Denerfing US Aircraft production

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: Dili

109 F4F-4 in Torch

VVF-9 Fighter F4F-4 Wildcat Ranger 27
VF-41 Fighter F4F-4 Wildcat Ranger 27
VGF-26 Fighter F4F-4 Wildcat Swuannee 12
VGF-27 Fighter F4F-4 Wildcat Sangamon 11
VGF-28 Fighter F4F-4 Wildcat Sangamon 12
VGS-30 Fighter F4F-4 Wildcat Sangamon 6
VGF-29 Fighter F4F-4 Wildcat Santee 14

According to the USN declassified documents, Torch CV fighter dispositions were

VF-9 27 F4F-4 Ranger
VF-41 27 F4F-4 Ranger
VGF-26 12 F4F-4 Sangamon
VGF-27 11 F4F-4 Suwanee
VGF-28 12 F4F-4 Suwanee
VGF-29 14 F4F-4 Santee
VGS-30 6 F4F-4 Suwanee

VGF-28 was Chenango's squadron but was transferred to Suwanee to allow room for 76 P-40F being ferried by this ship. So right number, wrong ships. No biggie. Of note, the 20 November report indicates all those carriers were back at Norfolk by that date with full fighter complements meaning the five airframes lost in Torch were replaced (error from above the 21 included damaged aircraft). That means 114 aircraft need to be accounted for here.

I am still leaning towards increasing production to 55/month and reducing the number of airframes in the CVE(R) groups. My basis for that is that those groups are specifically for replacement. If the pool is full when the arrive, they can be filled out. If the pool is empty, it would be assumed those aircraft were already expended as replacements filling out VF or VMF groups. So, ultimately not a lot more F4F-4 in the game but a little more flexibility for the Allied player as to where they should go. Seems reasonable to me

[n01487477]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Grrrr. Just realized I was using the 8 Dec scenario for my a/c numbers. Ugh. Redo. Oh, and this post set off a lightbulb in my head. Wasp arrives with 28 F4F-4 on board.

This is my fear. As I try to do this with each a/c type, I will be forced into this rotation of discovery.

If you extract the scenario to Excel spreadsheets, you can more easily come up with the numbers that arrive in squadrons. Sort by the column with the aircraft type and add up the number of aircraft for each type (don't forget to pick up the aircraft that arrive damaged too).
Bill

Or Tracker will do it for you without all the adding... [;)]

[Dili]

I can tell you how many were available with tactical unit at any given time, and I can tell you how many were produced. What I can't tell you is how many individual airframes were available throughout in total. I can only give a maximum and a minimum figure. If we knew the loss figures, we could arrive at an evidence-based number. What we have currently is an estimate of about 65-70% of production, which I'm inclined to think is slightly (only) on the conservative side.

I have found mine USN losses in pdf file. It is called nasc_NavalAviationStatistics.pdf. I have also USAAF losses but they don't show model only type by theatre. Names are t103-t107 and t160.pdf. If someone is interested just pm with an adress.

Edit: i have found the file online http://www.history.navy.mil/download/nasc.pdf for USAAF need a mail or place to update to.

----------------------

Thanks vettim89 i mixed Swuannee and Sangamon.

[vettim89]

I think I am happy with my F4F solution. I will tackle SBD next.

I did think of a solution to allow for a one time in flux of airframes into the pool. You could have an air group arrive at a main base that is permanently restricted with a withdraw date just a few days later. You then either disband or withdraw the group putting the planes either into another squadron or into the pool. It would be best to do this at an off map base to keep gamey players from trying to deploy them, but if they were only on map for a few days it probably wouldn't matter

An example of this would be in Spring of 1942 when the AVG was running low on airframes. They robbed 35 P-40E from North Africa to help out. These aircraft should not be part of regular production as they were actually transferred from the ETO. Do people think this would work?

[Central Blue]

As far as UN and USMC units go, I think more flexibility in upgrade paths would allow better use of existing air frames for training and/or combat purposes. As it is, they are much more restricted in their ability to back-rev to older air frames than are USAAF and British/Commonwealth units. So while I am in Sept 1942, I have 42 F4F-3 and 32 F4F-3A in the pools while VMF-12 trains with 10 F2-A2 and three VMF's training with 18, 18, and 16 F2-A3 because their only upgrade option is the F4-F. Well, actually those F2 units are pretty well trained already, but I won't move them forward in those planes.

The problems are similar for the VMSB's that could be training with SBC-4's sitting useless in the pools.

At the same time, I have USAAF and British/Commonwealth pilots training in P-40B's, P-400's, Kittyhawks, Buffalo I's, and Mohawks because I was able to back-rev them with PDU.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

I think I am happy with my F4F solution. I will tackle SBD next.

