OOB Comments

[SpitfireIX]

ORIGINAL: TIMJOT

Just to add to the 31 pages of oob fixes. Dont know if anyone else has mentioned it but I just noticed that VMSB 231, the Vindacater unit that the Lexington was bringing to Midway apparently isnt in Senerio 15. It should start either on board the Lex or at Midway on turn one.

Sorry, TIMJOT, I somehow missed your post my first time through the thread. I should have given you credit for initially pointing out this problem.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: SpitfireIX

Version 1.21 Scenario 15

... VMSB squadrons should have a max a/c of 24 ...

VMSB (and VMF) squadrons were allocated 18 aircraft at the beginning of the war. The increase to 24 occurred late in 1944.

[Pascal_slith]

On Dec. 7th, 1941, the 7th USMC Def Batt was posted on Tutuila Island (Pago-Pago in the game). The 1st Samoan Marine Corps Reserve Battalion was also with them. Upolu only contained a small NZ detachment (company sized). The base forces on these islands in the game should not be there at all. They should be located on the West Coast at best. No US forces were located at Tongatabu (misspelled in WitP as Tongatapu). Only a New Zealand cadred Tongan Defense Force was there. Again, the US base force should be on the West Coast at best.

Noumea only contained an Australian garrison and Efate a small Aussie force and small seaplane (not large patrol type like PBY's) base.

There are also far too many militarily significant bases, i.e. port or airfield size 1or greater WITH supplies and fuel, lying around the South Pacific and Southeast Asian islands. Many should be reduced to simple beaches (port and airfield 0) or at a minimum a port level 1 with no supplies or fuel.

Finally, there is much too much fuel on hand in most ports, including major bases, EXCEPT for PH and the US West Coast ports. Considering 1 fuel point = 1 ton of fuel, PH should have about 600'000 (the approx. 4.5 million barrels on hand on Dec. 7th). As the West Coast had about 44.5 million barrels available, at least Los Angeles should have 950'000 fuel points available. (Sources: PH Attack Hearings (see website at www.ibiblio.org) and "The Pacific War Revisited" by Bischof and Dupont). The major Australian, New Zealand, DEI, Malayan (Singapore), and Indian bases also have too much fuel on hand. I'm working through the official histories and other sources for more exact corrections.

Ocean Island has been missed as a beach/buildable base. It's on the map graphically (see hex 77,89). And Nauru was an important source of phosphates for Japanese agriculture, so it should have a resource production industry.

[Subchaser]

Technical data correction

Type KD3A/B (Kaidai 3a/b)

- These boats had 6 forward torpedo tubes and 2 aft tubes, in game all 8 tubes are forward.

Type KD6A/B (Kaidai 6a/b)

- In game boats of this type have 6 forward tubes with 2 ammo, this should be changed to 4 forward tubes with 2 ammo and 2 aft tubes with 3 ammo. These boats carried 14 torpedoes not 12.
- Submarines I-171 - I-175 should have 4,7in/45 3YT gun instead of 3,9in/50 type 88.
- Submarines I-168 – I-173 should have 1 x 2x13,2mm type 93 AA mg, and I-174 – I-175 subs should have 2 x 2x13,2mm mgs.

Type KD5 (Kaidai 5)

- The same problem as with kaidai 6 type, there should be 4 forward tubes with 2 ammo and 2 aft tubes with 3 ammo.

Type KD7 (Kaidai 7)

- These subs had twin 25mm mount not single.

Type J1 (Junsen 1)

I-5, I-6 were the first Japanese submarines designed to carry an aircraft and if aircraft containers on I-5 were removed and additional gun was mounted in 1940, I-6 entered pacific war duly equipped for air reconnaissance missions.

- I-6 should have 1 aircraft capacity and 1 Glen float plane, 4 forward tubes with 3 ammo, 2 aft tubes with 3 ammo and one 4,7in/45 3YT gun.
- Subs I-2, I-4 and I-6 had one 13,2mm type 93 AA mg mount

Type J3 (Junsen 3)

- These subs carried 22 torpedoes not 18, torpedo ammo should be increased to 4.
- In game these subs have two twin 13,2mm mounts and one single 13,2mm mg, this should be changed to one twin 25mm mount, one twin and one single 13,2mm mgs mounts.

Type KRS (Kirai-sen)

- Durability should be changed from 20 to 24.

