Beaufighters are STILL LEVELBOMBERS!!!!

[tanjman]

Iron Duke,

How about have aircraft upgrade like in PacWar? Using Mika's editor you can have a default upgrade path by aircraft type or upgrade path by air group. Of course this goes without saying that it should be included in the WitP editor. I don't know if they programed UV this way, if not I doudt it would ever be done to fix the Beaufort and Hudson upgrade nitpicking.

[Possum]

And Beufighters are still being treated as LevelBombers!!!!!!:mad:

[David Heath]

Guys

Rich and I think Ron told me why this was being done. I can not for the life of me remember why? I try to get one of them to post here and explain.

David

[mogami]

Hi, I think part of the assignment is the fact this aircraft flew more missions as convoy/ASW escort then any other type of mission. I'm not sure fighter/bombers can fly ASW

[Jeremy Pritchard]

Originally posted by tanjman
Possum,

I agree with you on this. I just have a point to bring up about the Beaufighter upgrade path. Currently both the Huson and Beaufort upgrade to the Beaufighter. If the Beaufighter gets changed to a fighter bomber then only those squadrons which historicaly upgraded to the Beaufighter should.

No. 6 Sqn RAAF from what I've been able to determine used the Hudson through out 1942-43.

No. 7 Sqn RAAF from what I've been able to determine used the Beaufort through out 1942-43.

No. 8 Sqn RAAF from what I've been able to determine used the Beaufort through out 1942-43.

No. 66 Sqn RAAF "Equipped with Avro Ansons, 66 Squadron formed at Bundaberg Queensland in May 1943. The squadron conducted anti-submarine patrols and convoy escort missions off Australia's east coast for the remainder of the year.
Although its operations were for the most part uneventful, 66 Squadron did achieve over 1000 operational flying hours before its disbandment in January 1944." In UV this squadron is equipped with Beauforts. Since Avro Ansons are not availble should be changed to the Hudson.

No. 100 Sqn RAAF from what I've been able to determine used the Beaufort through out 1942-43.

So that leaves us with one Beaufighter squadron, No. 30 Sqn RAAF, that is in the UV OOB.

Missing Beaufighter squadrons are:

No. 31 Sqn RAAF, served in the Northern Territory.
No. 92 Sqn RAAF, formed at Kingaroy Queensland in May 1945.
No. 93 Sqn RAAF, formed at Kingaroy Queensland in January 1945.

The other two RAAF Beaufighter squadrons served in Europe.

This is alot of work for Matrix/2by3 for 16 operational aircraft. If its not done for UV it should be for WitP.

I can't find the link were I obtained this info but I'm attaching the text document.

The lack of Spitfire replacements is a major item. The other RAN OOB changes should be made also.

As far as the missing bases go, any of them south of Cairns will need to be in the 'Malaria Free Zone' and have automatic supply from Brisbane. Something that us players can't do with the editor as I found out after making a test scenario with your list of missing bases.

From what I can read...

#7 Squadron used the Hudson, then was re-equipped with the Beaufort.

#8 Squadron use the Hudson, then Beaufort.

#14 Squadron use the Hudson, then Beaufort.

So, it does seem that the Hudson was being gradually replaced by the Beaufort. However, the Beaufort was not replaced by the Beaufighter (I believe that starting in PacWar version 3.1 the Beaufort-Beaufighter upgrade no longer exists).

[jrcar]

Ok Guys, getting into this late as I just found "Wispering Death" by Parnell in the library.

First thing noted, Australian built Beaufighters weren't in combat use until November 1944.

Second thing noted Australian built airctaft did not have torpedo equipment. Instead a 908kg bomb could be fitted or a 91 L drop tank.

54? British built machines were to be acquired by March 1942. Total finally procured is 183? Their doctrinal use was to be as fighters. This and the primative conditions of the bases they operated from meant that they never used torpedoes, even if the Brit built ones still had the capability. In fact a specific "lesson learnt" says

"Suggested that the attack aircraft could be split into two forces to attack from both sides, each comprising high-level medium bombers, Beaufighers, low-level bombers and torpedo aircraft in that order"

This is the Brit built version. They were just used to strafe the ships so the bombers and torpedo aircraft could get in unmolested.

In the desriptions I have read so far show them being used as fighter escort to medium bombers and for low level strafing. in fact there wasn't even a mention of using bombs! Cannon and MG's only.

