Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!Legions of Steel ready for betaBattle Academy 2 gets trailers and Steam page!Deal of the Week Germany at WarSlitherine Group acquires Shenandoah StudioNew information and screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Pride of NationsTo End All Wars Releasing on Steam! Slitherine is recruiting: Programmers required
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: Ian R
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/7/2007 8:05:21 PM   
Iron Duke


Posts: 520
Joined: 1/7/2002
From: UK
Status: offline

1. Is the air OOB group sized units(usaaf) or squadron sized , already noted RAAF and RAF are squadron sized from screenshots

2. A/C that carry multiple torp's , attack multiple times or only once

3. will a/c having mixed loadouts ie carrying bombs and torps attack using both

4. will rockets be modelled as air to ground / air to ship weapons

5. will napalm be modelled

cheers

_____________________________

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

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 61
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/7/2007 8:13:37 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 22590
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

As it can be evident from many many tests I made in WitP months and years ago (and published here at the forum with quite big discussion following those) I am very interested in following issues:

#1 Search routines (ASW and Naval)...

"Leo's ASW TEST (and scenario) - problems spotted!":
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=967245

"Leo's air ASW Search TEST WitP v1.795...":
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=993313

"Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6" - Not done by me but my TEST scenarios were used:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1586330

"Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6 - NS vs ASW" - Not done by me but my TEST scenarios were used:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1586983


#2 Land FLAK model coupled with bombing routines...

"Comprehensive City bombing testing WitP v1.77 (B-29's vs. Manpower)...":
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=987147

"Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 50 ships in day and night)... ":
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=763293

"Comprehensive Port bombing testing WitP v1.5 (98 bombers vs. warships and cargo ships)...":
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=856314


Can someone please answer, if possible of course, whether those problems were rectified?

Many thanks in advance!


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 62
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/7/2007 8:24:09 PM   
TheElf


Posts: 3812
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Corpus Christi, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iron Duke


1. Is the air OOB group sized units(usaaf) or squadron sized , already noted RAAF and RAF are squadron sized from screenshots

2. A/C that carry multiple torp's , attack multiple times or only once

3. will a/c having mixed loadouts ie carrying bombs and torps attack using both

4. will rockets be modelled as air to ground / air to ship weapons

5. will napalm be modelled

cheers


1. Squadron
2. One attack
3. No
4. Yes
5. No

_____________________________

WAR IN THE PACIFIC: Admiral's Edition - Air Team Lead

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to Iron Duke)
Post #: 63
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/7/2007 8:24:59 PM   
TheElf


Posts: 3812
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Corpus Christi, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

As it can be evident from many many tests I made in WitP months and years ago (and published here at the forum with quite big discussion following those) I am very interested in following issues:

#1 Search routines (ASW and Naval)...

"Leo's ASW TEST (and scenario) - problems spotted!":
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=967245

"Leo's air ASW Search TEST WitP v1.795...":
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=993313

"Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6" - Not done by me but my TEST scenarios were used:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1586330

"Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6 - NS vs ASW" - Not done by me but my TEST scenarios were used:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1586983


#2 Land FLAK model coupled with bombing routines...

"Comprehensive City bombing testing WitP v1.77 (B-29's vs. Manpower)...":
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=987147

"Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 50 ships in day and night)... ":
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=763293

"Comprehensive Port bombing testing WitP v1.5 (98 bombers vs. warships and cargo ships)...":
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=856314


Can someone please answer, if possible of course, whether those problems were rectified?

Many thanks in advance!


Leo "Apollo11"

Uhhhh, what was your question?

_____________________________

WAR IN THE PACIFIC: Admiral's Edition - Air Team Lead

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 64
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/7/2007 8:33:25 PM   
Captain Cruft


Posts: 3648
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline
Just to clarify. Can Naval Search now be run at night?

Overall it's looking splendid!

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 65
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/7/2007 8:35:48 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 22590
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

As it can be evident from many many tests I made in WitP months and years ago (and published here at the forum with quite big discussion following those) I am very interested in following issues:

#1 Search routines (ASW and Naval)...

"Leo's ASW TEST (and scenario) - problems spotted!":
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=967245

"Leo's air ASW Search TEST WitP v1.795...":
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=993313

"Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6" - Not done by me but my TEST scenarios were used:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1586330

"Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6 - NS vs ASW" - Not done by me but my TEST scenarios were used:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1586983


#2 Land FLAK model coupled with bombing routines...

"Comprehensive City bombing testing WitP v1.77 (B-29's vs. Manpower)...":
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=987147

"Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 50 ships in day and night)... ":
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=763293

"Comprehensive Port bombing testing WitP v1.5 (98 bombers vs. warships and cargo ships)...":
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=856314


Can someone please answer, if possible of course, whether those problems were rectified?

Many thanks in advance!


Uhhhh, what was your question?


OK... I sincerely hope that you guys did notice what we tested in WitP months/years ago and that some of the issues found in those tests were listed as problems and put on the ""to Do" list...



