Combined Historical Scenario - Air Groups

[Tankerace]

I'm not to fond of that idea, personally.... I mean, if we are attempting to be historical, then we should stay with the current system.

That said, on the latter carriers where the Scouting Squadron was eliminated I can see switching the fighter squadron to a group, but no, I would not be in favor of combining the Bombing and Scouting Squadrons.

Besides, early in the War the US was still a newbie to carrier warfare. Lacking really good air directors, I doubt that pre 1943 carriers could effectively direct several groups. For historical accuracy, in reflecting Air Control abilities and the true number of squadrons, on this issue I vote no.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

I'm not to fond of that idea, personally.... I mean, if we are attempting to be historical, then we should stay with the current system.

That said, on the latter carriers where the Scouting Squadron was eliminated I can see switching the fighter squadron to a group, but no, I would not be in favor of combining the Bombing and Scouting Squadrons.

Besides, early in the War the US was still a newbie to carrier warfare. Lacking really good air directors, I doubt that pre 1943 carriers could effectively direct several groups. For historical accuracy, in reflecting Air Control abilities and the true number of squadrons, on this issue I vote no.

You are saying USN CVs should/could not send one fighter element on LR CAP, one on CAP, and one on escort? But the Japanese could? So Japanese player get's yet another advantage? It has nothing to do with history and everything to do with game mechanics.

[Philbass]

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse


I know how you feel. For the first time this ground-pounder is interested in researching air orbats. I was fortunate to find the May, 1945 OOBs for the British 5th Group and Canadian 6th Group on-line here: http://www.hellzapoppin.demon.co.uk/orderofbattle.htm

From what I can glean the Brits could likely have fielded 10 squadrons (at 20 planes per squadron) of Lancasters / Lincolns by the end of 1945, and another 10 in early 1946. Some squadrons were to be based in Okinawa for short-range, heavy-bombload work (forget about the Tall Boys . . . use the 22,000 lb "Grandslam" and watch the rubble bounce! [&o] ) and others in Burma / India for extended-range bombing of Japan. The 5th Group included two RAAF Lancaster squadrons, and their squadron homepages indicate that they were slated to join "Tiger Force." Two of the 5th Group squadrons contained some Mosquitos in addition to their Lancasters, so that may account for the reference you cited. However, it seems clear that 5th was going to be reconstituted en route to the Pacific -- some squadrons would be added from other groups, and some core squadrons would disband -- so any information you have on additional plane types and numbers would be appreciated.

The Canadians seem to be on track to send 8 squadrons to the Pacific in the autumn of 1945, building up to a total of 15 by the time of Operation Coronet in March of 1946.

From what I can tell so far, "Tiger Force" looks like it would have eventually brought 700 Lancasters / Lincolns in 35 squadrons into the Pacific.

Please confirm / refine / refute what you can of this information, and add whatever you can find about the tactical squadrons as well.

Thanks Again!

Okay Blackhorse,

I spent the day at the Public Record Office/National Archives looking at the primary records for TIGER FORCE.

I need some time to turn this into a proper post, but I can confirm that I have the details you want, including:

• The composition of the force including the first 10 squadrons earmarked for 1945 (and when they were due to be operational)
• Squadron strength and equipment (including proposed bomb loads and modifications for the Pacific)
• The strengths and OOB of the ground forces that would build the airfields and maintain the Groups (down to the last Mobile Bath Unit)
• The phasing of the arrival of the ground forces in the Pacific (including shipping and arrival times)
• Administrative planning (planned supply tonnage and mission/sortie rate)

How do you want me to do this? Post it here? Send it to you (in Excel and Word)? Do you just want the raw data? Or do you want me to have a stab at converting it to WiTP stats?

Regards,

Philip Bass

Also, while I was there I started on typing up the OOB of the SEAC airforce, so we can nail that as well. It gives the Squadron, type of aircraft, strength and location on a two-monthly basis. I guess it will need another day to complete that for the entire RAF OOB...

[Tankerace]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

I'm not to fond of that idea, personally.... I mean, if we are attempting to be historical, then we should stay with the current system.

That said, on the latter carriers where the Scouting Squadron was eliminated I can see switching the fighter squadron to a group, but no, I would not be in favor of combining the Bombing and Scouting Squadrons.

Besides, early in the War the US was still a newbie to carrier warfare. Lacking really good air directors, I doubt that pre 1943 carriers could effectively direct several groups. For historical accuracy, in reflecting Air Control abilities and the true number of squadrons, on this issue I vote no.

