1.40 OOB Issues
Moderators: wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues
Hi,
re 36th uk div. I believe two of the div's brigades are in the oob , the 29th uk and 72nd uk Bde's.
5th indian Div arrives 1 year early 5/42 should arrive 6/43 from Iraq
44th indian Div should be 44th Indian Airborne Div but should be deleted as it's brigades are already present
251 uk Brigade does not exsist and should be deleted, the number was one never used in the British army
just a few things i've noted.
cheers
re 36th uk div. I believe two of the div's brigades are in the oob , the 29th uk and 72nd uk Bde's.
5th indian Div arrives 1 year early 5/42 should arrive 6/43 from Iraq
44th indian Div should be 44th Indian Airborne Div but should be deleted as it's brigades are already present
251 uk Brigade does not exsist and should be deleted, the number was one never used in the British army
just a few things i've noted.
cheers
"Bombers outpacing fighters - you've got to bloody well laugh!" Australian Buffalo pilot - Singapore
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues
In Scen 2 you've omitted the HMS Exeter from the Allied OOB. That's about 1/2 the gun power of the ABDA Fleet.
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues
[quote]ORIGINAL: Iron Duke
Hi,
re 36th uk div. I believe two of the div's brigades are in the oob , the 29th uk and 72nd uk Bde's.
5th indian Div arrives 1 year early 5/42 should arrive 6/43 from Iraq
44th indian Div should be 44th Indian Airborne Div but should be deleted as it's brigades are already present
251 uk Brigade does not exsist and should be deleted, the number was one never used in the British army
just a few things i've noted.
Thanks Iron Duke ill stop whinging about 36th UK as I agree with you had I done my research right first time around I wouldnt have egg on my face [:D][:D] only the 26th Indian Bde is missing from 36th UK Div and I also can find no reference to a 251st UK Inf Bde.
5th Indian is early and should probably be replaced by 19th Indian which was present at the time of the Ceylon incursion 5th Indian arriving per Iron Dukes post.
Only one of 44ths Brigades is already represented the other two were deployed quite late in the war as 77th Parachute and 14th Air Landing and may already be incorporated as normal Infantry Brigades in other divisions (I am fairly sure 77th Para is represented as one of the Bdes of 3rd Indian which is included as a proxy for the Chindit Bdes)
Other missing Bdes
Missing is 3rd Indian Inf Bde on the NW frontier a pre war formation and 150th Indian Bde from 1944 which was used for garrison purposes.
So I guess either remove 44th entirely (as its motorised Bde when it was an armoured divison is already seperately identified and its para Bde is already listed) and instead put in independnet Bdes for 26th/ 3rd and 150th with varying arrival times or just leave it as is but I stop whinging about missing Bdes.
My main issue is not actually the 42 ORBAT despite my many posts on the subject
[;)][;)]
My main beef is the 43 buildup which is a tad slow IMO and doesnt seem to really happen until late 44.
Andy
Hi,
re 36th uk div. I believe two of the div's brigades are in the oob , the 29th uk and 72nd uk Bde's.
5th indian Div arrives 1 year early 5/42 should arrive 6/43 from Iraq
44th indian Div should be 44th Indian Airborne Div but should be deleted as it's brigades are already present
251 uk Brigade does not exsist and should be deleted, the number was one never used in the British army
just a few things i've noted.
Thanks Iron Duke ill stop whinging about 36th UK as I agree with you had I done my research right first time around I wouldnt have egg on my face [:D][:D] only the 26th Indian Bde is missing from 36th UK Div and I also can find no reference to a 251st UK Inf Bde.
5th Indian is early and should probably be replaced by 19th Indian which was present at the time of the Ceylon incursion 5th Indian arriving per Iron Dukes post.
Only one of 44ths Brigades is already represented the other two were deployed quite late in the war as 77th Parachute and 14th Air Landing and may already be incorporated as normal Infantry Brigades in other divisions (I am fairly sure 77th Para is represented as one of the Bdes of 3rd Indian which is included as a proxy for the Chindit Bdes)
Other missing Bdes
Missing is 3rd Indian Inf Bde on the NW frontier a pre war formation and 150th Indian Bde from 1944 which was used for garrison purposes.
