Cold War Database 1946-1979 Platform Requests

[.Sirius]

Fixed

ORIGINAL: Mgellis

Spotted a possible error on the AO 22 Cimarron (DB #667). The ship is listed as having open parking for 24 large aircraft. Is that correct? Thanks.

[.Sirius]

Added

ORIGINAL: Kushan

Starting some preliminary work on a 1940s GUIK scenario. Would it be possible to add the Soviet Project 7 [aka Gnevny or Gremyashchiy] class destroyer?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnevny-class_destroyer

[cf_dallas]

Question about the SA-1 (S-25) Berkut: Looking at pictures and reading up on it to build the PVO 1st AD Army, it doesn't sound like it could guide missiles in all directions. The Yo-Yo radars look like they're on a rotating fixture, but they're also generally sitting in a massive revetment that would make it difficult to look 'behind' the installation.



I set up a test scenario (attached) and it's able to engage all the way around. Would a 90- or 135-degree engagement arc be more appropriate?

[Schr75]

Hi cf

The individual SA-1 battery was only capable of illuminating a target in a 54 by 54 degreee cone from the Yo-Yo FCR. Fly behind the battery and you would be safe.

This is one of the reasons why the system was deployed in two concentric rings around Moscow to create overlapping fields of fire.

Here´s a link to an interesting thread on SimHQ abount the SA-1, from the SAMSIM thread.
http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3684597/1

Hope this is useful

S

[MR_BURNS2]

A-4 Skyhawks of USN and USMC (maybe others too?) are missing Buddy Stores.

The air refueling system enables the carrying aircraft to serve as a tanker for other aircraft. All fuel in the Skyhawk tanker aircraft, except the fuselage tank, may be transferred to the receiver aircraft.
The refueling store (Buddy Store) carried on the center-line rack contains a 300 gallon fuel cell, a constant speed ram air turbine-driven hydraulic pump, a hydraulically driven fuel pump, a hydraulically operated hose reel, and 50 feet of refueling hose with a droque.
The store is capable of transferring fuel at aprox. 180 gallons per minute. Provisions are made for dumping fuel when necessary. The operational envelope of the store with the droque extended is limited to 300KIAS or .8 MACH, which ever is lower up to 35,000 feet.
The air turbine that powers the 700-pound in-flight re-fueling package will be able to transfer about 6000 pounds of fuel from the center-line and wing tanks, as well as part of the internal load of 5400 pounds in the wings and fuselage. The tanker will weigh about 23,700 pounds on the catapult. When it reaches the bow, its speed will be about 150 knots (173 mph). It was SOP (standard operating procedure) to launch one tanker in each launch-recovery cycle. In combat, the air wing would launch two or three Skyhawk tankers if several divisions of aircraft were attacking well-defended targets. During the years that the Skyhawk tanker was operational, its pilots prevented innumerable aircraft losses due to fuel exhaustion. The most common causes of "low-state" were additional approaches needed for safe landings on a pitching deck, delay for clearing a crash on deck, using extra fuel in evading SAMs and MIGs, and fuel loss from battle damage. Official Navy photograph from Mike Trout below.

http://a4skyhawk.org/content/technical-data


This video shows buddy refueling, and how to deliver nukes

https://youtu.be/3dIqfN_aPtY?t=8m58s


According to wiki buddy store capability was used from A-4B onwards:

A-4B
Strengthened aircraft and added air-to-air refueling capabilities,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-4_Skyhawk

[Schr75]

This should be a quick fix, but I feel it is pretty important.

The SS-N-3 and SS-N-12 series missiles can be fired from 50m depth, enabling submerged launch, when this was a strict surface launch missile.

Attached is a save game showing the issue, but this should be a DB issue.

S

[.Sirius]

Updated

ORIGINAL: MR_BURNS2

A-4 Skyhawks of USN and USMC (maybe others too?) are missing Buddy Stores.

