"Fully laden with ammunition and supplies, USS INDIANA churned out of Hampton Roads, Virginia on 9 November 1942 enroute to Tongatabu Island via the Panama Canal."
Makes an arrival time at Balboa about the 16 nov 42.
It does not take a week - more like 14 Nov - I used to sail out of Hampton Roads - on a ship which could not move as fast as a battleship (USS Francis Marion APA-249)- and we could do it in five days.
Not too long. The railroad along the canal is 42 miles long - the canal itself is probably shorter - and faster. Actually, the rail line is gone now I guess - but in my day you might make the trip (iffy) in a few hours! You could count on breakdowns! The rails were pitched from sinking foundations, and there was no glass in the windows - for ventellation (not to mention bugs)! Most of the "canal" is really a lake - there are two sets of locks - one on each side. Ships raise up to the lake, sail across, then go down the other side, using locks to rise and sink. They don't go fast - but it is only a matter of hours. Scheduling and taking your turn is more an issue than physical transit per se. You should be able to do it in 6 hours I would guess.
"Fully laden with ammunition and supplies, USS INDIANA churned out of Hampton Roads, Virginia on 9 November 1942 enroute to Tongatabu Island via the Panama Canal."
Makes an arrival time at Balboa about the 16 nov 42.
It does not take a week - more like 14 Nov - I used to sail out of Hampton Roads - on a ship which could not move as fast as a battleship (USS Francis Marion APA-249)- and we could do it in five days.
Yeah, most ships that have dates show a variation of 5 to 6 days. I make it a week to keep it simple. A day one way or the other is insignificant.
Completely OT, I just found a site I had lost with dretailed info ref the FAA squadrons, I put it on the "Research,etc." thread...(I forgot who was wanting that.) http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Ships/Index.html
ORIGINAL: el cid again
But there WAS a huge US battleship design - ended by the London Naval Treaty - which contemplated fifteen 18 inch guns! - and it probably would have been bigger - although STILL able to pass Panama! I believe US carriers should still have this limitation - and I oppose the 110,000 ton ships now contemplated (for 50 planes - smaller than the F-14 - which could operate on much smaller ships).
Actually the MONTANA designs wouldn't have been able to use the Panama Canal---though there was money appropriated for a time during the war to build an enlarged set of locks which could handle them.
Then common sense broke out, and it was realized that neither the Montana's or the enlarged locks could possibly be completed before the war ended. Shame in a way about the locks; a larger set would have been a usefull addition for the last 60 years.
Completely OT, I just found a site I had lost with dretailed info ref the FAA squadrons, I put it on the "Research,etc." thread...(I forgot who was wanting that.) http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Ships/Index.html
It was me. I have horrible problems with FAA in CHS and stock - and I wanted some supplimentary materials to help sort it out. Thanks. Once I find a datum, I can usually verify it in print.
I had forgotten that the Lion class got laid down - and that it had been a "priority" to complete it when war broke out! In BBO we can have Tigers. A 1942 decision to do Colossus (after loss of Repulse and Prince of Wales) is, however, not made. So BBO gives RN two more battleships - probably in 1943 or 1944 (analysis required) - and costs them 4 CVLs (which made it to the Pacific but NEVER got used in combat) in 1945. Alternatively, it might be possible to build the Vanguard - with second to last AA suite - barely in time for the war. I will do RN battleships tonight - but wish comments on these options (which have no bearing on CVO).