So I guess either remove 44th entirely (as its motorised Bde when it was an armoured divison is already seperately identified and its para Bde is already listed) and instead put in independnet Bdes for 26th/ 3rd and 150th with varying arrival times or just leave it as is but I stop whinging about missing Bdes.
My main issue is not actually the 42 ORBAT despite my many posts on the subject
[;)][;)]
My main beef is the 43 buildup which is a tad slow IMO and doesnt seem to really happen until late 44.
Andy
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues
Photo of one of the omitted CG Cutters: Duane as AGC. All of these cutters: BIBB, DUANE, CAMPBELL, SPENCER, TANEY, and INGHAM were converted to this configuration in 1944 and served in the Pacific from late 44 through the end of the war. Only TANEY served in the Pacific as an escort type; the others were all serving in the Atlantic.
- Attachments
-
- WW2_26 - Duane.jpg (31.65 KiB) Viewed 278 times
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues
CGC Taney - longest lived Pearl Harbor veteran. Armament configuration of 2 x 5"/51 cal, 4 x 3"/50 cal, 6 x 20mm, Y-gun DC thrower and stern racks (12/41 - 9/42). Subsequently rearmed with 4 x 5"/38 cal and additional ASW weaponry and deployed to the Atlantic/Med on escort duties.
- Attachments
-
- imageAAM-CGC Taney.jpg (16.44 KiB) Viewed 278 times
-
- Posts: 500
- Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:26 pm
- Location: a maze of twisty little passages, all different
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues
The first Yamato upgrade (class 501) has no 6.1in guns on the right side, but two turrets at R. All scenarios. Must be a typo.
DON´T PANIC - IT´S ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues
When the Yamatos wre refitted, the Port and Starbard 6.1" guns were landed in favor of more AA.
However, it should be 1 Turret forward, 1 aft. Not 2 rear.
However, it should be 1 Turret forward, 1 aft. Not 2 rear.
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 500
- Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:26 pm
- Location: a maze of twisty little passages, all different
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues
I looked over the sizes of Japanese naval shipyards. They don´t seem to conform to what was built there in RL. I went through my reference material and figured ot the maximum number of ships that were built at a single yard at the same time. Under the WitP model, to have the historical building rate, each of the yards should have the capacity to generate building points equaling the sum of the durabilities of all ships building there.
This is the list of the eight most important yards I came up with (only surface ships DD and bigger):
Kure Navy Yard (Loc Hiroshima/Kure) was building in 11/41:
Yamato (185)
Nisshin (45)
Oyodo (33)
Total: 263
Yokosuka Navy Yard (Loc Tokyo)was building in 8/41:
Shinano (180)
Shokaku (100)
Sum: 280
Uraga Docks, Yokosuka (Loc Tokyo) was building in 8/40:
4 x Kagero DD (44)
1 x Yugumo DD (11)
Sum: 55
Sum for Loc Tokyo: 335
Mitsubishi, Nagasaki (Loc Nagasaki) was building in 4/42:
Musashi (185)
Junyo (50)
4 x Akitsuki DD (52)
Sum: 287
Kawasaki, Kobe (Loc Osaka/Kobe) was building in 8/41:
Zuikaku (100)
Hiyo (50)
Taiho (115)
Sum: 265
Fujinagata, Osaka (Loc Osaka/Kobe) was building in 1/40:
5 x Kagero DD (55)
Sum for Loc Osaka/Kobe: 320
Sasebo Navy Yard (Loc Sasebo) was building in 11/43:
Ibuki (40)
Yahagi (27)
Sakawa (27)
2 x Akizuki DD (26)
Sum: 120
Maizuru Navy Yard (Loc Maizuru) was building in 8/41:
Shimakaze (13)
2 x Yugumo DD (22)
2 x Akizuki DD (26)
Sum: 61
The Naval Shipyard numbers as they are:
Nagasaki 292 (should be at least 287)
Sasebo 0 (should be at least 120)
Hiroshima/Kure 45 (should be at least 263)
Maizuru 308 (should be about 61)
Osaka/Kobe 42 (should be at least 320)
Tokyo 280 (should be at least 335)
The reason I say "at least" is because at most of these locations submarines were building, too, amounting to between 60 and 250 building points. I´ve left out submarines because my sources don´t give exact building dates and because I think that their durability numbers don´t properly reflect the time and effort needed to build them, especially the late-war types ST and STS which both have a Durability of 36, surpassing the CL Oyodo(and meaning they draw resources for a year), but were nailed together in RL in a couple of months using sectionalized methods.