In nutshell the problems I listed are:

#1
As I discovered in my tests the search routines (both "ASW" and "Naval Search" are 100% approximations - each and every aircraft in search routine "flies" each and every HEX inside range of search zone and in every HEX it has possibility of finding something (this can be even be seen on screen as search aircraft "flying" in concentric circles or spirals if you want).

#2
The land FLAK is very very ineffective and even massing of many FLAK units the results are almost insignificant (due to so called "FLAK Gap" - I didn't list those tests of mine now because it would further "clobber" the list).

At the same time the bombers, apparently, target with every bomb and, thus, the tests shown above can verify that bombing are more like "shooting fish in a barrel" than anything else...


For full content please do read the original threads...


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 66
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/7/2007 8:36:52 PM   
mullk

 

Posts: 534
Joined: 4/3/2003
From: Ohio
Status: offline
can air units with no a/c be able to be moved  -  destroyed units able to withdraw to rebuild

(in reply to Captain Cruft)
Post #: 67
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/7/2007 8:37:57 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10552
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline
From an old thread on this Piolet traing topick, posted by me:

.........

While it is true to a point, it does not tell you all the little details, it gives the begining and end but not the all important middle, and it genneralises both services and they did differ.

...........

Passages from The Japanese Naval Avaitor in WW2, which give more details about the Middle and begining, I have been reading Beads Pop, aka Bill Pop's memoiur about his time with VF 17 and am going over the training he receaved early on and it is interesting to compare the early war Japanese Training and the Navy training he receaved, while I havent got to the point of doing a direct comparasion it still looks like mid war Japanese training was certainily on a par with the US Navy training.

The Myth is that the Japanese had during the war very low numbers of piolets and very porly trained ones.

The reality is that initialy they had a slow perioud during the first year of the war whear they had piolets coming off the training line at prewar pace, then later in the first year 42, we see the ramping up of the programe, and then what was for Japan large numbers of piolets becoming available..then a Boom in numbers..somthing like slow...fast...warp drive..then very slow (Late 45).

Skill leval was good Beter than the west, then on par with the west then not so good.

This is a simplifacation to be shure but prety much how it happened, like many things were fighting an uphill battle aganst what has been for many years commonly preceived to be true of somthing that has to do with Japan in WW2.

From the Book, Imperial Japanese Naval Aviator 1937-45 by Osama Tagaya:


p.9: "During the 1937-45 war , some 18,900 Yokern of all classses were killed in action out of 241,463 entering trainess. (This figure does not include the old Sohren programe priour to its incorperation into the Hei-Class Yokaren, or any of he commissioned Officer programs)

Most all Japanese Naval avators were enlistedmen.

"In retrospect the IJN maintained a rigorously exclusive policy in it's avaitor programe for to long. The otsu Yokaren admitded little more than 200men anualy up to 1938, and class size did not excead 1,000 untill may 1941. Otsu Yokaren Class No. 19 of December 1942 still had only 1,500 recutes. The figure then sudenly Jumped to 2,951 in the following Class No. 20 of May 1943. Among the Ko Yokaren by far the largest of the Yokaren programs , anual class sizes remained in the 250-260 range for most of the China War perioud. Numbers did not excead 1,000 until class No. 10 od Aprial 1942. A year later Class no. 12 counted 3,215, divided into three groups. The figure then exploded to almost 28,000 in class No. 13, divided into two groups in Otc. and Dec. 43."

"The Leveal of piolet skill remained High throught most of 1943"

"In 44 Carrier piolets were being introduced to flight deck landing with barely 150 hours flying time under their belts."

Japanese Naval Airmen who were the product of Pre war and early war traing were exceptionaly well trained, it would be fair and accurate to say that those trained in the mid war period were still very well trained and then those in the late war period were only trained. Pre war anywhear from 500(priour to the China war) to 200(during and after, up to 44 when it went down to 150) hours was normal for piolet traing priour to Being introduced to Carrier landings.

...........................

Apendix C

Naval Fighter Piolets(By Class)

1. This table shows all Naval piolets who have specialized in fighters from the day that Naval avation was boarn through the Pacific war, aranged by class. Because of the fact that the Oficial records are not complete, we enlisted the help of many other people. It was not posable to prepare a complete list as such; in adation, because of page limations, the following have been omited: 40th class [also 41st and 42nd], Avation Student Course; Hei 7th class; Ko 8th class; Otsu 14th class; and classes after the 12th class, flight reserve student course.

2. Marks following the names have the following meaning:(H) Honors reciepent, (K) Killed in actioj, and (A) Accedential deth.

3. Parentheses around a name indicate piolets who changed from specialising in one type of aircraft to another. In 1936, with the seperation of the land atack forces,a large number of personnel changed to a diferent brach.

4. Piolets who converted from other specialities to that of fighter piolet are grouped together, at the end of each class listing. from the middel od the Pacific War on their were a large number of personel who converted from seaplane fighters and from two seat recon-float planes.

5. Piolets of Night fighters and flaot fighters units are not included.

6. Designations of types of aircraft are in acordance with practices of the perioud: Carier based planes, seaplanes, ect...

..................