I did think of a solution to allow for a one time in flux of airframes into the pool. You could have an air group arrive at a main base that is permanently restricted with a withdraw date just a few days later. You then either disband or withdraw the group putting the planes either into another squadron or into the pool. It would be best to do this at an off map base to keep gamey players from trying to deploy them, but if they were only on map for a few days it probably wouldn't matter

An example of this would be in Spring of 1942 when the AVG was running low on airframes. They robbed 35 P-40E from North Africa to help out. These aircraft should not be part of regular production as they were actually transferred from the ETO. Do people think this would work?

I may be wrong but you may also be able to do the same with the "convoy" feature...

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: Dili

I can tell you how many were available with tactical unit at any given time, and I can tell you how many were produced. What I can't tell you is how many individual airframes were available throughout in total. I can only give a maximum and a minimum figure. If we knew the loss figures, we could arrive at an evidence-based number. What we have currently is an estimate of about 65-70% of production, which I'm inclined to think is slightly (only) on the conservative side.

I have found mine USN losses in pdf file. It is called nasc_NavalAviationStatistics.pdf. I have also USAAF losses but they don't show model only type by theatre. Names are t103-t107 and t160.pdf. If someone is interested just pm with an adress.

Edit: i have found the file online http://www.history.navy.mil/download/nasc.pdf for USAAF need a mail or place to update to.

Unfortunately the data given here is general to the point of uselessness for our purposes

However for the sake of example, lets presume that all of the 431 F4F's recorded as losses in table 2 are -4's and all of these occurred in the Pacific theatre. Then lets tally up all the F4F-4's recorded in Location of US Naval Aircraft files - we'll find that F4F-4 strength peaks in Feb' 43 with 456 a/c if one includes those recorded as "F4F". IOW on this methodology we arrive at a maximum F4F-4 allocation to the Pacific of 887 a/c - call it 900-ish 'cos I can't count. On the basis the current in-game -4 number 938 a/c is if anything too high.

ORIGINAL: vettim89

An example of this would be in Spring of 1942 when the AVG was running low on airframes. They robbed 35 P-40E from North Africa to help out. These aircraft should not be part of regular production as they were actually transferred from the ETO. Do people think this would work?

FYI already incl. in USAAF P-40E rate.

[vettim89]

I appreciate that these numbers are well thought out. I do not doubt that they are historically accurate to an extent although I think we all realize there is always somewhat of a "fudge factor" when dealing with things like this.

That said, there are several mitigating circumstances that are not allocated for when it comes to the game vs RL.

1. By November 1942, the USN only had one operating VF on a carrier in the SoPac. Lexinton, Yorktown, Wasp, and Hornet were all gone by then and Saratoga was laid up with engineers crawling all over her trying to find the torpedo magnet some one had inadvertantly installed. So the the RL F4F replacement rates only had VF-6 and the VMF's to support. If the Allied player doesn't lose four CV's in 1942, he has a serious problem keeping the fighter sqaudrons filled out. Point being that Alied aircraft prodcution is based 100% on the model where Japanese production is not. So when (not if) the game takes a turn away from the historical model, the Japanese can adapt and the Allies are stuck with what history gave them.

2. US carriers all arrive with their CAG's filled out. My understanding is that Japanese CV's do not arrive as such. So 1/3 of the F4F-4 production is bound to specific ships and the Allied player cannot do a thing about that. The CVE(R) arrive with nearly 15% of the total F4F production on board. Add in Independence's VF and 17% of the F4F-4 production allocated in AE arrives on ships. In my mind its not so much the 965 total -4 production as much as how they arrive.

As to the 35 P-40E, happy to see that they are accounted for in the total numbers. However, I think the effect of a sudden infusion of 35 airframes at the time when they were needed most would be more historic. As an Allied player, I would rather get 35 in say May 1942 then an extra 3 airframes a month spread out over the entire production run.

[Dili]

Unfortunately the data given here is general to the point of uselessness for our purposes

However for the sake of example, lets presume that all of the 431 F4F's recorded as losses in table 2 are -4's and all of these occurred in the Pacific theatre. Then lets tally up all the F4F-4's recorded in Location of US Naval Aircraft files - we'll find that F4F-4 strength peaks in Feb' 43 with 456 a/c if one includes those recorded as "F4F". IOW on this methodology we arrive at a maximum F4F-4 allocation to the Pacific of 887 a/c - call it 900-ish 'cos I can't count. On the basis the current in-game -4 number 938 a/c is if anything too high.

