DaBabes - Comment Call

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen
The JAAF used airfield battalions to maintain its flying units, that is, there was no direct relationship between flying units and ground echelons as found in the USAAF and the RAF. Or, in other words, their maintenance units were not part of the flying units. Sometimes those airfield battalions moved along when a flying unit changed its base, sometimes not.

Thanks. Was thinking it was kinda the same in the AAF. Just fx, Olmendorf was hosting the 28th Composite Group, but was supported by the 23rd Aviation Base Group (+) comprising 24th, 31st, 32nd Material and Base Sqdns.

We could find some of the actual opening day unit designations, but beyond that ... slim to none. So we named the Avn Base Grp units (and the Avn Base Sqdn units) with the numeric of the actual groups that entered theater, and assigned them to the corresponding AFHQs. Woof. These are all "mobile" in the sense that they can be deployed. But many are assigned to West Coast with HQ changes to 5th and 7th AF happening anywhere from 4 to 9 months later. The established Continental, Alaskan, Hawaiian, AFBs have their own permanently restricted base complements.

We gots about 72 Avn Base Grp units, with about 32 arriving in '44 and '45, so 40 is all you get for '42 and '43, and they do arrive a bit thin, and a bunch of them go to 10th and 14th AF in CBI/China. Not a lot was done with 8th AF - there were only a few groups designated for Pac, and many of these were transfers from 10th and 20th AF; all the groups actually designated to 8th AF for Pac service are in-game.

Ok, that's it for air. Have to do a little smiling and dialing on the Base Sqdns, but we're darn close.

[Don Bowen]

Don't forget the MAGs....

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Don't forget the MAGs....

Maggie's what, drawers?[:D]

[vettim89]

First, I am waiting on this mod before I start an AE PBEM - so hurry up yous guys!!!!!

I love what you guys are up to here. The whole concept of a logistical tail is something that needs modeled better in the game. If I am understanding what I am reading correctly it should reel in the game a little. There are some players that like myself want a model as close to the historical realities as possible. These changes may very well bring us closer to that point. For those of you concerned about the Japanese being hampered too much, I would say they should be. The early war gains were largely against undefended or lightly defended targets. Malaya would be the biggest exception to that and that was just pure superior command and control at work. While the IJA cleared most of the PI quickly they were up against it at Bataan. Homma was in trouble. His troops were exhausted and near collapse. It was only when additional fresh troops were brought in that the siege was lifted. This sounds like the exact type of scenario Da Babes is trying to create.

Look at Guadalcanal. Both sides struggled to get forces and supplies into the island. Both sides were fighting with tired and demoralized troops. What won the battle? The USN finally gained control over the SLOC, pulled the first Marine DIv and replaced them with fresh troops who had been resting and training at a rear base with plenty of support. Perhaps Da Babes will bring us this kind of game

PS: on the wish list for AFB would be that Americal comes in as its seperate Rgts. TF 6814 with the first two rgts arrived at Noumea on 12 March 1942 (132nd Inf RGT and 182nd Inf Rgt). The 164th Inf Rgt arrived NC on 19 April 1942 with artillery assets shortly thereafter. AMERICAL was formed on 24 May 1942. I just noticed that the OOB is not right in arrival dates in a lot of places as units arrive in game on or near the date where the arrived in theatre. TF 6814 left the CONTUS far sooner than March if it was on NC by 12 March

Americal

[Jo van der Pluym]

ORIGINAL: JWE


The basic Support paradigm is:
US gets ~ 85-90% of unit device totals as Sup - divided up between Sup and MotSup for load hardness.
Japan gets ~ 75-80% of unit device totals as Sup - divided up between Sup and MotSup for load hardness.

Comments welcome.

And what about the British, Australia, New Zealand, India, French, Dutch, Soviet, China and other countries?

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
Don't forget the MAGs....

