1.40 OOB Issues
Moderators: wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues
Regarding the "Swan" Class PG Comprising the ships SWAN, YARRA and WARREGO.
These ships are actually Grimsby Class.
IN WITP they are shown as having 2 x 4inch guns only (main armament). This is incorrect.
They actually had 3 x 4 inch guns comprising:
2 x 4 inch guns in a Twin mounted casemate Forward
1 x 4 inch gun in a single casemate Aft
For supporting reference:
http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/ships/yarra2.htm
http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/ships/swan2.htm
http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/grimsby.htm
http://users.hunterlink.net.au/~ciadm/W ... Page2.html
These ships are actually Grimsby Class.
IN WITP they are shown as having 2 x 4inch guns only (main armament). This is incorrect.
They actually had 3 x 4 inch guns comprising:
2 x 4 inch guns in a Twin mounted casemate Forward
1 x 4 inch gun in a single casemate Aft
For supporting reference:
http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/ships/yarra2.htm
http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/ships/swan2.htm
http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/grimsby.htm
http://users.hunterlink.net.au/~ciadm/W ... Page2.html
In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
- Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)
- Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues
ORIGINAL: stubby331
Regarding the "Swan" Class PG Comprising the ships SWAN, YARRA and WARREGO.
These ships are actually Grimsby Class.
IN WITP they are shown as having 2 x 4inch guns only (main armament). This is incorrect.
They actually had 3 x 4 inch guns comprising:
2 x 4 inch guns in a Twin mounted casemate Forward
1 x 4 inch gun in a single casemate Aft
For supporting reference:
http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/ships/yarra2.htm
http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/ships/swan2.htm
http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/grimsby.htm
http://users.hunterlink.net.au/~ciadm/W ... Page2.html
Sorry, Correction, these are listed on the RAN Website as a "Modified Grimsby" Class. The Standard Grimsby had only 2 x 4 inch guns.
The Modified Grimsby had 3.
In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
- Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)
- Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues
I will make my pitch for the inclusion of the Indian National Army (make it a division or 3 regiments with about 50 exp/morale)
I will also make a pitch for ajusting the arrival date of the Essex class carriers to their arrival date in theater, not their commissioning date.
I will also make a pitch for ajusting the arrival date of the Essex class carriers to their arrival date in theater, not their commissioning date.
- Ron Saueracker
- Posts: 10967
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues
Scen 15 has 413 RCAF and 413 RAF Sqdn. 413 RAF should be removed.


Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
- SpitfireIX
- Posts: 264
- Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 10:19 am
- Location: Fort Wayne IN USA
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues
ORIGINAL: SpitfireIX
Scenario 15
HMAS Shropshire should not be available until October 1943, and she should have already received her 6/43 upgrade. Also, the London Class 6/43 upgrade has one of the aft 8" turrets removed. This did not happen historically. According to the Royal Australian Navy's web site, Shropshire still had 8x8" guns when she was in Australian service. Also, if you look in Jane's Fighting Ships of WWII (I assume someone has a copy handy), the pictures of HMS London dated 1946 clearly show that she still has four turrets.
http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/ships/shropshire.htm
It turns out that what I wrote was not completely correct. Devonshire and Sussex did have their after turrets removed; however, Devonshire's was not removed until 3/44, and Sussex was not so modified until 3/45 (According to Seekrieg 4, Sussex's TT were also removed). Another point; Shropshire's secondary battery was modified to be identical to London's (4x2 4" MK XVI as opposed to 4x1 4" MK V) in 1942. According to my information, Devonshire and Sussex never received this modification. I noticed that there is already a "London-Rebuild" class in the database, but it is not used in any scenario because London doesn't arrive until later, and all four ships follow the same upgrade path. In view of what happened IRL, however, it seems clear to me that there should be two upgrade paths for the class--one for London and Shropshire, and the other for Devonshire and Sussex.
"I know Japanese. He is very bad. And tricky. But we Americans too smart. We catch him and give him hell."
