Matrix Games Forums

War in the West gets its first update!Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm version 2.08 is now available!Command gets huge update!Order of Battle: Pacific Featured on Weekly Streaming SessionA new fight for Battle Academy!Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager is out for Mac!The definitive wargame of the Western Front is out now! War in the West gets teaser trailer and Twitch Stream!New Preview AAR for War in the West!War in the West Manual preview
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: RA 6.0

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: RA 6.0 Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/8/2013 1:25:32 PM   
cavalry

 

Posts: 1882
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Blackboys East Sussex UK
Status: offline
In this mod I think the Yamato and Mushushi are the end of the BB ride , the other two one of which is Shinano is cancelled - in place you get more interesting toys including better CV in the pipe, plus two CB and 2 CA and better and more CL. All in all Japan is probably strongest as 1943 opens - interesting stuff.

(in reply to razanon)
Post #: 211
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/8/2013 2:22:02 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 7311
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Michael: Need you to look at the 6.0 files so I can get finished with my portion. Put any suggestions you have here.


One of my areas of concern would be the amount of recon aircraft the Allies get. From the end of '42 until mid-'44, there is a struggle to keep some units with enough airframes. Here is what I see and would like.

F-4...Aussie...10/42 to 10/42 at 3/mo...Extend replacements until 10/44 (currently, the Aussie recon can go two years without any airframes)
Spit PR IV...Brit...10/42 until 10/42 at 4/mo...Extend until 9/43
F-5A...US...1/43 to 5/44 at 6/mo...Switch from replacement to production to ensure they come in.
F4F-7 Wildcats...USN...11/42 to 12/42 at 8/mo... Lower to 4/mo, but extend replacements until 12/43
PB4Y-1P Lib...USN...12/42 at 1 & 4/mo...Switch over to just 6 production per month

Op losses for any recon with great range can easily be very high.

C-24A Commando...US...8/43 until 10/44 at 3/mo... increase to 6/mo as I have many units that I can never fill out.

P-38s
P-38E...US...5/42 to 5/42 at 24/mo...no issue here
P-38F...US...8/42 to 9/42 at 40/mo...they come in as replacement, should be production!!
P-38G...US...10/42 to 5/43 at 20/mo...these come in as production
P-38H, J, L models come in as adding 20/mo production
So, you go from 40 to 20/mo when you change from F to G models. Simple fix in Editor.

Wish list will be some more Spit VIIIs for both Brits and Aussie.

PP - With all the changes MichaelM has made with Beta patches, would it be good to increase daily PP from 50 to either 55 or 60/day??

Ok, now onto land and sea.


< Message edited by ny59giants -- 7/8/2013 2:53:09 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to razanon)
Post #: 212
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/8/2013 2:51:40 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 7311
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
At Sea....

Neither BB Washington or CL Helena have a FP group attached.

CVL Hermes - place the Fulmer FB (#1863) on board, but re-size it to 8 planes. Change the upgrades for this FB to CV type fighters vs land.

Omaha CL - What happened to the optional CLAA upgrade paths??

French warships - All have multiple devices missing when you pull up the ships.

I didn't see the optional upgrade paths for some ships. Were there some to go to CVL/CVEs??

< Message edited by ny59giants -- 7/8/2013 2:53:56 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 213
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/8/2013 3:16:59 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 7311
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
On Land....

Is there a possibility of having the Allied AA production tweaked??

40mm Bofor AA Gun 42 at 12/mo to maybe 15 or 20/mo
90mm m1A1 AA gun at 20/mo to???
90mm M2 DP gun at 30/mo to???
40mm M1 Bofors at 40/mo to ???

_____________________________


(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 214
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/8/2013 4:33:23 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11380
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Just got CVL Mizuho but she came in WITHOUT her organic air group. Anyone else had issues with this for the CS--CVL conversions?

Thanks Michael! Keep it up.

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 215
RE: 9999 days upgrade - 7/9/2013 9:57:44 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2517
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Shall begin work on Japanese starting shipping making sure there are enough ships present to haul Dec 7th LCUs. Should be pretty easy. Will also check the Allied Side. FatR: Did you get the USS Charlotte created (CA--CV Hybrid)?