Oh, you bet I won't (what, do I want to be shot?). We got the all the MAWs and all the MAGs. Having some fun differentiating between BFs and HQs. What it's looking like so far, is we got 109 'technical' BFs, from USN Fleet Lions, down to AAF Base Sqdns. That's down from 196, and the loadout for AvSup is ~7/9 of what was and arrivals are realistic, so ... ain't we got fun, now.

Working from bottom up (one way) and top down (t'other way) to figure out which, where, and how structured the HQs ought to be. AAF is cookie cutter and at AF level. Marines are at MAG level. Navy is somewhere between. MAWs are mostly command level and have decent hex ranges, but don't have much for AvSup. MAGs are the working fellows, and have range 1, but provide most of the operational Marine AvSup. There's 4 MAWs and 14 MAGs. A MAG has just about the same amount of AvSup as an AAF Base Group; a MAW has about a third that of a MAG.

Still have to scrub HQs in general, but think we're about half way there.

Ciao. John

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym
And what about the British, Australia, New Zealand, India, French, Dutch, Soviet, China and other countries?

They come next, Jo. We won't forget our Allies.

We have to put some stakes in the ground and using the US seemed a good first step. We'll probably keep China and the Sovs in a degree of abstraction, but for the rest, we'll try and do the same majic and keep to the same standard. But that's for tomorrow.

[mikemike]

ORIGINAL: Dili

As you realize, this would be fine but would truly need to be coded at some point.

Coding always need to be made. One way is to connect the already existing airplane repair index to a specific number of air support teams.

This sounds feasible. But I believe you would have to factor in the number of engines, too. You would also need to make the individual Av support squad smaller.

[JWE]

No matter what your wishes, desires, likes, dislikes, thoughts, rants, or whatever - forget it. This is a data only mod and there will be no – let me be perfectly clear – ABSOLUTELY NO – code changes, tweaks, or modifications. You need to complain about wanting the code to be different, please go to the complaint dept on the main forum, but leave this thread alone.

Ok, while we are raping, burning, and looting – whoops, keep forgetting; have to write a hundred times, “loot, Then burn – loot, Then burn” – might as well rape the HQs too, yeah

Command, Army, Air, Naval, and Phib. They all work different. A Naval HQ just spreads its NavSup and Sup over its range – not all that useful. A Command HQ gives lots of bonuses, but mostly in the ground combat environment, and for Air ops. Wish it could give a bonus for NavOps, but it cant, and it won’t, so don’t even ask. Thinking of turning Fleet HQs into Command HQs anyway.

A Fleet Boss isn’t gonna give any bennies to his ships. That’s not his job. But put Spruance or Halsey in a Fleet Command, and Smith or Barbey in a Phib HQ, and you got something to work with. Not perfect, but a skoosh better than the stock paradigm. Killed all the NavSup and Sup crap for Nav HQs; neither Nimitz nor Yamamoto had direct personal command of much beyond a few thousand staff officers that could barely change a spark plug. So Nav Command HQs are nothing more than the commander and his specs; and his staff, and the messboys with the steaks and ice cream, and the correspondents, and a few odd nephews here and there. Fit really good on the AGCs out there.

[JWE]

Ok, one more piece of heresy. We have deployable units (USMC DefBns, Army CstArty, etc.) that come stocked with 5 and 6 inch CD guns, that upgrade to 155mm M1918s (Panama Mount type), and eventually to M1A1s – all designated as Naval Guns in the Device file.

But the units (particularly the DefBns) functioned as good old medium arty, so the M1A1s should be ‘Army Weaps’. Then, both the 5”/51 Mk 9 and the 6”/53 Mk 12 had much better specs (as NavWeaps) than the M1918. So what’s with the “upgrade” to the M1918?

Thinking of having permanent harbor/port defenses stick with their 5 and 6 inch CD guns. CstArty can (and did) start out with the M1918, and don’t upgrade; the ballistic performance as a NavWeap (with AP) was very similar between the M1918 and the M1A1. So … have a few M1918s in the device file; some upgrade, some don’t. Some CstArty units get one of the NavWeaps versions and stay there. Some CstArty, and the DefBns get another NavWeaps version and bump up to a M1A1, full boogie Arty device. Some other folks might get a M1918 Arty version that eventually bumps up to Long Tom.

