CHS E13A1 upgraded to M6A1

[trollelite]

Don't move this thema, it's basically a scenario design problem.

As you know, all other float planes are useless, so they are dumped by me as soon as enough Jake become available. Now all my float planes (except for float fighters, of course) are Jakes. Then M6A1 float torpedo plane (labelled as float plane) become available. Now I find a strange problem. Some of my Jake squadron can be upgraded to M6A1 (most squadron or detachment which is based in ship, i.e. indepandent command), while other squadrons must stick to Jakes ( all of them are original land-based squadron, i.e, with a command, home defence, southern area, etc). Their "upgrade list" doesn't show M6A1, or other float planes, only E13A1 jakes, that means they cannot be upgraded any more.

I can live with that, what I cannot understand is why this is possible. This problem also appears by carrier planes. For example, if you upgrade your carrier-based claudes to zeros, then they cannot be converted back to A5M4, but those IJN land-based carrier-capable squadrons could.

So what's about it? I cannot find anything in scenario editor to do with that. How could this problem then come into being?

[DuckofTindalos]

"As you know, all other float planes are useless"... Sheesh...[8|]

[trollelite]

In chs , that is.

[Dili]

Useless! Long life Midway!

[trollelite]

……………… everything is more useful than NOTHING......... But if I prepare midway I would make sure I take every single Jake I could instead of Pete or Alf. 

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: trollelite

Don't move this thema, it's basically a scenario design problem.

As you know, all other float planes are useless, so they are dumped by me as soon as enough Jake become available. Now all my float planes (except for float fighters, of course) are Jakes. Then M6A1 float torpedo plane (labelled as float plane) become available. Now I find a strange problem. Some of my Jake squadron can be upgraded to M6A1 (most squadron or detachment which is based in ship, i.e. indepandent command), while other squadrons must stick to Jakes ( all of them are original land-based squadron, i.e, with a command, home defence, southern area, etc). Their "upgrade list" doesn't show M6A1, or other float planes, only E13A1 jakes, that means they cannot be upgraded any more.

I can live with that, what I cannot understand is why this is possible. This problem also appears by carrier planes. For example, if you upgrade your carrier-based claudes to zeros, then they cannot be converted back to A5M4, but those IJN land-based carrier-capable squadrons could.

So what's about it? I cannot find anything in scenario editor to do with that. How could this problem then come into being?

Japanese subs are only supposed to carry Glens, until late in the war when a few are equpped with the M6A1. I am not aware of the M6A1 being used by land based units. If you have historical information on that I would be interested in seeing it.

Unfortunately it is not easy to actually prevent players from replacing Glens on Japanese subs with other aircraft, but I will add a suggested house rule to the CHS documentation that it should be prohibited.

Andrew

[el cid again]

In RHS I DELIBERATELY have the E16 upgrade to the M6A1 - because it is simply a better floatplane. We have E13s upgrade to E16s. You are not REQUIRED to upgrade if you do not wish to do so. E16s are the historical plane used by half the semi-carriers air groups (the other half use Judy's). [FYI we all were wrong about the semi-carriers - they will operate BOTH float and regular bombers]

I also personally think the E7K is a fabulous patrol plane - short range ASW aircraft - and I keep some units with them as long as possible. I don't think any plane is useless - but I don't particularly like the E8.

As for other types of planes, when the war ended, the First Submarine Flotilla was attempting an air strike at Ulithi, and it had two different types embarked for the mission - neither of them Glens: M6A1 and a recon type. Another mission scrubbed just before that contemplated launching baloon bombs (of a Navy type, not the Army type) near US West Coast cities - so they would not miss the target - armed with Uji biological bombs. [This was disclosed to Burt Webber in a visit to Japan, and they gave him documents: See Silent Siege, University of Oregon Press] In RHS some scenarios simulate this (the EOS family) by fitting the Glens with Uji bombs on two submarines that carry them.

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: trollelite

Don't move this thema, it's basically a scenario design problem.

As you know, all other float planes are useless, so they are dumped by me as soon as enough Jake become available. Now all my float planes (except for float fighters, of course) are Jakes. Then M6A1 float torpedo plane (labelled as float plane) become available. Now I find a strange problem. Some of my Jake squadron can be upgraded to M6A1 (most squadron or detachment which is based in ship, i.e. indepandent command), while other squadrons must stick to Jakes ( all of them are original land-based squadron, i.e, with a command, home defence, southern area, etc). Their "upgrade list" doesn't show M6A1, or other float planes, only E13A1 jakes, that means they cannot be upgraded any more.

I can live with that, what I cannot understand is why this is possible. This problem also appears by carrier planes. For example, if you upgrade your carrier-based claudes to zeros, then they cannot be converted back to A5M4, but those IJN land-based carrier-capable squadrons could.

So what's about it? I cannot find anything in scenario editor to do with that. How could this problem then come into being?

There are two different ways to designate upgrades in the editor. A plane type can have a global upgrade path, ie all F4F-3 upgrade to F4F-4. Then you can also have an upgrade path for a specific unit. I haven't looked, but I suspect the global upgrade path for the Jakes is itself, in other words, the Jake is the end of the line. However, some units are set to upgrade from Jakes to M6A1. With PDU on, upgrading one of these units set to upgrade will usually unlock the possibility to upgrade all aircraft of that type. I think I may have seen the unlock not happen sometimes, but I can't remember the specifics.

As for upgrading and losing the downgrade path, you will lose the downgrade path when there are no more units equipped with a type of aircraft. This includes units in the reinforcement queue. Sometimes a downgrade path gets locked out even when there still are other units operating it. For example, I have seen this with the Martin bomber used by the Dutch. THe game may have some code to decide if a plane is obsolete and may cut off downgrade paths to obsolete types. I'm not sure.

The game may track carrier trained and carrier capable units differently. If the last Claude on a carrier is upgraded to Zero, it may shut off the path for carrier trained units, while leaving it open for carrier capable units flying the same type.

Carrier trained units start on a carrier, carrier capable start on land flying aircraft used from carriers. Carrier capable units can fly from carriers, but op losses will be higher.

Bill

[el cid again]

Note that, in spite of what the manual says and what Matrix says, the plane upgrade routine has some unpredictable aspects to it. MOST are tracable to errors by modders - but SOME clearly are not. You should be able to upgrade to any plane of the same type and service (or nation). It sometimes happens you have other options - even if not defined as such anywhere.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

In RHS I DELIBERATELY have the E16 upgrade to the M6A1 - because it is simply a better floatplane. We have E13s upgrade to E16s. You are not REQUIRED to upgrade if you do not wish to do so. E16s are the historical plane used by half the semi-carriers air groups (the other half use Judy's). [FYI we all were wrong about the semi-carriers - they will operate BOTH float and regular bombers]

How so with regular bombers do semi-carriers 'operate' them? Unless it is a flat plane they are not able to recover them at sea.

[spence]

How so with regular bombers do semi-carriers 'operate' them? Unless it is a flat plane they are not able to recover them at sea.

It's a little know fact (undoubtably known only to El Cid in fact) that the Japanese invented VSTOL aircraft to use on their semi-carriers. The designs and even working examples are buried under a mountain in North Korea right next to the IJN's Death Ray AAA Projectors, the IJA's thermonuclear stockpiles, and Godzilla.

[Nomad]

ORIGINAL: spence

How so with regular bombers do semi-carriers 'operate' them? Unless it is a flat plane they are not able to recover them at sea.

It's a little know fact (undoubtably known only to El Cid in fact) that the Japanese invented VSTOL aircraft to use on their semi-carriers. The designs and even working examples are buried under a mountain in North Korea right next to the IJN's Death Ray AAA Projectors, the IJA's thermonuclear stockpiles, and Godzilla.

Is that down the path from Mothra? [:)]

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

ORIGINAL: el cid again

In RHS I DELIBERATELY have the E16 upgrade to the M6A1 - because it is simply a better floatplane. We have E13s upgrade to E16s. You are not REQUIRED to upgrade if you do not wish to do so. E16s are the historical plane used by half the semi-carriers air groups (the other half use Judy's). [FYI we all were wrong about the semi-carriers - they will operate BOTH float and regular bombers]

How so with regular bombers do semi-carriers 'operate' them? Unless it is a flat plane they are not able to recover them at sea.

OK - this is apples and oranges. You are of course quite correct - and I was talking about CODE - not operations.

In fact, the Japanese semi-carrier concept ORIGINALLY ONLY specified regular CV aircraft! They were concieved of as a way to get EXTRA carrier bombers - along side regular CVs - to a battle area. Any bombers that survived were then to divert to land bases or other carriers. At which point the semi-carriers lost meaning as aircraft carriers. Rather than have them wholly one shot deals, they MODIFIED the concept so that SOME of the planes on both ships would be seaplanes. It was not exactly 50-50 for each SHIP, but it was 50-50 for the FORCE! [One ship had 13 seaplanes and 9 dive bombers, the other had complimentary numbers] For details see The Hybred Warship.

The Japanese used the German Hein Mat to recover seaplanes while underway. This technology dragged a "mat" from a beam swung out to the side of the ship - on which the seaplane would sit down - and a crane could then hook on and lift her aboard. An alternative form used the mat astern. Since that technology was mature - it solved the "unable to recover" problem without requiring the ship to stop.

One of the problems with the semi-carrier concept is that recovery is problematical. It is not unsoluable. You have seen US carrier planes land into a net: it could be done. The problem is the air currents are not very predictable due to the superstructure, and the exhaust gasses of centerline stacks are also not nice, in more than one sense. Until the advent of VTOL this was not an easy problem to solve. It has a lot to do with why US and Japanese studies of semi-carriers did not get funded. The more practical of them had the guns on the main deck - below a proper flight deck - which just was not as long as the ship.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Nomad

ORIGINAL: spence

How so with regular bombers do semi-carriers 'operate' them? Unless it is a flat plane they are not able to recover them at sea.

It's a little know fact (undoubtably known only to El Cid in fact) that the Japanese invented VSTOL aircraft to use on their semi-carriers. The designs and even working examples are buried under a mountain in North Korea right next to the IJN's Death Ray AAA Projectors, the IJA's thermonuclear stockpiles, and Godzilla.

Is that down the path from Mothra? [:)]

Well - you got the part it is esoteric knowledge - but it IS recorded - see Francillon! The first operational rotary wing aircraft in history for military service were Ka-1 autogyros - for spotting - but later also for ASW use on carriers. But these were ARMY aircraft destined for ARMY ships - NOT for the semi-carriers. No one thought of using them on the semi-carriers (which were designed after Midway in 1942, before anyone tought about using rotary wing for ASW). But they could have operated from converted oilers with flight decks - and did operate from at least one Army ship with a flight deck - probably more than one. The "air group" also included a strange STOL fixed wing aircraft - the Ki-76 - which was a cousin to the Feisler Storch with even more STOL capability. This sort of aircraft could certainly land on almost anything - and Mousillini was rescued when one "landed" on top of a castle! But while the Ki-76 did get converted for ASW use - again it was an ARMY aircraft for ARMY ships - and NOT intended for semi-carriers.

Instead, as related above, and described in detail in the cited book on semi-carriers, the Japanese semi-carriers were NOT supposed to land their carrier planes. Now you know: just because you don't understand it does not mean I don't understand it - or that it isn't fully documented - and in English. If you need a cloth to wash off the egg on your face, just ask...

Interestingly, there WAS a Japanese project to kill airplanes with a death ray albiet not IJN as I recall - and it did manage to kill a rabbit or some such thing in a laboratory - but it wasn't in Korea (Tokyo probably). We took it seriously enough to look into it - and it may be that some contemporary research is a long term fruit of that. I personally advocated use of electromagnetic weapons vs missiles as early as 1966 - and there is now a flying test bed. A great deal of Axis wartime research was indeed silly - and much more was a waste of resources in the sense it could not produce results in time - but not everything was silly - whatever you may believe. On the other hand, Godzilla was a curious creation of the Japanese Communist Party, intended to ridicule the Japanese military, to capitalize on fears of anything radioactive, and to encourage Japan not to remilitarize. The idea was unrelated to anything IRL - except perhaps making money for certain publishers.

[trollelite]

Perhaps it remains a myth.
 
Of course I wouldn't upgrade Glens to others, it's a cheat, but it's not a bad idea to equip my AVs and battleships with M6A1, and I have already found out it's much deadlier than B6N , almost equals B7A (!!! believe you or not).
 
But I cannot understand this upgrade problem. Of course fixed-wing planes are divided into carrier-based (carrier trained) and land-based, this could perhaps explain why carrier squadron cannot be downgraded to claudes.  but by float planes there is no such thing, no difference from warship-trained or warship-capable....[;)]

[el cid again]

The code is very simple. Turns out that "aircraft capacity" on a non carrier is just "aircraft capacity." You can put ANYTHING on a non-carrier. Wether or not it works is further divided into two categories:

a) Is it a seaplane? If yes, it will work, no matter the plane, or the ship. Thus you can put ANY seaplane on a sub (just like on a battleship).

b) Is it a carrier plane? If yes, it WILL work, no matter the plane, or the ship! I accidently discovered this by putting A6M2s on Nagato vice A6M2-Ns - they worked just fine.

c) If neither a or b above applies, it WILL ride the ship, transfer to or from the ship in port, but NOT do ANY other mission (although you may ASSIGN the mission, it will not fly).

Theories in the Forum that a non-carrier plane will work on a carrier (with worse attrition) are incorrect: they never fly the mission (except transfer off the carrier if in port).

[trollelite]

Only single engine aircraft can be put on carrier. Or not?

[el cid again]

No such limit. At one point I put the Doolittle bombers on USS Hornet. The ONLY reason they are not still there is I have slot problems. And in EEO I am about to put them back. There ARE problems - in that a "level bomber" won't honor carrier orders - even if it is "carrier qualified and carrier capable" - but you can cheat - and I did - by defining a "torpedo bomber" with horizontal bomber art and data. That works. A dive bomber works fine.

[okami]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

No such limit. At one point I put the Doolittle bombers on USS Hornet. The ONLY reason they are not still there is I have slot problems. And in EEO I am about to put them back. There ARE problems - in that a "level bomber" won't honor carrier orders - even if it is "carrier qualified and carrier capable" - but you can cheat - and I did - by defining a "torpedo bomber" with horizontal bomber art and data. That works. A dive bomber works fine.

So the Japanese could put army divebombers on carriers. I think this calls for a houserule, don't you?

[el cid again]

In principle, I do not agree. But in practice, I mostly do it your way.

In principle, the JAAF could and did operate the same aircraft as the JNAF did. Further - the only significant dive bomber when the war begain in JAAF service (i.e. Ki-51) was the result of a proposal by a NAVY captain! Further - the JAAF is the ONLY air force in history to actually design, order, build (convert) and operate aircraft carriers - in several senses - although not attack aircraft carriers. JAAF aviation ships long predated WWII, although JAAF requirements were unusual, insofar as early aviation ships were NOT required to land on.

In practice, and in code, there is no problem. If you read closely what I explained above, you will see that an aircraft that is not carrier capable will not actually operate from a carrier. So UNLESS you put a JAAF dive bomber in a carrier slot, it will not be an issue.

In practice, in RHS, in the CVO and BBO scenario families, JAAF gets a carrier aircraft (representing TWO real world ones) for ASW work - the Ki-76. And in the EOS family, JAAF actually operates carrier bombers - and can convert back and forth to some degree between army and navy carrier/land based aircraft. However, while the Ki-76 IS "carrier capable" and can be assigned to Army "carrier qualified" squadrons, the Val and Kate in the EOS family have NO "carrier capable" JAAF units available to them. When these planes (and even Claude fighters) are on carriers, it is to TRANSPORT them, and they ONLY offload in port.

What has happened here is that you confused what I said about CARRIERS with what I said about NON CARRIERS.
The Battleships, cruisers, etc that we think of as flying FLOATPLANES actually CAN be assigned land planes. Code is smart enough not to let a C-47 or a B-17 fly from one - but it won't prevent you from carrying it around. What it is NOT smart enough to prevent is letting you put a fighter, dive bomber or torpedo bomber on them that IS CARRIER CAPABLE. In that case, it lets them fly. But you see the Army has none of those - well except in RHSEOS family.
And you cannot normally put them on a battleship - only a modder can do that with an editor. But IF you put ANY carrier capable plane of the proper sort (not a transport rated as carrier capable - which won't fly - nor a bomber) on a cruiser, etc - it would fly.

And I certainly believe that is a violation of my primary house rule: it it would not happen IRL do not do it.