--Benny Sablan, crewman, USS Enterprise 12/7/41
--Benny Sablan, crewman, USS Enterprise 12/7/41
- SpitfireIX
- Posts: 264
- Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 10:19 am
- Location: Fort Wayne IN USA
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues
I posted the following in the general forum a week ago, not realizing that the OOB Issues thread had been moved here. So I'm re-posting it.
Hello, all--
Sorry if this has already been metioned, but I haven't had much time to read the forum lately, with school and work. I just noticed that in Scenario 15 V1.4 the armament for the British "J" class destroyers is totally wrong--it should be 2x2 4.7"/45 MK XII forward and 1x2 MK XII center (the aft mount could not fire into the arc 20 degrees astern). I don't have my Jane's handy (I just moved, and it's still packed up) but there are several sites on the net where this is discussed.
Also, I'm fairly sure that the armament for the "P"class is wrong, too--I believe these had 4x1 4.7"/45s.
I think that there may have been some confusion here with the "L" class Block 1, which had 4x2 4" dp guns, and the "O" class minelayer variant, which had 4x1 4" sp guns.
I'd appreciate it if someone who has more time and access to reference materials would confirm this--I have spring break next week, but I hope this problem can still be corrected in 1.5, so I wanted to at least say something about it now.
"I know Japanese. He is very bad. And tricky. But we Americans too smart. We catch him and give him hell."
--Benny Sablan, crewman, USS Enterprise 12/7/41
--Benny Sablan, crewman, USS Enterprise 12/7/41
- SpitfireIX
- Posts: 264
- Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 10:19 am
- Location: Fort Wayne IN USA
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues
Scenario 15, v 1.40
147th USA Field Artillery Regiment should be deleted from the US OOB. This unit was wholly incorporated into the artillery brigade that starts the game aboard the Pensacola convoy.
147th USA Field Artillery Regiment should be deleted from the US OOB. This unit was wholly incorporated into the artillery brigade that starts the game aboard the Pensacola convoy.
"I know Japanese. He is very bad. And tricky. But we Americans too smart. We catch him and give him hell."
--Benny Sablan, crewman, USS Enterprise 12/7/41
--Benny Sablan, crewman, USS Enterprise 12/7/41
- Ron Saueracker
- Posts: 10967
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues
SS Finback arrives in Oct/42 refit config. Should be basic Gato.


Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
- SpitfireIX
- Posts: 264
- Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 10:19 am
- Location: Fort Wayne IN USA
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues
Scenario 15 v 1.4
TBF/TBM maximum bomb load should be 2000, and not 1600. Many references online list 2000 lbs as Avenger's max bomb load; see also The Big E by Edward P. Stafford; Avengers are often described as carrying either 4 x 500 lb bombs, or 1 x 2000 lb bomb.
TBF/TBM maximum bomb load should be 2000, and not 1600. Many references online list 2000 lbs as Avenger's max bomb load; see also The Big E by Edward P. Stafford; Avengers are often described as carrying either 4 x 500 lb bombs, or 1 x 2000 lb bomb.
"I know Japanese. He is very bad. And tricky. But we Americans too smart. We catch him and give him hell."
--Benny Sablan, crewman, USS Enterprise 12/7/41
--Benny Sablan, crewman, USS Enterprise 12/7/41
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues
nm
"There is no Black or White, only shades of Grey."
"If you aren't a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem."
"If you aren't a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem."
Apparent duplicate base forces in Scenario 15
Sorry to be so late with this, just noticed it.

- Attachments
-
- DupBaseForce.jpg (60.28 KiB) Viewed 883 times
RE: Apparent duplicate base forces in Scenario 15
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
Sorry to be so late with this, just noticed it.
![]()
Not Duplicates Don, two different branches of the Army
The ones named USAAF are US Army Air Force base forces, the unnamed ones are US Army base forces, the Army ones were just never named...
Just like the IJAAF and IJA base forces.