Gun specs also need a bit of help; a confusing mix of Acc, Pen, Eff, with some numbers pulled from HE, some from 1948 HVAAC, woof. Don’t care about the bigger CD guns, but will need to smile and dial on 3” to 6” CDs vis a vis ship weaps and HiV tubes up to 155mm.

This is how we plan to approach it, but anybody out there, with a woodie for this stuff, please feel free to comment.

This is a data mod. There will be NO CODE CHANGES. Wants, desires, complaints about the game system belong somewhere else and will not be entertained here.

[Blackhorse]

Re: CD guns. What is the functional difference between having the M1A1s classified as "Naval" vs "Army" guns?

If an Army gun can bombard, and still be just as effective in a CD role (by using the accuracy setting in the editor), then by all means set them as Army.

. . . and don't forget the 90mm. In AE I set them as DP guns (so they could serve as AA as well as anti-ship). Supposedly, the device range has to be over 15k for DP to function. True? The Marines also used the 90mm for artillery support, but I couldn't out a way to make the 90mm function as AA, CD and arty.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse
Re: CD guns. What is the functional difference between having the M1A1s classified as "Naval" vs "Army" guns?
If an Army gun can bombard, and still be just as effective in a CD role (by using the accuracy setting in the editor), then by all means set them as Army.

Woof !! you are making me think; Damn you Joel. Not sure; took the path of least resistance and greatest benefit to the Arty branch. Ok, will crank thru the code again and see what kind of voodoo we can do.

. . . and don't forget the 90mm. In AE I set them as DP guns (so they could serve as AA as well as anti-ship). The Marines also used the 90mm for artillery support, but I couldn't out a way to make the 90mm function as AA, CD and arty.

Yeah, the 90s were interesting. Jim found some great stuff on 90mm batteries, some were on AAA mounts, some were on Hi-deflection Anti-torpedo boat mounts; the ammo allocated to each, and more important the fuzes, meant that one could not fire in the other mode. But that's getting too 'technical', so DP is way cool. There were only a few 90s that had HE with CP fuzes, so didn't think they would be important in the grand scheme of Arty things. Think DP is best for these (probably get kicked out of lodge for saying so).

Supposedly, the device range has to be over 15k for DP to function. True?

Not exactly. AAA model looks at the Ceiling parameter (it's in feet). Other models look at Range parameter (it's in k-yds). They are independent.

Ciao. John

[Mac Linehan]

Sounds Outstanding, JWE.

[Mac Linehan]

Original:

JWE -

The idea is to remove BF “units” per se, and aggregate their stuff into other, more actual, units. The further idea is to have the numbers of these other units represent a particular actuality. The number of supporting LCUs will be more limited, yes, but both sides can still put in big pushes. It just means that a big push has to be organized in scope as well as scale. One will need appropriate HQs, and specifically designated supporting units, to be able to herd the cats. There was a reason why Watchtower was called Shoestring.

JWE -

Victory Game's board game "Pacific War" (from the 1980's), permitted only one major operation at a time, to simulate the logistical concentration and planning needed to conduct, support and maintain each specific operation. Your vision as outlined above seems a major step in the right direction.

I also like the idea of matching Airbase Group / Squadron (support units) to their numerically associated Air Units, as suggested earlier by another poster. This could be easily implemented thru a house rule.

Mac

[Blackhorse]

Yeah, the 90s were interesting. Jim found some great stuff on 90mm batteries, some were on AAA mounts, some were on Hi-deflection Anti-torpedo boat mounts; the ammo allocated to each, and more important the fuzes, meant that one could not fire in the other mode. But that's getting too 'technical', so DP is way cool. There were only a few 90s that had HE with CP fuzes, so didn't think they would be important in the grand scheme of Arty things. Think DP is best for these (probably get kicked out of lodge for saying so).