Type L4 (Vickers L3 Mod)

- ammo for 2 aft torpedo tubes tube must 1 instead of 2, this type has only 10 torpedoes.

Maneuverability of the following types should be changed (mvr ratings of US subs also should be also be changed):
Type STo – 51,
Type AM – 52,
Type A2 – 54,
Type A1 – 56,
Type B3/4 – 57,
Type B2 – 58,
Type B1 – 58,
Type C3/4 – 57,
Type C2 – 59,
Type C1 – 59,
Type KD7 – 63,
Type KD6A/B – 64,
Type KD5 – 65,
Type J3 – 58,
Type J1 – 63,
Type KRS – 59,
Type ST – 92,
Type STS – 95,
Type L4 – 73.

OOB Corrections

Type K6 (Kaichu 6)
2 submarines are missing - RO-55 (Built at Tamano Zosensho shipyard, commissioned 23 april 1944) and RO-56 (Built at Tamano Zosensho shipyard, commissioned 5 july 1944).

Type C2 (Kaidai Hei-Gate C2)

I-49, I-50, I-51 - these are the phantom subs, none was even laid down. Order for them was really placed in 1941, under fleet replacement program, but it was canceled in may 1943. However these are in the game, this supposes that in game I-48 will be laid down in september ’43, I-50 in july ’43 and I-51 in february ’44. If these subs were included to beef up IJN submarine force in 1945, when it probably will be already mauled, then I must admit that this is strange choice. May be it would better to give player submarines which were really laid down and by spring ’45 were almost ready. I-404 was 95% ready when she was sunk by US carrier planes in Kure on 28 july ’45; I-1 (type AM) 70% ready; I-15 (type AM) 90% ready; I-204 90% ready; I-205 -80% ready; I-206 was 85% ready in march ’45 etc. Or to launch more perspective boats from the canceled order list than these kaidais in late 43, there were so many plans… any ideas?

Where is japanese transport submarine fleet?

28 IJN transport submarines are missing, (since IJA vessels are completely ignored there is no wonder why 26 army transport submarines also weren’t included).

The number of transport submarines Japanese built during the war and the number of subs converted ito undersea transports actually deserves additional ship type – SST, transport submarine.

Type Sen-Ho (2 subs - I-351, I-352)
Max Speed - 16
Cruise Speed - 10
Mvr - 59
Dur- 34
End- 27 500
Fuel- 750
Cap - 365 tons (FUEL)
Torps - 4x 21in type 95 –F (1)
AA guns - 2 x 3x25mm type 96 + 1 x 1x25mm type 96

Type Tei-Gata 2 (2 subs - I-373, I-374)
Max Speed - 13
Cruise Speed - 10
Mvr - 58
Dur - 33
End - 15 000
Fuel - 350
Cap - 120 (Supplies)
Naval guns - 1 x 5.5in/40 QF
AA guns - 1 x 2x25mm type 96

Type Tei-Gata (12 subs - I-361 – I-372)
Max Speed - 13
Cruise Speed- 10
Mvr - 58
Dur - 33
End - 15 000
Fuel - 350
Cap - 120 (Supplies)
Torps - 2 x 21in type 95 –F (1) only I-361
Naval guns - 1 x 5.5in/40 QF
AA guns - 1 x 2x25mm type 96

Type Sen-Yuso-Sho (12 subs - Ha-101 – Ha-112)
Max Speed - 10
Cruise Speed - 8
Mvr- 61
Dur - 31
End - 3 500
Fuel - 75
Cap - 60 (Supplies)
AA guns - 1 x 25mm type 96

[Pascal_slith]

oops

[Brady]

WTG Subchaser.

[Pascal_slith]

USS California and USS Tennesee have some weapons facing problems when you look in the database. A bunch of the AA weapons only face to the right side (RS). No left side facing. This is just from a quick look.

[pry]

ORIGINAL: Pascal

USS California and USS Tennesee have some weapons facing problems when you look in the database. A bunch of the AA weapons only face to the right side (RS). No left side facing. This is just from a quick look.

SCENARIO and Game VERSION Please...

[Pascal_slith]

ORIGINAL: pry

ORIGINAL: Pascal

USS California and USS Tennesee have some weapons facing problems when you look in the database. A bunch of the AA weapons only face to the right side (RS). No left side facing. This is just from a quick look.

SCENARIO and Game VERSION Please...

