 37
RE: Oil and Supply Changes - 4/18/2005 1:28:45 AM   
jcjordan

 

Posts: 1900
Joined: 6/27/2001
Status: offline
Don not sure if this is in your ballpark or Andrew's but I noticed on ver3b of the map trying to figure out why I had a TF get stuck in the middle of a no-sail zone, when looking through the readme & in looking at a new game start, Nouema still is a level 6/3 port /AF but the readme says it should start at 3. Is the level 6 correct or the level 3?? If it is supposed to be a level 3, guess I'm gonna have to uninstall CHS then reinstall it (don't know why all this has happening).

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 38
RE: Oil and Supply Changes - 4/18/2005 1:33:45 AM   
Don Bowen


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

Noumea is still a level 6 port as of the CHS Alpha. A change to 3 (3) is on the list for the next release.


(in reply to jcjordan)
Post #: 39
RE: Oil and Supply Changes - 4/18/2005 1:51:51 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

There have been a number of posts concerning possible problems with oil and supply distribution. These include:

  1. Possible Oil at Middle East
  2. Compensating reductions in oil at Indian and Australian Ports
  3. Changing supply in U.S. bases
  4. Moving supply from ports to inland bases.
  5. Others??


These are not areas of my expertise (nor particular interest) and I do not consider myself capable of such decisions. If anyone would like to provide a complete set of recommendations for such changes, I would be grateful.

Don


I will spend more time looking at possible base changes later, but for now:

Regarding points 1 and 2. I don't think I would like to see the daily oil at Perth and Melbourne reduced/removed and replaced by more oil in the Middle East. Although the oil sent to Australia DID come from the ME, the map edge makes it potentially more difficult to get the oil to Australia in the game than it was in Real Life. It is easier for Japan to interdict such a supply line.

Regarding moving of supply in the US. Apart from the problem with fuel that has been reported, is there a need to modify the supply sources? Most of the supply is currently generated in the West coast cities, but is this incorrect? I have no idea.

I still haven't provided a list of further base value changes. I will have to get around to doing that...


_____________________________

Information about my WitP map, and CHS, can be found on my WitP website


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 40
RE: Oil and Supply Changes - 4/18/2005 3:18:33 PM   
Captain Cruft


Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline
I would propose keeping the small amounts of Australian intrinsic auto-oil but also adding some to the Middle East base. Oil was definitely produced there obviously. It can help feed the industry in India.

As for intrinsic auto-supply on the West Coast, I am now two weeks into January in my test and both SF and LA will be full up soon. This is with moving it out as fast as I get ships to do it. PH is not short either. I just don't think it's necessary. Move the source to the United States base and let LCUs and airgroups pull it to the ports over rail when they need it. I suspect if you removed it completely you'd still have more than enough supply - the US doesn't need it for expanding/repairing industry like Japan does.

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 41
RE: Oil and Supply Changes - 4/19/2005 11:54:00 AM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
If there are any empty spaces for Allied aircraft,I would like to see the inclusion of the American Douglas C 54.
This plane was a contemporary of the Douglas DC 3 and was designed back in the mid 30's.The prototypes first flew in 1938,and once this model was re-designed with a single tail,was ordered by Eastern and United airlines.The improved prototype flew on 14 Feb 1942,but since Pearl Harbor,all transport aircraft in the U.S. were diverted to the military.
By the end of the war,many had been built as C 54's and R5D Skymasters.(Nearly 1000 by the end of WW2 and most served in the Pacific !
The range of this plane fits in very well with Andrew Brown's "corrected" distances.
Specs:cruising speed:227 mph at 10,000 ft...service ceiling:22,300 ft....range with max payload of 12,700 lbs:2140 miles...(range was closer to 2500 miles with smaller payload).
Source:Airliners from 1919 to present day,by Kenneth Munson,Peerage Books,London,1972..
http://www.korean-war.com/KWAircraft/Commonwealth/RCAF/douglas_c54.html
http://www.military.cz/usa/air/war/transport/c54/c54_en.htm
http://www.warbirdalley.com/c54.htm

< Message edited by m10bob -- 4/19/2005 12:23:46 PM >


_____________________________




(in reply to Captain Cruft)
Post #: 42
RE: Call for change input - 4/19/2005 4:59:45 PM   
bstarr


Posts: 881
Joined: 8/1/2004
From: Texas, by God!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Now, to the interesting part. I can find no data on the cargo of the Ludington. There was a U.S. Army Transport of this name, launched in 1920 and in Army service between the wars and that could be the ship. I can not find her location 12/7/41 nor any of her wartime history except for an undated photograph of her entering San Francisco.