You are saying USN CVs should/could not send one fighter element on LR CAP, one on CAP, and one on escort? But the Japanese could? So Japanese player get's yet another advantage? It has nothing to do with history and everything to do with game mechanics.

In my way of thinking, neither side should be able to befoe 1943. However, if one side could, it would be the Japanese. The US was still used to thinking of the carrier as a scouting tool, and not as a first strike weapon.

What I would think is make the Japanese units into squadrons, and eliminate the advantage.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

I'm not to fond of that idea, personally.... I mean, if we are attempting to be historical, then we should stay with the current system.

That said, on the latter carriers where the Scouting Squadron was eliminated I can see switching the fighter squadron to a group, but no, I would not be in favor of combining the Bombing and Scouting Squadrons.

Besides, early in the War the US was still a newbie to carrier warfare. Lacking really good air directors, I doubt that pre 1943 carriers could effectively direct several groups. For historical accuracy, in reflecting Air Control abilities and the true number of squadrons, on this issue I vote no.

You are saying USN CVs should/could not send one fighter element on LR CAP, one on CAP, and one on escort? But the Japanese could? So Japanese player get's yet another advantage? It has nothing to do with history and everything to do with game mechanics.

In my way of thinking, neither side should be able to befoe 1943. However, if one side could, it would be the Japanese. The US was still used to thinking of the carrier as a scouting tool, and not as a first strike weapon.

What I would think is make the Japanese units into squadrons, and eliminate the advantage.

I care more about being able to have a CV provide LR CAP without stripping it of all ability fly CAP and escort its' bombers. To me, this is more important than worrying about whether or not the USN can coordinate strikes or whatever. Once again, this is a GAME MECHANICS issue, period.

[Blackhorse]

ORIGINAL: Philbass

Okay Blackhorse,

I spent the day at the Public Record Office/National Archives looking at the primary records for TIGER FORCE.

I need some time to turn this into a proper post, but I can confirm that I have the details you want, including:

• The composition of the force including the first 10 squadrons earmarked for 1945 (and when they were due to be operational)
• Squadron strength and equipment (including proposed bomb loads and modifications for the Pacific)
• The strengths and OOB of the ground forces that would build the airfields and maintain the Groups (down to the last Mobile Bath Unit)
• The phasing of the arrival of the ground forces in the Pacific (including shipping and arrival times)
• Administrative planning (planned supply tonnage and mission/sortie rate)

How do you want me to do this? Post it here? Send it to you (in Excel and Word)? Do you just want the raw data? Or do you want me to have a stab at converting it to WiTP stats?

Regards,

Philip Bass

Also, while I was there I started on typing up the OOB of the SEAC airforce, so we can nail that as well. It gives the Squadron, type of aircraft, strength and location on a two-monthly basis. I guess it will need another day to complete that for the entire RAF OOB...

Phil,

Outstanding work! I'm happy with the raw data (excel and / or word). Email to me at JoelSz@aol.com. If you want to take a stab at converting the Lancaster / Lincoln stats into WiTP aircraft, that would be enormously helpful.

I wonder if any officer was ever told that he would make an excellent Bath Unit commander, and if he would take it as a compliment or as an insult.

[Tankerace]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker



You are saying USN CVs should/could not send one fighter element on LR CAP, one on CAP, and one on escort? But the Japanese could? So Japanese player get's yet another advantage? It has nothing to do with history and everything to do with game mechanics.

In my way of thinking, neither side should be able to befoe 1943. However, if one side could, it would be the Japanese. The US was still used to thinking of the carrier as a scouting tool, and not as a first strike weapon.

What I would think is make the Japanese units into squadrons, and eliminate the advantage.

I care more about being able to have a CV provide LR CAP without stripping it of all ability fly CAP and escort its' bombers. To me, this is more important than worrying about whether or not the USN can coordinate strikes or whatever. Once again, this is a GAME MECHANICS issue, period.

Again, I do understand its a game mechanics issue to an extent. But I again state that I don't believe an early war CV could effectively control a unit escorting a strike, having CAP, and directing CAP for a TF in another hex. That said, for carriers arriving late 1942 and on I could see it done, but for the CVs that arrive up to (but not necessarily including) the Wasp I cannot see that ability. Thus, while for LATE war CVs it is a game mechanics issue, for early war CVs, for realistic pusposes, based on the research I have done, I do not see the US as having that ability. Now, if a house rule will force players to stand down one of the sub groups, or have 2 sub groups fly the same mission, that's ok.