The air refueling system enables the carrying aircraft to serve as a tanker for other aircraft. All fuel in the Skyhawk tanker aircraft, except the fuselage tank, may be transferred to the receiver aircraft.
The refueling store (Buddy Store) carried on the center-line rack contains a 300 gallon fuel cell, a constant speed ram air turbine-driven hydraulic pump, a hydraulically driven fuel pump, a hydraulically operated hose reel, and 50 feet of refueling hose with a droque.
The store is capable of transferring fuel at aprox. 180 gallons per minute. Provisions are made for dumping fuel when necessary. The operational envelope of the store with the droque extended is limited to 300KIAS or .8 MACH, which ever is lower up to 35,000 feet.
The air turbine that powers the 700-pound in-flight re-fueling package will be able to transfer about 6000 pounds of fuel from the center-line and wing tanks, as well as part of the internal load of 5400 pounds in the wings and fuselage. The tanker will weigh about 23,700 pounds on the catapult. When it reaches the bow, its speed will be about 150 knots (173 mph). It was SOP (standard operating procedure) to launch one tanker in each launch-recovery cycle. In combat, the air wing would launch two or three Skyhawk tankers if several divisions of aircraft were attacking well-defended targets. During the years that the Skyhawk tanker was operational, its pilots prevented innumerable aircraft losses due to fuel exhaustion. The most common causes of "low-state" were additional approaches needed for safe landings on a pitching deck, delay for clearing a crash on deck, using extra fuel in evading SAMs and MIGs, and fuel loss from battle damage. Official Navy photograph from Mike Trout below.

http://a4skyhawk.org/content/technical-data


This video shows buddy refueling, and how to deliver nukes

https://youtu.be/3dIqfN_aPtY?t=8m58s


According to wiki buddy store capability was used from A-4B onwards:

A-4B
Strengthened aircraft and added air-to-air refueling capabilities,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-4_Skyhawk

[skjold89]

I got a question Sirius, is Cold war DB 441 gonna come out together with the next major update since it didn't come out with the most recent one?

[.Sirius]

maybe DB 442 [8D]

ORIGINAL: Skjold

I got a question Sirius, is Cold war DB 441 gonna come out together with the next major update since it didn't come out with the most recent one?

[skjold89]

ORIGINAL: .Sirius

maybe DB 442 [8D]

ORIGINAL: Skjold

I got a question Sirius, is Cold war DB 441 gonna come out together with the next major update since it didn't come out with the most recent one?

Oh ok, i have been taking a look in the RC and im so happy to see the Lansen changes to be in, Yay!

[apd1004]

Sirius,

I'm helping CV60 write descriptions and provide images for CWDB like I did a couple years ago with some of the DB3000 stuff. Along with writing the descriptions I'm sure to find research data that conflicts with what is in the CWDB. For instance, there are 6 versions of Tu-95 Bear in the CWDB. I have researched each one and have a list of recommended changes for all 6 versions. Before the descriptions I write get published, the description itself needs to be vetted against the information already in the CWDB so the description doesn't contradict the data. If I think an entry in the CWDB needs to be updated/fixed/changed, I will propose a change to the CWDB.

As a disclaimer, I don't just copy & paste from Wikipedia when writing descriptions, I research each item and try (emphasizing the word TRY...) to find multiple professional sources and compare them before putting the information into writing. Sometimes sources conflict with each other or there isn't much info available on certain things and what is available may be pure guesswork or any combination of the above. Other times Wikipedia is all we have.

Long story short, As I work on these descriptions I may firehose a lot of recommended changes (I will recommend, not demand...) to CWDB entries as I come across them.

How do you want me to provide recommendations for CWDB changes? I can post them here in this thread as I run across them, or I can email them offline, I can even do a spreadsheet attached to the thread or offline.

