Marginal Allied Airplanes (Spitfire PR.XI added [Last add?])

[witpqs]

I thought gliders were abstracted in the game?

If you add gliders how will they actually function?

[el cid again]

Note that we are using Wellington IC vice Wellington III - and that the IC
is available earlier in 1945. The IC was used against Burma from India, and we are no longer delaying the upgrades until the III would have transferred for Tiger Force.

Note that Mosquito PR.34 is now PR.XVI - the first and most common high altitude version - available much sooner - from January 1944 - again because we don't need the special long range version for Tiger Force.

I am deleting all units which appear 1 October 1945 or later. I have hard ended the scenario on 31 December 1945. I think the war shoud end before 1 November 1945 per USSBS - but simulation games might not exactly model history. Waiting to the end of the year makes it clear Japan is occupied and defeated - or not - about the right time.

[el cid again]

I thought gliders were abstracted in the game?

If you add gliders how will they actually function?

I have no idea how gliders could have been "abstracted" into the game?

They are not available early - does the code change the way airborne works on certain dates - different for each side? I doubt it.

I studied The History of the World's Glider Forces and came to the astonishing conclusion both sides used as SOP a strange "triple combination" system - so I adopted it. A combination is a tug plus a glider - double if one glider and triple if two gliders! These are really two way transports - that is a glider can actually take off from a forward landing zone WITHOUT a tug landing! [I didn't know that. My father picked up men out of Yugoslavia into US bombers without landing using a trapese - but the idea you could "snatch" a glider is new to me]. The de facto deal is that a glider is a "package" air unit - the unit has the "crew" of all three planes (2 gliders plus tug) - the cargo of all three planes -
and the durability of all three planes. US combinations are unarmed - so there is no defensive fire. Japanese combinations get the defensive guns of a Ki-21 which is the most common tug. [US units use C-47 as tugs].
The combination speed is the crusing speed of the glider. The combination endurance is the endurance of the tug with that load in tow.
The combination maneuverability is half the maneuverability of the tug without a tow - which is to say perfectly awful - like a 4 engine bomber. These units will get slaughtered if they encounter enemy fighters and there are no escorts.


There also was a UK glider in the Burma ops, but at the moment I have outfitted the Air Commando ONLY with US gliders and tugs. Japan actually used gliders as transports - that is the glider regiment became a real air transport unit between Taiwan and Luzon in 1944 - so the idea they can be air transports is not really radical.

[witpqs]

Cool. Thanks.

I've seen the glider pickup (via trapeze). I vaguely remember it being in an old WWII movie, but I'm trying to remember which one. IIRC they showed it being used for evac of wounded.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

But giving Japan ALL the offensive options (the original Matrix design) seems wrong. Giving Japan a minimal garrison requirement seems wrong. Giving Japan an ironclad need not to fear a Soviet invasion seems wrong. And saying the Soviets could not decide to invade eariler, or agree to cooperate with the allies more, is also wrong. IMHO.

As I have said before this was the best of a bad situation in a game that lack any kind of external events engine. What you are saying is true, however most of the game is built on historical precepts. The Allies get spoon fed the sinews of war with absolutely no dynamic player control precisely as it happened historically. Why should the Soviet question be any different? This, of course, is my position. I know yours and we can agree to disagree on this.

[el cid again]

First, the Mitchell in its RAF photo recon form. It does not exist!
What DID exist were "5 or 6 B-25C destined for the NEIAF" which were used by No 3 PRU, and later 681 and 684 squadrons operating out of Dum Dum (Calcutta) into Burma. But these were NOT actually RAF machines at all, and they were bombers, not a special PR mod of the B-25. Not only is it not worth using a slot for the type, it is more correct to create No 3 PRU and assign 5 (later 6) bombers to it - and allow the players to use them for recon. They are hardly enough to be effective as bombers - but they can fly minor bomb missions in a game just as they theoretically could have done IRL.

Second, the AM-2. The AM-1 is an F4F-4 made by a different company and it is in the list now (as the F4F-4/AM-1 Wildcat). The AM-2 is an upengined version of the AM-1 which enters production "early in 1943" - and it has somewhat better performance than the AM-1 - about 2 points on our maneuverability scale. However, its reason for use in WWII was it could fly off small CVEs, and this is not meaningful in the game where planes are not restricted by ship type. This aircraft is not nearly as good as the F6F which becomes available at the same time - and players are unlikely to use it. Instead they will upgrade to the F6F. There are already four other versions of the Wildcat (2 in US service and 2 in UK service) - so adding a fifth type when it has no significant function seems unjustified.

