Matrix Games Forums

To End All Wars: Mountain InfantryPandora: Eclipse of Nashira Announced! Deal of the Week: Command Ops goes half price!New Fronts are opening up for Commander: The Great WarCharacters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great War
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Production rates

 
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] >> Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich >> Production rates Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Production rates - 3/30/2006 6:38:19 PM   
fochinell

 

Posts: 287
Joined: 11/19/2005
Status: offline
HS,

Further to the P-40 replacement issue, what's the situation for all the other allied aircraft replacement rates? I'd like to sound off on this if you've got a plan you can talk about on the forum.

If not, I shall go and do some work instead...
Post #: 1
RE: Production rates - 3/30/2006 6:53:04 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22786
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
Sound off matey

I be around and check in every now and then :)

over all, I am using what the game came with, but we got more and other planes to take of now also

so, where I am able to find out soild numbers, then I got something to work with

which there are some HARD coded things in there to

but if you have areas that you think are too low or too high, speak up, and we can look and see how it is set up



_____________________________


(in reply to fochinell)
Post #: 2
RE: Production rates - 3/31/2006 12:29:18 AM   
fochinell

 

Posts: 287
Joined: 11/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge
but if you have areas that you think are too low or too high, speak up, and we can look and see how it is set up


Well, obviously the Spitfire replacement rate is too low... I was on about this to JC previously, and harley came up with what I thought was a decent upgrade path. At any rate, as a starter, I'd suggest the following for 1943 -

1 Spit VB, 6 Spit IXC and 2 Spit VIII, with maybe the Spit XII (if it exists) on 1/3 or something like that.

And the following for '44 -

2 Spit XIVC, 8 Spit IXC, and 1 Spit VIII, with a Spit IXE at 2 per day coming in July '44 or later with the some of the same improvements as the P-47 - bubble canopy, rear-fuselage tankage for improved endurance and the E-wing with 2 x .50 cals replacing the 4 x .303 MG's.

I know you're looking at this already, but I definitely believe the P-47D should come in a spring '44 version with bubble-canopy, water-injection and paddle-blade props improving low-level manoevrability. Then there should be a small production of P-47M's in '45....

Other than that, my other major gripe is the Typhoon rate dropping to 1 per day in '44. I reckon the Hurricane should drop to 1 per day in '44 (on the same basis as the P-40N), with the Typhoon on 3.

I like the idea of having the Whirlwind in as a non-producer upgradable to the Typhoon, BTW.

So that's a start....

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 3
RE: Production rates - 3/31/2006 2:16:37 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22786
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
let me check how I am set up now and see how it compares, then we can get down to details, or reasons

right now, we should get the P-47D-6 (D's were out early in 43, I see no reason to the have the C model, as each D improvement came along, the C's were just upgraded to that standard, with bubble top, that may of stopped, but I really do not think so, the Tiffy, was upgraded to the bubbletop)

the P-47D-15 (first wing shackels, lower top speed)
the P-47D-20 (stronger wing shackels, pattleblade, better top speed)
the P-47D-25 (Bubbletop, more internal fuel)
the M is in the works, but not set up yet, N is a debate, or what if right now



_____________________________


(in reply to fochinell)
Post #: 4
RE: Production rates - 3/31/2006 2:41:43 PM   
fochinell

 

Posts: 287
Joined: 11/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge
right now, we should get the P-47D-6 (D's were out early in 43, I see no reason to the have the C model, as each D improvement came along, the C's were just upgraded to that standard, with bubble top, that may of stopped, but I really do not think so, the Tiffy, was upgraded to the bubbletop)

[/unquote]

On the 17th August '43, the 8th AF were using a mixture of early D's and C-2's and C-5's. So I don't have any objection to you standardising on the D-6 as the stock model for turn 1. Makes sense to me.

quote:


the P-47D-15 (first wing shackels, lower top speed)
the P-47D-20 (stronger wing shackels, pattleblade, better top speed)
the P-47D-25 (Bubbletop, more internal fuel)
the M is in the works, but not set up yet, N is a debate, or what if right now


That seems a resonable approximation, historically (the D-11 got the wing shackels IIRC, but that doesn't make any material difference). My beef is that without the units being interchangeable, there are too many variants for '44. I'd say it would be easier all round to roll the relevant improvements into one variant (the D-25) for production in 1944.