Cheers

Jeff Leslie aka apd1004

[Seeadler]

Hi,
some minor mistakes I've found in the CWDB 442:

#424 Gloire and #425 Duguay-Trouin were CL, not CA
#1300 De Grasse had 6x127mm twin mounts, not 4
#448 It's Le Fantasque, not La Fantasque
#1467 east german Kondor I had only one 25mm/60 twin mount afaik
#170 and #1292 The german Fletchers had one 553mm Quint TT mount in the 1950s and 60s
#1943 between 1960 and 1962 only Z4 had two 40mm/70 single mounts which replaced the 76mm mounts port and stbd
#167 and #1672 The Hamburg class DDs had 5 533mm TTs (3 bow, 2 stern) until the late 1970s DDG refit
#837 Silbermowe class S-boats had 2 TTs and only one single 40mm Bofors mount
#325 Greek Aetos pennant number was D 01
#324 Greek Doxa pennant number was D 20
#1379 Greek Niki pennant number was D 65
#1565 Iran Babr (Gearing Fram II) had two 127mm twin mounts, not four
#1566 Iran Bayandor had two single 76mm mounts
#434 Italian sub Enrico Toti beam 48m? It's rather 4.8m, I guess.
#437 Sub Toti height 0m, must be 10m
#1883 Andrea Doria class CGH had an ASROC launcher? Must be a hypothetical unit.
#1743 Malaysian frigate Rahmat had a single 114mm mount, not twin
#486, 821 and 822 Dutch Friesland class DDs had six, later four, 40mm single Bofors mounts
#1361 New Zealand Loch class FFs had a single 102mm mount
#210 Black Swan class FFs in the Norwegian Navy? Really?
#996, 997, 999 Norwegian ex C-class DDs had four 114mm single mounts, not three
#854 D Arendal had three 102mm mounts, not two
#1008 FFL Sleipner with a 76mm twin mount?
#1504 South Korean Fletchers had five 127mm/38 mounts, not four
#1534 Taiwanese DD Dang Yang had two 127mm twin mounts, not three
#25 Loch class frigates had a single 102mm mount before 1953
#193 During the 1950s Sailfish class subs were SSR not APSS
#681 USN BB Maryland had after final refitting 8 127mm twin turrets and 17 40mm quads
#682 BB West Virginia had 10 40mm quads
USN BBs Indiana, Massachusetts and Alabama had 10 127mm twin turrets, not 8
#59, 60 and 61 CAGs (CA) Boston and Canberra had 5 127mm twin turrets, not 4
#2320 USS Hull had 2 127mm Guns besides the 203mm gun, not 2 76mm twin guns
#1254 and 80 DDGs 2-14 had the Mk11 twin rail launcher, DDG 15-24 had the Mk13 single rail launcher
#45 and 132 Claud Jones DEs had 76mm single mounts, not twin mounts
#476 Edsall class DERs had 76mm single mounts, not twin mounts
#1845 Venezuela PC Constitucion had a 76mm OTO mount, no 40mm

I'm adding images of nearly all ships to the DB. When I find more mistakes, I will let you know. [:)]

[.Sirius]

Thanks for the heads up

ORIGINAL: Seeadler

Hi,
some minor mistakes I've found in the CWDB 442:

#424 Gloire and #425 Duguay-Trouin were CL, not CA
#1300 De Grasse had 6x127mm twin mounts, not 4
#448 It's Le Fantasque, not La Fantasque

I'm adding images of nearly all ships to the DB. When I find more mistakes, I will let you know. [:)]

[Schr75]

Hi Sirius.

Would it be possible to guide the Bomarc missile by the SAGE radars so as to exploit it´s full range.

I´m pretty sure this is a DB issue as the missile is labeled as illuminate at launch, but it was designed to be guided by SAGE to it´s maximum range.

http://bitsavers.informatik.uni-stuttga ... m_1958.pdf

Hope this is usefull

S

[thewood1]

This one might be an edge case between CWDB and DB3k.