Scenario 15, version 1.21

[pry]

ORIGINAL: Pascal

On Dec. 7th, 1941, the 7th USMC Def Batt was posted on Tutuila Island (Pago-Pago in the game). The 1st Samoan Marine Corps Reserve Battalion was also with them. Upolu only contained a small NZ detachment (company sized). The base forces on these islands in the game should not be there at all. They should be located on the West Coast at best. No US forces were located at Tongatabu (misspelled in WitP as Tongatapu). Only a New Zealand cadred Tongan Defense Force was there. Again, the US base force should be on the West Coast at best.

Noumea only contained an Australian garrison and Efate a small Aussie force and small seaplane (not large patrol type like PBY's) base.

There are also far too many militarily significant bases, i.e. port or airfield size 1or greater WITH supplies and fuel, lying around the South Pacific and Southeast Asian islands. Many should be reduced to simple beaches (port and airfield 0) or at a minimum a port level 1 with no supplies or fuel.

Finally, there is much too much fuel on hand in most ports, including major bases, EXCEPT for PH and the US West Coast ports. Considering 1 fuel point = 1 ton of fuel, PH should have about 600'000 (the approx. 4.5 million barrels on hand on Dec. 7th). As the West Coast had about 44.5 million barrels available, at least Los Angeles should have 950'000 fuel points available. (Sources: PH Attack Hearings (see website at www.ibiblio.org) and "The Pacific War Revisited" by Bischof and Dupont). The major Australian, New Zealand, DEI, Malayan (Singapore), and Indian bases also have too much fuel on hand. I'm working through the official histories and other sources for more exact corrections.

Ocean Island has been missed as a beach/buildable base. It's on the map graphically (see hex 77,89). And Nauru was an important source of phosphates for Japanese agriculture, so it should have a resource production industry.

Pascal

Most of these items need to done in a PBEM only scenario, The AI needs help here and there and part of that help is that it needs existing bases to utilize and also fuel and supply to help it out, as long as the AI is involved then 100% historical accuracy and game play don't mix. I personally don't see any of the above being changed in any of the Existing Official Scenarios.

Once we get caught up with the OOB issues I would be glad to work with you and any others to design a PBEM only campaign scenario that things like could be done in without any harm to game play.

[Herrbear]

I can see your point in using the Model 22 instead of the 32. What would be the stats for the aircraft. I cannot find a source that that supplies much facts on it.

In UV it was listed as the following:
MS 336; CS 220; Alt 32810; Cli 2700; Mvr 36; Dur 22; Arm 0; End 453; Max Rng (mi) 1661; Hx 27; Ld 500; GV 12

I think the load is high and should only be 264.

Why not keep both the Model 22 and Model 32 and eliminate the D1A in slot 15. I did not locate on Scen 15 that there is a unit or factory that has that aircraft.

[Tanaka]

Saburo Sakai should be based at Tainan in the Tainan Squadron on Dec 7th.

http://www.frenkenstein.com/ww2/japan/A ... _Sakai.htm


On December 8, 1941, only hours after Pearl Harbor, Sakai flew one of 45 Zero’s from Tainan Squadron that attacked Clark airfield in the Philippines. "We started our day at 0200 hours. Our take off was ordered by the commander Saito, but a fog came in and we were delayed. We stayed with our planes waiting, and had breakfast. We received the news of the attack on Pearl Harbor and the Aleutians, and we wondered if the Americans would be expecting us during our attack. Finally at 1000 we were ordered to take off. The mission started badly when a bomber crashed on take-off killing all of the crew. We took off and reached 19,000 feet when I saw a formation of American bombers coming towards our airfield. The Americans always had great reconnaissance and knew where we were. Our orders as the top fighter cover were to attack any aircraft coming towards the base, so we attacked and allowed the others to continue on. Then we saw that these planes were Japanese Army bombers on a routing flight, and no one had informed the navy that they were coming or even in the area. This was almost tragic. We reformed and continued on. When we arrived over Clark Field we were amazed that we had not been intercepted, although there were five American fighters below us who did not attack, and we could not; our orders were to not engage until all of our bombers were in the area. I was also amazed that all of the American planes were in perfect alignment for an attack, and we strafed and bombed, and thoroughly destroyed everything. After the bombers destroyed the base I saw two B- 17s and went into a strafing attack. We had already dropped our empty external fuel tanks, and we swept in with guns blazing. My two wing men and I shot them up, and as we pulled out the five P-40s we had seen jumped us. This was my first combat against Americans, and I shot down one. We had destroyed four in the air and thirty-five on the ground. This was my third air victory, and the first American, but not the last. I flew missions the next day, and the weather was terrible, a rainstorm that blinded us. The third day was 10 December and we had twenty-seven fighters on this sweep, and this was when I caught a B-17 that was flown by Captain Colin P. Kelley. This was the first B-17 shot down during the war."

