Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Allied Task Forces

 
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: Allied Task Forces Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Allied Task Forces - 2/17/2005 8:19:52 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
I think it should be an AK but with a smaller cargo capacity than we have given them. Nice and fast but small cargo would point player in the direction of using it as a good A/C transport. With it's extra durability I'd not hesitate loading an entire FG on it and sent it along with APs.

_____________________________





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

(in reply to TIMJOT)
Post #: 301
RE: Allied Naval/Air changes - 2/17/2005 8:21:52 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
Philbass. I'm going to the archives next week to research some extra Canadian OOB issues (old merchants, Pacific theatre warship deployments etc). And no, you are not being "crazy"!

_____________________________





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

(in reply to Philbass)
Post #: 302
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Ship Data - 2/17/2005 8:57:52 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8171
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: stubby331

Hi Guys,
Been catching up on what your trying to achieve and it all looks good. A quick chat with Ron the other day and the subject of HMAS Yarra came up. Question for you? Are you listing the Yarra, Swan and Warrego as Modified Gramsby Class?


Thanks - I'd missed this one.

Created new Class: Grimsby (RAN) with attributes of HMAS Warrego (there were really two subclasses but they are generalized into one).

Original class with 3 4in (1x2 and 1x1) and a mid-1942 update with 4 4in (2x2)

(in reply to stubby331)
Post #: 303
Accumulated answers for TIMJOT - 2/17/2005 9:52:23 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8171
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TIMJOT
Yes absolutely correct they didnt ship out as convoy but they did leave on the same day in should all be within 60miles (1hex). Personally I feel all units should be frozen with there Dec.7th designation and it should be up to the player to decide wether to return them to SF or not. No reason to believe that under all circumstances the 218th would have been sent east.

I think we'll limit it to just the 198th FA Bn. The exclusion of 218th, based on it's leaving the west coast, is probably better. A very large number of units were temporarily on the West Coast and then moved east - 3rd Infantry Division comes to mind along with several air groups.

quote:


Regarding the 70th PS. According to the 70th FS History and USAAF in WWII Vol.1, the squadron was embarked on the SS Pres. Johnson. Neither say whether or not with their a/c. However Neorhorster indicates they were embarked with 18 P-36As and all sources indicate thats the aircraft the 70th was equiped with prior to embarking. The 70th FS history does say the first time they saw a P-39 was when they uncrated them in Fiji.

Personally dont feel that it is much a stretch that the a/c were embarked. It was common practice to ship crated a/c on APs early in the war. The APs SS Pres. Coolidge, SS Mariposa and USAT Etolin and USAT Miegs all ferried crated aircraft to Oz in the first weeks of the war. Certainly the P-36s would be in better shape than the decrepit P-35s in the PI. Regardless wether you decide to embark them or not the 70th PS should start the game equiped with P-36s that upgrade to P-39s.

This is an old argument - never resolved. Dr. Niehorster and I disagreed on the aircraft of the 70th when I sent him the information for the convoys and we still do. I believe the more detailed information at: http://newsletter.adf-serials.com/news0703.shtml. Also note that several army units and quite a bit of supply was piled up at San Francisco due to lack of available shipping - it just does not make sense that any of this limited resource would be used to ship obsolete aircraft that were expected to be replaced within a month or two.

quote:

Off topic but, what have decided to do about the 34th RCT (not in the game oob) that was preparing to embark for the PI at SF on Dec 7th? Historically, Roosevelt had wanted to send this unit as planned to the Far East theater but was overruled by the Army which insisted it go to Hawaii where it eventually was absorbed into the 24th Division. FDR did get his way in insisting that the Pensecola convoy continue on to Oz angainst the Army's wishes. Again I think these decision she be left up to the player.