Section 2: RN (and Free French) Battleships
Ship Class/Name Type Slot Comissioned IRL PAC Stock Date CHS155 Date CHSNEW Date RHSCVO Date RHSBBO Date
Richelieu: Richelieu BB 189 15-Jun-40 YES 15-Apr-44 15-Apr-44 15-Apr-44 1-Apr-44 1-Apr-44
Richelieu: Jean Bart BB 189 1-May-55 NO NA NA NA NA NA
Richelieu: Clemenceau BB 189 Laid 17-Jan-39 NO NA NA NA NA NA
Vanguard BB 1448 9-Aug-46 NO NA NA 1-Nov-45 NA NA
Lion: Temeraire BB 188 Laid 1-Jun-39 NO NA NA NA NA 1-Jan-45
Lion: Lion BB 188 Laid 4-Jul-39 NO NA NA NA NA 4-Feb-45
Lion: Conqueror BB 188 NA NO NA NA NA NA NA
Lion: Thunderor BB 188 NA NO NA NA NA NA NA
KGV: King George V BB 187 11-Dec-40 YES 15-Oct-44 15-Oct-44 15-Oct-44 22-Dec-44 22-Dec-44
KGV: Prince of Wales BB 187 31-Mar-41 YES 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 25-Nov-41 25-Nov-41
KGV: Duke of York BB 187 4-Nov-41 YES 15-Jul-45 15-Jul-45 15-Jul-45 15-Jul-45 15-Jul-45
KGV: Anson BB 187 22-Jun-42 YES 15-Jun-45 15-Jun-45 15-Jun-45 15-Jun-45 15-Jun-45
KGV: Howe BB 187 29-Aug-42 YES 15-Jul-45 15-Jul-45 15-Jul-45 15-Jan-45 15-Jan-45
Nelson: Nelson BB 186 15-Aug-27 YES 15-Apr-45 15-Apr-45 15-Apr-45 1-Jul-45 1-Jul-45
Nelson: Rodney BB 186 15-Nov-27 NO NA NA NA NA NA
Hood BC NA 5-May-20 NO NA NA NA NA NA
Renown: Renown BC 1408 20-Sep-16 YES 15-Jan-44 15-Jan-44 15-Jan-44 15-Jan-44 15-Jan-44
Renown: Repulse BC 196 18-Aug-16 YES 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 25-Nov-41 25-Nov-41
Revenge: Revenge BB 185 Mar-16 YES 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 15-Apr-42 15-Apr-42
Revenge: Ramilles BB 185 Sep-17 YES 15-Feb-42 15-Feb-42 15-Feb-42 25-Dec-41 25-Dec-41
Revenge: Resolution BB 185 Dec-16 YES 15-Jan-42 15-Feb-42 15-Feb-42 15-Feb-43 15-Feb-43
Revenge: Royal Oak BB 185 May-16 NO NA NA NA NA NA
Revenge: Royal Sovereign BB 185 May-16 YES 15-Jan-42 15-Jan-42 15-Jan-42 25-Dec-41 25-Dec-41
Revenge: Repulse BB 185 NA NO NA NA NA NA NA
Revenge: Renown BB 185 NA NO NA NA NA NA NA
Revenge: Resistence BB 185 NA NO NA NA NA NA NA
QE: Queen Elizabeth BB 1407 Jan-15 YES 15-Jan-44 15-Jan-44 15-Jan-44 28-Jan-44 28-Jan-44
QE: Valiant BB 1407 Feb-16 YES 15-Jul-42 15-Jul-42 15-Jul-42 15-Apr-42 15-Apr-42
QE: Barham BB 184 Aug-16 NO NA NA NA NA NA
QE: Malaya BB 184 Feb-16 NO NA NA NA NA NA
QE: Warspite BB 184 Mar-15 YES 15-Mar-42 15-Mar-42 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41
QE: Agincourt BB 184 NA NO NA NA NA NA NA
Iron Duke BB NA 10-Mar-14 NO NA NA NA NA NA
Centurion: Anson BB 227 22-May-13 YES NA NA NA 15-Sep-41 15-Sep-41
Ship Class/Name Type Slot PTO Historical IRL PAC Stock Date CHS155 Date CHSNEW Date RHSCVO Date RHSBBO Date
December 1941 PTO Total BB NA 6 YES 3 3 4 6 6
1942 PTO Arrival BB NA 2 YES 5 5 4 2 2
1943 PTO Arrival BB NA 1 YES 0 0 0 1 1
1944 PTO Arrival BB NA 4 YES 4 4 4 4 4
1945 PTO Arrival BB NA 4 YES 4 4 5 4 6
War PTO Grand Total BB NA 17 YES 16 16 17 17 19
Primary Source: Conways All the World's Fighting Ships 1906-1921 & 1922-1946
Secondary Source: British Battleships of World War II
Tirtiary Source: Jane's Fighting Ships, 1939 & 1946
Quatranary Source: Schlachtshiffe und Schlachtkreuzer, 1905-1970, 3rd Edition.