A couple of Iraqi PBs, like the P-6 and Osa I/II are in CWDB, but not in the DB3K. Some of these were left in 1980/81 and participated in a couple significant operations. I could just use them from the CWDB, but other Iraqi and Iranian units are then missing from the CWDB. The simplest would be to just copy the units from CWDB to DB3k. I think there might be others in this situation around the Iran-Iraq War around 1979-1981. I think in general, the 1979 -1981 timeframe needs some review. I just happened to notice these units because I was building a specific scenario.

Also Unit #1226 La Combattante II with RGM-84 (RGM-84 is in the title) is missing the RGM-84 in DB3k. I will doublecheck, but these ships might need to be in CWDB also. (Nevermind...I missed the Mk 140 launchers)

Cross-posted in DB3k thread also.

[peterc100248]

Tinkering with an obscure scenario "The Final Countdown" (available in the scenario thread) I discovered some interesting capabilities for the A6M-2 Japanese Zero WWII fighter plane:

1. The CWDB versions are capable of 360 kt (414 mph) bursts at 36,000 feet - the real A6M-2 was red lined at 288 kts at 15,000 ft. Without the benefit of a supercharger performance fell off rapidly above 18,000 feet. In fact the last version, the A6M-5 Model 52 was only capable of 305 kts at 20,000 feet. The Zero could not catch a B-29 at high altitude. Basically, if they didn't get to the B-29's altitude before they arrived, there was no hope of catching them.

2. The very same Zeros caught a B-52H at 40,000 feet and military throttle (straight and level flight) and shot it down. Ridiculous. Who needs Migs?

3. EDIT: I forgot that all the IJN aircraft acted like they had radar on board. They would respond as a group and pursue attackers that were beyond visual range.

Anyway...I know this is really minor stuff, as nobody uses Zeros in CMANO that I've seen so far. Just a heads up that the oldest platforms in CWDB are likely off to a significant degree.

[.Sirius]

ORIGINAL: peterc100248

Tinkering with an obscure scenario "The Final Countdown" (available in the scenario thread) I discovered some interesting capabilities for the A6M-2 Japanese Zero WWII fighter plane:

1. The CWDB versions are capable of 360 kt (414 mph) bursts at 36,000 feet - the real A6M-2 was red lined at 288 kts at 15,000 ft. Without the benefit of a supercharger performance fell off rapidly above 18,000 feet. In fact the last version, the A6M-5 Model 52 was only capable of 305 kts at 20,000 feet. The Zero could not catch a B-29 at high altitude. Basically, if they didn't get to the B-29's altitude before they arrived, there was no hope of catching them.

2. The very same Zeros caught a B-52H at 40,000 feet and military throttle (straight and level flight) and shot it down. Ridiculous. Who needs Migs?

3. EDIT: I forgot that all the IJN aircraft acted like they had radar on board. They would respond as a group and pursue attackers that were beyond visual range.

Anyway...I know this is really minor stuff, as nobody uses Zeros in CMANO that I've seen so far. Just a heads up that the oldest platforms in CWDB are likely off to a significant degree.

Noted will look into it

[Coiler12]

A few fairly small issues with some of the hypothetical British ships in the CWDB:

Ship #1913 Type 43
-Lacks aviation facilities that the historical design had.
Source here. (Pad on the center of the ship and a hangar capable of holding a Sea King or two Lynxes).

Ship #1501 Type 17
-Lacks the 4.5 inch MkVIII gun that was to be on the design.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: cf_dallas

Question about the SA-1 (S-25) Berkut: Looking at pictures and reading up on it to build the PVO 1st AD Army, it doesn't sound like it could guide missiles in all directions. The Yo-Yo radars look like they're on a rotating fixture, but they're also generally sitting in a massive revetment that would make it difficult to look 'behind' the installation.



I set up a test scenario (attached) and it's able to engage all the way around. Would a 90- or 135-degree engagement arc be more appropriate?

Holy don't stand near that!

Mike

[mikmykWS]

Updated list to this point.

Mike