Matrix Games Forums

Hell is Approaching 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!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 1.40 OOB Issues

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: 1.40 OOB Issues Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 2/3/2005 7:38:31 PM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Spig spent a lot of time convincing the Navy Brass that jeep carriers were vital for extended carrier operations ... now you're telling him otherwise?! :)


I'm saying that in July of 43, most players will have 6 CVE's useful only for replenishment and only 1 to 4 CV's that need replenishment. What you need at July of 43 is useful CAP for your task forces. I'd rather have 2 (at most) CVE's useful for replenishment and 7 to 8 CVE's that have a useful airgroup. Now, when I get to 12/43 or early 44, then those 6 replenishment CVE's will start to become handy. I guess every game will come out differently, and some will have lots of CV's in mid 43, but right now, I'm wishing that those 6 CVE's could escort troop transport task forces.

Oh well. I think i get a useful one in October. That'll make 4.

(in reply to eMonticello)
Post #: 151
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 2/4/2005 12:59:12 AM   
eMonticello


Posts: 525
Joined: 3/15/2002
Status: offline
I can only respond by paraphrasing the current SecDef:

"As you know, you go to war with the navy you have, not the navy you might want or wish to have at a later time."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

quote:

Spig spent a lot of time convincing the Navy Brass that jeep carriers were vital for extended carrier operations ... now you're telling him otherwise?! :)


I'm saying that in July of 43, most players will have 6 CVE's useful only for replenishment and only 1 to 4 CV's that need replenishment. What you need at July of 43 is useful CAP for your task forces. I'd rather have 2 (at most) CVE's useful for replenishment and 7 to 8 CVE's that have a useful airgroup. Now, when I get to 12/43 or early 44, then those 6 replenishment CVE's will start to become handy. I guess every game will come out differently, and some will have lots of CV's in mid 43, but right now, I'm wishing that those 6 CVE's could escort troop transport task forces.

Oh well. I think i get a useful one in October. That'll make 4.


_____________________________


Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example. -- Pudd'nhead Wilson

(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 152
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 2/5/2005 1:01:36 AM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1775
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline
Hi,

there are Indian pilots in the pool but I was unable to find any units of the RIAF in the database/OOB. Would be nice to have them included in the game (would be somewhat problematic with No. 2 and No. 3 Squadrons because Hawker Audax is not in the game but the Westland Lysander might be an appropriate and similary useless substitute).

No. 1 Squadron. Formed on 1 April, 1933. Westland Wapiti, 1939-Hawker Hart, 1941-Westland Lysander, 1942-Hawker Hurricane.
No. 2 Squadron Formed 1 April 1941. Westland Wapiti, 1941-Audax, 1942-Hurricane
No. 3 Squadron Formed 1 October 1941. Hawker Audax, 1943-Hurricane
No. 4 Squadron Formed 1 February 1942. Westland Lysander, 1943-Hurricane IIC, 1945-Spitfire VIII
No. 6 Squadron. Formed on 1 December, 1942. It absorbed Nos 1 and 2 Coast Defence Flights. Hawker Hurricanes.
No. 7 Squadron. Formed on 1 December, 1942. It absorbed Nos 3 and 6 Coast Defence Flights. Vultee Vengeance 1944-Hurricane
No. 8 Squadron. Formed on 1 December, 1942. It absorbed No 5 Coast Defence Flight. Vultee Vengeance, 1944-Spitfire VIII
No. 9 Squadron. Formed on 3 January 1944. Hawker Hurricane IIC, 1945-Spitfire VIII
No. 10 Squadron. Formed on 20 February 1944. Hawker Hurricane IIC, 1945-Spitfire VIII.

K

(in reply to pry)
Post #: 153
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 2/6/2005 6:02:54 PM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline
quote:

I can only respond by paraphrasing the current SecDef:

"As you know, you go to war with the navy you have, not the navy you might want or wish to have at a later time."


That is true, and I would prefer historic accuracy over anything. But, I was thinking that none of these VR squadrons existed in 42 or early 43. Maybe the airgroup that starts on Sangamon wasn't a VR squadron, but an actual useful squadron. I think by late 43 or 44, they may have replaced the squadron's with VR squadrons.

In real life, after October 42, the US only had two serviceable CV's. And how many did they have in May of 43? 4 or maybe 5? What was the use of a VR squadron in that time period? Hey, we've got 300 planes on CVE's to use to replace losses from your two CV's. (ok, I'm exaggerating)

(in reply to eMonticello)
Post #: 154
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 2/6/2005 6:25:39 PM   
Lemurs!


Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline
I have added a couple Indian squadrons to the combined mod. Most Indian squadrons were used anti insurgency and to watch the Soviets.

Mike

_____________________________



(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 155
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 2/6/2005 6:55:05 PM   
eMonticello


Posts: 525
Joined: 3/15/2002
Status: offline
Using the editor, I found that the Sangamon-class CVE had VF/T CAGs. The Bogue-class CVE has VR CAGs. The Casablanca-class CVE had VCF/T CAGs. Conway points out that in rough weather, aircraft handling was difficult in the Bogue-class ships. In addition, the Bouge-class ships were AK-conversions (flight deck was 495ft x 69ft) while the Sangamon-class ships were AO-conversion with a longer flight deck (flight deck was 553 ft x 75ft). Finally, Nassau is the only '42 jeep carrier with a VR CAG in the game. In real life, she was ferrying planes around in the Southwest Pacific until April 1943 when she was finally given an opportunity to take on it's own CAG. I think it would be more realistic to have all CVEs to show up without CAGs, since they didn't seem to be organic to the ships.

http://www.ussnassaucve16.com/


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

That is true, and I would prefer historic accuracy over anything. But, I was thinking that none of these VR squadrons existed in 42 or early 43. Maybe the airgroup that starts on Sangamon wasn't a VR squadron, but an actual useful squadron. I think by late 43 or 44, they may have replaced the squadron's with VR squadrons.

In real life, after October 42, the US only had two serviceable CV's. And how many did they have in May of 43? 4 or maybe 5? What was the use of a VR squadron in that time period? Hey, we've got 300 planes on CVE's to use to replace losses from your two CV's. (ok, I'm exaggerating)


_____________________________


Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example. -- Pudd'nhead Wilson

(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 156
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 2/6/2005 7:21:17 PM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline
Sorry, I was using my memory to come up with the game examples. I'll concede. I thought there was a possiblility that some of the VR ships coming in 42/43 started out with normal air groups that changed to VR groups later in the war. You have shown me that the game is accurate as is, in regards to the CVE air groups.

Thanks for the information.

bc

(in reply to eMonticello)
Post #: 157
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 2/6/2005 10:20:46 PM   
eMonticello


Posts: 525
Joined: 3/15/2002
Status: offline
Actually, you are correct with regard to Nassau. Historically, it didn't have any CAG assigned to it until later in '43, although folks probably won't be happy if it didn't show up with something.

< Message edited by eMonticello -- 2/6/2005 8:22:06 PM >


_____________________________


Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example. -- Pudd'nhead Wilson

(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 158
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 2/9/2005 1:36:11 AM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline
One thing I'd like to see:

Some devices upgrade to other devices with exactly the same name. (example: US Army squad, USMC squad, etc)

I wish there was a date after the device name, so you'd know if the US Army squad in question was a crappy one that started in 12/41 or the kick @ss one that you get in 43 or 44. It'd sure help my decision on what divisions to use in combat.

US Army Squad 12/41
US Army Squad 4/42
US Army Squad 7/43
etc

There's major differences between these devices (I guessed on dates, so don't tell me my dates are wrong).

bc

(in reply to eMonticello)
Post #: 159
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 2/9/2005 1:42:07 AM   
eMonticello


Posts: 525
Joined: 3/15/2002
Status: offline
You can modify that information using the editor for you personal use. I'm thinking of adding the ship number to the Auxiliaries (AK-14 Regulus, for example), since I only want to use the Navy Auxiliaries for their proper role.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

One thing I'd like to see:

Some devices upgrade to other devices with exactly the same name. (example: US Army squad, USMC squad, etc)

I wish there was a date after the device name, so you'd know if the US Army squad in question was a crappy one that started in 12/41 or the kick @ss one that you get in 43 or 44. It'd sure help my decision on what divisions to use in combat.

US Army Squad 12/41
US Army Squad 4/42
US Army Squad 7/43
etc

There's major differences between these devices (I guessed on dates, so don't tell me my dates are wrong).

bc


_____________________________


Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example. -- Pudd'nhead Wilson

(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 160
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 2/17/2005 7:01:50 AM   
stubby331


Posts: 268
Joined: 10/24/2001
From: Perth, Western Australia
Status: offline
Regarding the "Swan" Class PG Comprising the ships SWAN, YARRA and WARREGO.

These ships are actually Grimsby Class.

IN WITP they are shown as having 2 x 4inch guns only (main armament). This is incorrect.