[BartM]

not familiar how the game uses these, which a/c use them and their actual purpose ?

Looking at the editor, they show a low effect damage, no penatration (expected that), but how does the game use these ? would a higher Effect damage, along with a soft-target value offer these a better use ?

[Pascal_slith]

ORIGINAL: pry

ORIGINAL: Pascal

On Dec. 7th, 1941, the 7th USMC Def Batt was posted on Tutuila Island (Pago-Pago in the game). The 1st Samoan Marine Corps Reserve Battalion was also with them. Upolu only contained a small NZ detachment (company sized). The base forces on these islands in the game should not be there at all. They should be located on the West Coast at best. No US forces were located at Tongatabu (misspelled in WitP as Tongatapu). Only a New Zealand cadred Tongan Defense Force was there. Again, the US base force should be on the West Coast at best.

Noumea only contained an Australian garrison and Efate a small Aussie force and small seaplane (not large patrol type like PBY's) base.

There are also far too many militarily significant bases, i.e. port or airfield size 1or greater WITH supplies and fuel, lying around the South Pacific and Southeast Asian islands. Many should be reduced to simple beaches (port and airfield 0) or at a minimum a port level 1 with no supplies or fuel.

Finally, there is much too much fuel on hand in most ports, including major bases, EXCEPT for PH and the US West Coast ports. Considering 1 fuel point = 1 ton of fuel, PH should have about 600'000 (the approx. 4.5 million barrels on hand on Dec. 7th). As the West Coast had about 44.5 million barrels available, at least Los Angeles should have 950'000 fuel points available. (Sources: PH Attack Hearings (see website at www.ibiblio.org) and "The Pacific War Revisited" by Bischof and Dupont). The major Australian, New Zealand, DEI, Malayan (Singapore), and Indian bases also have too much fuel on hand. I'm working through the official histories and other sources for more exact corrections.

Ocean Island has been missed as a beach/buildable base. It's on the map graphically (see hex 77,89). And Nauru was an important source of phosphates for Japanese agriculture, so it should have a resource production industry.

Pascal

Most of these items need to done in a PBEM only scenario, The AI needs help here and there and part of that help is that it needs existing bases to utilize and also fuel and supply to help it out, as long as the AI is involved then 100% historical accuracy and game play don't mix. I personally don't see any of the above being changed in any of the Existing Official Scenarios.

Once we get caught up with the OOB issues I would be glad to work with you and any others to design a PBEM only campaign scenario that things like could be done in without any harm to game play.

Definitely agree, Pry. I already thought this would be the problem. Yes, a PBEM game with much more accurate historical bases, supplies, etc. is most likely the only solution. This PBEM-only version would also allow the map modifications to include the missing Pacific and Indian Ocean islands.

[jcjordan]

Don, yep those are the squadrons that some of my research had come up with but the a/c for the 5th & 10th seemed to indicate a little higher but it could be wrong. I like to get info from several sources to cross check totals & such but had a hard time on the Phil & Chinese units so far.

[Pascal_slith]

According to the section on the B-17E and F versions in volume 4 of "Aircraft in Profile", the B-17E and F versions had a range of 3'300 miles with the full 2'492 gallons of fuel and 4'420 miles with the additional "Tokyo Tanks" (fuel containers in the bomb bay, total fuel 3'612 gallons). This distances and the cruise speed was at 5000 ft.

The maximum speed at altitude was 318 mph (as in the WitP database), but the cruising speed was 160 mph. Thus the endurance should be 1'235 without Tokyo Tanks and 1'655 with Tokyo Tanks, far more than the 815 of the database. Given the caculations for Normal and Extended Range (1/4 and 1/3 of Ferry Range), I would change the endurance of the B-17E to 1600.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

Don, yep those are the squadrons that some of my research had come up with but the a/c for the 5th & 10th seemed to indicate a little higher but it could be wrong. I like to get info from several sources to cross check totals & such but had a hard time on the Phil & Chinese units so far.