The critical point for the P-47 was availability; it's the first US fighter that can out-perform the Axis types, and splitting production amongst several sub-variants will really limit sustainable attrition and, unless you can terminate production of the older sub-types, it will leave the Allied player trying to use the minority of the modern variants late in the game when the older variants should have vanished from production.

Historically, production would move to a new variant and production of the old variant would terminate. Unless you can manage that in the game, players will be struggling with P-47D-6's long after they would have vanished or been upgraded historically, while getting fewer D-25's than they should get.


(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 5
RE: Production rates - 3/31/2006 2:49:05 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22786
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
over all, I would agree, but...

the different Blocks are also too importent to pass up, if the main 47 the player is to get is the D-25, then they are going to be waiting until May 44 to get them (in fact, after the 51 D comes out)

the major improvements to the D-20 are too importent to pass up, but the D-11/D-15 with the 3 drop tanks is needed or the US will have no fighter with any range)

sort of damned if you do, damned if you don't



_____________________________


(in reply to fochinell)
Post #: 6
RE: Production rates - 3/31/2006 2:59:27 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22786
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
1 Spit VB, 6 Spit IXC and 2 Spit VIII, with maybe the Spit XII (if it exists) on 1/3 or something like that.

my current set up, not set in stone, willing to learn

3 Spit V, 6 Spit IX, 3 Spit VIII
4 Tiffies


And the following for '44 -

2 Spit XIVC, 8 Spit IXC, and 1 Spit VIII, with a Spit IXE at 2 per day coming in July '44 or later with the some of the same improvements as the P-47 - bubble canopy, rear-fuselage tankage for improved endurance and the E-wing with 2 x .50 cals replacing the 4 x .303 MG's.

0 Spit V, 8 Spit IX, 3 Spit XIV, 3 Tiffie, 4 Temp

45
4 Spit IX, 4 Spit XIV, 4 Temp




I am very shaky on what should be built in 45 ?

if I know you, I am sure you have some ideas on what Spits should be in the game

I thought the Spit VIII was a simi short production run ? should it carry on into 44 (reason I gave it a extra one in 43, to help the stockpile when it goes out of production ????)




_____________________________


(in reply to fochinell)
Post #: 7
RE: Production rates - 3/31/2006 3:40:59 PM   
von Shagmeister


Posts: 1273
Joined: 10/8/2005
From: Dromahane, Ireland
Status: offline

quote:

I see no reason to the have the C model,


I assume you are referring to it being in production. As the P-47C was still in use with 56FG and 78FG early in 1944.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 8
RE: Production rates - 3/31/2006 4:16:52 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22786
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
unlike most nations, we didn't change the model name, when we upgraded it

the P-47D was coming off the line in may of 43
the P-47C's in 1944 were upgraded to D standards, as were any new improvements along the way

as was said before, it take 200 hours to change the plumbing on a plane to change it to a new model, so it was pulled out of the line and 200 hours were spent on changeing it


so over all, yea, I took a plane that was not being made anymore, and took it out of production

(which may be interesting, but in the code, we are suppost to be getting P-47B's, unless it is a typo)


_____________________________


(in reply to von Shagmeister)
Post #: 9
RE: Production rates - 3/31/2006 8:53:36 PM   
langley


Posts: 183
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Newbury, Berkshire, England.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

1 Spit VB, 6 Spit IXC and 2 Spit VIII, with maybe the Spit XII (if it exists) on 1/3 or something like that.

my current set up, not set in stone, willing to learn

3 Spit V, 6 Spit IX, 3 Spit VIII
4 Tiffies


And the following for '44 -

2 Spit XIVC, 8 Spit IXC, and 1 Spit VIII, with a Spit IXE at 2 per day coming in July '44 or later with the some of the same improvements as the P-47 - bubble canopy, rear-fuselage tankage for improved endurance and the E-wing with 2 x .50 cals replacing the 4 x .303 MG's.

0 Spit V, 8 Spit IX, 3 Spit XIV, 3 Tiffie, 4 Temp

45
4 Spit IX, 4 Spit XIV, 4 Temp




I am very shaky on what should be built in 45 ?

if I know you, I am sure you have some ideas on what Spits should be in the game

I thought the Spit VIII was a simi short production run ? should it carry on into 44 (reason I gave it a extra one in 43, to help the stockpile when it goes out of production ????)