The book then goes into the listings for each clase example:

Hei 6th Class (flight trainee course 23rd class) (September 1942; Omura Air Groupe, graduates, twenity seven persons, Tokushima Airgroupe graduates 30 persons, Oita Air Groupe graduates, unknow number)

Hideo Iijima (K)
Tokio I-ishi (K)
Kane-ichi Ishi-i (A)
..........The list goes to name all these men...they ALL died, all but 4 in combat, the 4 were accendital deths.

This is just one class and a small one at that, another example:

54th Class (May 1941; Oita Air Groupe graduates, carrier fighter, twenity one persons)

55th Class (JUly 1941 Oita Air groupe graduates carrier fighters 9 persons)

56 th class ( (July 1941; Oita Air groupe graduates, carrier fighters, ninteen persons.)

So as you can just so far their were different names for the piolet training progame, and different clases running concurently, and as the preface above notes not all those are included hearin, and of those running not all the info is avilable.

Another example:

Otsu 11th class:

(21st class of flight trainee course; July 42 graduates 14 persons)

(23rd Class September 42 graduates Oita Air Groupe 48 persons.)

........

Ko 6th Class (July 1942 graduates of 21st class flight traniee, carrier fighters 41 persons)

All but two of this class KIA.

.......

Yo 11th Class November 43, total of all types 85 persons, and 37 Carrier fighter persons.

......

OK, as you can see it is complex and confuing at best to decifier, these clases ran concurently and their were different programes, the Yo for example were I beelave reserve piolet trainies, though asigned to front line units...Then we have the List's:


....................

Their is on several pages a totaled list of piplets trained for various periouds, example:


Ko 13(class)

28,111(graduates)

Oct. 43-July 44 (time frame)

38-42 (Classes)


Now that is one of the biger ones, their are as I say several pages of such listings.

......................

Some quick and shoty math generates a figure aproaching 2500 per month on average for the 8 years, this would of been much higher for the mid war perioud of course. And again this figure is not inclusive of all the programs in this time frame that fed piolets into the Navy, Officers came from other programs for example. These men were also funneled into the Following training programs specificaly geared toward their fininal assinements, Atack planes (Kats, Jills, ect), Dive Bombers, Fighters,Float planes, Ea planes, Land Atack Planes (Bettys, Nells,Peggys, ect...).

Some further coments on this insainly high figure:

A couple things to remember hear as we discuss this:

2500 is a rough estimate of the NAVY (Not Army)aircrew, it only refers to new inducties, not those drawn from withen the service as many were, nore the Oficers who were trained seperatly:

p.9: "During the 1937-45 war , some 18,900 Yokern of all classses were killed in action out of 241,463 entering trainess. (This figure does not include the old Sohren programe priour to its incorperation into the Hei-Class Yokaren, or any of he commissioned Officer programs"

About 20% of the entering number did not finish the programe in the prewar years, howeaver it should be noted that Pre war traing included up two 3 years of schooling before Flight traing was undertaken, during the war it was was around 1 year of classes before the flight traing was undertaken(and most admited made it). Pre war 200 to 500 hours of flight traing was the norm before the trainie was sent to a unit. During the war this was around 200 unit till 44 then it droped to about 150 hours. Also apon entering flight traing the men were divided into specific traing groups for the plane type they were to fly, Float plane, Atack, Fighter, ect...

The flight training part of their education lasted for 10 to 12 months, during which they got on avaerage 200 hours of flight time, the first 6 months was on initial flight traing whil the last 6 was on operationaly types advanced training. This was the routine in 41 (12 months on average) and in 42 and 43 (10 months on average). In 44 it droped to about 6 months of traing on average.

It should also be Noted that WiTP does not model the entire Japanese ecenomy, we dont have to bother witth the traing of Calvery troops and the nightmear that feading all those horses and acquiring them was, nore the traing of tank crews, paratroppers ect...

............


"still, for the planes, it was the fuel that made the planes top rate, weak, shoddy fuel, does not make a high performence plane (lots of reports on how the ground crew, used buckets to pore gas into the planes, what ever was in the bucket, was also in the fuel tanks) "

This is not entirely the case German planes as an example did not run on High octane fuel, their have been some very informative posts int he past regarding this Lemurs did some very good stuff on this, in a nut shell it depeneds on the fuel type the plane was designed to run on if designed to run a lower octane fuel at peak preformance a higher octaine fule is not going to realy give it a boost in preformance, do a search for the Ki-84 and Lemurs.

"test reports in the states, were getting 30-50 MPH more, then they were seeing in combat "

Again I beleave this had more to do with the condation of plane and not the fuel see the abve search tip thier is more on this their.

"and the landing gear was not a hassle that was corrected later, it was a hassle that was caused by the way the planes were being made "

Take the George for example, the N1K1 had a mid wing designe and very long landing gear that was complex and notiourios for being problem matic, the revised the airframe in the N1K2 and the landing gear changed as a result and the issue was largely stoped, thuse it was corected later...