I can't find Ludington in Morison's appendix, which is supposed to list all ships involved in WWII. Are you sure she wasn't deactivated or maybe renamed before the war?

I also found out that PC-1079 (of the PC-465 class) was named Ludington after the war. Reckon there's some confusion there? here's that page - http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/l33/ludington.htm



_____________________________



(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 43
USAT Ludington - 4/19/2005 5:13:44 PM   
Don Bowen


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

Ludington was as U.S. Army Transport - which maybe why it is omitted. She was a U.S. Army owned vessel (as opposed to chartered or allocated) and was in service between the wars and throughout World War II.

8,266 Gross Tons, 439' x 60' x 37', Turbines, 3000 HP. Built by Pusey and Jones, Gloucester, NJ, 1920. Scrapped 1947.


(in reply to bstarr)
Post #: 44
RE: USAT Ludington - 4/19/2005 7:55:42 PM   
bstarr


Posts: 881
Joined: 8/1/2004
From: Texas, by God!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Ludington was as U.S. Army Transport - which maybe why it is omitted. She was a U.S. Army owned vessel (as opposed to chartered or allocated) and was in service between the wars and throughout World War II.

8,266 Gross Tons, 439' x 60' x 37', Turbines, 3000 HP. Built by Pusey and Jones, Gloucester, NJ, 1920. Scrapped 1947.




Ohhhh . . . army. That would explain why she's as AK-37, but Haze Grey skips that number (and a few more).


_____________________________



(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 45
RE: Chinese Army - 4/20/2005 7:55:18 AM   
Jo van der Pluym


Posts: 834
Joined: 10/28/2000
From: Valkenburg Lb, Netherlands
Status: offline
I am reading a Book about the Armor in the Pacific.

And there read I that the Chinese had the 20th Mechanized Division from the medio thirthies. And this Division was in 1942 in Action near Burma.
They where equiped with T-26.

_____________________________

Greetings from the Netherlands

Jo van der Pluym
CrazyDutch

(in reply to bstarr)
Post #: 46
RE: Call for change input - 4/20/2005 9:08:17 AM   
Akizuki

 

Posts: 3
Joined: 4/19/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
I am missing some 127 purposebuild japanese landingships :

APD 1500t T-1 class 22 build
LSM 800t SS-1-ES class 22 build
LST 900t T-101 SBD class 6 build
LST 1000t T-103 SBT class 45 build
LST 900t SB-101 class 22 build
LSV 9000t Shiushu maru (The world first assaultship)
LSD 7000t Mayasan maru 3 build
LSD 10500t Kibitsu maru 3+1 build
LSV 11800t Akitsu maru 2 build
LSV 8000t Kumano maru

Other ships:

NK:
AE 9500t Irako maru
AK 15800t Mamiya class 2 build

KNO:
ML 1200?t Willem van der Zaan

And correcting the drawings of:

CA London (the bridge is wrong)
AV Akitsushima

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 47
RE: Call for change input - 4/20/2005 2:44:38 PM   
Don Bowen


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Akizuki

I am missing some 127 purposebuild japanese landingships :

APD 1500t T-1 class 22 build
LSM 800t SS-1-ES class 22 build
LST 900t T-101 SBD class 6 build
LST 1000t T-103 SBT class 45 build
LST 900t SB-101 class 22 build
LSV 9000t Shiushu maru (The world first assaultship)
LSD 7000t Mayasan maru 3 build
LSD 10500t Kibitsu maru 3+1 build
LSV 11800t Akitsu maru 2 build
LSV 8000t Kumano maru

Other ships:

NK:
AE 9500t Irako maru
AK 15800t Mamiya class 2 build

KNO:
ML 1200?t Willem van der Zaan

And correcting the drawings of:

CA London (the bridge is wrong)
AV Akitsushima


Am I missing something? All (or almost all) of these ships are in CHS.

I can not speak to the accuracy of the drawings.

(in reply to Akizuki)
Post #: 48
RE: Chinese Army - 4/20/2005 6:04:05 PM   
Jo van der Pluym


Posts: 834
Joined: 10/28/2000
From: Valkenburg Lb, Netherlands
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

I am reading a Book about the Armor in the Pacific.

And there read I that the Chinese had the 20th Mechanized Division from the medio thirthies. And this Division was in 1942 in Action near Burma.
They where equiped with T-26.


Sorry, but i have made a little type error. It's not the 20th but the 200th Mechanized Division. It exist out 1 Tank and 1 Motorized Infantry Regiment.

_____________________________

Greetings from the Netherlands

Jo van der Pluym
CrazyDutch

(in reply to Jo van der Pluym)
Post #: 49
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: Call for change input Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

0.641