I didn't touch anything Allied. Had my hands full as it is.

By the way, I might be free for a couple of days, to complete any urgent work that might be needed.

_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 216
RE: 9999 days upgrade - 7/9/2013 10:01:06 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2517
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cpt Sherwood
Looking at the 5.5 version in the editor and I notice that the J6M1 has a different 30mm gun for normal and extended range missions.


Thanks. Will fix.

_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Cpt Sherwood)
Post #: 217
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/9/2013 10:06:18 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2517
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

On Land....

Is there a possibility of having the Allied AA production tweaked??


I think that land-based flak is one of the areas where Allies need a nerf, if anything.

About extra recon aircraft for them, well, I'm neutral on this issue.




_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 218
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/11/2013 2:59:30 AM   
Cpt Sherwood

 

Posts: 837
Joined: 12/1/2005
From: A Very Nice Place in the USA
Status: offline
In RA 5.5 the N1K4-A George is CV capable. Is that intended?

_____________________________

“Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.” ― Lucius Annaeus Seneca

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 219
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/11/2013 7:02:57 AM   
bigred


Posts: 2908
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: razanon

hi friend, ETA??

thax in advance superb mod!!!

have a question is there any guide detailed guide of changes stats and differences between stock and your mod? (like why shinano is not here in production)



Long story...designers traded in the shinano and other ships and received 3 sho class CVs..

check this thread from the beginning... http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3071237

< Message edited by bigred -- 7/11/2013 7:04:58 AM >


_____________________________

---bigred---

IJ Production mistakes--
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2597400

(in reply to razanon)
Post #: 220
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/11/2013 4:32:41 PM   
cavalry

 

Posts: 1882
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Blackboys East Sussex UK
Status: offline
Is the art updated since RA 5.4 my version?

Will there be an updated version altogether of the art?
In 5.4 there were some missing items mainly planes I think.

Looking forward to this coming out and I will start a new PBEM game.

(in reply to bigred)
Post #: 221
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/11/2013 8:06:28 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2517
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

A couple of very belated answers

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
The only AA I worked with was the creation of those small AA Bn for the Fleet. Believe there were nine of the those units designed to go with the Fleet HQ.


Then most likely the stock was changed. I do not mind reducing TOEs of IJA's AA units to conform with it


quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol
Hmm... does the TOE of an Air HQs able to upgrade to get the radar etc.?
(IMHO great idea!)
If that was your intention, there's a typo in TOE upgrade date.
9999 means it will never upgrade.


Will fix.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cpt Sherwood

In RA 5.5 the N1K4-A George is CV capable. Is that intended?


Yes, as can be seen in its model designation.



John, are you working on the Allied side now?

_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to viberpol)
Post #: 222
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/11/2013 8:14:57 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2517
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cavalry

Is the art updated since RA 5.4 my version?


No.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cavalryWill there be an updated version altogether of the art?


I hope so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cavalryIn 5.4 there were some missing items mainly planes I think.


Can you name them?

Also a reminder - RA 6.0 still needs the following pieces of ship art:

The new light cruiser


W 101 Minesweeper
http://www.navypedia.org/ships/japan/jap_ms_ex_brit.htm

Kamishima Minelayer
http://www.navypedia.org/ships/japan/jap_ml_kamishima.htm


SS Type LST
http://www.navypedia.org/ships/japan/jap_aux_ss.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IJA_SS-19.jpg

Sokuten/Ajiro Minelayer (the art in AE doesn't really resemble its real looks). The same art except with a bigger gun fore and a gun instead of AAMG tower mount aft should be used for new escorts.
http://www.navypedia.org/ships/japan/jap_ml_sokuten.htm

New PT boat type

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/germany/ger_mb_s30.htm
http://www.warshipsww2.eu/lode.php?language=E&idtrida=875

I will be very grateful if anyone is willing to help with them.


_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to cavalry)
Post #: 223
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/12/2013 12:31:23 PM   
razanon

 

Posts: 107
Joined: 6/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigred

quote:

ORIGINAL: razanon

hi friend, ETA??

thax in advance superb mod!!!

have a question is there any guide detailed guide of changes stats and differences between stock and your mod? (like why shinano is not here in production)



Long story...designers traded in the shinano and other ships and received 3 sho class CVs..

check this thread from the beginning... http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3071237


thx friend

(in reply to bigred)
Post #: 224
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/12/2013 12:45:07 PM   
razanon

 

Posts: 107
Joined: 6/26/2007
Status: offline
what class is the new class cruiser?