So, according to these numbers
- Nagasaki is about right
- Tokyo is a bit small
- Maizuru is wildly oversize
- the other locations are far too small
I´m sure my methodology can be criticized, but in the context of WitP this should make sense.
At least downsize Maizuru and increase Hiroshima and Osaka, they each had one of the "big four" yards.
This is the list of the eight most important yards I came up with (only surface ships DD and bigger):
Kure Navy Yard (Loc Hiroshima/Kure) was building in 11/41:
Yamato (185)
Nisshin (45)
Oyodo (33)
Total: 263
Yokosuka Navy Yard (Loc Tokyo)was building in 8/41:
Shinano (180)
Shokaku (100)
Sum: 280
Uraga Docks, Yokosuka (Loc Tokyo) was building in 8/40:
4 x Kagero DD (44)
1 x Yugumo DD (11)
Sum: 55
Sum for Loc Tokyo: 335
Mitsubishi, Nagasaki (Loc Nagasaki) was building in 4/42:
Musashi (185)
Junyo (50)
4 x Akitsuki DD (52)
Sum: 287
Kawasaki, Kobe (Loc Osaka/Kobe) was building in 8/41:
Zuikaku (100)
Hiyo (50)
Taiho (115)
Sum: 265
Fujinagata, Osaka (Loc Osaka/Kobe) was building in 1/40:
5 x Kagero DD (55)
Sum for Loc Osaka/Kobe: 320
Sasebo Navy Yard (Loc Sasebo) was building in 11/43:
Ibuki (40)
Yahagi (27)
Sakawa (27)
2 x Akizuki DD (26)
Sum: 120
Maizuru Navy Yard (Loc Maizuru) was building in 8/41:
Shimakaze (13)
2 x Yugumo DD (22)
2 x Akizuki DD (26)
Sum: 61
The Naval Shipyard numbers as they are:
Nagasaki 292 (should be at least 287)
Sasebo 0 (should be at least 120)
Hiroshima/Kure 45 (should be at least 263)
Maizuru 308 (should be about 61)
Osaka/Kobe 42 (should be at least 320)
Tokyo 280 (should be at least 335)
The reason I say "at least" is because at most of these locations submarines were building, too, amounting to between 60 and 250 building points. I´ve left out submarines because my sources don´t give exact building dates and because I think that their durability numbers don´t properly reflect the time and effort needed to build them, especially the late-war types ST and STS which both have a Durability of 36, surpassing the CL Oyodo(and meaning they draw resources for a year), but were nailed together in RL in a couple of months using sectionalized methods.
So, according to these numbers
- Nagasaki is about right
- Tokyo is a bit small
- Maizuru is wildly oversize
- the other locations are far too small
I´m sure my methodology can be criticized, but in the context of WitP this should make sense.
At least downsize Maizuru and increase Hiroshima and Osaka, they each had one of the "big four" yards.
DON´T PANIC - IT´S ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!
-
- Posts: 500
- Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:26 pm
- Location: a maze of twisty little passages, all different
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues
Class 501 is the update before they swapped the 6.1in side turrets for three 5in/40 mounts each. Musashi was sunk in that configuration. Class 501 has a total of 12-6.1in, 12-5in. I think the guy doing this class selected Facing "R" instead of "RS" by mistake.
DON´T PANIC - IT´S ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues
Ok, I get ya. Wasn't sure when the Jap upgrades were, I assumed 501 was the '44 configuration. My mistake.
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.
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.
- Kereguelen
- Posts: 1454
- Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 9:08 pm
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues
It seems that the 18th IJA Division is a little bit overstrenght in Scen. 15/16.