"at least 2 of the testers has stated that, you are getting too many replacement pilots to start with, looks like the designers and the testers are somewhat in the same place as to how many should be given "

While it may be that initialy the Japanese are geting a few to many, these figurs are based to a degree on battles that the player may never fight, if you speaking from day one and refering to just those piolets available right before the war started you may well be corect, I personaly dont have a source that say they were short on day one, though I dont have reasion to question this at present, howeaver if you look above you will see that did not last to long, espichaly if you remove the losses from the batles that occured historicaly, given this they should have plenty of piolets and well trained ones at that.

...........

So my question sry for the large post , is this how it will be or is it prety much the same?

_____________________________



Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

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

(in reply to Captain Cruft)
Post #: 68
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/7/2007 8:40:28 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13796
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
I will say any bomber that comes near a big flak unit at low level is gonna suffer (I had a japanese air unit bomb an Indian AA Bde at low level the other day - it wasnt pretty) / did the same thing with a Blenheim Sqn on a few Jap AA units again it want pretty - low level against defended targets = pain.

I will leave the rest to the air team

(in reply to mullk)
Post #: 69
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/7/2007 8:43:21 PM   
TheElf


Posts: 3812
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Corpus Christi, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

Just to clarify. Can Naval Search now be run at night?

Overall it's looking splendid!



Yes.

_____________________________

WAR IN THE PACIFIC: Admiral's Edition - Air Team Lead

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to Captain Cruft)
Post #: 70
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/7/2007 8:44:15 PM   
TheElf


Posts: 3812
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Corpus Christi, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

From an old thread on this Piolet traing topick, posted by me:

.........

While it is true to a point, it does not tell you all the little details, it gives the begining and end but not the all important middle, and it genneralises both services and they did differ.

...........

Passages from The Japanese Naval Avaitor in WW2, which give more details about the Middle and begining, I have been reading Beads Pop, aka Bill Pop's memoiur about his time with VF 17 and am going over the training he receaved early on and it is interesting to compare the early war Japanese Training and the Navy training he receaved, while I havent got to the point of doing a direct comparasion it still looks like mid war Japanese training was certainily on a par with the US Navy training.

The Myth is that the Japanese had during the war very low numbers of piolets and very porly trained ones.

The reality is that initialy they had a slow perioud during the first year of the war whear they had piolets coming off the training line at prewar pace, then later in the first year 42, we see the ramping up of the programe, and then what was for Japan large numbers of piolets becoming available..then a Boom in numbers..somthing like slow...fast...warp drive..then very slow (Late 45).

Skill leval was good Beter than the west, then on par with the west then not so good.

This is a simplifacation to be shure but prety much how it happened, like many things were fighting an uphill battle aganst what has been for many years commonly preceived to be true of somthing that has to do with Japan in WW2.

From the Book, Imperial Japanese Naval Aviator 1937-45 by Osama Tagaya:


p.9: "During the 1937-45 war , some 18,900 Yokern of all classses were killed in action out of 241,463 entering trainess. (This figure does not include the old Sohren programe priour to its incorperation into the Hei-Class Yokaren, or any of he commissioned Officer programs)

Most all Japanese Naval avators were enlistedmen.

"In retrospect the IJN maintained a rigorously exclusive policy in it's avaitor programe for to long. The otsu Yokaren admitded little more than 200men anualy up to 1938, and class size did not excead 1,000 untill may 1941. Otsu Yokaren Class No. 19 of December 1942 still had only 1,500 recutes. The figure then sudenly Jumped to 2,951 in the following Class No. 20 of May 1943. Among the Ko Yokaren by far the largest of the Yokaren programs , anual class sizes remained in the 250-260 range for most of the China War perioud. Numbers did not excead 1,000 until class No. 10 od Aprial 1942. A year later Class no. 12 counted 3,215, divided into three groups. The figure then exploded to almost 28,000 in class No. 13, divided into two groups in Otc. and Dec. 43."

"The Leveal of piolet skill remained High throught most of 1943"

"In 44 Carrier piolets were being introduced to flight deck landing with barely 150 hours flying time under their belts."

Japanese Naval Airmen who were the product of Pre war and early war traing were exceptionaly well trained, it would be fair and accurate to say that those trained in the mid war period were still very well trained and then those in the late war period were only trained. Pre war anywhear from 500(priour to the China war) to 200(during and after, up to 44 when it went down to 150) hours was normal for piolet traing priour to Being introduced to Carrier landings.

...........................

Apendix C

Naval Fighter Piolets(By Class)

1. This table shows all Naval piolets who have specialized in fighters from the day that Naval avation was boarn through the Pacific war, aranged by class. Because of the fact that the Oficial records are not complete, we enlisted the help of many other people. It was not posable to prepare a complete list as such; in adation, because of page limations, the following have been omited: 40th class [also 41st and 42nd], Avation Student Course; Hei 7th class; Ko 8th class; Otsu 14th class; and classes after the 12th class, flight reserve student course.

2. Marks following the names have the following meaning:(H) Honors reciepent, (K) Killed in actioj, and (A) Accedential deth.

3. Parentheses around a name indicate piolets who changed from specialising in one type of aircraft to another. In 1936, with the seperation of the land atack forces,a large number of personnel changed to a diferent brach.

4. Piolets who converted from other specialities to that of fighter piolet are grouped together, at the end of each class listing. from the middel od the Pacific War on their were a large number of personel who converted from seaplane fighters and from two seat recon-float planes.