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 225
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/12/2013 6:05:49 PM   
bigred


Posts: 2908
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline
bump?
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cpt Sherwood

In RA 5.5 the N1K4-A George is CV capable. Is that intended?



_____________________________

---bigred---

IJ Production mistakes--
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2597400

(in reply to Cpt Sherwood)
Post #: 226
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/12/2013 8:32:49 PM   
Cpt Sherwood

 

Posts: 837
Joined: 12/1/2005
From: A Very Nice Place in the USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigred

bump?
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cpt Sherwood

In RA 5.5 the N1K4-A George is CV capable. Is that intended?




From FatRs response above, I am not smart enough to know that the -A in the model
designation means that it is CV capable. So, yes it is intended.

_____________________________

“Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.” ― Lucius Annaeus Seneca

(in reply to bigred)
Post #: 227
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/12/2013 8:53:23 PM   
razanon

 

Posts: 107
Joined: 6/26/2007
Status: offline
its my first attempt making Ship ART.

please be sincere if is not really good ill try it better.



Attachment (1)

< Message edited by razanon -- 7/12/2013 8:57:28 PM >

(in reply to Cpt Sherwood)
Post #: 228
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/12/2013 9:50:07 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2517
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: razanon
what class is the new class cruiser?


Light cruiser.

And Bigred, I've already answered that question before in the thread.

< Message edited by FatR -- 7/13/2013 7:42:45 AM >


_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to razanon)
Post #: 229
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/12/2013 10:09:31 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2517
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: razanon
please be sincere if is not really good ill try it better.


The forums ate my answer. The long story short, I hope someone who understands art better than me will comment, and thanks for your help regardless!


_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to razanon)
Post #: 230
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/13/2013 6:29:00 AM   
vonmoltke


Posts: 181
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
I only recently discovered RA, but I love it so far. I eagerly anticipate version 6.0.

I noticed a couple minor database errors in 5.5, though:
- Aikoku Maru AMC has max ammo 24 for the port side AAMG, but max ammo 4 for the starboard side AAMG
- New Jersey 4/43, Iowa 3/45, and New Jersey 3/45 BBs have 1 forward and 2 aft 16" turrets. Iowa 4/43 is correct with 2 forward and 1 aft.

_____________________________

This space reserved for future expansion

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 231
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/13/2013 10:20:08 PM   
bigred


Posts: 2908
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline
quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigred

bump?
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cpt Sherwood

In RA 5.5 the N1K4-A George is CV capable. Is that intended?


From FatRs response above, I am not smart enough to know that the -A in the model
designation means that it is CV capable. So, yes it is intended.


http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2410616&mpage=4&key=N1K4-A%2CGeorge�
post 93
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2410616&mpage=7&key=N1K4-A%2CGeorge%26%2365533%3B
post 188

quote:

I decided to include N1K4-A (carrier-capable George, 45/5) and A7M3 (Sam with 6x20mm, 45/9) while I'm at it, to give the player more planes to look forward for 1945. Both of these models were developed but not produced in RL (N1K4-A got to prototype stage, while the incomplete prototype for A7M3 was destroyed when the plant got bombed). A7M2 will upgrade to A7M3, A7M3-J will have its own microfactory.

EDIT: I'm also thinking about D4Y5. In RL this MK9-powered plane remained under development at the time of Japan's capitulation. As in this scenario Mitshubishi MK9 is available earlier, it might enter production around 45/7-45/8.


As a side note, with PDU OFF no Japanese CVLs, assuming any survive to 1945, will ever carry Georges or Sams (with PDU ON, as far as I understand, groups can always be upgraded to any fighters of a particular class). "No fighters but Zeros on CVLs" can be included as a recommended houserule.