Third, a night fighter version of the Mosquito was considered. It appears not to have been considered suitable in the theater because the wood laminate glue didn't like the climate.

Fourth, I found a reference to a USMC version of the P-61 Black Widow.
Turns out this was only purchased in a trivial quantity (12) in 1946, and then used only for unarmed training! Its inclusion would surely not be historical.

Fifth, I am considering a PR version of the Spitfire. I am having trouble learning about it, but it appears it must be a very short ranged aircraft of limited utility. Operating the B-25 detachment (3 PRU) and the Mosquito squadron (684 Squadron) seems to better provide this function in game terms. Simulation requires simplification with focus on vital functions: since the function is covered I am inclined to let this one drop.

Sixth, I found a USN designation for the B-17. But it was not used until 1945, and the aircraft was slowly modified into a sort of AEW aircraft over a long period. Only 13 were acquired, joining 2 earlier B-17s used for research work in USN. A few also were acquired post war by USCG for dropping rescue rafts - a function not in our game system except abstractly (as Mike Wood explained to us on the forum).

Seventh, I found a USN designation for the CG-1 glider - and since we have it I considered forming a unit to use it - and assigning a dual designation to the unit. But the Navy decided not to create an operational glider capability (in USMC) after some years of work during the war. [Two of the products were very interesting flying boat gliders for 14 and 22 passengers].

Eighth, I found that there was a naval variant of the PB4Y Liberator.
It does not appear to have been used as the primary aircraft of any unit - many units would have a small number alongside their patrol planes - and since the patrol planes can transport supplies - I regard that as sufficient. Since I have added significant transport capabilities - including two US heavy land transports (C-54 and C-87) and a heavy UK flying boat (Empire) - as well as correctly assigning many units light and medium transports (C-46, C-47, C-60 and CG-4) I see no particular function that will not be well covered without another variant of the Liberator (which exists in transport, bomber and patrol forms).

[el cid again]

But giving Japan ALL the offensive options (the original Matrix design) seems wrong. Giving Japan a minimal garrison requirement seems wrong. Giving Japan an ironclad need not to fear a Soviet invasion seems wrong. And saying the Soviets could not decide to invade eariler, or agree to cooperate with the allies more, is also wrong. IMHO.

As I have said before this was the best of a bad situation in a game that lack any kind of external events engine. What you are saying is true, however most of the game is built on historical precepts. The Allies get spoon fed the sinews of war with absolutely no dynamic player control precisely as it happened historically. Why should the Soviet question be any different? This, of course, is my position. I know yours and we can agree to disagree on this

I have thought about trying to create suggested house rules. But they all seem to fail the critical test: Japan can DEPEND ON this being a quiet, stable front - at least until August 1945 (if the Soviets are forced to activate then - are they?) At the same time, the game mechanics permit the Japanese to invade the USSR - and a house rule does not absolutely change that. If the Soviets are invaded, and if they have no control over their construction or deployment, they are a whole lot more vulnerable to an attack - which they could not deal with even if they see a build up in process. On the other hand, I think it is dangerous to trust gamers (which I feel we must do in this case) NOT to completely ignore the personality of Stalin or the situation in ETO which really constrained him from considering another war front for a long time. I know gamers who will attack too early as Russia. In the end, I think that there is some justice in the POSSIBILITY EITHER SIDE MIGHT attack - that that tension is itself very historical - and an incentive to deploy defensively on both sides as best as can be done early in the war. I also think that there is some justice in the tension of not knowing exactly when that changes - if it ever does? Wether Japan cleans up and then turns on the USSR, or the USSR invades early, is a function of lots of things, many of them in theater events, combined with the decisions of the players. Again, the POSSIBILITY means the players need to keep an eye on this area and deploy well - something they need not do (and in the Soviet case can not do) if we leave things as they are. Finally, I think that the grossly understated Soviet forces (I do not think it is practical to include them all - but I do think the high value and unique function units should be around) does nothing to give any sense of the real nature of this front (to use a Soviet term). Japan hardly needs its full garrison air wise - because the imitiated Soviet force is not well represented. Nor can the Soviets even supply their bases not on the rail/road net. I think we can trust players either to play circumspectly on this front - or to play aggressively because that is what they want to do for fun - either being legitimate choices. In the end as a designer I like to give PLAYERS control - and in this case forcing them to be quiet is really more ahistorical than allowing for some possibility of trouble is. But I confess that I fear that players may discover the "Soviet stab in the back strategy" is a decisive one! Because it might have been.

