ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4

[Herrbear]

Just curious, but can you name your sources.

Thank you.

[Tomo]

IJN Yugumo class name.
KAZEGUMO is incorrect. KAZAKUMO is correct


IJN Akizuki class name.
HARUZUKI is incorrect. HARUTSUKI is correct.
SUSUZUKI is incorrect. SUZUTSUKI is correct.

Japanese PC type C/D class should be divided because its endurance is very different.
Type D is much longer.

[Blackhorse]

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

Just curious, but can you name your sources.

Thank you.

My primary sources were two books available at the Library of Congress:

The thousand-mile war; World War II in Alaska and the Aleutians / Brian Garfield.

World War II in the North Pacific : chronology and fact book / Kevin Don Hutchison

Then I also stumbled on excerpts from this book on-line (it also helped with the other State National Guard units assigned to Alaska).

The Williwaw War : the Arkansas National Guard in the Aleutians in World War II / Donald M. Goldstein and Katherine V. Dillon.

After that, "Googling" the units and the Alaska bases provided a wealth of additional information on-line -- an article on Ft. Greeley, for example, that detailed the garrison, by company-level unit and troop strength, in June, September and December 1941.

[Herrbear]

Thank you

[TulliusDetritus]

Another possible bug? =>

Playing as allies the big scenario (the "day after" till 1946). The "troop transport" => "pick troops" is doing weird things in 1.3 I try to evacuate land units in Wake (from Midway) and Brunei (from Singapore) using patrol planes. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't: when it doesn't, the planes transport supplies to Midway/Brunei. This did not happen in 1.2

And yes, everything is correct: I am using "pick troops", I selected the destination and land unit in that base.

[Tankerace]

This goes in the support thread, not the OOB thread. Just telling you before the mods do.

[TulliusDetritus]

I see. Sorry and thank you [:)]

[Don Bowen]

Lexington, 6/42 Refit (Class 1254) and 10/42 Refit (Class 1255)
5in/38 in bow and stern quarters were in single mounts: Weapons 3 and 4, Turrets = 1 (see line drawing, below)


Lexington (actually Saratoga) 1/44 Refit (actually 12/9/43 - 1/3/44 at Hunters Point) (Class 1256)
5in/38 in bow and stern quarters were in single mounts: Weapons 3 and 4, Turrets = 1
Correct Distribution of 40mm:
40 (10 Quads) Right Side
48 (12 Quads) Left Side
4 (1 Quad) Centerline
4 (2 Twins) Left Side
Additions at this refit were:
2 Twin 40mm on sponsons, portside abeam island
7 Quad 40mm in former boat recesses to port
2 Quad 40mm in former boat recesses to starboard
3 Quad 40mm outboard of Island (starboard) at flight deck level
1 Quad 40mm in starboard forward gun gallery
1 Quad 40mm in part forward gun gallery


Lexington (Saratoga) 1/45 Refit (Acutally after damage on 2/21/45, at Bremerton) (class 1257)
5in/38 in bow and stern quarters were in single mounts: Weapons 3 and 4, Turrets = 1
Light AA changed to 25 quad 40mm, 16 single 20mm - I do not have specific placement details but the total of 100 40mm barrels could be reached by replacing the two twin mounts from class 1256 with quads.



Wasp (class 239)
This outfit is about correct for 12/41 but Wasp was refitted in January, 1942 at Norfolk (well prior to deployment to pacific):
32 20mm singles added and 50Cal MG reduced to 6:
20mm in groups of 6, fore and aft, port and starboard, plus 4 on the island (2 port, 2 starboard) and two each under fore and aft ends of flight deck. 4 remaining 50Cal to Port and one to starboard, one unknown (possibly starboard, far aft):
20mm, 14X1 RS
20mm, 14X1 LS
20mm, 2x1 Front
20mm, 2X1 Rear
50Cal, 4x1 LS
50Cal, 2X1 RS
Also, the speed (29) may be understated by 1 knot. Wasp's trial speed was 30.73 knots at 73906 SHP (average of three runs). Estimated service speed at 18,060 tons, with allowance for fouling, is given as 29.8 knots. Service speed at 18,450 ton full load is given at 29.5 knots.

[Tanaka]

From Subchaser:

Ki-59 data is completely wrong, it’s not so hard to figure that out.

Normal take-off weight of Ki-59 was 4120 kg (2954kg empty), Ki-54 – 3900kg take-off weight and 2954 kg empty. So Ki-59 has 1166 kg of load and Ki-54 has 946kg, not very big difference (220kg). As you understand, this weight was fuel primarily. Both aircraft were equipped with the same engines Hitachi Ha-13a (Ki-59) and Ha-13b (Ki-54), with identical fuel consumption characteristics (civil version of Ki59 – TK3 was equipped with Kotobuki-3 engines (610hp), but this a/c is not Ki59). The question is – how these additional 220kg (this could have been something else, not necessarily fuel) could provide Ki-59 with almost double endurance of Ki-54? I guess the answer is clear….