Both its 23rd Brigade (only consisting of 56th Rgt. + 12 75mm Mountain Guns and the 12th Engineer Bn. at this time; also called the Takumi Detachment) and its 35th Bde (only reinforced 124th Regiment; also called Kawaguchi Detachment) are seperately in the game (which makes sense because this formations were used in the initial landings and operated independent from their parent division). 18th IJA Division had still a square organisation and its Brigades were different in function and makeup from the Japanese Independent and Independent Mixed Brigades. Thus the division should be reduced in strength accordingly!
K
Both its 23rd Brigade (only consisting of 56th Rgt. + 12 75mm Mountain Guns and the 12th Engineer Bn. at this time; also called the Takumi Detachment) and its 35th Bde (only reinforced 124th Regiment; also called Kawaguchi Detachment) are seperately in the game (which makes sense because this formations were used in the initial landings and operated independent from their parent division). 18th IJA Division had still a square organisation and its Brigades were different in function and makeup from the Japanese Independent and Independent Mixed Brigades. Thus the division should be reduced in strength accordingly!
K
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues
Can we get the Battalion sized
44th (RM) Commando
42nd (RM) Commando
1st Commando
5th Commando
Units arriving in late 43 please with an Allied Commando Squad to go with them.
I would rather have individual Bns than 3rd Commando Bde for ease of FT when attacking rather than one Brigade.
I would suggest that at least the army commandoes are Parachute Trained
Andy
44th (RM) Commando
42nd (RM) Commando
1st Commando
5th Commando
Units arriving in late 43 please with an Allied Commando Squad to go with them.
I would rather have individual Bns than 3rd Commando Bde for ease of FT when attacking rather than one Brigade.
I would suggest that at least the army commandoes are Parachute Trained
Andy
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues
Any way at all we can set a few of the UK Squns to be India as in every game I run out of British Pilots very very quickly
ANZAC Air Group Designations
[font="Arial"]I have just upgraded from U.V. and was a little disappointed to see that historical errors corrected in U.V have reappeared in WTIP.
The official designation for air force units from contemporary sources is "No. 75 Squadron RAAF" which is the same format used right across all the British Commonwealth forces.
I can understand this formal format is considered too large for the game data fields (though it does fit, try it), I feel that a historical designation for units in a historical game is appropriate. The British and Canadian air groups are labeled by an abbreviated format that still reflects the flavor of the historical designations so I think the ANZAC units should also follow suit.
Could someone please update the RAAF and RNZAF Air Group designations to the same format as the Canadian air groups (ie "75 Squadron RAAF").
At least it's better than the "75th FS RAAF" found in the original release of Uncommon Valor....
(posted on both 1.4 OOB and Combined Historical Scenario threads)[/font]
The official designation for air force units from contemporary sources is "No. 75 Squadron RAAF" which is the same format used right across all the British Commonwealth forces.
I can understand this formal format is considered too large for the game data fields (though it does fit, try it), I feel that a historical designation for units in a historical game is appropriate. The British and Canadian air groups are labeled by an abbreviated format that still reflects the flavor of the historical designations so I think the ANZAC units should also follow suit.
Could someone please update the RAAF and RNZAF Air Group designations to the same format as the Canadian air groups (ie "75 Squadron RAAF").
At least it's better than the "75th FS RAAF" found in the original release of Uncommon Valor....
(posted on both 1.4 OOB and Combined Historical Scenario threads)[/font]
Cheers,
Reg.
(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!
Reg.
(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!
- eMonticello
- Posts: 525
- Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 7:35 am
December 7 OOB corrections
Just a few minor corrections...
a) The Theater HQ for PatWing 1 (VP-11, VP-12, VP-14) should be Central Pacific.
b) The Theater HQ for PatWing 2 (VP-22, VP-23, VP-24) should be South Pacific.
c) The Theater HQ for PatWing 4 (VP-42, VP-43, VP-44) should be North Pacific.
d) VMSB-231 currently has a delay of 420830, which doesn't make much sense since they were being ferried by Lexington to Midway Island on Dec 7, 1941 and they participated in the Battle of Midway. So, VMSB-231 should have 18 aircraft and should be with Lexington at the beginning of the game. [Note: Historically, VMSB-231 didn't arrive at Midway until a few months later. Lexington returned to Pearl before completing the mission and the Marines ended up ferrying the aircraft from Pearl to Midway with an escort of a Catalina.]
e) Lexington and Enterprise Task Force locations should be swapped. Enterprise was returning from Wake Island and Lexington was heading to Midway.