My suggestion? From the Wasp on, combine the VB and VS groups. Or, create separate VF and VB/VS groups, and allow the player to choose. Those that want to have a combined VB and VS, and a splitable VF can use them, or those that want the old fashioned way can use the VF squadron, and separate VB and VS units. Then, a house rule (not unlike the no respawn rule) prevents the player from using the groups he does not want.

In addition, doing something akin to this could also simulate natural group rotation, i.e. how VF-3, typically assigned to the Saratoga, served aboard the Yorktown. The way WitP is now, it does not account for group rotation (VF-6 stays on Enterprise until the end, unless she is sunk a second time.

ALso, to further simulate this, (whether this idea is used in conjunction with yours, or your idea is used or not), our no respawning house rule should not take into account the CVAGs. VF-2 was reformed after the Lady Lex went down. Thus, if one of our CVs respawns, its airgroup, after the CV arrives back on map, should be considered to be reformed and thus available for use by the player.

[2ndACR]

Ron,

Just dump off half your strike force and load a couple extra fighter units on board. Now you have a CV that can fly a good CAP over itself and another unit for long range CAP.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Ron,

Just dump off half your strike force and load a couple extra fighter units on board. Now you have a CV that can fly a good CAP over itself and another unit for long range CAP.

And...... What else would it do?[:)] You cheeky nips.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Tankerace



In my way of thinking, neither side should be able to befoe 1943. However, if one side could, it would be the Japanese. The US was still used to thinking of the carrier as a scouting tool, and not as a first strike weapon.

What I would think is make the Japanese units into squadrons, and eliminate the advantage.

I care more about being able to have a CV provide LR CAP without stripping it of all ability fly CAP and escort its' bombers. To me, this is more important than worrying about whether or not the USN can coordinate strikes or whatever. Once again, this is a GAME MECHANICS issue, period.

Again, I do understand its a game mechanics issue to an extent. But I again state that I don't believe an early war CV could effectively control a unit escorting a strike, having CAP, and directing CAP for a TF in another hex. That said, for carriers arriving late 1942 and on I could see it done, but for the CVs that arrive up to (but not necessarily including) the Wasp I cannot see that ability. Thus, while for LATE war CVs it is a game mechanics issue, for early war CVs, for realistic pusposes, based on the research I have done, I do not see the US as having that ability. Now, if a house rule will force players to stand down one of the sub groups, or have 2 sub groups fly the same mission, that's ok.

My suggestion? From the Wasp on, combine the VB and VS groups. Or, create separate VF and VB/VS groups, and allow the player to choose. Those that want to have a combined VB and VS, and a splitable VF can use them, or those that want the old fashioned way can use the VF squadron, and separate VB and VS units. Then, a house rule (not unlike the no respawn rule) prevents the player from using the groups he does not want.

In addition, doing something akin to this could also simulate natural group rotation, i.e. how VF-3, typically assigned to the Saratoga, served aboard the Yorktown. The way WitP is now, it does not account for group rotation (VF-6 stays on Enterprise until the end, unless she is sunk a second time.

ALso, to further simulate this, (whether this idea is used in conjunction with yours, or your idea is used or not), our no respawning house rule should not take into account the CVAGs. VF-2 was reformed after the Lady Lex went down. Thus, if one of our CVs respawns, its airgroup, after the CV arrives back on map, should be considered to be reformed and thus available for use by the player.

I hope I did not come across as miffed or anything,I was highlighting the game mechanics as the issue, not historical ability. I think the limitations with USN CVs multitasking is effectively curbed early on simply by the WEE SIZE of the VF units. I don't see myself getting cute at this stage due to the fact that most of the fighters will be assigned to CAP...period. Therefore, there is no need to limit the change to Wasp and later.

[Philbass]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker



I care more about being able to have a CV provide LR CAP without stripping it of all ability fly CAP and escort its' bombers. To me, this is more important than worrying about whether or not the USN can coordinate strikes or whatever. Once again, this is a GAME MECHANICS issue, period.

Again, I do understand its a game mechanics issue to an extent. But I again state that I don't believe an early war CV could effectively control a unit escorting a strike, having CAP, and directing CAP for a TF in another hex. That said, for carriers arriving late 1942 and on I could see it done, but for the CVs that arrive up to (but not necessarily including) the Wasp I cannot see that ability. Thus, while for LATE war CVs it is a game mechanics issue, for early war CVs, for realistic pusposes, based on the research I have done, I do not see the US as having that ability. Now, if a house rule will force players to stand down one of the sub groups, or have 2 sub groups fly the same mission, that's ok.