There are a number of units involved in this: 24th Infantry Division, 25th Infantry Division, 298th Infantry Regiment (Hawaii National Guard), 299th Infantry Regiment (Hawaii National Guard), 34th Infantry Regiment, and 161st Infantry Regiment (Washington National Guard):

Just before the war the old, square "Hawaiian" Division was split to form the 24th and 25th Infantry Divisions. Each of the new divisions was formed from a brigade of the "Hawaiian" division plus a regiment from the Hawaii National Guard (don't remember which to which and typing too fast to go look it up). The two Hawaii National Guard Regiments had large numbers of Americans of Japanese descent in their ranks. Both the 34th and 161st were to be sent to the Philippines - the 34th was in San Francisco (awaiting loading) and the 161st was about to arrive there.

Then the war began. After Pearl Harbor the loyalty of the Japanese-American Troops in the 298th and 299th was questioned. These two regiments were detached from the 24th and 25th Infantry Divisions and were replaced by the 34th and 161st. The Japanese-American personnel were removed from the 298th and 299th and sent to the US for eventual (excellent) service in Italy. The 298th and 299th were then collapsed into one regiment (298th), which remained independent - the 299th was officially disbanded.

This is a total of 8 regiments that were part of the 24th and 25th Infantry - seven of which persisted. The base Scenario 15 comes with eight - the full strength 24th and 25th Divisions (total of 6 regiments, identity not specified), plus the 161st and the 298th. This leaves out the 34th but already overstates the actual OOB by not considering the disbanding of the 299th. It would actually be more correct to remove the 161st than to add the 34th.

quote:


Any decision on the 27th Lt BG. I realize its original pilots and ground crews were in the PI, but its A24s and 48 replacement pilots plus ground crews were embarked on the Pencecola convoy. This unit was reformed upon arrival to OZ with these replacements and a cadre that was flown out from the PI. Since this unit did become operational, its my feeling it should be included but with very low expirience and moral to model the adhoc nature of the unit.

Historically, some personnel from the 27th Bomb Group were withdrawn to Australia where they formed two Provisional Light Bomb Squadrons using the A-24s from the Pensacola Convoy - the 16th and 91st Bomb Squadrons. At least one of these units (91st) fought in Java and perhaps the other (it got at least to Darwin). The remaining A-24s were used to temporarily equip the 8th Bomb Squadron of the 3rd Bomb Group when it arrived in Australia in early 1942.

The original Scenario 15 has the 8th Squadron equipped with A-24s and arriving at San Diego in February, 1942. The two other squadrons also arrive individually with (A-20 and B-25) and therefore the 3rd Bomb Group is not in the scenario. I think this is an excellent representation of the 3rd Group.

We have also created the 16th and 91st Bomb Squadrons, equipped with A-24 and set to appear at Brisbane on December 22, 1941 (the date the Pensacola Convoy arrived there). This presents an accuate representation of the early war A-24 units but there is no way to force disbandment of the two provisional squadrons so the OOB is somewhat overstated.

Don

(in reply to TIMJOT)
Post #: 304
RE: Allied Naval/Air changes - 2/17/2005 10:06:46 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8171
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Philbass
Don,

Well according to the British Naval Staff History as of 15 August there was the following situation (see table attached). Do you want commanders names for these carriers (well all British ships as of August 15)? Or are we not bothering with the leader database? I also have where the FAA squadrons were on August 15 1945. Perhaps it would be easier to use what/where they ended up with, rather than where they arrived in theatre as it is a known datum and may keep your headache levels down... Perhaps an HQ for the British Pacific Fleet would be nice as well - timed to arrive in November 1944 when the Eastern Fleet was disbanded and the East Indies and British Pacific Fleets formed in its stead.

I've seen the table on Escort Carrier usage (or one similar to it) but I have not been able to isolate the airgroups to support it. I am preparing another post on the subject, which will follow in a few minutes - please see that one for my explanation on this.

We have already added the Eastern Fleet HQ. The British Pacific Fleet seems a good idea as well. Where would it arrive??

And we are not yet working on either leaders or pilots. This is outside my area of expertise (and interest). Volunteers to work on leaders and/or pilots are welcome but not until we get the rest of the OOB settled.

quote:


Also are we adding in extra New Zealand and Canadian ships?