[edit]Looks like I posted too soon, bombs were fitted from Sept 43 onwards, 2 x 45kg, or 2 x 113kg or 2 x136kg. This is at the end of the UV timeframe however and guns still appear to be the main weapon used [edit]

So maybe they should just be fighters with no bombing capacity.

Cheers

Rob

[tohoku]

Originally posted by tanjman

BTW are there any books concerning ANZAC OOBs and WWII you (or anyone else for that matter) could recommend?

If you want the NZ organisations and equipment (actual, as opposed to book) then simply buying the Brigade histories from the NZ Government Printer and get a day by day account.





tohoku
YMMV
waiting for the day when a US-produced game acknowledges that there was no such thing as an 'ANZAC OOB'.

[Reg]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, I think part of the assignment is the fact this aircraft flew more missions as convoy/ASW escort then any other type of mission. I'm not sure fighter/bombers can fly ASW

I think that it must be clarified that the just because the Beaufort and Beaufighter were designed by the same company, were built in the same factories with the Beaufighter ramping up as the Beaufort was being phased out doesn't mean they were meant for the same role. The two types were meant to be built side by side but delays in tooling prevented that. The local Beaufighter manufacture was intended to replace British imported aircraft (which it did).

Local production of the Mosquito FB.40 fighterbomber was also being developed though delays prevented operational use to the very last days of the war (Australian timbers proved to be very different to European materials). Licenced manufacture of the P-51 was also being put in place by this stage also.

If there is to be an upgrade path it must be from the Hudson to the Beaufort!! In fact, the only reason Hudsons were bought at all were because of delays in the Beaufort program. (The first order for 100 a/c was placed in Nov '38 for delivery in late 39. A second batch of 50 (later 146) was ordered in Mar '41 due further delays in the Beaufort program.) Note the absence of ongoing attrition replacements as they were only ever intended to be an interim measure to replace the Avro Anson in front line units. In service, there were several examples of squadrons trading in their Hudsons for locally produced Beauforts after they finally became available in mid '42.

The Beaufort remained in production for the entire period of UV and new squadrons were being formed/re-equipped with the type whilst the number of squadrons with Beaufighters remained constant until local production kicked in.

There seems to be a lot of delays in the locally built aircraft deliveries but it must be pointed out that the whole aviation manufacturing industry had to be built from the ground up. (You probably didn't know the first motor car wasn't built in Australia until 1948 - The Holden FX for the interested..)

Hope you find this info useful...
Reg.

[Reg]

Originally posted by tanjman
BTW are there any books concerning ANZAC OOBs and WWII you (or anyone else for that matter) could recommend?

Try the Australian Airpower Series of books from the Australian Aviation wesite at the link below (follow the military link...).

http://www.ausaviation.com.au/books/books.html



There is a North American distributor (according to info inside the front cover):
Motorbooks International,
729 Prospect Ave,
Osceola,
Wisconsin, 54020
Fax: 715 294 4448


Also try the Australian War Memorial Shop which has some interesting Pacific Theatre material.

Cheers,
Reg.

[Reg]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, I think part of the assignment is the fact this aircraft flew more missions as convoy/ASW escort then any other type of mission. I'm not sure fighter/bombers can fly ASW

I assume that you referring here to the Beaufighter conducting convoy/ASW missions. Easily disproved I'm afraid.

Aircraft Design

The Hudson was originally ordered by the British Purchasing Commission in Apr '38 which recognised it's potential as a 'Maritime Reconnaissance Bomber' with a crew of four and the aircraft was regularly used by RAAF for these type of duties.

The Beaufort was designed to meet both British Air Ministry Specifications M.15/35 (a three seat torpedo bomber) and G.24/35 (a four seat general purpose/reconnaissance bomber). Once again the aircraft was extensively used in these roles as reflected in unit histories.

The Type 156 Beaufort Fighter (it's original designation) was not developed to a specification but as a private proposal by Bristol due to the recogition of an "obvious and urgent need for a long range fighter of decisive striking power", which could be developed quickly using components from an existing design. The two man crew would make it a poor choice as a reconnaissance machine and I cannot find any reference in No.s 30 or 31 Squadron histories to the Beaufighter ever being used in the maritime patrol role. (Note, I did not say it wasn't used for maritime strike where it's strafing with 20mm guns was most effective).