I will check up on this but from first looks I would say it looks about right to me!
One Question before I go Why not add the Hawker Tempest II in late 45?

MJT



_____________________________

"My God, I hope you don't blame me for this. I had no idea where you were."
Air Vice-marshal Pulford upon the loss of "Force Z"

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 10
RE: Production rates - 3/31/2006 9:17:56 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22786
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
Later 45 ?

how late we want to go ?

I thought they skipped past the II and went to the V as the standard production run ?



_____________________________


(in reply to langley)
Post #: 11
RE: Production rates - 3/31/2006 10:48:23 PM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 664
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
The Tempest II and V were fairly different a/c - the V with the Sabre, and the II with the Centaurus. The II was the intended definitive one, and was aimed at PTO, but the urgency to get Tempests in service meant the V was pushed and entered service first. The II was delivered to some RAF squadrons from late 1944, but didn't get into action IIRC

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 12
RE: Production rates - 4/1/2006 10:41:06 AM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22786
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
roger
after I posted, I remembered there were some oddities with the Tempests

(in a flight sim I beta for, we went though a lot of work on the getting the right model)

LOL so for the Brits the Tempy II and Tempy V is like the GE with there 109 G10 and G14

give me some dates and some data (I just find speed and alt right now)

looks like 152 or so were completed before war's end (ETO or PTO ?)

I may be able to slip this in as a end of war plane, with no units assigned

_____________________________


(in reply to HMSWarspite)
Post #: 13
RE: Production rates - 4/1/2006 12:56:08 PM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 664
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
OK Full story (?), including prototypes, since now I read it it gets even funnier as a development story!

Tempest I - Originally known as Typhoon II. Development of Typhoon with new wing (thinner, and semi-eliptical), 21in fuselage plug (forward), 2340hp Sabre IV, and wing leading edge rads. 2 Proto ordered, and then 4 more to explore engine options. Tempest I first flew 24 Feb 43, and was reputedly fastest of all Tempests, but Napier didn't continue with Sabre IV so design ditched. (Spd 466mph@24500ft)

Other prototypes - 2 off Centaurus V as Tempest II, 1 Griffon IIB (Tempest III - later evolved in to the a Fury prototype - now there's a nice a/c), 1 Griffon 61 as Tempest IV. Griffon models not completed I believe.

Due to problems with the Sabre IV (presumably related to issues that lead to cancellation), a Tempest I was reengined with a Sabre II, to make a Tempest V, and was actually the first prototype to fly. The 400 a/c order placed for Tempest I in Aug 1942 was then switched to the V (to add to the order already placed - see on)

Prod a/c:

Tempest V (and VI). Production contract awarded Feb 1942, 6 months before first flight. First flight Sept 1942. Prod version with Sabre IIA at 2180hp flew Jun 1943, and entered service April 1944. armed with 4 20mm Hispano Cannon. First 100 a/c (series 1) had MkII, long barrelled, rest had Mk V short barrelled which increased speed slightly Total orders 1149 a/c, progressively with IIA, IIB, and IIC Sabre (B: 2200hp, C:2260hp). Final 300 a/c were to be Tempest VI, but only 142 actually delivered to this std. The Tempest VI had the Sabre VA at 2340hp (never saw ops).

Temp V: (not sure which engine) Speed SL = 392 mph, 435@ 17000ft. range 740miles (int fuel).

Tempest II: RAF Last piston engined single seat fighter to enter prod. First of 2 prottotypes flew 28 June 1943 with Centaurus IV. Prod version had Centaurus V or VI of 2520hp, also had 4 20mm cannon. Intended for Tiger force. This didn't happen, but only saw post war service

II: 417 mph @ SL, 440mph @ 15900, range 775 miles at 210 mph (not clear on alt)

The Tempest II is a classic example of an aircraft that could have been rushed into service in Europe if things had gone badly in late 1944.


Seen this : http://www.hawkertempest.se/index.htm
I haven't read it thoroughly, but probably can get you what you want...