New Zealand got 2 Flower Class Corvettes in 1944 - ARBUTUS and ARABIS.

While with Canada:
...the auxillary anti-aircraft ship HMCS PRINCE ROBERT left Esquimalt on 5 July [1945] after a brief work-up, carried out practice firings off Pearl Harbour towards the end of the month and reached Sydney on 10 August.

In addition, in 1945 the East Indies Fleet had the French cruier SUFFREN allocated to it, but I haven't checked to see where that actually was.

We already have the two New Zealand flowers and Prince Robert is in the OOB at the beginning of the war as an AMC. Currently all AMCs upgrade to transports (ala Kanimbla) but I'll look into adjusting Prince Robert to an AA Escort.

Suffren was an old French Heavy Cruiser from the 1920s - probably not worth adding but I am always responsive to hue-and-cry or to bribes.

Don

(in reply to Philbass)
Post #: 305
RE: Allied Task Forces - 2/17/2005 10:10:14 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8171
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I think it should be an AK but with a smaller cargo capacity than we have given them. Nice and fast but small cargo would point player in the direction of using it as a good A/C transport. With it's extra durability I'd not hesitate loading an entire FG on it and sent it along with APs.


It's reduced to 7800 in the new scenario - suggestions?

quote:

I'm going to the archives next week to research some extra Canadian OOB issues (old merchants, Pacific theatre warship deployments etc).


Hurry!

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 306
British CVE air group rework - 2/17/2005 10:18:23 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8171
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
I have completed a major rework of the airgroups for British CVEs. In doing this I noted the generally excellent job of research done in the original Matrix Scenario 15 OOB for these airgroups. For many ships the only difference was format of the Squadron Name.

However I decided to proceed with the changes for two reasons:
1. Matrix used a prefix (FF and TF) before squadron numbers to prevent name duplications when many of the squadrons are, in fact, duplicate to the airgroups of larger carriers. My changes have resulted in the removal of a large number of squadrons and, I feel, brings the total strength more closer to historical values.
2. Apparently as many as half of the British CVEs in the Eastern/Pacific Fleets were used as aircraft transports or replenishment carriers. The original Matrix OOB assigned a standard 2-squadron airgroup to every CVE. My research resulted in five ships being used as aircraft ferries (2 ships) or replenishment carriers (3 ships), plus 11 as fighter carriers with a single (fighter) airgroup. Note that I did not try and follow the actual definition of ships as Fighter Carrier, Assault Carrier, etc but rather worked backwards - first identifying the airgroup as best I could and then "defining" the type of carrier.

Along with the removal of the duplicate 814 Squadron on Hermes/Venerable, these changes represent a net reduction of 16 carrier squadrons and the reclassification of 6 more from combat to replenishment. I am under-happy with some of the squadron re-numberings but all squadron duplications have been eliminated and the squadrons aboard all carriers were actually carried by them at some point (in the approximately correct time frame).

I am well aware that the automatic functions of the game will adjust the aircraft complements of these carriers based on their maximum capacity. However I can do nothing about that and the groups that I have specified is the best I can find. At least the net reduction in number of squadrons will bring the total strength more in line with history.

Airgroup Changes:

(1841) No.814 Squadron FAA moved from Venerable to Hermes. Venerable now arrives with a single (fighter) squadron.

(1850) TF-800 Squadron removed (previous on Hermes). FF-800 Squadron in slot 1849 previously removed - Hermes airgroup now limited to 814 Squadron

(1853 and 1854) FF-811 Squadron FAA and TF-811 Squadron FAA removed from Vindex - Vindex now an aircraft ferry.

(1858) FF-898 Squadron FAA renamed No.879 Squadron FAA and set to 20 Seafire II.
(1859) TF-898 Squadron FAA removed - Attacker now a fighter carrier with one squadron.