RE: Apparent duplicate base forces in Scenario 15
ORIGINAL: pry
Not Duplicates Don, two different branches of the Army
The ones named USAAF are US Army Air Force base forces, the unnamed ones are US Army base forces, the Army ones were just never named...
Just like the IJAAF and IJA base forces.
Thanks Paul - clears that up!
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues
ORIGINAL: Iron Duke
251 uk Brigade does not exsist and should be deleted, the number was one never used in the British army
cheers
Apparently this should be an Indian Brigade. Here is the reference:
http://www.burmastar.org.uk/36thdiv.htm
and the applicable quote:
"The Division was formed in 1943 as the Army component of the Combined Training Centre in India, in 1943 the 29th & 72nd British Brigades were allocated to this formation, although all the other units were Indian, at this time they were under command of the Indian Expeditionary Forces, & called the 251st Tank Brigade."
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues
Hi Don,
This is the first time I've seen the 251st Indian Tank Bde being mentioned as part of the 36th Inf Div ?
I've allways thought that the 251st Tank Bde should have been included in the OOB , The same as the 254th and 255th Tank Bde's , as it wasn't disbanded until 1943
Below is the info i have on the two units ?
36th Indian Infantry Division (redes. 36th Brit Inf Div Sept 1944)
formed Bombay - june 1942 - responsible for the combined operations training centres at Madh island, Bombay and Khadakvasla
HQ expanded to form a division Nov 1942
29th Brit Inf Bde - 26/1/43 - on
72nd Indian Inf Bde - june 43 - on (redes. 72nd Brit Inf Bde 28/4/44)
26th Indian Inf Bde - 15/12/44 - on (redes. 26th Brit Inf Bde 6/4/45)
251st ????
1st Indian Armoured Bde formed Sealkot on 1 july 1940. Under command 1st/31st Armoured Div from sept 1940 to june 1942.
further redes. 251st Indian Armoured Bde in Oct 1941
again redes. 251st (Independent) Indian Tank Bde on 10 Sept 1942
disbanded in Oct 1943 though 3rd Carabiniers continued as 3rd Carabiniers Group with some brigade troops untill Dec 1943
Ref Loyalty and Honour - Chris Kempton
Divisions of the British Army - M.A.Bellis
Any thoughts
and well done on CHS , Looking forward to Beta and Gold
Cheers
This is the first time I've seen the 251st Indian Tank Bde being mentioned as part of the 36th Inf Div ?
I've allways thought that the 251st Tank Bde should have been included in the OOB , The same as the 254th and 255th Tank Bde's , as it wasn't disbanded until 1943
Below is the info i have on the two units ?
36th Indian Infantry Division (redes. 36th Brit Inf Div Sept 1944)
formed Bombay - june 1942 - responsible for the combined operations training centres at Madh island, Bombay and Khadakvasla
HQ expanded to form a division Nov 1942
29th Brit Inf Bde - 26/1/43 - on
72nd Indian Inf Bde - june 43 - on (redes. 72nd Brit Inf Bde 28/4/44)
26th Indian Inf Bde - 15/12/44 - on (redes. 26th Brit Inf Bde 6/4/45)
251st ????
1st Indian Armoured Bde formed Sealkot on 1 july 1940. Under command 1st/31st Armoured Div from sept 1940 to june 1942.
further redes. 251st Indian Armoured Bde in Oct 1941
again redes. 251st (Independent) Indian Tank Bde on 10 Sept 1942
disbanded in Oct 1943 though 3rd Carabiniers continued as 3rd Carabiniers Group with some brigade troops untill Dec 1943
Ref Loyalty and Honour - Chris Kempton
Divisions of the British Army - M.A.Bellis
Any thoughts
and well done on CHS , Looking forward to Beta and Gold
Cheers
"Bombers outpacing fighters - you've got to bloody well laugh!" Australian Buffalo pilot - Singapore
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues
Hi,
Looking at the Indian OOB noticed the following
5th Indian Div arrives 5/42 should be 6/43 at Bombay
44th Indian Div was in fact 44th Airbourne Div but should be deleted as its 3 brigades are already in the OOB
50th Indian Tank Brigade not in OOB should be formed 10/40 but not used operationally till 10/44 in the Arakan Campaign.