I didn't know about the mounts and fuzes. Fascinating stuff. The 90mm produced at the beginning of the war (M1A1) could only be used for AA, because it couldn't depress enough to engage direct-fire targets. The M2 model, beginning in '43, could depress to -10 degrees, IIRC, and were added to Harbor Defenses as Anti-Motor Torpedo Boat batteries, as well as replacing the 3" AA gun in Army CAA battalions, and Marine Defense battalions. That's why, in stock AE, the M1 is "AA" and the M2 is "DP."

The US produced over 10,000 90mm guns, during the war, mostly M2s. In-game production should be closer to 100/month than the current 20/30 month, so that the 90mms can eventually replace all of the 3" guns in CAA service.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse


Re: CD guns. What is the functional difference between having the M1A1s classified as "Naval" vs "Army" guns?

If an Army gun can bombard, and still be just as effective in a CD role (by using the accuracy setting in the editor), then by all means set them as Army.

Only Naval/DP guns can be used as CD Guns. Army weapons can only be used during amphib invasion against troops approaching in landing craft or at transports close in (usually landing ships but could be transports unloading close to shore).

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse
Re: CD guns. What is the functional difference between having the M1A1s classified as "Naval" vs "Army" guns?

If an Army gun can bombard, and still be just as effective in a CD role (by using the accuracy setting in the editor), then by all means set them as Army.

Only Naval/DP guns can be used as CD Guns. Army weapons can only be used during amphib invasion against troops approaching in landing craft or at transports close in (usually landing ships but could be transports unloading close to shore).

I guess the real question is: can a CD (Naval Weapon) gun be used for arty bombardment combat or defensive fire as though it was an Army Weapon?

[ClaudeJ]

ORIGINAL: JWE
I guess the real question is: can a CD (Naval Weapon) gun be used for arty bombardment combat or defensive fire as though it was an Army Weapon?

though you are probably more knowledgeable than myself about that, in game, yes, they can.

During WW2, it occurred at several occasion, notably at Singapore where the 15" were turned northward to fire at the Japanese forces (their HE provision were although too scarce for that particular mission) and the defense of Sevastopol, the 30th battery "Maxim Gorky-I" provided support fire toward German forces.

However, there was also several coastal batteries that couldn't be rotated at the opposite of their designed field of fire and they usually hadn't preplanned fire mission toward landmarks.

[Dili]

The question was about in game behavior of CD(naval weapon) vs Army Weapon.

[mikemike]

Have just downloaded the 002a versions. The first issue I found was the armament of the Admiralty "V" (class 122/123) and Admiralty "W" (class 243/244) DD; they are defined as having device 1514 (4.5in/45 QF Mk V) instead of device 1528 (4in/40 QF Mk IV) for the RAN ships and the same gun or perhaps device 1547 (4.7in/45 BL Mk I) for the Admiralty "W" class (although apparently no such ship is in the game).

Furthermore, while the armament of the Admiralty "S" class (245/246) is now correct (other than in the official scenarios), there was no such thing as the Admiralty "T" class (247/248), this is just the "S" class as well; destroyer classes in WWI didn't have the kind of correlation between the class designation and ship name as in WWII, so the "S" class comprised ships starting with "S" and "T"; the "R" class comprised "R" and "S" names, and the "M" class had names starting with "M", "N", "O", "P", and "Q" (no "M" class destroyers survived until WWI, and only a few "R" class, comprising "Skate" with the RN and "Pra Ruang" ex "Radiant" with the Royal Thai Navy.) However, that is a minor point, more important is that all Admiralty "S" class in the Far East were modified to be quickly convertible (inside maybe two days) between the DD form, as in the game, and the DM form, which exchanged the torpedo tubes and the center and aft guns for rails for 40 mines. All the ships in the game operated at times as minelayers and were then converted back to DDs. Of the Hong Kong destroyers, "Scout" and "Thanet" were in DD form and transferred to Singapore when the balloon went up, while "Thracian" was in DM form and engaged in laying defensive minefields, then in local patrols and converting back to DD form while replenishing between sorties between December 10th and 15th. This would be a pretty useful opportunity for the Convert option.