They actually had 3 x 4 inch guns comprising:

2 x 4 inch guns in a Twin mounted casemate Forward
1 x 4 inch gun in a single casemate Aft

For supporting reference:
http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/ships/yarra2.htm
http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/ships/swan2.htm
http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/grimsby.htm
http://users.hunterlink.net.au/~ciadm/Warrego/Page2.html

_____________________________

In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
- Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 161
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 2/17/2005 11:08:51 AM   
stubby331


Posts: 268
Joined: 10/24/2001
From: Perth, Western Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: stubby331

Regarding the "Swan" Class PG Comprising the ships SWAN, YARRA and WARREGO.

These ships are actually Grimsby Class.

IN WITP they are shown as having 2 x 4inch guns only (main armament). This is incorrect.

They actually had 3 x 4 inch guns comprising:

2 x 4 inch guns in a Twin mounted casemate Forward
1 x 4 inch gun in a single casemate Aft

For supporting reference:
http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/ships/yarra2.htm
http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/ships/swan2.htm
http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/grimsby.htm
http://users.hunterlink.net.au/~ciadm/Warrego/Page2.html


Sorry, Correction, these are listed on the RAN Website as a "Modified Grimsby" Class. The Standard Grimsby had only 2 x 4 inch guns.

The Modified Grimsby had 3.

_____________________________

In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
- Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)

(in reply to stubby331)
Post #: 162
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 2/27/2005 5:14:01 AM   
esteban


Posts: 614
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline
I will make my pitch for the inclusion of the Indian National Army (make it a division or 3 regiments with about 50 exp/morale)

I will also make a pitch for ajusting the arrival date of the Essex class carriers to their arrival date in theater, not their commissioning date.

(in reply to stubby331)
Post #: 163
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 3/2/2005 8:13:45 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12108
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
Scen 15 has 413 RCAF and 413 RAF Sqdn. 413 RAF should be removed.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 164
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 3/3/2005 7:39:17 AM   
SpitfireIX


Posts: 264
Joined: 1/9/2003
From: Fort Wayne IN USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SpitfireIX

Scenario 15

HMAS Shropshire should not be available until October 1943, and she should have already received her 6/43 upgrade. Also, the London Class 6/43 upgrade has one of the aft 8" turrets removed. This did not happen historically. According to the Royal Australian Navy's web site, Shropshire still had 8x8" guns when she was in Australian service. Also, if you look in Jane's Fighting Ships of WWII (I assume someone has a copy handy), the pictures of HMS London dated 1946 clearly show that she still has four turrets.

http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/ships/shropshire.htm


It turns out that what I wrote was not completely correct. Devonshire and Sussex did have their after turrets removed; however, Devonshire's was not removed until 3/44, and Sussex was not so modified until 3/45 (According to Seekrieg 4, Sussex's TT were also removed). Another point; Shropshire's secondary battery was modified to be identical to London's (4x2 4" MK XVI as opposed to 4x1 4" MK V) in 1942. According to my information, Devonshire and Sussex never received this modification. I noticed that there is already a "London-Rebuild" class in the database, but it is not used in any scenario because London doesn't arrive until later, and all four ships follow the same upgrade path. In view of what happened IRL, however, it seems clear to me that there should be two upgrade paths for the class--one for London and Shropshire, and the other for Devonshire and Sussex.

_____________________________

"I know Japanese. He is very bad. And tricky. But we Americans too smart. We catch him and give him hell."

--Benny Sablan, crewman, USS Enterprise 12/7/41

(in reply to SpitfireIX)
Post #: 165
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 3/6/2005 2:47:02 AM   
SpitfireIX


Posts: 264
Joined: 1/9/2003
From: Fort Wayne IN USA
Status: offline
I posted the following in the general forum a week ago, not realizing that the OOB Issues thread had been moved here. So I'm re-posting it.

quote:

Hello, all--

Sorry if this has already been metioned, but I haven't had much time to read the forum lately, with school and work. I just noticed that in Scenario 15 V1.4 the armament for the British "J" class destroyers is totally wrong--it should be 2x2 4.7"/45 MK XII forward and 1x2 MK XII center (the aft mount could not fire into the arc 20 degrees astern). I don't have my Jane's handy (I just moved, and it's still packed up) but there are several sites on the net where this is discussed.

Also, I'm fairly sure that the armament for the "P"class is wrong, too--I believe these had 4x1 4.7"/45s.

I think that there may have been some confusion here with the "L" class Block 1, which had 4x2 4" dp guns, and the "O" class minelayer variant, which had 4x1 4" sp guns.