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 14
RE: Production rates - 4/1/2006 1:41:57 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22786
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
yea, I used to have a whole folder of info on the Tempies and Tiffies, but that got lost with the new puter :(

good site, wish we could find more like that

ahhh

Pierre Clostermann passed away a few days back

a shame, didn't hear anything about it



< Message edited by Hard Sarge -- 4/1/2006 1:48:27 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to HMSWarspite)
Post #: 15
RE: Production rates - 4/1/2006 2:19:16 PM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 664
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
Back to more general Prodn issues, the US stats site gives a lot of what we need for US types (although not down to sub type):

http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/wwwroot/aafsd/aafsd_list_of_tables_aircraftequipment.html

Have you got all this, and reduced it to a usable form? I think you could get all you want on delvery rates, with an overcheck on total strenghts in ETO and Med.

Pity there isn't a UK equivalent...maybe it's something I should do at the PRO when I retire!

Don't hold your breath though, I am only 41!

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 16
RE: Production rates - 4/1/2006 2:19:48 PM   
fochinell

 

Posts: 287
Joined: 11/19/2005
Status: offline
On Spits first:

Hard Sarge:
my current set up, not set in stone, willing to learn

3 Spit V, 6 Spit IX, 3 Spit VIII
4 Tiffies


Seems OK to me. My main quibble with the original was that actual production of Spits in August 1943 was over 300 Mk IX/VIIIs, but an increase to 9 per day of both addresses that.

0 Spit V, 8 Spit IX, 3 Spit XIV, 3 Tiffie, 4 Temp

Probably too many Tempests there for me - I'd argue for 2 per day, and reducing the Spit XIV to 2 per day to limit deployment. I still stand by the need for a mid or late-44 upgrade to the stock Spit IX, as by the end of the year they were being delivered with the kind of improvement that the later block P-47D's had (better armament, more fuel, bubble canopy, different full-throttle height for the engine, higher boost pressures, etc) and the production of the Packard-Merlin engined XVI should be reflected in increased production by September '44. So if the later Jug D's are in, I think there's a case for the IXE to cover the late production IXE/XVIE.

45
4 Spit IX, 4 Spit XIV, 4 Temp


Excellent idea for a '45 replacement rate; and this is when the Tempest production should be increased. My personal preference would be for the following:

3 Spit IXC, 6 Spit IXE, 3 Spit XIVE, 1 Spit F.21 (Feb '45).

The F.21 sort of parallels the P-47N - small usage, but I'd like to have it. If not, maybe increase the XIVE production rate to 4.

if I know you, I am sure you have some ideas on what Spits should be in the game

Heh heh heh...

I thought the Spit VIII was a simi short production run ? should it carry on into 44 (reason I gave it a extra one in 43, to help the stockpile when it goes out of production ????)

The XIV was produced in exchange for VIII airframes at the Supermarine production group on a 1-1 basis as the Griffon 65 became available, starting in December 1943. However, there weren't enough engines to use for the entire production run, and the VIII remained in service throughout 1944 in the MTO on a reducing scale and in the Far East in increasing numbers. I think it should continue at 1 per day in '44 on the same basis as P-40F/L production in '43, before finally being subsumed by the XIV in '45.

On the Jug, you're absolutely right about the chronology, but why not move the D-25 forward a couple of months to absorb the D-20? It's not that much a violation of the historical reality. I think it's harder for me to counter your point about the D-11 or D-15 external tankage issue, as that is needed ASAP in game terms. Maybe a compromise is possible - end D-6 production in '44 in favour of the D-15, and then bring the D-25 in the spring of '44?

Just a thought. I still reckon the Thunderbolt is the backbone of the USAAF fighter position in the first six months of the game, and dividing up the replacements into too-many sub-variants will reduce its impact too much.

Any other opinions on this welcome, BTW.


< Message edited by fochinell -- 4/1/2006 2:20:57 PM >

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 17
RE: Production rates - 4/1/2006 2:29:51 PM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 664
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
The main constraint on P-47 etc is the 'no mixing of types in a unit'. Now if this could be relaxed for BuNo level changes (47D-6, -11,-15,-20,-25) you can have a single number for D prod, that morphs over as happened in RL. Is there any way this could happen in the code, or is that impossible? If so, I worry a little that the constraints of the code will make the BuNo level unrealistic - 'can't fly the 666FG, because they have 5 47D-6 short, but I have spare D-15 in the pool, but not enough to re-equip them' etc. To counter this, you would tend to need to over provide on production numbers, which will possibly enable too many to fly relative to RL...etc. This is also an issue with Ge 109G, and /R packs etc...