As far as I can tell the total available aircraft for the PAF was:
12 P-26A
2 P-6E
2 B-10B (a third was stripped down for use as an instructional airframe)
1 B-3A
1 or 2 Beech D18 (Photo recon)
4 O-46 Observation
About 50 assorted models of Stearman Trainers
1 Stinson Reliant (whatever that is).

Somewhat larger numbers of P-6, B-3, and B-10 had been transferred but the remainder were no longer serviceable. It is probable that the PAF followed the USAAC practive of assigning a few utility aircraft to operational squadrons so the actual totals of the opertional squadrons might be a little higher but the extras would be non-combatant.

Don

Don

[Herrbear]

ORIGINAL: Pascal

According to the section on the B-17E and F versions in volume 4 of "Aircraft in Profile", the B-17E and F versions had a range of 3'300 miles with the full 2'492 gallons of fuel and 4'420 miles with the additional "Tokyo Tanks" (fuel containers in the bomb bay, total fuel 3'612 gallons). This distances and the cruise speed was at 5000 ft.

The maximum speed at altitude was 318 mph (as in the WitP database), but the cruising speed was 160 mph. Thus the endurance should be 1'235 without Tokyo Tanks and 1'655 with Tokyo Tanks, far more than the 815 of the database. Given the caculations for Normal and Extended Range (1/4 and 1/3 of Ferry Range), I would change the endurance of the B-17E to 1600.

I think you are overstating the endurance basing it on the "Tokyo Tanks" as this would tend to increase the Normal and Extended ranges. The max bombload with the extra tanks would be much smaller in reality and you would be reflecting a Normal bombload over a longer distance than possible.

Using your End=1600 and the listed Cruise Spd of 160 a Max (Ferry) Rng=4267 or 71.11 Hexes, Norm=17.75; Ext=20.70. That would produce a Normal Bomb range of over 1000 miles, which is closer to their extended range IMO.

I agree that the Cruising Spd is a little low. Based on the sources below I would guess that 210 would be a better figure. Also I would use a maximum range 3250 (Split between 2 sources that said 3200 and 3300). The resulting figures:
Max=318; Cruise=210; Alt=36600; Climb=700; Mvr & Dur as is; Arm-1; End=929; Max Rng (Mi)=3200; Max Rng (Hx)=54.17; Ext Rng (Hx)=18.1; Norm Rng=13.5; Max Ld=8000; GV=26

The Extended Range will let you bomb Rabul from Cooktown.


Here are a few excellent sites on American and Allied aircraft.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b17.html
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research ... omber2.htm
http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/american.htm

[Tom G.]

i am sure there are more, but just in case this is not reoported yet. Sqn 243 (#1169) gets updated to a Dakota from a Buffalo.

Nope this upgrade path appears correct. Sorry.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/h243.html

[JohnK]

ORIGINAL: Pascal

According to the section on the B-17E and F versions in volume 4 of "Aircraft in Profile", the B-17E and F versions had a range of 3'300 miles with the full 2'492 gallons of fuel and 4'420 miles with the additional "Tokyo Tanks" (fuel containers in the bomb bay, total fuel 3'612 gallons). This distances and the cruise speed was at 5000 ft.

The maximum speed at altitude was 318 mph (as in the WitP database), but the cruising speed was 160 mph. Thus the endurance should be 1'235 without Tokyo Tanks and 1'655 with Tokyo Tanks, far more than the 815 of the database. Given the caculations for Normal and Extended Range (1/4 and 1/3 of Ferry Range), I would change the endurance of the B-17E to 1600.

Yet another example of the real danger in going by sole sources regarding aircraft, and also not applying the same standards for all aircraft...and also not recognizing the reality that WITP stats are a very simplified compromise among a VAST array of fuel/bombload combos for a given aircraft.

Back when the B-17 got really badly screwed up in the Matrix Pacific War databases when it was turned into an uberplane close to the B-29 in range and bombload, it wouldn't surprise me if the "Tokyo Tanks" data was used (in addition to the bombload including the almost never used and range-killing underwing bomb option.)

As pointed out, the bombload with "Tokyo Tanks" had to be tiny. And I'd suspect only a tiny tiny fraction of the missions in the Pacific used them at all. It's a real problem when you take a rare aircraft load or modification and make it a standard.

ANY change to the B-17 that results in it having a longer range, OR bombload, than the B-24 is, by definition, wrong. The problem is if you use standard B-24 ranges and bombload and compare them to rare options/modifications of the B-17s.