I'd appreciate it if someone who has more time and access to reference materials would confirm this--I have spring break next week, but I hope this problem can still be corrected in 1.5, so I wanted to at least say something about it now.


_____________________________

"I know Japanese. He is very bad. And tricky. But we Americans too smart. We catch him and give him hell."

--Benny Sablan, crewman, USS Enterprise 12/7/41

(in reply to SpitfireIX)
Post #: 166
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 3/13/2005 8:33:15 PM   
SpitfireIX


Posts: 264
Joined: 1/9/2003
From: Fort Wayne IN USA
Status: offline
Scenario 15, v 1.40


147th USA Field Artillery Regiment should be deleted from the US OOB. This unit was wholly incorporated into the artillery brigade that starts the game aboard the Pensacola convoy.

_____________________________

"I know Japanese. He is very bad. And tricky. But we Americans too smart. We catch him and give him hell."

--Benny Sablan, crewman, USS Enterprise 12/7/41

(in reply to SpitfireIX)
Post #: 167
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 3/13/2005 10:38:05 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12108
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
SS Finback arrives in Oct/42 refit config. Should be basic Gato.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 168
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 3/24/2005 6:42:37 AM   
SpitfireIX


Posts: 264
Joined: 1/9/2003
From: Fort Wayne IN USA
Status: offline
Scenario 15 v 1.4

TBF/TBM maximum bomb load should be 2000, and not 1600. Many references online list 2000 lbs as Avenger's max bomb load; see also The Big E by Edward P. Stafford; Avengers are often described as carrying either 4 x 500 lb bombs, or 1 x 2000 lb bomb.

_____________________________

"I know Japanese. He is very bad. And tricky. But we Americans too smart. We catch him and give him hell."

--Benny Sablan, crewman, USS Enterprise 12/7/41

(in reply to SpitfireIX)
Post #: 169
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 3/28/2005 7:53:39 AM   
Oznoyng

 

Posts: 817
Joined: 4/16/2004
From: Mars
Status: offline
nm

< Message edited by Oznoyng -- 3/28/2005 9:25:23 AM >

(in reply to SpitfireIX)
Post #: 170
Apparent duplicate base forces in Scenario 15 - 4/1/2005 3:36:16 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8143
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

Sorry to be so late with this, just noticed it.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 171
RE: Apparent duplicate base forces in Scenario 15 - 4/2/2005 9:03:46 PM   
pry


Posts: 1410
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Overlooking Galveston Bay, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Sorry to be so late with this, just noticed it.







Not Duplicates Don, two different branches of the Army

The ones named USAAF are US Army Air Force base forces, the unnamed ones are US Army base forces, the Army ones were just never named...

Just like the IJAAF and IJA base forces.

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 172
RE: Apparent duplicate base forces in Scenario 15 - 4/2/2005 9:25:37 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8143
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pry


Not Duplicates Don, two different branches of the Army

The ones named USAAF are US Army Air Force base forces, the unnamed ones are US Army base forces, the Army ones were just never named...

Just like the IJAAF and IJA base forces.


Thanks Paul - clears that up!



(in reply to pry)
Post #: 173
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 4/19/2005 2:49:46 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8143
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iron Duke

251 uk Brigade does not exsist and should be deleted, the number was one never used in the British army

cheers



Apparently this should be an Indian Brigade. Here is the reference:
http://www.burmastar.org.uk/36thdiv.htm

and the applicable quote:

"The Division was formed in 1943 as the Army component of the Combined Training Centre in India, in 1943 the 29th & 72nd British Brigades were allocated to this formation, although all the other units were Indian, at this time they were under command of the Indian Expeditionary Forces, & called the 251st Tank Brigade."



(in reply to Iron Duke)
Post #: 174
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 4/19/2005 12:01:40 PM   
Iron Duke


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

This is the first time I've seen the 251st Indian Tank Bde being mentioned as part of the 36th Inf Div ?

I've allways thought that the 251st Tank Bde should have been included in the OOB , The same as the 254th and 255th Tank Bde's , as it wasn't disbanded until 1943

Below is the info i have on the two units ?