< Message edited by FatR -- 3/25/2010 6:04:29 AM >


< Message edited by bigred -- 7/13/2013 11:11:58 PM >


_____________________________

---bigred---

IJ Production mistakes--
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2597400

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 232
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/13/2013 10:33:36 PM   
bigred


Posts: 2908
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline
hmmm. post 98..
quote:


John 3rd

Might be wise to begin a House Rules line of discussion on this Thread:

1. No planes other then Zeros on Japanese CVLs.


or make sure they are distracted...

< Message edited by bigred -- 7/13/2013 10:36:16 PM >


_____________________________

---bigred---

IJ Production mistakes--
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2597400

(in reply to bigred)
Post #: 233
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/13/2013 11:50:44 PM   
bigred


Posts: 2908
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2410616&mpage=12&key=N1K4-A%2CGeorge%26%2365533%3B
post 335
quote:

OK. Thanks guys.

I think we shall take a middle ground approach here. How about 450 IJA (down 165) and 300 IJN?(down 180) for a net reduction of 345 Pilots. This is a serious savings in points and is probably much more realistic anyway. I concur that you can just train them up through on-map programs so what is really the use for getting crappy pilots?!!

As to the aircraft upgrade question, I get REALLY nervous for players that might abuse the possibility of making all IJN fighters into something that shouldn't be. This is the point of what we created with two IJN Fighter lines of development. Those interceptors will be highly useful flying CAP, whereas, the CV-Based branch has range and far more flexibility. This change of pace within the IJN fascinates me as a player. Add the George line and you have three major Fighter choices. FUN!

Comments to this?

Stansilav--I will send you the current scenario files (my time) tomorrow morning. Do you think you can add Mr. 88 and move it into those later AA units pretty quickly? Am itching to start this up and see what happens!

BANZAI!!!


Two questions from the thread review.
1. What was the effect of reducing naval pilot production late game?
2. What has been the effect of 88mm AA deployment into the field?(as allied player I suspect alot of them are deployed at moulmein choke point and they convinced my not to air bomb Moulmein)





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by bigred -- 7/14/2013 12:19:12 AM >


_____________________________

---bigred---

IJ Production mistakes--
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2597400

(in reply to bigred)
Post #: 234
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/14/2013 12:57:55 AM   
bigred


Posts: 2908
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline
The british 3.7 inch AA gun is rated very weak against the japs and americans in terms of accuracy. Does anyone know why?
from wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QF_3.7-inch_AA_gun
quote:


wiki: The 3.7-Inch QF AA was Britain's primary heavy anti-aircraft gun during World War II. It was roughly the equivalent of the German 88 mm FlaK and American 90mm, but with a slightly larger calibre of 94 mm. It was used throughout World War II in all theatres except the Eastern Front. The gun was produced in six major variants, two versions (mobile and fixed) and in considerable numbers. The Mk VI ordnance used only with a fixed mounting gave vastly increased performance


I would request an accuracy rating of 150 for the 3.7"AA gun.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by bigred -- 7/14/2013 4:01:22 AM >


_____________________________

---bigred---

IJ Production mistakes--
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2597400

(in reply to bigred)
Post #: 235
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/14/2013 1:19:01 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 15092
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
The data below indicate the gun should be rated at 150 accuracy - midway between a ROF of 10 and 20 - its practical range.

QF 3.7-inch AA gun


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search



QF 3.7-in Heavy Anti-aircraft Gun

3,7in AA Gun-Aberdeen.00051hw5.jpg
3.7 inch Anti-Aircraft Gun on display at the U.S. Army Ordnance Museum in Aberdeen, Maryland

Type
Anti-aircraft gun

Place of origin
United Kingdom

Service history


In service
1937–1959

Used by
UK and Commonwealth

Wars
World War II

Production history


Designer
Vickers[1]

Designed
1937

Produced
1937–1945

Number built
approx. 10 thousand[citation needed]

Specifications


Weight
20,541 lb (9,317 kg)

Length
4.96 m (16 ft 3 in)

Barrel length
4.7 m (15 ft 5 in) L/50

Crew
7

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Shell
28 lb (12.7 kg)

Calibre
3.7 inches (94 mm)

Carriage
Mobile and static versions

Elevation
-5 to +80

Traverse
360

Rate of fire
10/20 rpm

Muzzle velocity
Mk I - III: 2,670 ft/s (810 m/s) (new)
2,598 ft/s (792 m/s) (worn)[2]
Mk VI : 3,425 ft/s (1,044 m/s)[3]