I know it is far from perfect but one idea to get a better value or check if the numbers are not out of ordinary might be to split those losses proportionally by the sub model production numbers, if no complementary information exists.

[timtom]

Per the Location of US Naval Aircraft file for 05/11/42, F4 customers were as follows:

Pacific Fleet

VF-5 2xF4F-4
VF-6 17xF4F-4
VF-10 36xF4F-4
VF-11 21xF4F-4
VF-12 5xF4F-4
VF-71 no a/c
VF-72 37 F4F-4

VGF-1 1xTBF-1
VGS-1 12xF4F-4
VGS-9 12xF4F-4
VGS-11 11xF4F-4
VGS-12 13xF4F-4
VGS-13 2xF4F-4
VGS-16 18xF4F-4
VGS-21 1xF4F-4
VGS-23 no a/c

MAG-24 HS 2xF4F-4

VMD-154 2xF4F-3P
VMD-254 3xF4F-3P

VMF-111 7xF4F-3
VMF-112 no a/c
VMF-121 12xF4F-4
VMF-122 no a/c
VMF-123 8xF4F-4
VMF-124 10xF4F-4
VMF-211 12xF2A-3
VMF-212 18xF4F-4
VMF-213 5xF4F-4
VMF-214 5xF4F-4
VMF-221 4xF4F-4
VMF-223 no a/c
VMF-224 no a/c

VMO-155 7xF4F-3
VMO-251 22xF4F-3

Atlantic Fleet

VF-9 27xF4F-4
VF-22 2xF4F-4
VF-41 29xF4F-4

VGS-29 12xF4F-4
VGF-27 12xF4F-4
VGF-28 12xF4F-4
VGS-30 6xF4F-4

[akdreemer]

Of course, IRL, squadrons could, and did, operate mixes of aircraft models.

[vettim89]

TimTom,

Those USN Location of Aircraft sheets are fascinating reads but I think looking at any one week can be deceiving. I am sure you noticed that sunk carriers will have their aircraft still listed on those sheets for some time. I think Lexington's air group is still being counted well into June 1942. Also, you will see fluctuations in air groups for no explained reason: types will change while aircraft are at sea, numbers will go up and down for no apparent reason, squadrons will have more aircraft assigned to them then their TO&E, etc. I think taking any one week and looking at it is not as useful as looking at the running averages over a month.

[timtom]

Not sure I entirely agree with that assesment, Tim, other than in the most general sense ... Anyhu, the point I was trying to make is that the loss of flight decks didn't necessarily equaty the disbandment of CAG's in as much as the CAGs were independent entities at this point.

VF's -5 & -71 were disbanded 1/43, VF-72 3/43, VF-10 5/43, VF-6 & -10 8/43, VF-12 soldiering on to 6/44.

Then again we don't have a historical USN CAG OOB in AE.

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: timtom

Not sure I entirely agree with that assesment, Tim, other than in the most general sense ... Anyhu, the point I was trying to make is that the loss of flight decks didn't necessarily equaty the disbandment of CAG's in as much as the CAGs were independent entities at this point.

VF's -5 & -71 were disbanded 1/43, VF-72 3/43, VF-10 5/43, VF-6 & -10 8/43, VF-12 soldiering on to 6/44.

Then again we don't have a historical USN CAG OOB in AE.

I know in Rl that remnants of the CAG's from the sunk/damaged CV's soldiered on at GC. My point was more that even though fighter aircraft were in short supply throughout 1942 for the USN, that the situation would have been far worse if the losses of Lex, Yorktown, Hornet, and Wasp had not occured. Those ships represent over 100 more F4F billets that would have needed filling. The question remains: what would the USN have done if even two of those four were not lost? Of the four, only Hornet's loss could be classified as a foregone conclusion. Wasp's loss is widely considered to be the luckiest spread of torpedoes ever fired. Yorktown would have made PH if not for running afoul an I-Boat. Many experts contend that Lex wouldn't have been lost if the DC would have been up to standard. Even if you concede Lex and Hornet, it is very feasible that there could have been two more flight decks to fill. Some sort of allowance would have to been made for that.

The a/c replacement rates are very historically accurate. I will not argue that any longer. The problem remains though that we are playing a non-historical game within the historical confines. The Japanese palyer is not so confined. If he absorbs higher than historical losses in any type, he can either expand or convert factories to cover the losses. At this point in time can anyone say for sure that AE is not producing higher than historical aircraft losses? If air combat is indeed more deadly than RL, the Allied player is hampered even further.

Its not like the Allies can't win the game because we know that isn't true. My concern is that AE gives both sides abilites they should not have. It still makes for any interesting game but it lacks a certain historicity that I think it could have if modded properly. Maybe the answer is not in the Allied replacement rates but instead in the huge overstatement of Japanese industrial capacity.