5. Piolets of Night fighters and flaot fighters units are not included.

6. Designations of types of aircraft are in acordance with practices of the perioud: Carier based planes, seaplanes, ect...

..................

The book then goes into the listings for each clase example:

Hei 6th Class (flight trainee course 23rd class) (September 1942; Omura Air Groupe, graduates, twenity seven persons, Tokushima Airgroupe graduates 30 persons, Oita Air Groupe graduates, unknow number)

Hideo Iijima (K)
Tokio I-ishi (K)
Kane-ichi Ishi-i (A)
..........The list goes to name all these men...they ALL died, all but 4 in combat, the 4 were accendital deths.

This is just one class and a small one at that, another example:

54th Class (May 1941; Oita Air Groupe graduates, carrier fighter, twenity one persons)

55th Class (JUly 1941 Oita Air groupe graduates carrier fighters 9 persons)

56 th class ( (July 1941; Oita Air groupe graduates, carrier fighters, ninteen persons.)

So as you can just so far their were different names for the piolet training progame, and different clases running concurently, and as the preface above notes not all those are included hearin, and of those running not all the info is avilable.

Another example:

Otsu 11th class:

(21st class of flight trainee course; July 42 graduates 14 persons)

(23rd Class September 42 graduates Oita Air Groupe 48 persons.)

........

Ko 6th Class (July 1942 graduates of 21st class flight traniee, carrier fighters 41 persons)

All but two of this class KIA.

.......

Yo 11th Class November 43, total of all types 85 persons, and 37 Carrier fighter persons.

......

OK, as you can see it is complex and confuing at best to decifier, these clases ran concurently and their were different programes, the Yo for example were I beelave reserve piolet trainies, though asigned to front line units...Then we have the List's:


....................

Their is on several pages a totaled list of piplets trained for various periouds, example:


Ko 13(class)

28,111(graduates)

Oct. 43-July 44 (time frame)

38-42 (Classes)


Now that is one of the biger ones, their are as I say several pages of such listings.

......................

Some quick and shoty math generates a figure aproaching 2500 per month on average for the 8 years, this would of been much higher for the mid war perioud of course. And again this figure is not inclusive of all the programs in this time frame that fed piolets into the Navy, Officers came from other programs for example. These men were also funneled into the Following training programs specificaly geared toward their fininal assinements, Atack planes (Kats, Jills, ect), Dive Bombers, Fighters,Float planes, Ea planes, Land Atack Planes (Bettys, Nells,Peggys, ect...).

Some further coments on this insainly high figure:

A couple things to remember hear as we discuss this:

2500 is a rough estimate of the NAVY (Not Army)aircrew, it only refers to new inducties, not those drawn from withen the service as many were, nore the Oficers who were trained seperatly:

p.9: "During the 1937-45 war , some 18,900 Yokern of all classses were killed in action out of 241,463 entering trainess. (This figure does not include the old Sohren programe priour to its incorperation into the Hei-Class Yokaren, or any of he commissioned Officer programs"

About 20% of the entering number did not finish the programe in the prewar years, howeaver it should be noted that Pre war traing included up two 3 years of schooling before Flight traing was undertaken, during the war it was was around 1 year of classes before the flight traing was undertaken(and most admited made it). Pre war 200 to 500 hours of flight traing was the norm before the trainie was sent to a unit. During the war this was around 200 unit till 44 then it droped to about 150 hours. Also apon entering flight traing the men were divided into specific traing groups for the plane type they were to fly, Float plane, Atack, Fighter, ect...

The flight training part of their education lasted for 10 to 12 months, during which they got on avaerage 200 hours of flight time, the first 6 months was on initial flight traing whil the last 6 was on operationaly types advanced training. This was the routine in 41 (12 months on average) and in 42 and 43 (10 months on average). In 44 it droped to about 6 months of traing on average.

It should also be Noted that WiTP does not model the entire Japanese ecenomy, we dont have to bother witth the traing of Calvery troops and the nightmear that feading all those horses and acquiring them was, nore the traing of tank crews, paratroppers ect...

............


"still, for the planes, it was the fuel that made the planes top rate, weak, shoddy fuel, does not make a high performence plane (lots of reports on how the ground crew, used buckets to pore gas into the planes, what ever was in the bucket, was also in the fuel tanks) "

This is not entirely the case German planes as an example did not run on High octane fuel, their have been some very informative posts int he past regarding this Lemurs did some very good stuff on this, in a nut shell it depeneds on the fuel type the plane was designed to run on if designed to run a lower octane fuel at peak preformance a higher octaine fule is not going to realy give it a boost in preformance, do a search for the Ki-84 and Lemurs.

"test reports in the states, were getting 30-50 MPH more, then they were seeing in combat "

Again I beleave this had more to do with the condation of plane and not the fuel see the abve search tip thier is more on this their.

"and the landing gear was not a hassle that was corrected later, it was a hassle that was caused by the way the planes were being made "

Take the George for example, the N1K1 had a mid wing designe and very long landing gear that was complex and notiourios for being problem matic, the revised the airframe in the N1K2 and the landing gear changed as a result and the issue was largely stoped, thuse it was corected later...