Operational Doctrine

GHQ Operations Instruction No. 12, dated 1st October [1942], had assigned to the RAAF general reconnaissance, bomber and torpedo squadrons the responsibility for keeping open the sea lanes to New Guinea; for "effecting the maximum posible dislocation" of Japanese shipping, supply lines and sea communications; and for maintaining reconnaissance of all "hostile sea approaches to New Guinea within range". The burden for this huge task fell on No. 6 Squadron [Hudsons] and No. 100 Squadron [Beauforts]. In addition to daily searches, the two units conducted innumerable anti-submarine patrols on which the crews were airborne for many hours.

Royal Australian Air Force 1939-1942, Douglas Gillison, Australian War Memorial, Canberra, 1962, page 639 (Official History)

Examples

On the same page as the above reference, the history describes how on 26th September, a No. 6 Squadron Hudson led four Beaufighters of No. 30 Squadron to a ship which had been spotted and disabled earlier in the day by No. 6 Squadron patrols. The Beaufighters then conducted a strafing attack after the Hudson had attacked with bombs.

Page 642 describes how a four destroyer troop transport convoy is spotted by a No.100 Squadron Beaufort approching Buna on the morning of 2nd December. Six Beaufighters from No.30 Squadron take off from Port Moresby for a joint mission with B-17s but fail to locate the target. That night accompanied by a Hudson to provide flare illumination, the same Beaufighters conduct a strafing mission with unobserved results. As they were leaving, six Beauforts from No.100 Squadron arrive to conduct a torpedo strike. Three Bostons from No.22 Squadron had attacked earlier that night with bombs. Next morning the destroyers had gone but the Beaufighters returned and wrought carnage on the recently arrived troop barges with further strafing attacks. On the 14th, the allies launched 96 attack sorties against the enemies new beach head and the Beaufighters alone fired 2,500 rounds of 20mm and 71,000 rounds of 0.303 inch ammunition.

The Beaufighters were extensively used in airfield attacks and page 650 describes how No.31 Squadron achieved notable success when they attacked the Japanese staging base at Penfui on Timor (based on radio intercepts) and caught on the ground a large raid from Kendari bound for Darwin. No.30 Squadron was achieving similar results at Lae airfield (page 637).

Generally Beaufighters avoided contact with enemy fighters,

"After a similar operation over Lae on the 22nd three of six unescorted Beaufighters that made the raid were attacked by Zeros from whom they were able to draw away in straight and level flight at almost sea level at an indicated speed of between 255 and 260 knots." (Official History page 638).

though when circumstances demanded it

On this occasion a Beaufighter manned by Flight Lieutenant Little (pilot) and Pilot Officer Spooner turned on a Zero that was attacking two other Beaufighters. Little's cannon fire caught the enemy aircraft, which was last seen trailing smoke from its engine." (Official History page 638)

and

[HMAS] Castlemaine and [HMAS] Armidale were attacked by Japanese bombers of the morning of the 30th [Nov '42], and attacks continued at intervals during the day. They dodged the bombs, however, and Beaufighters of No.31 Squadron arrived and drove off a force of 8 bombers and 6 fighters (Official History page 647).

Summary

I cannot find any evidence to support that the Beaufighters conducted any sort of maritime/reconnaissance or torpedo bombing role. The Beaufighters were called in on strafing attacks only after the Hudsons/Beauforts had located a target in all of the instances above. If the game requires a torpedo/level bombing aircraft for game mechanics, then upgrade path should be made from the Hudson to Beaufort which remained in front line service until the end of the war. The Beaufighter is a strike aircraft and was teamed up with No.22 Squadron Bostons and was used against the same targets despite the Beaufighter relying on strafing tactics whilst the Boston used bombs (Official History page 638). The Beaufighter was an upgrade from the Australian Bostons for No. 22 Squadron but not until Dec '44. In game terms, there is ample evidence the Beaufighter should be treated as a fighter bomber and the HMAS Castlemaine incident above certainly sounds like a LRCAP mission which happened off the coast of Timor (out of range of single engine fighter cover from Darwin perhaps??).

These changes should not affect things like game balance too much as they will not affect the fundamentals of the game but they will go a long way to satisfy the historically pedantic fans out there.