Section 2: IJN Battleships
Ship Class/Name Type Slot Comissioned IRL PAC Stock Date CHS155 Date CHSNEW Date RHSCVO Date RHSBBO Date
Yamato: Yamato BB 1 16-Dec-41 YES 20-May-42 14-Feb-42 20-May-42 16-Dec-41 16-Dec-41
Yamato: Musashi BB 1 5-Aug-42 YES 1-Dec-42 1-Aug-42 1-Dec-42 5-Aug-42 5-Aug-42
Imp. Yamato: Shinano BB 502 Laid 4-May-40 NO NA NA 10-Oct-44 NA 4-Jul-44
Imp. Yamato: Kii [Job 111] BB 502 Laid 7-Nov-40 NO NA NA NA NA 7-Jan-45
Nagato: Nagato BB 3 25-Nov-20 YES 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41
Nagato: Mutsu BB 3 22-Nov-21 YES 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41
Kongo: Kongo BC 2 16-Aug-13 YES 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41
Kongo: Hiei BC 2 4-Aug-14 YES 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41
Kongo: Kirishima BC 2 19-Apr-15 YES 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41
Kongo: Haruna BC 2 19-Apr-15 YES 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41
Ise: Ise BB 5 15-Dec-17 YES 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41
Ise: Hyuga BB 5 30-Apr-18 YES 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41
Fuso: Fuso BB 4 18-Nov-15 YES 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41
Fuso: Yamashiro BB 4 31-Mar-17 YES 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41
Ship Class/Name Type Slot PTO Historical IRL PAC Stock Date CHS155 Date CHSNEW Date RHSCVO Date RHSBBO Date
December 1941 PTO Total BB NA 11 YES 10 10 10 11 11
1942 PTO Arrival BB NA 1 YES 2 2 2 1 1
1943 PTO Arrival BB NA 0 YES 0 0 0 0 0
1944 PTO Arrival BB NA 0 YES 0 0 0 0 1
1945 PTO Arrival BB NA 0 YES 0 0 0 0 1
War PTO Grand Total BB NA 12 YES 12 12 12 12 14
Note 1: In the new CHS release, players are supposed to cancel either the battleship or the carrier version of Shinano (or both).
Note 2: RHSBBO date of completion based on historical construction rates and a May 1943 launch.
Primary Source: Conways All the World's Fighting Ships 1906-1921 & 1922-1946
Secondary Source: Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1869-1945
Tirtiary Source: Jane's Fighting Ships, 1939 & 1946
Quatranary Source: Schlachtshiffe und Schlachtkreuzer, 1905-1970, 3rd Edition.
Start Location Ship Class/Name Notes
Mideast Richelieu: Richelieu Schlachtschiffe und Schalchtkreuzer 1905-1770, p. 435.
NA Richelieu: Jean Bart In action while incomplete, damaged by USS Massachusetts in 1942. Completed post war. Ibid.
NA Richelieu: Clemenceau Construction suspended 6-Dec-39. Captured by Germany. Never completed. S&S p. 436.
Mideast Vanguard Might have completed by "the end of 1944." British Battleships of World War II, p. 325
Mideast Lion: Temeraire Suspended 28-Sep-39 (except for guns). Cancelled 1944.
Mideast Lion: Lion Suspended 28-Sep-39 (except for guns). Cancelled 1944.
NA Lion: Conqueror 1939 Program: Not laid down.
NA Lion: Thunderor 1939 Program: Not laid down.
Mideast KGV: King George V
Singapore KGV: Prince of Wales Sunk 12-Dec-41 by JNAF aircraft.
Sydney KGV: Duke of York
Sydney KGV: Anson
Sydney KGV: Howe
Mideast Nelson: Nelson
NA Nelson: Rodney
NA Hood Sunk 24-May-41 by Bismarck
Mideast Renown: Renown
Singapore Renown: Repulse Sunk 12-Dec-41 by JNAF aircraft.
Mideast Revenge: Revenge Schlachtschiffe und Schalchtkreuzer 1905-1770, p. 148.
Mideast Revenge: Ramilles Schlachtschiffe und Schalchtkreuzer 1905-1770, p. 148.
Mideast Revenge: Resolution Schlachtschiffe und Schalchtkreuzer 1905-1770, p. 149.
NA Revenge: Royal Oak Torpedoed by U-47 14-Oct-39.
Mideast Revenge: Royal Sovereign Operated under Soviet colors as Archangelsk 1944-48. S&S p. 149.
NA Revenge: Repulse Cancelled 1914.
NA Revenge: Renown Cancelled 1914.
NA Revenge: Resistence Cancelled 1914.
Trincomalee QE: Queen Elizabeth Schlachtschiffe und Schalchtkreuzer 1905-1770, p. 139.
Mideast QE: Valiant Schlachtschiffe und Schalchtkreuzer 1905-1770, p. 140.
Mideast QE: Barham Torpedoed by U-331 25-Nov-41.
Mideast QE: Malaya
Seattle QE: Warspite Damaged until Feb-42. Schlachtschiffe und Schlachtkreuzer, 1905-1970, p. 140.
NA QE: Agincourt Cancelled 1914.
NA Iron Duke Gunnery training ship 1931. Fatal damage by German bombers 17-Oct-39: never repaired.
Bombay Centurion: Anson Mock up of HMS Anson on hull of BB Centurion. S&S Pp. 129-131. Conway's 1906-1930, p. 30.
[&o]Section 2: IJN Battleships
Ship Class/Name Type Slot Comissioned IRL PAC Stock Date CHS155 Date CHSNEW Date RHSCVO Date RHSBBO Date Start Location Ship Class/Name Notes
Yamato: Yamato BB 1 16-Dec-41 YES 20-May-42 14-Feb-42 20-May-42 16-Dec-41 16-Dec-41 Hiroshima/Kure Yamato: Yamato Sunk 7-Apr-45
Yamato: Musashi BB 1 5-Aug-42 YES 1-Dec-42 1-Aug-42 1-Dec-42 5-Aug-42 5-Aug-42 Hiroshima/Kure Yamato: Musashi Sunk 24-Oct-44
Imp. Yamato: Shinano BB 502 Laid 4-May-40 NO NA NA 10-Oct-44 NA 4-Jul-44 Hiroshima/Kure Imp. Yamato: Shinano Converted to aircraft carrier. Notes 1 & 2
Imp. Yamato: Kii [Job 111] BB 502 Laid 7-Nov-40 NO NA NA NA NA 7-Jan-45 Hiroshima/Kure Imp. Yamato: Kii [Job 111] Suspended Dec-41. Cancelled 1942.
Nagato: Nagato BB 3 25-Nov-20 YES 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 Hiroshima/Kure Nagato: Nagato Sunk 19-Jul-46 in atomic bomb test. Surrendered 1945.
Nagato: Mutsu BB 3 22-Nov-21 YES 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 Tokyo Nagato: Mutsu Exploded 8-Jun-43
Kongo: Kongo BC 2 16-Aug-13 YES 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 TF3505 Kongo: Kongo Sunk 21-Nov-44
Kongo: Hiei BC 2 4-Aug-14 YES 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 TF3501 Kongo: Hiei Sunk 13-Nov-42
Kongo: Kirishima BC 2 19-Apr-15 YES 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 TF3501 Kongo: Kirishima Sunk 15-Nov-42
Kongo: Haruna BC 2 19-Apr-15 YES 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 TF3505 Kongo: Haruna Sunk 28-Jul-45
Ise: Ise BB 5 15-Dec-17 YES 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 Hiroshima/Kure Ise: Ise Sunk 28-Jul-45
Ise: Hyuga BB 5 30-Apr-18 YES 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 Hiroshima/Kure Ise: Hyuga Sunk 24-Jul-45
Fuso: Fuso BB 4 18-Nov-15 YES 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 Hiroshima/Kure Fuso: Fuso Sunk 25-Oct-44
Fuso: Yamashiro BB 4 31-Mar-17 YES 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 Hiroshima/Kure Fuso: Yamashiro Sunk 25-Oct-44
B-65: Amagi [Job 795] BC 55 Cancelled 12/41 NO NA NA NA NA 15-Jan-45 Nagasaki B-65: Amagi [Job 795] Revision of B-64 design
B-65: Atago [Job 796] BC 55 Cancelled 12/41 NO NA NA NA NA 15-Feb-45 Osaka/Kobe B-65: Atago [Job 796] Revision of B-64 design
Ship Class/Name Type Slot PTO Historical IRL PAC Stock Date CHS155 Date CHSNEW Date RHSCVO Date RHSBBO Date Start Location Ship Class/Name Notes
December 1941 PTO Total BB NA 11 YES 10 10 10 11 11 NA December 1941 PTO Total
1942 PTO Arrival BB NA 1 YES 2 2 2 1 1 NA 1942 PTO Arrival
1943 PTO Arrival BB NA 0 YES 0 0 0 0 0 NA 1943 PTO Arrival
1944 PTO Arrival BB NA 0 YES 0 0 0 0 1 NA 1944 PTO Arrival
1945 PTO Arrival BB NA 0 YES 0 0 0 0 3 NA 1945 PTO Arrival
War PTO Grand Total BB NA 12 YES 12 12 12 12 16 NA War PTO Grand Total
Note 1: In the new CHS release, players are supposed to cancel either the battleship or the carrier version of Shinano (or both).
Note 2: RHSBBO date of completion based on historical construction rates and a May 1943 launch.
Primary Source: Conways All the World's Fighting Ships 1906-1921 & 1922-1946
Secondary Source: Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1869-1945
Tirtiary Source: Jane's Fighting Ships, 1939 & 1946
Quatranary Source: Schlachtshiffe und Schlachtkreuzer, 1905-1970, 3rd Edition.
Pentranary Source: The Imperial Japanese Navy, First Edition
Shinano was of improved design? What would be her characteristics as BB ?
The side 6.1 inch secondary turrets are gone. The 5 inch DP mountings are replaced with a larger number of 100 mm AA guns - the best of Japanese guns - in twin mountings. A total of 20 if I remember right - ten twins - five per side. Actually a better ship than the Yamato - if you must have a super battleship. More AAA never hurts a battleship in WWII.
Based on information in one of the first references in English on IJN - The Imperial Japanese Navy by Anthony T Watts and Brian G Gorden -
it appears that the orders for two battlecruisers were not cancelled because of the decision for war (similar to the British decision to cancel the Lion class).
Japan made the decision to mobilize in July 1941, after the declaration of the oil/iron&steel/rubber embargo, and after the captured report from HMS Andromedon was in hand (revealing the weakness of Imperial British defenses in Asia). At that time the decision to build the battlecruisers - to a revised design (because particulars of the Alaska class had become known) - was sustained. The new 12 inch guns were cast and proof fired, and construction of the turrets began at Muroran (described in Naval Weapons of World War II). Only after the success of the attack on Pearl Harbor - and the striking power of the aircraft carrier had been demonstrated - was the decision not to proceed made. For this reason, in RHSBBO and its derivitives, the two vessels are present - which players are free to cancel if they wish.