I have read a number of AAR's where the Japanese economy is not only produce aircraft beyond the historical scope by several orders of magnitude but doing that simultaneous with accelerated carrier production. So we get 200 Ki-44 a month PLUS Taiho, Unyo, etc all in game a year earler than RL. As I consider this more, I think that is the problem.

Before any of you JFB's cry foul, I see some major issues for the Allies that overstate their capabilities especially in CBI. I need to learn that darn Japanese economic system. Ughhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Maybe the answer is not in the Allied replacement rates but instead in the huge overstatement of Japanese industrial capacity.

I have read a number of AAR's where the Japanese economy is not only produce aircraft beyond the historical scope by several orders of magnitude but doing that simultaneous with accelerated carrier production. So we get 200 Ki-44 a month PLUS Taiho, Unyo, etc all in game a year earler than RL. As I consider this more, I think that is the problem.

Before any of you JFB's cry foul, I see some major issues for the Allies that overstate their capabilities especially in CBI. I need to learn that darn Japanese economic system. Ughhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually in the development stage the research I did on the Japanese economy suggested that the input to output ratios for resources for Japanese industry should be even higher than they are currently in the game...however out of concern that the economic model would completely shutdown the current ratios were settled upon.

If you recall the input to output ratio in WitP was something in the nature of 1:1 or 2:1....now it is closer to 5:1.

One way to "Mod" would be to require an even greater number of resources per industrial center than is currently the case. The numbers can be adjusted in the editor...

[vettim89]

I understand this is a delicate balance. Just casual reading of AAR's to this point suggests that the Japanese economy is not on the desperate edge that it was in RL. That is just an impression though. I need to actually look deeper into this. I seem to recall that one poster remarked in his AAR that he didn't really need the resources in the SRA that much just the oil. That is so far away from the RL truth it is bordering on ludicrous. In the original WITP board game, resources were divided into Northern and Southern. Northern Resources represented iron, coal and other items plentyful in the HI, Manchuko, et. Southern Represented those items not found in abundance near Japan proper like tin, zinc, etc. In the board game, you needd both types or the economy would collapse.

Yes Japan needed the SRA's oil but she needed those minerals too. Alas, in WiTP/AE, a resource is a resource.

My goal would be that Japan would be able to produce what they did in RL plus a little more (assuming players have better insight considering they have the historical perspective). Then if the Japanese wants to do more with the economy, he'll need to capture more. This may for some interesting game twist as certain locales may be attacked because of their true strategic importance. Likewise the Allies will have there industrial base in a damaged state at games start to represent the US economy ramping up for war.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

I understand this is a delicate balance. Just casual reading of AAR's to this point suggests that the Japanese economy is not on the desperate edge that it was in RL. That is just an impression though. I need to actually look deeper into this. I seem to recall that one poster remarked in his AAR that he didn't really need the resources in the SRA that much just the oil. That is so far away from the RL truth it is bordering on ludicrous. In the original WITP board game, resources were divided into Northern and Southern. Northern Resources represented iron, coal and other items plentyful in the HI, Manchuko, et. Southern Represented those items not found in abundance near Japan proper like tin, zinc, etc. In the board game, you needd both types or the economy would collapse.

Yes Japan needed the SRA's oil but she needed those minerals too. Alas, in WiTP/AE, a resource is a resource.

My goal would be that Japan would be able to produce what they did in RL plus a little more (assuming players have better insight considering they have the historical perspective). Then if the Japanese wants to do more with the economy, he'll need to capture more. This may for some interesting game twist as certain locales may be attacked because of their true strategic importance. Likewise the Allies will have there industrial base in a damaged state at games start to represent the US economy ramping up for war.

A bit off-topic for this thread and more suitable for a discussion in its own right is the topic of "Modding for Effect" ....something Herr Nik is a master of...

But an example would be to "over-exagerate" the resources in the south...such that their importation to the HI would be necessary for the HI industry to function to full effect.

[vettim89]

The biggest problem with that would be the requisite increase in MS needed to move all those resources. The modders dilema: fix one thing break another

<sigh>

[wyrmmy]

Actually putting a greater strain on the IJ merchant marine would help reflect the choices betweem military and civilian shipping needs, the fights over which amongst the IJ cabinet make for interesting reading.

[treespider]

Another "issue" for Japanese Industry is the "all or nothing" effect...in other words an industrial center will produce nothing unless it can be fully funded with resources...

One idea that could be tested (and may have already been) would be to break up the largish industrial centers into smaller centers...to alleviate the "all or nothing" effect...