(1861) FF-890 Squadron FAA renamed No.834F Squadron FAA and equipped with 6 Seafire II
(1862) TF-890 Squadron FAA renamed No.834T Squadron FAA and equipped with 12 Swordfish - Battler now an ASW escort carrier.

(1864) FF-816 Squadron FAA renamed No.816F Squadron FAA and equipped with 11 Wildcat V
(1865) TF-816 Squadron FAA renamed No.816T Squadron FAA and equipped with 11 Swordfish. Chaser now an assault carrier.

(1867) FF-852 Squadron FAA renamed No.842 Squadron FAA and equipped with 18 Wildcat V
(1868) TF-852 Squadron FAA removed - Fencer now a Fighter Carrier

(1870) FF-842 Squadron FAA renamed No.807 Squadron FAA and equipped with 20 Seafire II.
(1871) TF-842 Squadron FAA removed - Hunter now a fighter carrier.

(1873) FF-881 Squadron FAA renamed RF-1 Squadron FAA, changed to "Wing" and set to 24 Hellcat II.
(1874) TF-881 Squadron FAA renamed RT-1 Squadron FAA, changed to "Wing" and set to 24 Avenger. Pursuer now a replenishment carrier.

(1876) FF-882 Squadron FAA renamed No.882 Squadron FAA and equipped with WIldcat VI.
(1877) TF-882 Squadron FAA renamed No.826 Squadron FAA and equipped with Barracuda. Searcher now an assault carrier.

(1879) FF-809 Squadron FAA renamed No.809 Squadron FAA and equipped with 24 Seafire III.
(1880) TF-809 Squadron FAA removed - Stalker now a fighter carrier.

(1882) FF-824 Squadron FAA renamed No.824F Squadron FAA and equipped with 10 Wildcat V.
(1883) TF-824 Squadron FAA renamed No.824T Squadron FAA and equipped with 12 Swordfish. Striker now an assault carrier.

(1885) FF-845 Squadron FAA renamed No.804 Squadron FAA and equipped with 24 Hellcat.
(1886) TF-845 Squadron FAA removed - Ammer is now a fighter carrier.

(1888) FF-853 Squadron FAA renamed No.1843 Squadron FAA and equipped with 24 COrsair
(1889) TF-853 Squadron FAA removed - Arbiter now a fighter carrier.

(1891) FF-888 Squadron renamed 889 Squadron FAA and equipped with 10 Seafiel III
(1892) TF-888 Squadron renamed 890 Squadron FAA and equipped with 10 Wildcat VI - Arbiter now an assault carrier (with two fighter type squadrons)

(1894) FF-832 Squadron FAA renamed No.832F Squadron FAA and equipped with 4 Wildcat VI.
(1895) TF-832 Squadron FAA renamed No.832T Squadron FAA and equipped with 12 Avenger - Begun now an ASW escort carrier.

(1897) FF-888 Squadron FAA renamed No.808 Squadron FAA and equipped with 20 Hellcats.
(1898) TF-888 Squadron FAA removed - Emperor is now a Fighter carrier.

(1900) FF-804 Squadron FAA renamed RF-2 Squadron FAA, changed to "Wing" and set to 24 Seafire III.
(1901) TF-804 Squadron FAA renamed RT-2 Squadron FAA, changed to "Wing" and set to 24 Barracuda - Empress is now a replenishment carrier.

(1903) FF-808 Squadron FAA renamed No.899 Squadron FAA and equipped with 20 Seafire III.
(1904) TF-808 Squadron FAA removed - Khedive is now a fighter carrier.

(1906 and 1907) FF-849 Squadron FAA and TF-849 Squadron FAA removed - Reaper is now an aircraft Ferry.

(1909) FF-885 Squadron FAA renamed No.885 Squadron FAA and equipped with Hellcat II
(1910) TF-885 Squadron FAA renamed No.1772 Squadron FAA and remains equipped with Firefly - Ruler is now an assault carrier.

