No Strat Bombing in China

[RangerJoe]

I have no problem quoting from Wiki if I already have an informed idea that it is accurate. It also depends upon the topic as well.

Both sides have advantages and disadvantages. There are no personal egos to stoke in the game other than the players egos. There is no bias against the US trying to reestablish colonial empires. Leave it as a game, let people play the way that they want to as long as they are happy with it.

My comments about the ammo actually comes several things that I have read. One of them was a Japanese admiral was chastised for using too much ship main gun ammo during a bombardment since that does use a lot of metal. One of the US old battleships actually reduced the amount of powder for the shells during the naval bombardments with no lessening in effectiveness which helped prolong the barrel life as the barrels were close to needing relining. Guess what? There was little to no wear after that! Also, my own personal knowledge that the militaries do keep track of barrel wear and tear on the gun tubes which does effect range and accuracy.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: Ian R
You didn't actually read the document I linked, did you?

it lost three men MIA presumed captured by the Japanese

And probably beheaded and cremated. After they were tied to a tree and used for bayonet practice. Let's not gloss over the facts here.

but as you observed yourself, it's a game and it is not 100% historical for both sides

Correct, and that was my point - IJ players demanding house rules on the basis of "historical realism" is an oxymoron.

[Ian R]

Finally, I congratulate you on your ability to use more traditional sources than wiki and I will punish myself for having copied/pasted a good-enough summary from wiki out of convenience and laziness instead of assembling and retyping information from more traditional sources myself - no dessert for me this supper.

There is a lot of incorrect info on Wiki.

Always check the sources ... and read them yourself.

No pudding for you.

[Wirraway_Ace]

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Tanaka



Interesting. Did not know this was possible and first I've heard of this one before. The other one I just recently heard about was only Tankers being allowed to carry oil. No AKs other than the ones with liquid capacity.

Only tankers or ships with liquid storage can carry oil. AKs and AP of any type can carry fuel, this should include AMCs and other vessels with a cargo capacity including PBs.

Yes I was confused by that:

Transport fuel/oil only in TK, AO and in dedicated fuel/oil capacity of some xAKs

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5078303

This house rule has been around a while. The use of "oil" in the description of the rule is to distinguish between bulk fuel and oil carrying capacity versus 55 gallon drums in cargo holds. AKs and xAKs, indeed any ship carrying supplies, may very well be carrying 55 gallon drums of AV gas, diesel or petrol, as aircraft, tanks and trucks burn supplies (the reason refineries make supply points). You could not, however, run an economy from 55 gallon drums shipped in cargo holds...

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe




Only tankers or ships with liquid storage can carry oil. AKs and AP of any type can carry fuel, this should include AMCs and other vessels with a cargo capacity including PBs.

Yes I was confused by that:

Transport fuel/oil only in TK, AO and in dedicated fuel/oil capacity of some xAKs

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5078303

This house rule has been around a while. The use of "oil" in the description of the rule is to distinguish between bulk fuel and oil carrying capacity versus 55 gallon drums in cargo holds. AKs and xAKs, indeed any ship carrying supplies, may very well be carrying 55 gallon drums of AV gas, diesel or petrol, as aircraft, tanks and trucks burn supplies (the reason refineries make supply points). You could not, however, run an economy from 55 gallon drums shipped in cargo holds...

Thanks for clearing that up!

[Wirraway_Ace]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Regarding start bombing in China. You can choose the middle way. Bomb Manpower(terror bombing) and Heavy Industry( real-life Chinese arsenals - Chungking had several). If you wipe out all HI in China, Chiinese supply production is reduced by 1/3. The Chinese can still continue fighting having untouched LI.

This is a nice approach, Yaab. My primary concern for bombing LI in China, is how it could possibly be targeted. My understanding is it was almost all cottage industry. On the subject of HI, do you have any pics or links to information on Chinese arsenals in Chungking of the era?

[RangerJoe]

Hit English for a translation:

http://www.chinesefirearms.com/110108/a ... rt_g.htm#1

[Wirraway_Ace]

Thanks, RangerJoe!

[Yaab]

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Regarding start bombing in China. You can choose the middle way. Bomb Manpower(terror bombing) and Heavy Industry( real-life Chinese arsenals - Chungking had several). If you wipe out all HI in China, Chiinese supply production is reduced by 1/3. The Chinese can still continue fighting having untouched LI.

This is a nice approach, Yaab. My primary concern for bombing LI in China, is how it could possibly be targeted. My understanding is it was almost all cottage industry. On the subject of HI, do you have any pics or links to information on Chinese arsenals in Chungking of the era?

WirrawayAce, try this link. Unfotunately, I can only view this one page (page 131) from the book.

https://books.google.pl/books?id=7Yequ2 ... &q&f=false

[RangerJoe]

You might try this but you have to sign up. I did not sign up.

Workers at War: Labor in China's Arsenals, 1937-1953

https://read-download-books.com/v6/prev ... 937%201953

It might just be a description of the book.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Without opening the game, I know that there was at least one ship that shows up in Derby on the North Coast, I did not know that the ship was built there but there is not much to that base. So actually making a list of the ships with the source, then adding in any comments would be useful to someone making a mod to correct any such errors would be useful, may make it easier for some people to do so, and would thus encourage more work on the other vessels if many such corrections were known. Something like a "team effort" to get this accomplished. I do believe that Babes did try to correct some things as well.