Am I worrying unnecessarily?

Plan B - forget BuNo. and hard code a/c capabilty increases vs time (don't really like this option either, but gets rid of the first issue). Say, 1 FG per (day/week/month) gets equivalent D-20 upgrade etc?




_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to fochinell)
Post #: 18
RE: Production rates - 4/1/2006 2:58:46 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22786
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
I can rework the production list

wasnt sure about the VIII carriing over, hassle will be the AI won't use them, but the player will, so no hassle

I can work on some new Spits, I only did the VIII then held back to see how we could handle it in the code

for the 47's I think we are going to need as many as can get

in the Med they went from group to group, I think we will be doing that in our game now

which in the long run, we may even get to keep the plane types in use, like they were in the real war



_____________________________


(in reply to HMSWarspite)
Post #: 19
RE: Production rates - 4/1/2006 4:03:53 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22786
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
okay lets give this a run

Spitfire HF.IX 1-1-0
Spitfire F.IX 2-1-0
Spitfire LF.IXC 4-7-3


(HF will go to the ADGB, F to the Med/FC, LF to 2nd Tac)

?????

I need more info on the E models

any ideas on the major differences in these 3

didnt find much on the 21






Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 20
RE: Production rates - 4/1/2006 5:00:48 PM   
harley


Posts: 1662
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

wasnt sure about the VIII carriing over, hassle will be the AI won't use them, but the player will, so no hassle



The AI will use them if something upgrades *to* them. So if a Vx variant has the VIII in the upgrade path, then they can be used, even by the AI.

The AI is pretty dumb when coming to upgrades. I won't go into detail, but I'm sure most everyone here can see the pattern...


(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 21
RE: Production rates - 4/1/2006 6:09:34 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22786
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
quote:

http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/wwwroot/aafsd/aafsd_list_of_tables_aircraftequipment.html


yea, I go there, good info, when you can find the area you want :)

I really liked the Ammo used, and the fuel used

those totals were unreal



_____________________________


(in reply to HMSWarspite)
Post #: 22
RE: Production rates - 4/1/2006 6:15:43 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22786
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: harley

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

wasnt sure about the VIII carriing over, hassle will be the AI won't use them, but the player will, so no hassle



The AI will use them if something upgrades *to* them. So if a Vx variant has the VIII in the upgrade path, then they can be used, even by the AI.

The AI is pretty dumb when coming to upgrades. I won't go into detail, but I'm sure most everyone here can see the pattern...




Yes daddy, I understand the upgrade path

_____________________________


(in reply to harley)
Post #: 23
RE: Production rates - 4/1/2006 8:33:21 PM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 664
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
I presume you know about: http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html ?

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 24
RE: Production rates - 4/2/2006 1:40:36 PM   
langley


Posts: 183
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Newbury, Berkshire, England.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

Later 45 ?

how late we want to go ?

I thought they skipped past the II and went to the V as the standard production run ?




Sorry for the delay in coming back to you!

The Tempest MkII started to roll off the production line in October 1944

The first squadron to get Tempest MkII aircraft was 183 Squardron and then 247 Squadron both in August 1945.
Both Squadrons were ready to go by September.
HMSWarspite Post no 14 gives the Perfromance data for this aircraft.

Thankyou

MJT

_____________________________

"My God, I hope you don't blame me for this. I had no idea where you were."
Air Vice-marshal Pulford upon the loss of "Force Z"

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 25
RE: Production rates - 4/3/2006 1:53:28 PM   
fochinell

 

Posts: 287
Joined: 11/19/2005
Status: offline
Up to you, HS, but just like I'm arguing for a reduction from 4 different P-47D variants to 2 or 3, I don't think the performance difference between the HF/LF and F.IXC Spit warrant the hassles in maintaining unit strength involved in using them. In my opinion there is a better case for including the VII (used by 616, 124 and 131 sqns) as the HF variant.

>I need more info on the E models
>any ideas on the major differences in these 3

The it's just a difference in Full Throttle Height for the two supercharger gears used in the Merlin 61/3/4, 66 series and 70 for the HF - which in practical terms means achieving roughly the same maximum speed (approx 410 mph) at different heights, from 22,000ft for the LF up to 27-28,000ft for the HF.