I can understand that the things may have been set up this way for reasons not obvious to us (for British users of the same aircraft types in WITP for instance) but if that is the case, please tell us and put us out of our misery.

Cheers,
Reg.

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

Gary chose to classify the Beaufighter as a bomber. When I questioned him on the subject, he said that the uses serrved by the model of the plane used in this game approximate bomber better than fighter-bomber. It might please you to know that in WIP, of the 4 models of Beaufighter which appear, one is classified as a night fighter (intruder).

Hope this helps...

Michael Wood
___________________________________________________

Originally posted by Reg
...I can understand that the things may have been set up this way for reasons not obvious to us (for British users of the same aircraft types in WITP for instance) but if that is the case, please tell us and put us out of our misery.
Cheers,
Reg.

[Possum]

Then Gary is just plain Wrong......
I again point out that the following missions that were performed by RAAF beufighters, that are unable to be assign at present.
1) LRCAP
2) Bomber Escort
3) Fighter Sweeps

The following missions are currently allowed, but where NEVER performed by RAAF beaufighters.
1) Torpedoe carrying Naval attack.
2) Level bombing Bases
3) Supply Transprt
4) ASW patrol
5) Naval search missions.

But seeing as it's infallible Garry's brainstorm to treat Beaufighters this way, I guess we will never have this problem fixed.

[msvknight]

To be honest I'm a bit sick of this argument. Obviously lets not let the facts get in the way of a good game. I'll make a deal with both Rich and Gary. Give us an editor so that we can change our own Beaufighters into Fighter-Bombers and we'll all go away and modify our own versions. If not; then you're

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

[Iron Duke]

Just been glancing through 'A Chronology of Australian Armed Forces at War 1939-1945 and spotted these two items

30th November 42 - Arafura Sea: Beaufighters of No. 31 Sqn RAAF drove off 14 Japanese aircraft attacking the corvettes Armidale and Castlemaine.

and

3rd March 43 - Huon Gulf: Shortly after 9am , the Lae reinforcement convoy was attacked by RAAF Beaufighters and USAAF B-17s and B-25s, while American P-38s dealt with the Zero escort.
The B-17s attacked first, then the Beaufighters led the low-level attack, conducting beam-on strafing runs from little more than masthead height.

Maritime Strike fighter and Long range escort fighter ??

Cheers

[Jeremy Pritchard]

Hi,

I have been noticing this epidemic of negative attitude on every single message board for every single game created in the last 5-6 years. It is almost as if they owe us something for us buying their game (something beyond a stable gaming platform, I am all up for protesting a game that is unplayable due to stability issues).

I do believe that problems should be addressed, and that this is a valid discussion. However, they way things are worded tend to have a negative effect to discussion which ends up in nothing getting accomplished.

Typing things in CAPS is tantamount to yelling. I use CAPS in order to emphasize a single word in a sentence so misunderstanding does not take place. However, most use CAPS in order to yell (i.e., type their post, or a significant portion of it in CAPS).

This thread started 1/2 in CAPS, and immediately was hostile to the developers of the game. The response by Matrix Games has been typically polite, yet the abuse continues. You have to realize, that sometimes things that appear to be 100% logical will not appear in the game. To them, it is 100% logical to have the Beaufighter as a Tactical Bomber (possibly due to balancing issues, or for whatever reasoning). Even if you say something should be fixed in the most polite manner, don't always expect it to be 'fixed' either.

In regards to editors, they are a relatively new 'invention' for games. The first heavilly editable wargame (to my recollection) was the Wargame Construction Sets (like Age of Rifles). Before this time, editors were made by fans, or were very limited. I remember 8 years ago using PWReports to edit Pacific War, something that makes UV's editor look amazing. They never said that UV will have a strong editor, and it appears as if it was an afterthought. PacWar did not come with a single editor, same with most games of that era.

In regards to historic determination of units/equipment, it is really up to the developer's interpretation as to how things work. It seems like they have decided how they want Beaufighters to work in UV. It really is a minor poroblem, based only on historic interpretation instead of game mechanics.

So, please, whenever you start a thread on something that you would like changed/fixed, in any game, don't use insults or rude behaviour to try and get your point across (no matter how much it appears like they are not listening). It really makes developers not want to continue helping make this game better. When you don't get what you want, please be respectful of those who put the game together.

Indeed, we did give them money for this game, but without them, there would be no UV to buy, with or without its 'faults'.