(1912) FF-851 Squadron FAA renamed No.851F Squadron FAA and equipped with Wildcat VI
(1913) TF-851 Squadron FAA renamed No.851T Squadron FAA and equipped with Avenger - Shah remains an assault carrier.

(1915) FF-842 Squadron FAA renamed No.1845 Squadron FAA and equipped with 24 COrsair.
(1916) RF-842 Squadron FAA removed - Slinger is now a fighter carrier.

(1918) FF-856 Squadron FAA renamed No.1841 Squadron FAA and equipped with 18 COrsair.
(1919) TF-856 Squadron FAA removed - Smiter is now a fighter carrier.

(1921) FF-1840 Squadron FAA renamed No.1840 Squadron FAA and remains equipped with 16 Hellcat
(1922) TF-1840 Squadron FAA removed - Speaker is now a fighter carrier.

(1924) FF-825 Squadron FAA renamed TF-3 Squadron FAA, changed to "Wing" and set to 24 Corsair.
(1925) TF-825 Squadron FAA renamed RT-3 Squadron FAA, changed to "Wing" and set to 24 Avenger - Trouncer is now a replenishment carrier.

(1927) FF-846 Squadron FAA renamed No.846F Squadron FAA and equipped with Wildcat VI
(1928) TF-846 Squadron FAA renamed No.846T Squadron FAA and equipped with Avenger - Trumpeter remains an assault carrier.

If anyone has any PRECISE information that would contradict these changes, I would love to have it.

Don

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 307
RE: Allied Naval/Air changes - 2/18/2005 10:05:10 AM   
Philbass


Posts: 34
Joined: 12/30/2004
From: London, UK
Status: offline
Don,

The British Pacific Fleet was formed on 22nd November 1944. I wouldn't make it too large in terms of support squads - the BPF was always in a 'tight' logistical situation.

Regards,

Philip Bass

_____________________________

Plan followed plan in swift procession,
Commanders went; commanders came,
While telegrams in quick succession
Arrived to douse or fan the flame

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 308
RE: British CVE air group rework - 2/18/2005 11:53:05 AM   
Philbass


Posts: 34
Joined: 12/30/2004
From: London, UK
Status: offline
Don,

I can't argue with your FAA airgroup changes and method for arriving at them, but as I know you like all the info possible, then here is the FAA situation as of 15 August 1945. MOD Naval Historial Branch The British Pacific and East Indies Fleets: 'The Forgotten Fleets' 50th Anniversary (London: HMSO, 1995)

I realise that this isnt the aircraft thread but...

I assume we are ignoring the night-fighter Firefly squadron (equipped with the American AN/APS-4 - designated ASH by the British), as night-fighters don't currently work (right??), the extra 2 NF Firefly and 2 NF Hellcat (equipped with AN/APS-6 - designated AIA by the British) Squadrons that were forming in the UK and scheduled for reinforments? Source: Appendix F in Derek Howse (ed.) (1993) Radar at Sea: The Royal Navy in World War 2 (Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan Press)

1821 Squadron is listed as being radar equipped with ASV-IIN, but probably not worth adjusting anything. Also, the Avengers on the Fleet carriers had ASB radar(a direct US copy of ASV-IIN) and then from late 1944 had ASH.

Regards,

Philip Bass




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Plan followed plan in swift procession,
Commanders went; commanders came,
While telegrams in quick succession
Arrived to douse or fan the flame

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 309
RE: Dutch Icons - 2/20/2005 4:33:26 AM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

New artwork for Dutch ships by janushm.

Top to bottom:
Java (original left, new right)
Jan Van Amstel (original left, new right)
K-XIV (original left, new right)
New Coast Defense Ship Soerabaja and Gunboat/Seaplane Tender Valk





Well, I think the proportions are off some. Gonna need some touching up. Is Valk a little big? I like original Java more but it could just be the clarity.