finally,
f) The course of the Enterprise TF (formerly the Lexington TF) should be moving away from Wake and heading back to Pearl Harbor, not moving toward Wake. This would eliminate unhistorical airstrike by the AI carrier against the Wake invasion fleet.
a) The Theater HQ for PatWing 1 (VP-11, VP-12, VP-14) should be Central Pacific.
b) The Theater HQ for PatWing 2 (VP-22, VP-23, VP-24) should be South Pacific.
c) The Theater HQ for PatWing 4 (VP-42, VP-43, VP-44) should be North Pacific.
d) VMSB-231 currently has a delay of 420830, which doesn't make much sense since they were being ferried by Lexington to Midway Island on Dec 7, 1941 and they participated in the Battle of Midway. So, VMSB-231 should have 18 aircraft and should be with Lexington at the beginning of the game. [Note: Historically, VMSB-231 didn't arrive at Midway until a few months later. Lexington returned to Pearl before completing the mission and the Marines ended up ferrying the aircraft from Pearl to Midway with an escort of a Catalina.]
e) Lexington and Enterprise Task Force locations should be swapped. Enterprise was returning from Wake Island and Lexington was heading to Midway.
finally,
f) The course of the Enterprise TF (formerly the Lexington TF) should be moving away from Wake and heading back to Pearl Harbor, not moving toward Wake. This would eliminate unhistorical airstrike by the AI carrier against the Wake invasion fleet.
Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example. -- Pudd'nhead Wilson
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues
RE: Ki-43-I "Oscar"
The Ki-43-I in the game is the Ki-43-Ib with 1x 7.7 mm and 1x 12.7mm machineguns.
Actual production for the Ki-43-I series:
Ki-43-Ia: aprox. 35 produced between Apr and Jun 41
Ki-43-Ib: aprox. 45 produced between Jul and Aug 41
Ki-43-Ic: over 800 produced beginning Sep 41.
The Ia, with 2x 7.7 and the Ib with 1x 7.7 & 1x 12.7 guns were distributed between the 59th and 64th Sentais who used them in the Malaya - Burma area at the opening of hostilities. these aircraft were rapidly replaced by the Ki-43-Ic with 2x 12.7 guns and the older aircraft sent to the Akeno flying school.
It would probably be more useful to just change the type to the Ki-43-Ic and use it for the entire early series as the OB now uses the Ib model.
The Ki-43-I in the game is the Ki-43-Ib with 1x 7.7 mm and 1x 12.7mm machineguns.
Actual production for the Ki-43-I series:
Ki-43-Ia: aprox. 35 produced between Apr and Jun 41
Ki-43-Ib: aprox. 45 produced between Jul and Aug 41
Ki-43-Ic: over 800 produced beginning Sep 41.
The Ia, with 2x 7.7 and the Ib with 1x 7.7 & 1x 12.7 guns were distributed between the 59th and 64th Sentais who used them in the Malaya - Burma area at the opening of hostilities. these aircraft were rapidly replaced by the Ki-43-Ic with 2x 12.7 guns and the older aircraft sent to the Akeno flying school.
It would probably be more useful to just change the type to the Ki-43-Ic and use it for the entire early series as the OB now uses the Ib model.
Packrat
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues
I just had a thought.... why is this in scenario editor subforum now?
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.
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.
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues
Tanker, because its all up to us now!
Packrat,
The Oscar-1 was produced in the 'C' variant the most but the Japanese pilots at that stage of the war loved their 7.7's so they had mechanics strip off one of the 12.7's and replace it with a 7.7 .
Mike
Packrat,
The Oscar-1 was produced in the 'C' variant the most but the Japanese pilots at that stage of the war loved their 7.7's so they had mechanics strip off one of the 12.7's and replace it with a 7.7 .
Mike
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues
ORIGINAL: Tankerace
I just had a thought.... why is this in scenario editor subforum now?
The mods had to reduce the number of sticky threads on the main page, I just now found where they put this thread... Go Figure
- Ron Saueracker
- Posts: 10967
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues
I'm noticing in scen 15 that some USN 10 tube subes have 30 torps instead of 24. Trout is an example.
Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan