AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues [OUTDATED]

[Wirraway_Ace]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: DBS

Question - in the Editor, why are some fixed forward-firing weapons listed as Front, while others are listed as Centre-Line? Does it make any difference?

Centerline guns generally have better accuracy as wing guns rely on deflection shooting..

I think you may be referring to the issue of the convergence point of wing mounted guns. Deflection shooting, I believe, referred to the relationship of the targets path and speed to the shooter’s path and speed and the need to accurately judge the lead point for aim based on the amount of deflection.

[Buck Beach]

The initial OOB seems a little lite in comparison to some of the fine work that was done in some of the WITP mods. Maybe most of the missing groups didn't have that much of an impact on playing the game and were left out to save time and confusion.

Take for example the Panama Zone. Both bases are built up to fairly high levels but only one has any Air Support and there are no aircraft. Maybe the bases were configured for future modders. Then there's San Diego with only 5 serviceable aircraft out of 3 groups and 9 aircraft total and 4 of those are Patrol aircraft in one group.

Anyway I expect there will be many differences between the heavily modded original WITP and AE vanilla but I wanted to point out these. I am not a expert of the OOBs in anyway and my observations are most likely wrong.

[bsq]

Issues so far with the Brit Air OOB

1.  Lancasters. 

• Listed is B Mk1 (FE), guns are that of a B Mk VII (FE)
• FE's had a bomb bay fuel tank that took the place of the 4000lb 'cookie' (indeed one questions the need for the 4000lb HC given the experiences of the B-29 raids)
• 617 Sqn, although famous for it's use of 'specials' received B Mk VII (FE) in mid 45

2.  Meteors - absent?
3.  Vampires - absent?
4.  York - absent?

[Dixie]

No.100 Sqn RAF should have a withdrawal date in Feb 1942 when the squadron was folded into the remnants of 36 Sqn.

Also, 44 (Rhodesia) Sqn wasn't actually a Commonwealth unit, it was an RAF squadron with a slightly higher percentage of Rhodesians than most units (around 25% at it's height) and named for the country's contribution to the war effort.

[Cathartes]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

The initial OOB seems a little lite in comparison to some of the fine work that was done in some of the WITP mods. Maybe most of the missing groups didn't have that much of an impact on playing the game and were left out to save time and confusion.

Take for example the Panama Zone. Both bases are built up to fairly high levels but only one has any Air Support and there are no aircraft. Maybe the bases were configured for future modders. Then there's San Diego with only 5 serviceable aircraft out of 3 groups and 9 aircraft total and 4 of those are Patrol aircraft in one group.

Anyway I expect there will be many differences between the heavily modded original WITP and AE vanilla but I wanted to point out these. I am not a expert of the OOBs in anyway and my observations are most likely wrong.

TimTom needs to chime in here with this and other OOB comments.

My understanding of some of the off-map ports in regards to air OOB is that these bases were not completely worked up simply because they are only abstracted for ship/supply/reinforcement movement, and it's not possible for any air, land, or naval combat to ever take place at off-map locations. So, why have an off-map squadron present if they can't perform any function?

[Bliztk]

Avenger I and Avenger II have the same operational date as 3/44. Avenger I should be earlier, I guess

Also P40N5 and P40N1 have the same arrival month too. Should be different ?? [&:]

[thegreatwent]

Thanks Michael!

[XENXEN]

A small thing i found, the audax 1 light bomber uses 2 engines and its default bomb load is 2 x 20 GP bombs but the reduced bomb load is 4x 20 GP bombs ?  is this right 

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: Cathartes

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Take for example the Panama Zone. Both bases are built up to fairly high levels but only one has any Air Support and there are no aircraft.

My understanding of some of the off-map ports in regards to air OOB is that these bases were not completely worked up simply because they are only abstracted for ship/supply/reinforcement movement, and it's not possible for any air, land, or naval combat to ever take place at off-map locations. So, why have an off-map squadron present if they can't perform any function?

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Maybe the bases were configured for future modders. Then there's San Diego with only 5 serviceable aircraft out of 3 groups and 9 aircraft total and 4 of those are Patrol aircraft in one group.

VMO-251 in fact had no a/c on hand. We have no way of assigning 0 a/c to a unit, so these get two token a/c to represent hacks.

I don't know exactly how many a/c VP-43 had on hand except it wasn't many. The unit was formed only that July and was in the process of working up. Come April '42 it was able to send a six-plane detachment to Alaska.

I don' t know the exact strenght of 49th PS either. On December 1st, 14th PG had a total strength of 12 P-40's, 5 P-38's and 5 P-36's, of which 6 P-40's, 2 P-38's and a single P-36 were actually servicable. Which isn't to say that the situation would necesarily be unchanged a week later, but I have no idea either way.

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

Avenger I and Avenger II have the same operational date as 3/44. Avenger I should be earlier, I guess

Noted, but strictly a naval team issue. If you go badger them enough they might sign over the account to the professionals [;)]

ORIGINAL: Dixie

No.100 Sqn RAF should have a withdrawal date in Feb 1942 when the squadron was folded into the remnants of 36 Sqn.

No.100 Sqn RAF becomes No.100 Sqn RAAF. Call it a compromise.

ORIGINAL: Dixie

Also, 44 (Rhodesia) Sqn wasn't actually a Commonwealth unit, it was an RAF squadron with a slightly higher percentage of Rhodesians than most units (around 25% at it's height) and named for the country's contribution to the war effort.