I think I know why you might like the old better. I just finished up the Java for WPO, and the New Graphic depicts her as built, not after her 1930's rebuild. in 1930 she received a new formast, and had the mainmast all but removed (the High masts as shown in the graphic were the first things deleted).

_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 310
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Ship Data - 2/20/2005 4:50:29 AM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline
I really appreciate the effort you gentlemen are putting into this project.
I have a request, if possible. Can the President Liners named in the game look like liners?
Don't know if it's possible to be reworked, but I can't stand the way they look now as some kind of exotic AP. Where did those AP graphics come from anyway? They don't look anything like AP's should. "Away All Boats".

_____________________________


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 311
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Ship Data - 2/20/2005 5:04:26 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

I really appreciate the effort you gentlemen are putting into this project.
I have a request, if possible. Can the President Liners named in the game look like liners?
Don't know if it's possible to be reworked, but I can't stand the way they look now as some kind of exotic AP. Where did those AP graphics come from anyway? They don't look anything like AP's should. "Away All Boats".


Just you wait, Halsey. I think you are going to like the graphics the lads have been working on. Even Cunard Liners like Aquitania have seperate graphics. Not sure of Presidents at this point though...lots of class art still coming.

_____________________________





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

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 312
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Ship Data - 2/20/2005 5:07:31 AM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline
Cool Ron!

Really looking forward to it! Irrelevant won't be though!

_____________________________


(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 313
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Ship Data - 2/20/2005 6:42:56 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Cool Ron!

Really looking forward to it! Irrelevant won't be though!


No? Why not?

_____________________________





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

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 314
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Ship Data - 2/20/2005 7:07:46 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8171
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Can the President Liners named in the game look like liners?





Attachment (1)

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 315
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Ship Data - 2/20/2005 1:17:25 PM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline
Nice Don!

Ron, that's because Irrelevant will be on the receiving end!

_____________________________


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 316
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Ship Data - 2/20/2005 4:04:41 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Nice Don!

Ron, that's because Irrelevant will be on the receiving end!


Whole whack of Japanese stuff too. This is not a fanboy dictated effort. Japanese receive over 200 more merchant ships as an example.

_____________________________





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

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 317
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Ship Data - 2/20/2005 5:17:15 PM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline
Good! More shipping to send my subs after!

_____________________________


(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 318
Placed this in wrong thread - 3/3/2005 1:45:55 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
Steve (Nikademus) made me aware of the following when he asked if I'd participate in a test PBEM with him regarding a mod he has done.
quote:

:



Japanese heavy cruiser turrets only had splinter protection (1 inch) however several sources got it wrong and reported 5 inches. There was a long flap about this on warships1.com several years ago. (Tironu was involved) I was initially resistant but after comparing the sources that stated 1inch vs 5 inch and examining photos, I had to conceed that 1 inch sources (including Conways) were the more accurate. You may recall i reported this change 5 times in the internal OOB thread but it's never been changed.

The common sense argument won too....part the reason the USN cruisers used tripples was to save weight and increase armor protection for the guns.....The Japanese went for dispersed armament with more turrets (and more weight) and consequently less armor per turret.



Interesting or what!?!

_____________________________





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

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 319
10/43 refit for Narwhal class SS - 3/3/2005 2:34:15 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
Missing the SG radar in latest build.

_____________________________





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

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 320
Fletcher Class armor - 3/3/2005 2:39:12 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
Any reason why the Fletcher class have a Belt Armor rating of 18 and a Deck Armor rating of 12 while the Sumners and Gearings have 5 for each? (This was from the stock scenario data) Majority of DDs (modern) should have between 3-5mm I'd guess. Fletchers seem rather anomalous.

_____________________________





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

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 321
Japanese Army Large Landing Ships - 3/3/2005 8:02:48 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8171
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
Forum member David James has sent me a link to a wonderful site: http://www.warbirds.jp/kiyochan/gallery/kansen01.html

From it, I extracted a line drawing of a Japanese Army Landing ship and made a new class. The line drawing is actually the Akitsu Maru but I made a generic class for all the large Army Landing Ships and called it the Shinshu Maru class.

Several folks have asked for this class in the past. Unfortunately these is no way to implement the ability of these ships to both carry invasion forces and then fly off aircraft to newly-captured airfields. Even as a standard transports they are a nice bit of "chrome".




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 322
RE: Japanese Army Large Landing Ships - 3/3/2005 8:23:26 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Forum member David James has sent me a link to a wonderful site: http://www.warbirds.jp/kiyochan/gallery/kansen01.html

From it, I extracted a line drawing of a Japanese Army Landing ship and made a new class. The line drawing is actually the Akitsu Maru but I made a generic class for all the large Army Landing Ships and called it the Shinshu Maru class.

Several folks have asked for this class in the past. Unfortunately these is no way to implement the ability of these ships to both carry invasion forces and then fly off aircraft to newly-captured airfields. Even as a standard transports they are a nice bit of "chrome".





Why not? Instead of an AP, call it an AK and it can carry planes as well as troops simultaneously

_____________________________





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

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 323
RE: Japanese Army Large Landing Ships - 3/3/2005 9:54:25 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8171
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Why not? Instead of an AP, call it an AK and it can carry planes as well as troops simultaneously


Not a bad idea actually ... What capacity would you recommend?

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 324
RE: Japanese Army Large Landing Ships - 3/3/2005 10:09:38 PM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline
I've never tried, but I don't think that you can load planes and troops on the same ship. I thought you could only load one LCU on a ship (planes are LCU's when loaded) and fill out the capacity with supplies.

Maybe I'm wrong. I'll have to try this when I get home.

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 325
RE: Japanese Army Large Landing Ships - 3/4/2005 3:32:53 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Why not? Instead of an AP, call it an AK and it can carry planes as well as troops simultaneously


Not a bad idea actually ... What capacity would you recommend?


Well, it would depend on her historical usage and loads. Not too up on my Japanese auxilliaries.

_____________________________





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

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 326
RE: Japanese Army Large Landing Ships - 3/4/2005 4:13:30 AM   
CobraAus


Posts: 2322
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Geelong Australia
Status: offline
quote:

called it the Shinshu Maru class

whats the class number

Cobra Aus

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 327
RE: Japanese Army Large Landing Ships - 3/4/2005 2:02:49 PM   
pry


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

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Why not? Instead of an AP, call it an AK and it can carry planes as well as troops simultaneously


Not a bad idea actually ... What capacity would you recommend?


Wont work guys... Either troops or planes game is not designed and will not allow you to haul both at the same time...

_____________________________


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 328
RE: Japanese Army Large Landing Ships - 3/4/2005 5:14:22 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8171
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pry

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Why not? Instead of an AP, call it an AK and it can carry planes as well as troops simultaneously


Not a bad idea actually ... What capacity would you recommend?


Wont work guys... Either troops or planes game is not designed and will not allow you to haul both at the same time...


Thanks Paul. I think I will re-class them as AK though, so they can carry aircraft if desired. But Ron still has not answered about recommended capacity.....

(in reply to pry)
Post #: 329
RE: Japanese Army Large Landing Ships - 3/4/2005 10:00:33 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: pry

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Why not? Instead of an AP, call it an AK and it can carry planes as well as troops simultaneously


Not a bad idea actually ... What capacity would you recommend?


Wont work guys... Either troops or planes game is not designed and will not allow you to haul both at the same time...


Thanks Paul. I think I will re-class them as AK though, so they can carry aircraft if desired. But Ron still has not answered about recommended capacity.....


I already replied earlier. I'm not up on Japanese merchants and assault ships, but my guess is they should have a higher capacity because Japanese troops are so short and diminutive and are used to living like sardines in a can.

Objective but still Allied Fanboy out.

No really have no idea outside of asking what was it used for historically (what did it normally carry on average) and rate from this.

_____________________________





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

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 330
Page:   <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: Allied Task Forces Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   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

0.203