Royal Indian Airforce
1 Sqdn feb 42 lysnders --> Hurricane's
2 Sqdn dec 42 Hurricane's
3 Sqdn jan 45 Hurricane's
4 Sqdn mar 44 Hurricane's
6 Sqdn nov 43 Hurricane's
7 Sqdn mar 44 Vengeance
8 Sqdn early 43 Vengeance
Looking at the Indian OOB noticed the following
5th Indian Div arrives 5/42 should be 6/43 at Bombay
44th Indian Div was in fact 44th Airbourne Div but should be deleted as its 3 brigades are already in the OOB
50th Indian Tank Brigade not in OOB should be formed 10/40 but not used operationally till 10/44 in the Arakan Campaign.
Royal Indian Airforce
1 Sqdn feb 42 lysnders --> Hurricane's
2 Sqdn dec 42 Hurricane's
3 Sqdn jan 45 Hurricane's
4 Sqdn mar 44 Hurricane's
6 Sqdn nov 43 Hurricane's
7 Sqdn mar 44 Vengeance
8 Sqdn early 43 Vengeance
"Bombers outpacing fighters - you've got to bloody well laugh!" Australian Buffalo pilot - Singapore
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues
I'm playing Scenario 15 as the Japanese and am about to receive a group of Peggy's (16th Hvy Sentai) in May '42. The problem is that Peggy's won't be available for another two years or so (1944 production date). The database editor shows the 16th Hvy Sentai as having Helen's. I'm not really certain how the two editors interact, but it would appear that there is some sort of glitch here, where the content from the database is not being combined with the scenario editor.
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues
5th Indian Div arrives 5/42 should be 6/43 at Bombay
I suspect this is correct but it is contradicted by: http://www.burmastar.org.uk/5th_ind.htm
African Brigades
A very interesting site at: http://www.burmastar.org.uk/15corps.htm indicates that there were two additional African Brigades in India/Burma. These were the 22nd East African Infantry Brigade and the 28th East African Brigade.
Here is a review of the African Units based on this site:
It would appear that two more Brigades should be added.
Here is a review of the African Units based on this site:
- 11th East African Division
- 21st East African Brigade
- 25th East African Brigade
- 26th East African Brigade
- 81st West African Division
- 3rd West African Brigade (detached to Chindits)
- 5th West African Brigade
- 6th West African Brigade
- 82nd West African Division
- 1st West African Brigade
- 2nd West African Brigade
- 4th West African Brigade
- 15th Corps
- 22nd East African Brigade
- 28th East African Brigade
It would appear that two more Brigades should be added.
- Kereguelen
- Posts: 1454
- Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 9:08 pm
RE: African Brigades
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
A very interesting site at: http://www.burmastar.org.uk/15corps.htm indicates that there were two additional African Brigades in India/Burma. These were the 22nd East African Infantry Brigade and the 28th East African Brigade.
Here is a review of the African Units based on this site:
- 11th East African Division
- 21st East African Brigade
- 25th East African Brigade
- 26th East African Brigade
- 81st West African Division
- 3rd West African Brigade (detached to Chindits)
- 5th West African Brigade
- 6th West African Brigade
- 82nd West African Division
- 1st West African Brigade
- 2nd West African Brigade
- 4th West African Brigade
- 15th Corps
- 22nd East African Brigade
- 28th East African Brigade
It would appear that two more Brigades should be added.
22nd EA Brigade arrived on Ceylon 07/22/1944 (under command of BG R.F. Johnstone)
EDIT: But 3rd WA Brigade was only nominally part of 81st WA Bde and it is (correctly) seperately in the game, but the 81st WA Division still arrives with 3 Brigades (fullstrenght). Thus there currently is one WA Brigade too much...