Makes sense.

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

Also P40N5 and P40N1 have the same arrival month too. Should be different ?? [&:]

The N-1 is a one-off issue intimately linked to 80th FG arriving mid-June '43. Their steeds will trickle in during July. This relationship will of course be lost on PDU-lovers who also (potentially) get to throw 80th FG directly into combat. Historically 80th FG had trained on P-47's, deployed to India without aircraft only to find a couple of ex-AVG P-40's (!) waiting for them. Subsequently the N-1's arrived and the (soon to be) Burma Banshees spend a couple of months getting the hang of their new aircraft before deploying forward.

The N-5 is the bog standard N which just happens to become available 7/43 also.

ORIGINAL: bsq

1. Lancasters.
Listed is B Mk1 (FE), guns are that of a B Mk VII (FE). FE's had a bomb bay fuel tank that took the place of the 4000lb 'cookie' (indeed one questions the need for the 4000lb HC given the experiences of the B-29 raids)

My understanding is that the armament of the B.1 (FE) was 2x.303 Browning MK II in a F.N.5 nose turret, 2x.303 Browning MK II in a F.N.150 mid-upper turret, also removable if the 400 gal BB tank(-s) was carried, and 2x0.5 Browning Mk II in an F.N.82 or 121 rear turret. Don't know how many, if any, came with the F.N.79 turret.

The Mk VII, I believe, had a similar armament suite except the upper turret was a Martin housing 2x0.50's.

What do you hold the correct armament to be, Robert?

ORIGINAL: bsq

617 Sqn, although famous for it's use of 'specials' received B Mk VII (FE) in mid 45[/ul]

Guess they did...AB won't be happy - he's got a special Dambuster .waw file 'nd everything.

ORIGINAL: bsq
2. Meteors - absent?
3. Vampires - absent?
4. York - absent?

Yes. Gotta keep the modders sweet. Presently.

...Thanks guys - keep 'em coming [:)]

ORIGINAL: XENXEN

A small thing i found, the audax 1 light bomber uses 2 engines and its default bomb load is 2 x 20 GP bombs but the reduced bomb load is 4x 20 GP bombs ? is this right

Næppe...

[Mike Solli]

In the campaign, there are no B5N2 Kate factories. Is this correct?

[XENXEN]

ORIGINAL: timtom

Næppe...

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

I dont see any of the original Tainan group pilots in this scenario (Guadalcanal) or the others? Is there longer no historical pilots? [:(]

I happened to see in the reserve pilot list (I think that was what it's called) S. Sakai (Saburo possibly)? He had the highest experience rating. But it showed him in Tainan daitai. Not sure why that is though. I don't really understand that part of it yet.

There is a cross-link issue when groups are initially assigned pilots. They sometimes get 'borrowed' by another group.

The pilots aren't lost. They either end up in the wrong group or in the pilot reserve.
This is down to be corrected in the first patch.

Woohoo! Great to hear! Thanks for Michael and team for all of your hard work and making this the best game ever!!! [&o]

[Speedysteve]

Hi all,

Is this working as designed? As in after a CV combat my squadrons had automatically fileld up with a bunch of pilots. In this case from 20 to 44.

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: XENXEN

ORIGINAL: timtom

Næppe...

"Næppe" as in "No, not right" - not "Næppe" as in "Not bl**dy likely, mate"

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

In the campaign, there are no B5N2 Kate factories. Is this correct?

There should be. AB will know.

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: Dixie

No.100 Sqn RAF should have a withdrawal date in Feb 1942 when the squadron was folded into the remnants of 36 Sqn.

Caused me to rummage round for this little titbit:

[Barb]

Aleutian Scenario. CVE Nassau - Det/VMO-155
There are 3 F4F-3P Wildcats. As their bombing armament is listed as CAMERA, I think they should be Recon type, But they are as standard Fighter Squadron.

Is there no way to have recon type planes carrier trained/capable or to have recon squadron aboard carrier? Or is it database error?

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

In the campaign, there are no B5N2 Kate factories. Is this correct?

There is a size 0 factory in Hiroshima/Kure.

Andrew

[Dixie]

ORIGINAL: timtom

ORIGINAL: Dixie

No.100 Sqn RAF should have a withdrawal date in Feb 1942 when the squadron was folded into the remnants of 36 Sqn.

Caused me to rummage round for this little titbit:

Nice little find there [:)] I knew that there had been plans to equip them with Aussie Beauforts but the accounts usually don't mention why they didn't do so. Looks like someone should have told W/C Miller and S/L Kirby they were in the air force, not the fair force [:'(]

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: Dixie

Looks like someone should have told W/C Miller and S/L Kirby they were in the air force, not the fair force [:'(]

In their defense, after all they'd been chased for several months by complete strangers trying to kill them.

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: Barb

Aleutian Scenario. CVE Nassau - Det/VMO-155
There are 3 F4F-3P Wildcats. As their bombing armament is listed as CAMERA, I think they should be Recon type, But they are as standard Fighter Squadron.

Is there no way to have recon type planes carrier trained/capable or to have recon squadron aboard carrier? Or is it database error?

Any a/c equipped with the camera device should be able to fly the recon mission. This is the cheap&cheerful way of turning a fighter into a tac-rec type. There's a known issue with the camera device, so maybe that's what you're seeing.

I just hope ya'll remember that the aircraft file alone has 37,808 data fields to track