"at least 2 of the testers has stated that, you are getting too many replacement pilots to start with, looks like the designers and the testers are somewhat in the same place as to how many should be given "

While it may be that initialy the Japanese are geting a few to many, these figurs are based to a degree on battles that the player may never fight, if you speaking from day one and refering to just those piolets available right before the war started you may well be corect, I personaly dont have a source that say they were short on day one, though I dont have reasion to question this at present, howeaver if you look above you will see that did not last to long, espichaly if you remove the losses from the batles that occured historicaly, given this they should have plenty of piolets and well trained ones at that.

...........

So my question sry for the large post , is this how it will be or is it prety much the same?


My God Brady...

_____________________________

WAR IN THE PACIFIC: Admiral's Edition - Air Team Lead

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 71
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/7/2007 8:46:27 PM   
Captain Cruft


Posts: 3648
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline
I think it would be better if we ask simple "atomic" questions.

Like, to paraphrase part of Leo's expositions, have the Naval Search/ASW routines been toned down?

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 72
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/7/2007 8:48:55 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10552
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline
Well it is a simple question with an insainly complicated past, and at least three spelling erors in it

_____________________________



Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

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

(in reply to Captain Cruft)
Post #: 73
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/7/2007 8:48:57 PM   
TheElf


Posts: 3812
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Corpus Christi, TX
Status: offline
quote:

In nutshell the problems I listed are:

#1
As I discovered in my tests the search routines (both "ASW" and "Naval Search" are 100% approximations - each and every aircraft in search routine "flies" each and every HEX inside range of search zone and in every HEX it has possibility of finding something (this can be even be seen on screen as search aircraft "flying" in concentric circles or spirals if you want).


It doesn't work that way anymore. I'll have to ask Michael to address this as my memory of all the changes is limited. Remember we've been at this for over a year and a half.

Planes on search perform search as if one plane is flying a spoke of the wheel. Once detect is made, the plane may return to base depending on distance flown; Simulates tracking contact or multiple searches if flown range is short.



_____________________________

WAR IN THE PACIFIC: Admiral's Edition - Air Team Lead

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 74
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/7/2007 8:49:39 PM   
TheElf


Posts: 3812
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Corpus Christi, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

Well it is a simple question with an insainly complicated past, and at least three spelling erors in it

Give me a minute to read it...

_____________________________

WAR IN THE PACIFIC: Admiral's Edition - Air Team Lead

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 75
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/7/2007 8:51:39 PM   
TheElf


Posts: 3812
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Corpus Christi, TX
Status: offline
quote:

#2
The land FLAK is very very ineffective and even massing of many FLAK units the results are almost insignificant (due to so called "FLAK Gap" - I didn't list those tests of mine now because it would further "clobber" the list).

At the same time the bombers, apparently, target with every bomb and, thus, the tests shown above can verify that bombing are more like "shooting fish in a barrel" than anything else...


The Air team did not touch land Flak. You may want to ask the Land team, but I seem to recall a fixit for the flak gap. Don't quote me.

_____________________________

WAR IN THE PACIFIC: Admiral's Edition - Air Team Lead

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 76
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/7/2007 8:56:07 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 22590
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

In nutshell the problems I listed are:

#1
As I discovered in my tests the search routines (both "ASW" and "Naval Search" are 100% approximations - each and every aircraft in search routine "flies" each and every HEX inside range of search zone and in every HEX it has possibility of finding something (this can be even be seen on screen as search aircraft "flying" in concentric circles or spirals if you want).


It doesn't work that way anymore. I'll have to ask Michael to address this as my memory of all the changes is limited. Remember we've been at this for over a year and a half.

Planes on search perform search as if one plane is flying a spoke of the wheel. Once detect is made, the plane may return to base depending on distance flown; Simulates tracking contact or multiple searches if flown range is short.


Excellent!!!

That's already great improvement and it can introduce "black holes" in search patterns because if, for example, one search aircraft is shot down - that "spoke of the wheel" route would then be not sarched (if area of search is big and number of available planes is small)!


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 77
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/7/2007 8:59:33 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 22590
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

#2
The land FLAK is very very ineffective and even massing of many FLAK units the results are almost insignificant (due to so called "FLAK Gap" - I didn't list those tests of mine now because it would further "clobber" the list).

At the same time the bombers, apparently, target with every bomb and, thus, the tests shown above can verify that bombing are more like "shooting fish in a barrel" than anything else...


The Air team did not touch land Flak. You may want to ask the Land team, but I seem to recall a fixit for the flak gap. Don't quote me.


Thanks for answering!

I will ask the "Land Team"...

BTW, did you guys checked and re-checked the level bombing of bombers against various kinds of targets (moving ships in opean sea, ships in port, land units etc.)?


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 78
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/7/2007 9:03:09 PM   
TheElf


Posts: 3812
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Corpus Christi, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

Well it is a simple question with an insainly complicated past, and at least three spelling erors in it

Give me a minute to read it...