Maximum range
Maximum horizontal: 18,800 m (61,679 ft)
Maximum slant: 12,000 m (39,370 ft)
Ceiling Mk I-II: 9,000 m (29,527 ft) Mk VI: 45,000 ft (13,716 m)

The 3.7-Inch QF AA was Britain's primary heavy anti-aircraft gun during World War II. It was roughly the equivalent of the German 88 mm FlaK and American 90mm, but with a slightly larger calibre of 94 mm. It was used throughout World War II in all theatres except the Eastern Front. The gun was produced in six major variants, two versions (mobile and fixed) and in considerable numbers. The Mk VI ordnance used only with a fixed mounting gave vastly increased performance. It remained in use after the war until AA guns were replaced by guided missiles, notably the English Electric Thunderbird, in the late 1950s.



Contents
[hide] 1 History 1.1 Background
1.2 QF 3.7

2 Description 2.1 Gun
2.2 Ammunition

3 Ordnance Variants 3.1 Mk I
3.2 Mk II
3.3 Mk III
3.4 Mk IV
3.5 Mk V
3.6 Mark VI

4 Performance
5 Field and Anti-tank
6 Operators
7 References
8 External links


History[edit]

Background[edit]

During World War I anti-aircraft guns and anti-aircraft gunnery developed rapidly. The British Army eventually adopted the QF 3 inch AA gun as the most commonly used type. Shortly before the end of the war a new QF 3.6 inch gun was accepted for service but the end of the war meant it did not enter production. After the war, all anti-aircraft guns except the 3 inch gun were scrapped.

However, the War had shown the possibilities and potential for air attack and lessons had been learned. The British had used AA guns in most theatres in daylight, as well as against night attacks at home. They had also formed an AA Experimental Section during the war and accumulated much data that was subjected to extensive analysis. After an immediate post war hiatus, the Army re-established peacetime anti-aircraft units in 1922. In 1925 the RAF established a new command, Air Defence of Great Britain, and the Royal Artillery's anti-aircraft units were placed under its command.

In 1924–5 the War Office published the two-volume Textbook of Anti-Aircraft Gunnery. It included five key recommendations for Heavy Anti-Aircraft (HAA) guns:
Shells of improved ballistic shape with HE fillings and mechanical time fuzes.
Higher rates of fire assisted by automation.
Height finding by long-base optical rangefinders.
Centralised control of fire on each gun position, directed by tachymetric instruments which incorporated the facility to apply corrections of the moment for meteorological and wear factors.
More accurate sound-location for the direction of searchlights and to provide plots for barrage fire.

Two assumptions underpinned the British approach to HAA fire. First, aimed fire was the primary method and this was enabled by predicting gun data from visually tracking the target with continuous height and range input. Second, that the target would maintain a steady course, speed and height. HAA was to engage targets up to 24,000 feet. Mechanical, as opposed to igniferous, time fuzes were required because the speed of powder burning varied with height so fuze length was not a simple function of time of flight. Automated fire ensured a constant rate of fire that made it easier to predict where each shell should be individually aimed.[4]

During the 1920s Vickers developed the predictor, an electro-mechanical computer that took height and range data from an optical rangefinder, applied corrections for non-standard conditions and was used by its operators to visually track a target, its output predicted firing data and fuze setting via the "mag-slip" electrical induction system to dials on each gun in a battery, the gun layers moved the gun to match pointers on the dials. The 3 inch AA guns were modified accordingly.[4]

QF 3.7[edit]

In 1928 the general characteristics for a new HAA gun were agreed on; a bore of 3.7 inches (94 mm) firing 25 pounds (11 kg) shells with a ceiling of 28,000 feet (8,500 m). However, finance was very tight and no action was taken until 1930s, when the specification was enhanced to a 28 pounds (13 kg) shell, 3,000 feet per second (910 m/s) muzzle velocity, a 35,000 feet (11,000 m) ceiling, a towed road speed of 25 miles per hour (40 km/h), maximum weight of 8 tons and an into action time of 15 minutes.