My suggestion? From the Wasp on, combine the VB and VS groups. Or, create separate VF and VB/VS groups, and allow the player to choose. Those that want to have a combined VB and VS, and a splitable VF can use them, or those that want the old fashioned way can use the VF squadron, and separate VB and VS units. Then, a house rule (not unlike the no respawn rule) prevents the player from using the groups he does not want.

In addition, doing something akin to this could also simulate natural group rotation, i.e. how VF-3, typically assigned to the Saratoga, served aboard the Yorktown. The way WitP is now, it does not account for group rotation (VF-6 stays on Enterprise until the end, unless she is sunk a second time.

ALso, to further simulate this, (whether this idea is used in conjunction with yours, or your idea is used or not), our no respawning house rule should not take into account the CVAGs. VF-2 was reformed after the Lady Lex went down. Thus, if one of our CVs respawns, its airgroup, after the CV arrives back on map, should be considered to be reformed and thus available for use by the player.

I hope I did not come across as miffed or anything,I was highlighting the game mechanics as the issue, not historical ability. I think the limitations with USN CVs multitasking is effectively curbed early on simply by the WEE SIZE of the VF units. I don't see myself getting cute at this stage due to the fact that most of the fighters will be assigned to CAP...period. Therefore, there is no need to limit the change to Wasp and later.

Hello,

Sorry to stumble in like a Vildebeest shot up by flak, but I had a quick look at Lundstrom, John B (1994) The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign (Annapolis USA: USNI Press) and it appears as if during the Guadalcanal invasion on 7 August each CV's VF squadron was carrying out CAP, strikes/escort and long range CAP (see pages 34-41) according to '... the OpPlan's intricate flight schedule. They flew carrier CAP, SCAP [note - standing CAP, I think], ground support, searches, and IAP on lookout for submarines'(p40).

It appears that all three carriers contributed to these missions - there wasn't specialisation. Thus, ...'that morning the CV CAP comprised sixteen to twenty-four fighters drawn from all three VF squadrons(p40)' and then '...The fighters also flew SCAP over the cruisers, destroyers and transports between Tulagi and Guadalcanal...The SCAP comprised eight to sixteen F4Fs from VF-5 and VF-6 directed by BLACK BASE (on the heavy cruiser CHICAGO)...(p41)'. At the same time, '... Beginning about dawn, VF-71 also flew five ground-support missions (twenty sorties) about one an hour, until [Admiral] Noyes canceled those scheduled after 1200' (p41).

Thus at the least each VF-squadron is doing two missions. Now, the point may be that:

• This was only possible due to the prior preparation and 'OpPlan's intricate flight schedule'.
• That it all broke down when the Japanese airforce turns up in the afternoon and the SCAP is all over the place

So maybe there is a capability (for CAP and LRCAP/SCAP), but it probably isn't that impressive.

Regards,

Philip Bass

[Philbass]

Blackhorse,

TIGER FORCE data sent to your account (plus some more OP CORONET stuff).

Now to look at the British Pacific Fleet and the SEAC Air Order of Battle

Regards,

Philip Bass

[2ndACR]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Ron,

Just dump off half your strike force and load a couple extra fighter units on board. Now you have a CV that can fly a good CAP over itself and another unit for long range CAP.

And...... What else would it do?[:)] You cheeky nips.

You would still have you TBD's as strike a/c.[X(] If you are only escorting convoys with the CV, you are fairly safe. If you bump into even baby KB you are in deep doodoo.

[Tankerace]

Well, I can see that.

Still, I do think that we should create additional VF and VB groups, to at least attempt to simulate group rotation.... after all, CVAG-6 didn't serve on Enterprise throughout the whole war.

[janushm]

120(NEI) squadron. formed december 10th 1943 in canberra . flying P40N till the end of the war.
march 9th 1944 potshot
march 23th 1944 canberra
april 1944 merauke
july 1945 Biak
-------------------
1(NEI) transport squadron
started as 2 sections.
1 one from brisbane equipped with 5 B25's and 3Lodestars
1 from melbourne equipped with unkown numer of B25's and 9 Lodestars

in november 1944 merged and recieved 5lockheed 12a's and 4C47's extra
i couldnt find when exactly it was formed but it was formed out of KLM and KNIL personell that fled from the DEI
------------------------------------------
321sq

formed march 1942 at Koggala-ceylon flying the Catalina II as dutch naval squadron

august 15th 1942-october 1945 China Bay Ceylon also on august 15th it is assigned #321

october 1st 1942
1 flight transferred to capetown. till october 1945
1 flight transferred to Socotra [aden gulf] till october 1945
1 flight transferred to mombasa return the same month
1 flight transferred to Cocos island till october 1945
1 flight transferred to Masira till october 1945
1 flight transferred to ratmalana-ceylon till october 1945