FWIW I am working on updating my personal game scenario and I have a fair few ship arrival corrections already. I am aware that LargeSlowTarget has also done a lot of work and I will be incorporating some of those updates into my own scenario as well. I would be very happy to take a look at whatever other such updates anyone has, and at the end of my updates to the scenario I can create a list of ships and corrected arrival dates.

[RangerJoe]

I do know that the Alden left the Pacific and worked in the Atlantic area. i think that most of the 4 pipers did unless they were sunk. One was sunk, refloated by the Japanese and repaired somewhat.

Ernest Evans, MOH, started the war on the Alden.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Without opening the game, I know that there was at least one ship that shows up in Derby on the North Coast, I did not know that the ship was built there but there is not much to that base. So actually making a list of the ships with the source, then adding in any comments would be useful to someone making a mod to correct any such errors would be useful, may make it easier for some people to do so, and would thus encourage more work on the other vessels if many such corrections were known. Something like a "team effort" to get this accomplished. I do believe that Babes did try to correct some things as well.

FWIW I am working on updating my personal game scenario and I have a fair few ship arrival corrections already. I am aware that LargeSlowTarget has also done a lot of work and I will be incorporating some of those updates into my own scenario as well. I would be very happy to take a look at whatever other such updates anyone has, and at the end of my updates to the scenario I can create a list of ships and corrected arrival dates.

I Have the corrected Bathurst arrivals in my scenario; please copy and save yourself some time. There are also a lot of later war changes/additions included.

[Wirraway_Ace]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Regarding start bombing in China. You can choose the middle way. Bomb Manpower(terror bombing) and Heavy Industry( real-life Chinese arsenals - Chungking had several). If you wipe out all HI in China, Chiinese supply production is reduced by 1/3. The Chinese can still continue fighting having untouched LI.

This is a nice approach, Yaab. My primary concern for bombing LI in China, is how it could possibly be targeted. My understanding is it was almost all cottage industry. On the subject of HI, do you have any pics or links to information on Chinese arsenals in Chungking of the era?

WirrawayAce, try this link. Unfotunately, I can only view this one page (page 131) from the book.

https://books.google.pl/books?id=7Yequ2 ... &q&f=false

Thanks, none the less. It looks like a good reference.

[Wirraway_Ace]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Hit English for a translation:

http://www.chinesefirearms.com/110108/a ... rt_g.htm#1

Thanks, RangerJoe. Good stuff. Using these names and descriptions to search for period pictures of the arsenals.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Without opening the game, I know that there was at least one ship that shows up in Derby on the North Coast, I did not know that the ship was built there but there is not much to that base. So actually making a list of the ships with the source, then adding in any comments would be useful to someone making a mod to correct any such errors would be useful, may make it easier for some people to do so, and would thus encourage more work on the other vessels if many such corrections were known. Something like a "team effort" to get this accomplished. I do believe that Babes did try to correct some things as well.

FWIW I am working on updating my personal game scenario and I have a fair few ship arrival corrections already. I am aware that LargeSlowTarget has also done a lot of work and I will be incorporating some of those updates into my own scenario as well. I would be very happy to take a look at whatever other such updates anyone has, and at the end of my updates to the scenario I can create a list of ships and corrected arrival dates.

Hey AndyMac can you get in on this for your scenarios as well? [;)]

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

ORIGINAL: Tanaka




Yes I was confused by that:

Transport fuel/oil only in TK, AO and in dedicated fuel/oil capacity of some xAKs

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5078303

This house rule has been around a while. The use of "oil" in the description of the rule is to distinguish between bulk fuel and oil carrying capacity versus 55 gallon drums in cargo holds. AKs and xAKs, indeed any ship carrying supplies, may very well be carrying 55 gallon drums of AV gas, diesel or petrol, as aircraft, tanks and trucks burn supplies (the reason refineries make supply points). You could not, however, run an economy from 55 gallon drums shipped in cargo holds...

Thanks for clearing that up!

Was wondering about production of those 55-gallon barrels. I had no idea that so many were produced. It's hard to visualize what 2.5m barrels/month would look like.

https://books.google.com/books?id=qgThuPSL04sC&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131&dq=55+gallon+drum+production+during+world+war+2&source=bl&ots=loBFKKhFME&sig=ACfU3U1AlQBu4IcjeOQ2RrzAjf6Oho3HhA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiursu6garzAhVKm2oFHSKIBKk4ChDoAXoECAsQAw#v=onepage&q=55%20gallon%20drum%20production%20during%20world%20war%202&f=false

[RangerJoe]

Just look up a picture of a US supply, ammo, and fuel dump.

[Yaab]

Jesus, 2.5m barrels per MONTH? This is obscene. The Japs never had a chance.

[anarchyintheuk]

To be fair, the source says that the 2.5m/month height of the 55-gallon barrel production was achieved in 1944. The article didn't have a monthly production graph covering the war, which would have been interesting. 2.5m/month comes out to approximately a barrel/second.