In 1934 Vickers Armstrong produced a mock-up and proceeded to develop prototypes of the weapon, which was selected and passed acceptance tests in 1936.[5][6] However, the weight specification was exceeded and the muzzle velocity not achieved. Furthermore, the initial mechanical time fuze, No 206, was still some years from production so the igniferous No 199 had to be used, and its lesser running time limited the effective ceiling. Gun production started the following year.

On 1 January 1938 the British air defences had only 180 anti-aircraft guns larger than 50 mm, and most of these were the older 3 inch guns. This number increased to 341 by the September 1938 (Munich Crisis), to 540 in September 1939 (declaration of war), and to 1,140 during the Battle of Britain. Production continued until 1945, averaging 228 guns per month throughout the period. Guns were also manufactured in Australia.

Being a high velocity gun, with a single charge and firing substantial quantities of ammunition, meant that barrel life could be short. By the end of 1940 the barrel situation was becoming critical. Some of the substantial numbers of spare barrels required were produced in Canada.

In British service the gun replaced the 3 inch AA gun in Heavy Anti-Aircraft (HAA) Batteries of the Royal Artillery, almost always in Heavy Anti Aircraft Regiments, which were usually in an Anti-Aircraft Brigade. Each regiment usually had three batteries, each of 8 guns in two troops. A total of 212 of these HAA Regiments, Royal Artillery, and two each of the Royal Marines and Royal Malta Artillery were eventually formed. Other World War II users were India (about 14 regiments), Canada (2 or 3 regiments), East & West Africa (5 regiments), Australia (equivalent of about 13 regiments).

(in reply to bigred)
Post #: 236
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/14/2013 1:34:11 AM   
MateDow


Posts: 217
Joined: 8/6/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bigred

I would request an accuracy rating of 150 for the mk4 mod



Since the data came from DDBs, there is probably a reason, but it also might have been an oversight.

(in reply to bigred)
Post #: 237
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/14/2013 3:55:20 AM   
bigred


Posts: 2908
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MateDow

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigred

I would request an accuracy rating of 150 for the mk4 mod



Since the data came from DDBs, there is probably a reason, but it also might have been an oversight.


I sent a pm to JWE and asked his review.

_____________________________

---bigred---

IJ Production mistakes--
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2597400

(in reply to MateDow)
Post #: 238
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/14/2013 12:28:01 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 871
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
Note that the 3.7in is listed as Type - DP gun, the others are listed as Type - AA gun. Since RA is using the Babes dataset, then this means that the numbers in the editor for the 3.7in are the anti-surface values, whereas for the others they are the anti-air values. The other pair (AA values for 3.7in and ASu values, if they have them defined, for the 88mm and 90mm) will require you to look at the .csv files.

Also, the Japanese 88mm you look at is the 'old' one, which is no longer in use in AE. The correct one is Device #1918. Same goes for the US 90mm - the correct one is #1137.

EDIT:
Looking at the .csv's reveals that the 3.7in MkVI is rated as 66 for its AA role. Contrast this with 45 on the correct Japanese 88mm, and 72 on the correct US 90mm (#1137).

< Message edited by JuanG -- 7/14/2013 12:46:18 PM >


_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to bigred)
Post #: 239
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/14/2013 2:51:33 PM   
bigred


Posts: 2908
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Note that the 3.7in is listed as Type - DP gun, the others are listed as Type - AA gun. Since RA is using the Babes dataset, then this means that the numbers in the editor for the 3.7in are the anti-surface values, whereas for the others they are the anti-air values. The other pair (AA values for 3.7in and ASu values, if they have them defined, for the 88mm and 90mm) will require you to look at the .csv files.

Also, the Japanese 88mm you look at is the 'old' one, which is no longer in use in AE. The correct one is Device #1918. Same goes for the US 90mm - the correct one is #1137.

EDIT:
Looking at the .csv's reveals that the 3.7in MkVI is rated as 66 for its AA role. Contrast this with 45 on the correct Japanese 88mm, and 72 on the correct US 90mm (#1137).

Thanks JuanG...

_____________________________

---bigred---

IJ Production mistakes--
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2597400

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 240
Page:   <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: RA 6.0 Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   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

0.121