[Hipper]

Fifth, I am considering a PR version of the Spitfire. I am having trouble learning about it, but it appears it must be a very short ranged aircraft of limited utility. Operating the B-25 detachment (3 PRU) and the Mosquito squadron (684 Squadron) seems to better provide this function in game terms. Simulation requires simplification with focus on vital functions: since the function is covered I am inclined to let this one drop.

Cant say anything about what planes go to which slots that's your choice ( but how easy would it b to xpand the database !!!)

however PRU spitfire units had lots of range and utility I do remember one authouor pointing out that PRU spitfires could fly the atlantic ( one way )

here are some figures culled from a web site I'll look into this a bit but basically they took the guns out and added extra fuel tanks including in the wings !

Meanwhile the early Spitfire PR.Is were being joined by the PR.IV, the first Spitfire specially designed for long-range reconnaissance. Various combinations of cameras could be fitted, in addition to enlarged fuel tanks that bestowed a normal range of 1, 800 miles (2900 km), sufficient to reach Danzig in the Baltic from Benson. The first sorties by Spitfire PR.lVs were flown to such distant targets as Stettin, Swinemiinde, Copenhagen and Genoa (the latter involving a flight of 7 hours 10 mins). By the end of 1941 the first De Haviland Mosquitoes were being delivered to Benson a welcome addition to the PRU if only to relieve its pilots of the burden of navigation and the pervading loneliness of their work. The Mosquitoes' main task in those early days was to cover Norway and keep watch on German air and naval activities after the commencement of sailings by the North Cape convoys to Russia. These aircraft were in turn replaced by Mosquito PR.lVs, which had a normal range of 2,350 miles (3780 km) and could reach Narvik, although to achieve complete cover of the North Cape route some PR Spitfires were detached to Vaenga in North Russia itself, later to be joined by Mosquitoes.

By 1943 scarcely any part of Europe lay beyond the range of Coastal or Bomber Command photographic aircraft based either in Britain or the Middle East. Principal equipment remained the Spitfire (the PR.XL) and the Mosquito (the PR.IX): the former, with a maximum speed of 422 mph (679 km/h) and a range of about 2,000 miles (3220 km) was flown by 14 squadrons, while the latter, with a speed of 425 mph (684 km/h) and a range of 2,450 miles (3940 km) equipped three squadrons at home, one in the Middle East and eventually one in the Far East.

[akdreemer]

disregard...

[el cid again]

Cant say anything about what planes go to which slots that's your choice ( but how easy would it b to xpand the database !!!)

however PRU spitfire units had lots of range and utility I do remember one authouor pointing out that PRU spitfires could fly the atlantic ( one way )

First, on slots:

I have about a dozen free Allied aircraft slots - half used for comment lines and half entirely unused - including one carrier capable slot. This is nice for any future modder - and I intend to leave them. Having considered adding planes, and rejecting them all - I am done with this.
EXCEPT for your lovely Spitfire. It is a good thing I did not do a simple guess mod of it - I would never have given it this kind of range. I WILL add one of these PR versions BUT

I need to know WHICH served in 3 PRU, 681 Squadron and or 684 Squadron at Dum Dum, Calcutta? Actually, these were all mixed formations (more or less derived from each other) - and I am not going to mix them (it takes one line per plane type) - so I have the Mitchells in 3 PRU and the Mosquitos in 684 - meaning the Spit will go in 681. It is functional. But which version?

And I need to see this in a documentary source. I need a cite. Either a book, a journal review, or an official document will do. Even if this is on a web site, if it is a good one it will have tracks to the source documents.
Or an official government web site I suppose in a pinch. But your information is nothing like I expected - this is not a standard "remove the bomb racks and install camera's" type modification - and well worthy of including. Also, I may need a photograph of the aircraft - in case it looks different from a normal Spit. This can be from any source and of any quality - it is a guideline - and resolution is not an issue.

[CobraAus]

meaning the Spit will go in 681. It is functional. But which version?

Found it - do want it in

Cobra Aus

[Hipper]

Royal Air Force History
________________________________________
History of No. 681 Squadron.