[Jeremy Pritchard]

Also, just like with ANY game out there without an editor, or an all encompassing editor, I am sure that someone out there will find a way to modify aircraft types, and all of the other little things that currently cannot be modded.

Remember, it did take 8 years for an editor that can change almost 100% of PacWar. For those years people were playing a game that many considered to be historically innacurate in some respects, but was still fun to play.

[Possum]

Jeremy, Have you read the first set of posts in this series??
We (the Australian posters) politely provided many references to the incorrect assignment of the beaufigher, long befor version 2 came out. We where told it would be addressed.
V2.0 came out with no correction, and no explanation.
Given how expensive this game is in Australia, and given how much effort when into making the game accurate, I (an presumably many other Austyralian posters) feel betrayed....
Also, with the advent of more modern simulation engines, we have an increased expectation of things opperating as they did in real life.
Additionally, UV has been the only stratagy game I've purchased in the last 2 years that did NOT come with a fully functional editor, or the data in text files, to allow editing with a text reader.
Given how every other stratagy gaming company has gone with open databases, I'm very disapointed with matrix for re-inventing the coded, closed database, and not providing a functioning editor.
(Yes I've already tried hex editing the Aircrat DB, with no success.)
Personally, I have had many bad experiences with Gary's games.
I doubt that I will be buying War in the Pacific, unless, it comes with a fully fuctional editor.

[pasternakski]

Maybe nobody cares about this, but isn't this thread talking about a single squadron of aircraft that, unless you gave them atom bombs to carry, would have no more than a miniscule effect on game play?

I agree with what Jeremy said about the shrill, negative harping that has, of late, begun to infect these forums. This is the site of a company (the best, I would argue) that manufactures games. The games, as well as the forums, are here for fun (I would have capitalized that word, but I am not prone to yelling). Because your favorite ox seems to be getting gored is no reason to start dictating the terms of game design and making threats like "do it my way or I'm not buying your products anymore."

I suggest that, if you can find better products than UV or better support than Matrix gives it, you go buy 'em and support 'em. Personally, I'm in for the duration, even though my real-life uncle LCDR Fenton of VF-42 seems to get killed all the time, especially just after he achieves ace status.

Let's all just calm down and have some FUN (oops, sorry), shall we?

[Ron Saueracker]

Do you have twin uncle Fentons, as there are two in VF 42. Both get killed on Ya:) !?

I have to agree that the point of this thread is a minor one getting blown entirely out of proportion. There are much bigger fish to fry than this one at this time and Matrix has the fire stoked.

[Reg]

Originally posted by pasternakski
I agree with what Jeremy said about the shrill, negative harping that has, of late, begun to infect these forums. This is the site of a company (the best, I would argue) that manufactures games

I recently read a review intended for people who know nothing about the game, which implied that the game was substandard without the patches. I totally disagree as I thought Version 1.0 was and still is a great game. It's just that the later versions are even better. I think that we had better be careful with the tone of what we say or others wil get entirely the wrong idea.

I have been presenting historical data in an effort to give the designers the benefit of material that they may not have access to and to let them know of the things that we as players feel is important (a high level of historical authenticy in my case). However, this does not give us the right to dictate terms and I think that we must respect the designers right to make the changes they deem appropriate to their product. They may also be basing thier decisions on factors that we know nothing about (look at the B-17/CAP play balance issue).

Originally posted by pasternakski
Maybe nobody cares about this, but isn't this thread talking about a single squadron of aircraft that, unless you gave them atom bombs to carry, would have no more than a miniscule effect on game play?

Normally I would have to agree with you but having the Beaufighter in an inappropriate upgrade path seriously distorts the Australian (& NZ) force structure into something that is definitely unhistorical. (The RAAF ends up with a numerous Beaufighter squadrons and no Beauforts by mid '43 - could never have happened for a lot of reasons). Couple this with a perceived unrealistic operational role and it seriously erodes the credibility of the game to reflect the real world.

The game still plays well but I think it loses its magic with those who are familiar and have an attachment with the units and the era. Now that the issue has been brought up I sure they are aware of it and will deal with it with regard to their own priorities.

Originally posted by pasternakski
Let's all just calm down and have some FUN (oops, sorry), shall we?

YES YES YES (now you've got me doing it...)

Cheers,
Reg.