They are named the Amagi class in honor of a previous class of battlecruisers begun but not completed due to the Washington Naval Treaty. Three of the four names had been used for heavy cruisers, so only one name remained unused. The other ship is called Tosa in honor of a named but not completed battleship of the same era.
The side 6.1 inch secondary turrets are gone. The 5 inch DP mountings are replaced with a larger number of 100 mm AA guns - the best of Japanese guns - in twin mountings. A total of 20 if I remember right - ten twins - five per side. Actually a better ship than the Yamato - if you must have a super battleship. More AAA never hurts a battleship in WWII.
Just curious, Cid. Is this design what the Japanese had planned prior to her conversion to a CV? Or is it a supposition based on lessons learned in the war to date? I hadn't seen any information as to what mods they had contemplated should she have been completed as a BB.
Chez
Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98
The side 6.1 inch secondary turrets are gone. The 5 inch DP mountings are replaced with a larger number of 100 mm AA guns - the best of Japanese guns - in twin mountings. A total of 20 if I remember right - ten twins - five per side. Actually a better ship than the Yamato - if you must have a super battleship. More AAA never hurts a battleship in WWII.
Just curious, Cid. Is this design what the Japanese had planned prior to her conversion to a CV? Or is it a supposition based on lessons learned in the war to date? I hadn't seen any information as to what mods they had contemplated should she have been completed as a BB.
The 100 mm gun was then new - and it was the best medium caliber AA gun Japan had (and arguably in the world - even in 1945 - it had a longer range and higher ROF than a 5 inch gun - ANY 5 inch gun - and its mounting was in fact heavier). Japan planned to use these guns on CLAAs, both design to purpose and modified existing, and in fact did use them on a scaled down CLAA which I call a DDAA in my games (the first Japanese ship with a CIC - an AA Fire Direction Center room abaft the bridge). The plan to outfit "improved" Yamato class was part of the more general context of this planning to use the 100mm gun. There was also a complimentary 76mm AA gun - used on some light cruisers and CVL Ibuki - and a fine weapon which should have been mass produced. [Imagine it in place of the 4.7inch on escorts? It was a tub gun - a light weight thing that could mount on deck - like the US 3 inch 50s which took until after the war to be widely adopted.] Had Shinano and her sister (which laid down) been completed as designed, THIS is the design. The philosophy of RHSBBO is to give you the NEAREST to history possible - which in my view is not what happened - but what was PLANNED when the war began. Only in RHSESO (Empire of the Sun - to release last) will you see MY idea of "how they should have done it").
THIS is the design. The philosophy of RHSBBO is to give you the NEAREST to history possible - which in my view is not what happened - but what was PLANNED when the war began. Only in RHSESO (Empire of the Sun - to release last) will you see MY idea of "how they should have done it").
Thanks for the reply. Not sure if that will work though... I mean, who wants a game based on reasonable planning?[:D][:D][:D]
Chez
Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98
Completely OT, I just found a site I had lost with dretailed info ref the FAA squadrons, I put it on the "Research,etc." thread...(I forgot who was wanting that.) http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Ships/Index.html
It was me. I have horrible problems with FAA in CHS and stock - and I wanted some supplimentary materials to help sort it out. Thanks. Once I find a datum, I can usually verify it in print.
FAA squadron and Brit CV assignments are a nightmare - squadrons moved from ship to ship, disbanded, reformed and even moved out of PTO. How the h3ll do you simulate that given the constraint of the game mechanics
FAA squadron and Brit CV assignments are a nightmare - squadrons moved from ship to ship, disbanded, reformed and even moved out of PTO. How the h3ll do you simulate that given the constraint of the game mechanics
Amen. It is almost impossible to say what is "right" - with a few exceptions. I would welcome a serious study of this issue. But know that no matter what we do it will be a compromise - we cannot disband - rename - change assignments - etc in the database itself.