Motto:No Motto
Badge:No Badge
No.681 Squadron was formed from No.3 Photographic Reconnaissance Unit at Dum Dum on 25 January 1943. Equipped with Spitfires, Hurricanes and Mitchells, it flew photographic reconnaissance missions over Burma and Siam. In August 1943 it began to receive Mosquitoes, but in December standardised on Spitfire XIs. For the rest of the war, it kept watch on enemy ports and railways in South-East Asia, and in September 1945, moved to Hong Kong. In December 1945 a detachment began operating in Java, while another spent a month in French Indo-China before the squadron changed its base to Seletar in January 1946. A further detachment was based in Siam until April, when the squadron left for India. On 1 August 1946, it was renumbered No.34 Squadron.

“Taken from the RAF history web site”
http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/h681.html

This should be official Unfortunatly I am in the Norwegan sea at the moment and my access to books is limited.


Supermarine Spitfire PR Mk XI: Basically unarmed photo-recce variant of F Mk IX (fighter), using wing leading-edge tanks as on PR Mk IV, extra oil tank in nose as PR Mk VI and X, camera options as PR Mk X. First few PR Mk XIs by conversion of F Mk IXs in production by Supermarine (Type 374) with Merlin 61 or Merlin 63; later aircraft (Type 365) with retractable tailwheel, broad-chord rudder and Merlin 70. First flight November 21, 1942; total 471 delivered. Served with some 14 RAF squadrons and 21 transferred to USAAF for use by 7th PGinUK, 1943-45.

Max speed, 417 mph (671 km/h) at 24,000ft (7,376 m). Initial climb, 4,350 ft/min (22.0 ml sec). Time to 20,000 ft (6,100 m), 5 min. Service ceiling, 44,000 ft (13,411 m). Ferry range, 2,300 mis (3,701 km). Empty weight, 5,575 Ib (2,523 kg). Gross weight, 7,930 Ib (3,597 kg). Span, 36 ft 10 in (11.23 m). Length, 31 ft 4'lz in (10.47 m). Wing area, 242 sqft (22.48 m2).
British aircraft of WWII web site
http://www.jaapteeuwen.com/ww2aircraft/ ... sance).htm

more coming

[Hipper]

Here is some in service dates it looks like they were indeed operating a mix of planes

681 Dum Dum India 25/01/43 Formed by renumbering No.3 PRU. Mitchell II, 01/43. Hurricane II, 01/43. Spitfire IV, 01/43. Mosquito IV, 08/43. Mosquito IX, 08/43. Spitfire XI, 10/43.

http://www.rafcommands.com/Coastal/681C.html

[el cid again]

Dear Mister Hipper:

You have both good fortune and good information! Cobra is the most active member of the RHS team and its lead artist. Since HE found the art, I don't even have to send it to him to modify and then cut into our data set. And since the caption of the picture associated the plane specifically with 681 Squadron, and identified a specific mark, I had the most critical missing data. Now you have provided more information that appears to be RAF official - and I know how to get that verified.
You really did come up with information not generally available which appears theater specific and mission significant. I will be adding this aircraft to the 07 pre release of aircraft - and only need art from cobra to complete it (which then will be 08 - apparently the final plane set for RHS 1.0 - assuming no other errors are found - I am down to one error in set 06). 07 will release for testers within the hour. [Note ANYONE can become a tester by sending an address to trevethans@aol.com. Also note - anyone can do what Cobra did - send me information in ANY language. Where I work if a person has the slightest trace of an accent, I ask "what is your primary language?" - and I do not care what the answer is. People with truly obscure dialects (Tree or Uiger or some minor Slavic language) generally also are fluant in a major language (like French, German, Mandarin or Swahili). Anyway - while CHS prefers English references I have no such restriction and language will not cause any delay for me. If you have good information, do not hesitate to cite it, regardless of the source. In particular, for things Japanese, I can read them, directly, via software, and if need be with help - we have the second oldest Japanese immersion program in North America where I live - and naturally I put a child into it. In WWII Japanese was thought to be a code - and in a sense it is - it has so many writing systems and the Chinese symbol system can always be interpreted at least four ways - with a maximum of 12 ways. But it is in fact a much easier language than English, and almost all the technical terminology is English or corrupted English.]

[CobraAus]

art is done for spitfire PR just need to know what slot yo are going to use in database

Cobra Aus

[Reg]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I found a history of the Indian Air Force with a description of its RIAF roots. Turns out it is vastly missing from CHS and stock. And it DID use the Vengeance - <...snip...> But I have not found RAAF units used in New Guinea. Got any cites? I am doing units next - so they are up for review. I have kept the plane - it is available if a unit gets it.