Ok, Brady I see what you are getting at. I am familiar with those sources, and have a few of them myself. Right now the short answer is that this is complicated. Pilot training alone is a monster, even when you ahve all the data. There were so many shifts, ebbs, and flows that building a sleek playable model is inherently difficult.

Pilot training as is stands now uses Stock replacement rates, but we are not done with OoB stuff yet. Still working.

The fuel issue. I am familiar with and have come to some of the same conclusions, but at this time we do not have a feature that models decreased performance in IJ Aircraft as the economic/industrial situation deteriorates.

I WILL say that all Aircraft are given their due when it comes to their performance. I think you will be satisfied.

Ultimately it will be up to the allied player to force the IJ player into an attrition war. If he waits til he gets his Zeke-killers he'll only make his job harder. YOU CAN'T GIVE THE IJ PLAYER BREATHING ROOM.

_____________________________

WAR IN THE PACIFIC: Admiral's Edition - Air Team Lead

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 79
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/7/2007 9:12:09 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10552
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline
Thank You for taking the time to read that.

On to another topic...

Bomb's, The stock game is very generic in how it models ordance for all sides, has more atention been paid to this, for example their was no Japanese Army 50 kg weapon type, and the Army used the Japanese Navy 250 kg weapon type and their was no Japanese Army or Navy 500 kg weapon type.

As noted above also their is not at present a mechanism to alow the Japanese to use larger bombs aganst war ships like the allied player, is this under consideration?, given it is a hard coding isue and one that can not be edited out, I thought perhaps it would be nice if we could make the suffering equile in this regard, espichaly given the lack of signafagant historical evidance to justify the inclushion of this for allies anyway.

_____________________________



Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

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

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 80
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/7/2007 9:16:33 PM   
Snowman999

 

Posts: 90
Joined: 4/11/2007
Status: offline
My questions may straddle Air and Land:

1. Have Allied strategic bombing processes against the HI been looked at so fire storms are possible with in-game plane quantities? Have the general strategic targetting/damage routines in the City-target menu been addressed at all?

2. Any new news on A-bomb employment, damage, etc?

3. Air-dropped mines--any changes to the no-CAP-attacks problem? (Unless my memory is slipping and this was in the last patch.)

Let me join others in saying this is a stunning expansion. Far more than I'd hoped for. The tiered pilot pools alone will make replacement decisions truly strategic. Stock-pile bodies or shore up the front-lines early? Decide if the resoureces used for the airframe are more important than a pipeline-level expended pilot who won't "grow up" to be experienced if you throw him into battle now? Lots of combos like that.

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 81
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/7/2007 9:20:42 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 3915
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: vermont
Status: offline
quote:

3 spelling erors


Can't possibly be that many


(in reply to Iron Duke)
Post #: 82
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/7/2007 9:51:18 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 22590
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

Ahh yes... one other important thing (apart from bombers bombing)...

Was there any attempt to make centerline weapons more deadly than other front mounted weapons (in WitP the machine gun and/or cannon was accurate the same regardless if it was mounted in wings or centerline - that was not the case in history and this was expecially bad in WitP for Japanese since many of their aircraft only had rather "poor" but still centerline mounted weapons)?


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 83
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/7/2007 10:02:57 PM   
Bahnsteig

 

Posts: 68
Joined: 8/18/2004
From: Croatia\Germany
Status: offline
Is it still possible for the allied player to bomb from Chunking all japanese occupied bases in China without CAP and not getting intercepted on the way in or out enemy teritory?
Will one attack on 6000ft by 100 bombers still be able to destroy a whole 60 - resoucre centre? A resource center could present more mines spread over a hex.
And will the heavy AA be able to hit something at 6000ft?
Will the allied have to pay PP to transfer their heavies to China? Else they can start their bombing campain early 42 and bomb everything to dust till middle 42. Just wondering that didn't happen in the war if it was possible.
Should it be possible to bomb all resource centers? I don't know how it was in the war, but as British, Dutch, Chinese i wouldn't be happy to see my occupied resources be destroyed if there is a chance to recapture it.
And maybe a "destroyed beyond repair" possibility if the bombing is very succesfull, like a collapsed mine.
A port 5 could maybe be reduced to port 3 and so on.





(in reply to spence)
Post #: 84
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/7/2007 10:08:13 PM   
TheElf


Posts: 3812
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Corpus Christi, TX
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: Brady

quote:

Thank You for taking the time to read that.

No Problem.


quote:

On to another topic...

Bomb's, The stock game is very generic in how it models ordance for all sides, has more atention been paid to this, for example their was no Japanese Army 50 kg weapon type, and the Army used the Japanese Navy 250 kg weapon type and their was no Japanese Army or Navy 500 kg weapon type.


Not as yet. OTS.

quote:

As noted above also their is not at present a mechanism to alow the Japanese to use larger bombs aganst war ships like the allied player, is this under consideration?, given it is a hard coding isue and one that can not be edited out, I thought perhaps it would be nice if we could make the suffering equile in this regard, espichaly given the lack of signafagant historical evidance to justify the inclushion of this for allies anyway.


OTS.