>didnt find much on the 21

It was the first principal redesign to use the two-stage Griffon, slightly heavier than the F.XIV, but with 4 x 20mm cannon.

The IXE model should have a slightly increased performance, with whatever maneuvrability bonus the Typhoon and P-47 get from the bubble canopy, as well as the two .5in MG's replacing the 4 x .303 MG's. Otherwise, its main difference is the possibility of using rear-fuselage tanks (up to 66 gallons) to increase endurance and range.

As for the MK VIII, I think it has a good case for existing, if only for the range difference over the MK IX (124 gals internal vs 85 gals), and maybe upgrading to the IXC as per the original Harley/Gavin Spitfire upgrade plan. If there's a low level of replacement in '44, the AI will be able to keep existing squadrons going while the VB units get first call on upgrading to the IXC.

The LF.VB is probably worth including, but it was always outnumbered by stock VB/VC's.

I think there's a case for including the XII in 41 and 91 Sqns as historically, with these upgrading to the XIVC while the IX upgrades to the XIVE. This should delay major upgrading from IX-XIV until '45, while the XIVC can enter service whenever the player wants or when the Spit XII sqns upgrade or when new XIVC units arrive for the AI.

There's also a need for a PR. XIX to appear at some point - a few were converted for Overlord, but production really began in '45, and it should replace the PR XI.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 26
RE: Production rates - 4/4/2006 1:09:07 AM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22786
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
quote:

In my opinion there is a better case for including the VII (used by 616, 124 and 131 sqns) as the HF variant.


I got to disagree

the VII would be a high alt intercepter, and out of the scope of the game as a home defence plane

alot of units that are on home defence only duties have been held back or kept out of the game

_____________________________


(in reply to fochinell)
Post #: 27
RE: Production rates - 4/4/2006 1:23:41 AM   
langley


Posts: 183
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Newbury, Berkshire, England.
Status: offline
Sounds fair to me! Can you tell us how far along the games are? I'm trying to get an idea of your teams workload Plus game ETA are we talking Months or weeks?

MJT

_____________________________

"My God, I hope you don't blame me for this. I had no idea where you were."
Air Vice-marshal Pulford upon the loss of "Force Z"

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 28
RE: Production rates - 4/4/2006 1:31:04 AM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22786
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
ahh, teach me, didn't see that the 131 was flying the VII and 616 was flying the VI when the game starts

so both gets pulled also

anybody have any dates on when these 3 units changed planes and came back to action ? (124, 131, 616)



overall, we still in Alpha, once we get into Beta, we should have a better idea of what and when, but over all I think we are making good time on doing what we want to do (knock on wood)



_____________________________


(in reply to langley)
Post #: 29
RE: Production rates - 4/4/2006 12:42:07 PM   
fochinell

 

Posts: 287
Joined: 11/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge
the VII would be a high alt intercepter, and out of the scope of the game as a home defence plane

alot of units that are on home defence only duties have been held back or kept out of the game


I'm aware of the home-defence only rule, but the problem is that home defence units in Fighter Command were routinely used on offensive sorties, and were indeed sometimes used to escort 8th AF attacks. This makes hard and fast rules about game availability by type very difficult to enforce without contradictions.

The botom line is that the VII was used on offensive sorties. It was used to escort 8th AF strikes on Brittany and Western France in 1944, for example. On the other hand, I'm convinced that 124 Sqn (the first to convert to the VII at North Weald in May 1943) were largely used defensively in 1943, so I think there's a good case for keeping them out of the game until they re-appear in 1944, when they were posted to 2nd TAF in March 1944 and did some 8th AF escorts, before converting to IXs in July '44.

131 Sqn were flying VC's in August 1943, and on offensive operations, converting to the VII in March 1944, by which point the VII was being used offensively on a consistent basis. So I think they have a good case for being included from the start.

On the other hand, 616 converted to the VII in September 1943, then to Meteor Is in June: I think they can legitimately be kept out of the game until early 1945, when they turned up in 2nd TAF with Meteor IIIs.

In short, I suggest a compromise: 616 out of the game until March 1945, with Meteor IIIs in 84 Group; 124 out of the game until March 1944, with Spit VIIs in 2nd TAF; 131 in the game from the start with Spit VB.

< Message edited by fochinell -- 4/4/2006 1:00:02 PM >

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich >> Production rates Page: [1] 2 3   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

0.123