I'm surprised no-one has answered this.

No.21 Squadron RAAF. Equipped with Vengeances from Sep'43 to Jun'44. In action at Nadzab New Guinea from Jan to Mar'44.

No.23 Squadron RAAF. Equipped with Vengeances from Jun'43 to Nov'44. In action at Nadzab New Guinea from Feb to Mar'44.

No.24 Squadron RAAF. Equipped with Vengeances from May'43 to Jun'44. In action at Nadzab New Guinea from Aug'43 to Mar'44.

<Edit>No.12 Squadron RAAF. Equipped with Vengeances from Late '42 to Jul'44. In action (sort of) in the Darwin and Marauke (Dutch New Guinea) areas.

Despite obviously successful attacks, the RAAF Vengeance squadrons were withdrawn to the mainland on the orders of General Kenny, commander of Allied Air Forces. The Vengeances, he contended were obsolete and and better aircraft could be employed in forward areas where airfield space was at a premium.

These squadrons were then re-equipped (with the support of General Kenny) and flew B-24s for the rest of the war.

Picture below: No.23 and 24 Squadron Vengeances in New Guinea.

[el cid again]

art is done for spitfire PR just need to know what slot yo are going to use in database

The first blank UK slot - looks like 216 to me - but your spreadsheet is one line off being lined up with the actual file - so it may look like 217 on the spreadsheet. But real aircraft file slot 216. It will not be in alphabetical order - but changing that is too hard (it messes up all upgrades below it and it messes up squadron type assignments - and I don't want to go back and do them again).

[Iron Duke]

Hi,

Some additional info

apr 42 No1 PRU [INDIA] formed c/o Sqn Ldr A.C.[FATTY] Pearson in Calcutta
within days it was renumbered No5 PRU [ No1 PRU already excisted in England]
Apr 42 Dutch hand over 5 B-25C's to RAF at Karachi- work begins immediately to convert them for PR work
serial no.s for B-25C's N5-139,N5-143,N5-144,N5-145, and N5-148.
Apr or May No5 PRU renumbered No 3 PRU.
May 42 2 B-25C's flown to Dum Dum to begin PR Ops for 221 Group
Nominal establishment for unit was 6x B-25C's and 6x Hurricanes
Oct 42 first two spitfire PR.Mk.IV's arrive.
It was intended to replace B-25C's with Spitfires therefore nominal establishment was changed to 12x Spitfire/Hurricanes.
Jan 43 No3 PRU was renumbered as 681 Sqn at Dum Dum
Aug 43 681 Sqn establishment increased to 20 Spitfires
Sept 43 684 Sqn formed -to be equiped with PR Mosquito's
notes:-

Although sqn establishment did not list B-25C's after end 0f 1942 they were still operated.
the 5 B-25C's were never replaced when losted.
Nearly all RAF Sqn's conducted PR sorties including IAF Sqn's

Suggestions for OOB:
Create No3 PRU With 5 x B-25C's with a unit upgrade path to Spitfire PR.Mk.???[max a/c 5] -APRIL 1942
Create 681 sqn with 2 x spitfire PR.Mk.??? [max a/c 20] - JAN 1943
Create 684 sqn with 2 x mosquito PR [max a/c 20] - Sept 1943

REF: Eyes for the phoenix:allied aerial photo-reconnaissance operations south-east asia 1941-1945
by G.J.Thomas
Hikoki publications

[m10bob]

IMHO, if you are looking for slots, you can get rid of the P 51 F6 PR model. Range sucks and it comes way after the P 38 model is available.

[el cid again]

Suggestions for OOB:
Create No3 PRU With 5 x B-25C's with a unit upgrade path to Spitfire PR.Mk.???[max a/c 5] -APRIL 1942
Create 681 sqn with 2 x spitfire PR.Mk.??? [max a/c 20] - JAN 1943
Create 684 sqn with 2 x mosquito PR [max a/c 20] - Sept 1943

I pretty much have it this way:

No 3 PRU 5 Mitchells - 5 max (was 6)
681 Spits - now renumbered as 2 start and 20 max
684 Mossy - now renumbered as 2 start and 12 max - but not until
January 1944 as that is the formal date of arrival of aircraft in a reference I have.