_____________________________

WAR IN THE PACIFIC: Admiral's Edition - Air Team Lead

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 85
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/7/2007 10:10:40 PM   
TheElf


Posts: 3812
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Corpus Christi, TX
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: Snowman999

My questions may straddle Air and Land:

quote:

1. Have Allied strategic bombing processes against the HI been looked at so fire storms are possible with in-game plane quantities? Have the general strategic targetting/damage routines in the City-target menu been addressed at all?

OTS
quote:


2. Any new news on A-bomb employment, damage, etc?

OTS
quote:

3. Air-dropped mines--any changes to the no-CAP-attacks problem? (Unless my memory is slipping and this was in the last patch.)

OTS
quote:


Let me join others in saying this is a stunning expansion. Far more than I'd hoped for. The tiered pilot pools alone will make replacement decisions truly strategic. Stock-pile bodies or shore up the front-lines early? Decide if the resoureces used for the airframe are more important than a pipeline-level expended pilot who won't "grow up" to be experienced if you throw him into battle now? Lots of combos like that.


Thanks for the vote of confidence. Yes, making the whole system a bit more dynamic was the goal. Will take some serious testing to see how well we did.



_____________________________

WAR IN THE PACIFIC: Admiral's Edition - Air Team Lead

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to Snowman999)
Post #: 86
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/7/2007 10:11:55 PM   
TheElf


Posts: 3812
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Corpus Christi, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

Ahh yes... one other important thing (apart from bombers bombing)...

Was there any attempt to make centerline weapons more deadly than other front mounted weapons (in WitP the machine gun and/or cannon was accurate the same regardless if it was mounted in wings or centerline - that was not the case in history and this was expecially bad in WitP for Japanese since many of their aircraft only had rather "poor" but still centerline mounted weapons)?


Leo "Apollo11"


Yes. Accuracy is higher for fuselage mounted weaponry. This is an across the board change Allied and IJ. No fanboy-ism here!

_____________________________

WAR IN THE PACIFIC: Admiral's Edition - Air Team Lead

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 87
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/7/2007 10:14:51 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 22590
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Ahh yes... one other important thing (apart from bombers bombing)...

Was there any attempt to make centerline weapons more deadly than other front mounted weapons (in WitP the machine gun and/or cannon was accurate the same regardless if it was mounted in wings or centerline - that was not the case in history and this was expecially bad in WitP for Japanese since many of their aircraft only had rather "poor" but still centerline mounted weapons)?


Yes. Accuracy is higher for fuselage mounted weaponry. This is an across the board change Allied and IJ. No fanboy-ism here!


Great!

BTW, the Japanese aircraft will benefit this most since most numerous Allied fighters all had only wing mounted weapons...


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 88
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/7/2007 10:17:14 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10552
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline
OTS-Fair enough, off to sacrafice some more chickens...

New Question:

Bombing, a peave of mine has always been the comparative inabality of Japanese bombers and some comenwealth types to deploy their smaller but larger in number bombloads in the stock game, the result is that in atacking airfileds espichaly they are at a signafagant disavantage.
It recently came to my atention that the size of the bomb does not matter when it comes to creating runway hits, so a B-17 per hit will do as much damage as a Betty, but the betty is stuck with a couple 250 kg bombs instead of a dozen 60 kg bombs it would use for such a sortie historicaly.
So, while hiustoricaly Japanes bombers could and often did lay waste to allied airfields with bombing runs using the smaller ordance, in game they are not able to do so.

Question: Has this been looked at?


_____________________________



Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

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

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 89
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/7/2007 10:18:30 PM   
TheElf


Posts: 3812
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Corpus Christi, TX
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: Bahnsteig

quote:

Is it still possible for the allied player to bomb from Chunking all japanese occupied bases in China without CAP and not getting intercepted on the way in or out enemy teritory?


Hard to say. It would depend on whether he had bombers in Chungking with the range to do so. All A/C have been reviewed for accurate ranges and stats.

quote:

Will one attack on 6000ft by 100 bombers still be able to destroy a whole 60 - resoucre centre? A resource center could present more mines spread over a hex.

I don't know. This would have to be tested specifically. We have not change the way ordnance works in Air to Ground attacks, so it may be SAIEW...

quote:

And will the heavy AA be able to hit something at 6000ft?

The Air Team did not change land-based AAA. See my previous post on what the land team may have done

quote:

Will the allied have to pay PP to transfer their heavies to China? Else they can start their bombing campain early 42 and bomb everything to dust till middle 42. Just wondering that didn't happen in the war if it was possible.


I'll let my OoB maven answer this one. Off the top though I think there are some movement restrictions on units in other commands...


quote:

Should it be possible to bomb all resource centers? I don't know how it was in the war, but as British, Dutch, Chinese i wouldn't be happy to see my occupied resources be destroyed if there is a chance to recapture it.

OTS, SAIEW.

quote:

And maybe a "destroyed beyond repair" possibility if the bombing is very succesfull, like a collapsed mine.
A port 5 could maybe be reduced to port 3 and so on.


OTS








_____________________________

WAR IN THE PACIFIC: Admiral's Edition - Air Team Lead

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to Bahnsteig)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   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

0.133