China beach-ceylon remains the main base for the duration of the war

december 1944 24 liberator GR. VI's are recieved and operate side by side with catalinas

december 8th 1944 one flight of B24's transferred to cocos islands till october 1945

[Reg]

[font="Arial"]I have just upgraded from U.V. and was a little disappointed to see that historical errors corrected in U.V have reappeared in WTIP.

The official designation for air force units from contemporary sources is "No. 75 Squadron RAAF" which is the same format used right across all the British Commonwealth forces.

I can understand this formal format is considered too large for the game data fields (though it does fit, try it), I feel that a historical designation for units in a historical game is appropriate. The British and Canadian air groups are labeled by an abbreviated format that still reflects the flavor of the historical designations so I think the ANZAC units should also follow suit.

Could someone please update the RAAF and RNZAF Air Group designations to the same format as the Canadian air groups (ie "75 Squadron RAAF").

At least it's better than the "75th FS RAAF" found in the original release of Uncommon Valor....

(posted on both 1.4 OOB and Combined Historical Scenario threads)[/font]

[Tanaka]

A great resource for pilot OOB's:

http://users.accesscomm.ca/magnusfamily/ww2.htm

[eMonticello]

Actually, if the carriers are rotated for refits as was done historically, then there are enough AGs for all the carriers as long as the airgroups are taken off the carriers. For example, Enterprise had the following groups over the course of the war:

VF-6 (Fighting 6th) Dec 41 - Aug 42
VF-10 (Grim Reapers - Tour I) Oct 42 - May 43
VF-2 (Rippers) Nov 43 - Jan 44
VF-10 (Grim Reapers - Tour II) Jan - July 44
VF-20 Aug 44 - Nov 44
VF(N)-90; VT(N)-90 Dec 44 - May 45

http://www.cv6.org/
http://www.web-birds.com/

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Well, I can see that.

Still, I do think that we should create additional VF and VB groups, to at least attempt to simulate group rotation.... after all, CVAG-6 didn't serve on Enterprise throughout the whole war.

[Don Bowen]

We are currently in the middle of a re-work of the air OOB that will eliminate groups and present all air units as squadrons. This will relieve a possible constraint caused by a limit (circa 200) of available “Divide” slots and will increase historical accuracy.

Japan, Russia, and the US Army have air units that can be divided. I have no information to split the Japanese and Russian units into “squadrons” and am working only on the US Army.

Splitting the original Scenario 15 Groups into their component squadrons results in some interesting problems.

The first is duplication, as squadrons were moved between groups as required.

The second is naming problems. The Groups listed in the Scenario 15 OOB as “Cargo” were actually of two types - Cargo Carrying and Troop Carrying – each with their own numbering series. There was both a 1st Cargo Carrier Squadron and a 1st Troop Carrier Squadron. A similar problem exists with the “Fighter Commando” Squadrons that were formed in CBI – there is a 1st Fighter Commando and a 1st Fighter.

We have already expanded the names of air units to a more historical standard – no moe BS here. There is also an opportunity to improve naming, as the designation “Group” and “Squadron” are no longer required. Due to name length limitations (20 characters) we currently have:
nnnth Bomb Sqdn
nnnth Fighter Sqdn
nnnth Night Fighter
nnnth Cargo Sqdn

Since all US Army air units are now squadrons, we could consider dropping the “Sqdn” and using more historical names:
nnnth Bombardment(H)
nnnth Bombardment(M)
nnnth Bombardment(L)
nnnth Fighter
nth Fighter Commando (all single digit numbers!)
nnnth Troop Carrier
nnnth Cargo Carrier
nnnth Photo-Recon

Opinions??

[Bradley7735]

Don,

I like your suggestions. I prefer to use planes in the squadron level as opposed to the group level anyway.

One suggestion on the naming convention. When naming groups that have one digit, use 01, 02, 03, etc. That way, they show up in alpha/numeric order when looking at lists.

I'm an anal accountant and nothing drives me more nuts than seeing:

1st group
10th group
11th group
...
2nd group
20th group
21st group
22nd group
...
3rd group
30th group
31st group
etc.

They should show up as 01, 02, 03,...., 10, 11, 12, etc etc.

bc