36th Indian Infantry Division (redes. 36th Brit Inf Div Sept 1944)
formed Bombay - june 1942 - responsible for the combined operations training centres at Madh island, Bombay and Khadakvasla
HQ expanded to form a division Nov 1942
29th Brit Inf Bde - 26/1/43 - on
72nd Indian Inf Bde - june 43 - on (redes. 72nd Brit Inf Bde 28/4/44)
26th Indian Inf Bde - 15/12/44 - on (redes. 26th Brit Inf Bde 6/4/45)

251st ????
1st Indian Armoured Bde formed Sealkot on 1 july 1940. Under command 1st/31st Armoured Div from sept 1940 to june 1942.
further redes. 251st Indian Armoured Bde in Oct 1941
again redes. 251st (Independent) Indian Tank Bde on 10 Sept 1942
disbanded in Oct 1943 though 3rd Carabiniers continued as 3rd Carabiniers Group with some brigade troops untill Dec 1943

Ref Loyalty and Honour - Chris Kempton
Divisions of the British Army - M.A.Bellis

Any thoughts
and well done on CHS , Looking forward to Beta and Gold
Cheers

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 175
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 4/25/2005 12:04:11 PM   
Iron Duke


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

Looking at the Indian OOB noticed the following

5th Indian Div arrives 5/42 should be 6/43 at Bombay

44th Indian Div was in fact 44th Airbourne Div but should be deleted as its 3 brigades are already in the OOB

50th Indian Tank Brigade not in OOB should be formed 10/40 but not used operationally till 10/44 in the Arakan Campaign.

Royal Indian Airforce

1 Sqdn feb 42 lysnders --> Hurricane's
2 Sqdn dec 42 Hurricane's
3 Sqdn jan 45 Hurricane's
4 Sqdn mar 44 Hurricane's
6 Sqdn nov 43 Hurricane's
7 Sqdn mar 44 Vengeance
8 Sqdn early 43 Vengeance


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Iron Duke)
Post #: 176
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 4/26/2005 3:21:34 PM   
DJAndrews

 

Posts: 305
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Toronto, ON, CA
Status: offline
I'm playing Scenario 15 as the Japanese and am about to receive a group of Peggy's (16th Hvy Sentai) in May '42. The problem is that Peggy's won't be available for another two years or so (1944 production date). The database editor shows the 16th Hvy Sentai as having Helen's. I'm not really certain how the two editors interact, but it would appear that there is some sort of glitch here, where the content from the database is not being combined with the scenario editor.

(in reply to pry)
Post #: 177
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 4/26/2005 6:26:10 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8143
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

5th Indian Div arrives 5/42 should be 6/43 at Bombay


I suspect this is correct but it is contradicted by: http://www.burmastar.org.uk/5th_ind.htm

(in reply to Iron Duke)
Post #: 178
African Brigades - 4/26/2005 7:57:59 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8143
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
A very interesting site at: http://www.burmastar.org.uk/15corps.htm indicates that there were two additional African Brigades in India/Burma. These were the 22nd East African Infantry Brigade and the 28th East African Brigade.

Here is a review of the African Units based on this site:

  • 11th East African Division

    • 21st East African Brigade
    • 25th East African Brigade
    • 26th East African Brigade

  • 81st West African Division

    • 3rd West African Brigade (detached to Chindits)
    • 5th West African Brigade
    • 6th West African Brigade

  • 82nd West African Division

    • 1st West African Brigade
    • 2nd West African Brigade
    • 4th West African Brigade

  • 15th Corps

    • 22nd East African Brigade
    • 28th East African Brigade



It would appear that two more Brigades should be added.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 179
RE: African Brigades - 4/26/2005 8:07:56 PM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1775
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

A very interesting site at: http://www.burmastar.org.uk/15corps.htm indicates that there were two additional African Brigades in India/Burma. These were the 22nd East African Infantry Brigade and the 28th East African Brigade.

Here is a review of the African Units based on this site:

  • 11th East African Division

    • 21st East African Brigade
    • 25th East African Brigade
    • 26th East African Brigade

  • 81st West African Division

    • 3rd West African Brigade (detached to Chindits)
    • 5th West African Brigade
    • 6th West African Brigade

  • 82nd West African Division

    • 1st West African Brigade
    • 2nd West African Brigade
    • 4th West African Brigade

  • 15th Corps

    • 22nd East African Brigade
    • 28th East African Brigade



It would appear that two more Brigades should be added.


quote:

http://www.burmastar.org.uk/5th_ind.htm


22nd EA Brigade arrived on Ceylon 07/22/1944 (under command of BG R.F. Johnstone)

EDIT: But 3rd WA Brigade was only nominally part of 81st WA Bde and it is (correctly) seperately in the game, but the 81st WA Division still arrives with 3 Brigades (fullstrenght). Thus there currently is one WA Brigade too much...

< Message edited by Kereguelen -- 4/26/2005 9:22:35 PM >

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: 1.40 OOB Issues Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   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

0.188