In reality Ki-54 was able to spend more time in the air than Ki-59, poor aerodynamics and heavier weight of Ki-59 were the reasons why Ki-59 was almost 40 m/h slower than Ki-54 and had maximum range of only 800km (500 miles) with the same engines. Overall performance of Ki-59 was so poor that Koku Hombu ordered to stop production when only 59 a/c were assembled, these a/c never were in service with operation units, only flight schools and liaison detachments were using them in Japan and Manchuria until march ’42 when all a/c were transferred to Great Japan Airlines company.

I’ve deleted Ki-59 from the database in my scenario, there are not so much slots there to use one for this crap. These Ki-59 characteristics are much closer to the reality than those you see in the game.

Max. speed – 187
Cruise speed – 120
Max alt – 14600
Climb – 750
Mvr – 8
Dur – 22
Armor – 0
Endurance – ~200-210
Load – 1300

I’m going to get rid of these two a/c as well. H6K2-L Mavis – 16 a/c produced in 40-41, + 20 H6K4-L produced in 1942-43, 36 total, the only difference between these a/c and standard Mavis boats was the number of hatches and 6 additional seats for passengers. In fact load capacities of standard Mavis and its transport variant were no so different as it modeled in the game, loads were almost similar actually, although transport boats were more comfortable for passengers, but is this worth a slot in database? Patrol Mavis boats can be used as transports if needed, what are the reasons why transport units cannot use standard Mavis boats? Ki-77 is a better candidate for this slot, if there will be enough Nakajima engines in early 1945 it will be possible to try to build a certain number of this unique aircraft, this a/c will help with evacuation of HQs and other valuable small LCU from the cutoff bases in the enemy rear, with endurance of 3300 Ki-77 could go really far.

MC-21 Sally, I don’t know why this a/c was included. This is mistake I think. This was not a production model, it was some kind of field modification. About 60 old weary Ki-61-Ia were transferred by army to Great Japan Airlines during 1942, where they got new civil(!) designation – MC-21, transferring of the planes was proceeding simultaneously with IJA bomber units upgrade process, from Ki-21-I to Ki-21-II. It doesn’t worth a slot. Instead I’ll add Ki-56, japanese copy of Lockheed C-60, 121 were produced, very good transport a/c.

Ki-54 as it was pointed out was multifunctional a/c, very good design if you’ll take into account that it was designed as a trainer, it’s impossible to model advantages of Ki-54 in WitP world.

[supertankerr]

I do have just one suggestion for the patch 1.4. In the old game of Pacific War you could specifically target ships in port. I have not found this in WITP. Maybe that feature could be added as it was a real neat feature.

[Herrbear]

According to this site below, the HMAS Bungaree was a minelayer and not a minesweeper, or at least laid 10,000 mines in Australian and New Zealand waters

http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/general/ww2.htm

[rhohltjr]

Oops. This should not be in the OOB suggestion box.

Oh well. Hats off to Pearl Harbor vets today.[&o]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

According to this site below, the HMAS Bungaree was a minelayer and not a minesweeper, or at least laid 10,000 mines in Australian and New Zealand waters

http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/general/ww2.htm

Yep. Don Bowen pointed this out and is a minelayer in our scen we are doing.

[stubby331]

Listed below are HMAS ships which are incorrectly listed in the database as British.

3728 Napier J' Class DD British 15-Feb-42
3729 Nepal J' Class DD British 15-Aug-42
3730 Nestor J' Class DD British 15-Jan-42
3731 Nizam J' Class DD British 15-Feb-42
3732 Norman J' Class DD British 15-Feb-42

See links for RAN website detailing ships histories:


http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/ships/napier.htm

http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/ships/nepal.htm

http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/ships/nestor.htm

http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/ships/nizam.htm

http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/ships/norman1.htm

[Herrbear]

ORIGINAL: stubby331

Listed below are HMAS ships which are incorrectly listed in the database as British.

3728 Napier J' Class DD British 15-Feb-42
3729 Nepal J' Class DD British 15-Aug-42
3730 Nestor J' Class DD British 15-Jan-42
3731 Nizam J' Class DD British 15-Feb-42
3732 Norman J' Class DD British 15-Feb-42

I thought these were changed in 1.3.

[Ron Saueracker]

Surprised the OOB corrections I sent ya (pry) did not make the list of 1.4 adjustments. Awful lot of ships left out and incorrect entry dates left in.[:(]

[Herrbear]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Surprised the OOB corrections I sent ya (pry) did not make the list of 1.4 adjustments. Awful lot of ships left out and incorrect entry dates left in.[:(]

Are your changes on the thread here? Or could you post it or send me a copy?

Thanks.

[Tankerace]

A lot of other misspellings left in too... like Ogalala....should be Oglala.

Oh well, always next time.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

A lot of other misspellings left in too... like Ogalala....should be Oglala.

Oh well, always next time.

Yep. And our scen.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Surprised the OOB corrections I sent ya (pry) did not make the list of 1.4 adjustments. Awful lot of ships left out and incorrect entry dates left in.[:(]

Are your changes on the thread here? Or could you post it or send me a copy?

Thanks.

There is a thread with an attachment whichlist most of them I think. Lot more of late.