CHS questions, comments & feedback

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

July 26, 1942 The Imperial Japanese Navy submarine I-16 reconoiters the doings on Diego Garcia. In the preceeding month she had sunk four merchantmen south of the Chagos (3,889-ton Yugoslav SUSAK at 15-42S 40-58E, 4,847-ton Greek AGHIOS GEORGIOS IV at 16-12S 41-00E, 3,748-ton Yugoslav SUPETAR at 21-49S 35-50E, and 5,243-ton Swedish EKNAREN at 17-00S 40-00E). After her visit to DG, she cruises to Penang, and then back to Japan.

One of the friends of my grandfather was on Susak. He survived the sinking and spent the war as POW on Sumatra, building the "death railway" there with rest of the Allied POWs. There is a story about this crazy project (trans-Sumatra railroad) along with surviving POW sketches somewhere on the net.

My grandfather, who was in Yugo merchant marine at the time, traveled over U-Boot infested Atlantic few times in 1940, then went off the ship in New York and spent the war working at some shipyard in Brooklyn, making Libery ships. After the war he came back to Yugoslavia.

Now, since CHS is ruled by Allied fanboy club, anyway, I guess Ron gave me the argument to demand inclusion of several Yugo merchants in British service in CHS database [:D][:D].

O.

If you can get me data on the ships I will put them it.

Signed... Allied Fan Boy.

[eMonticello]

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

Ron;

What happened to the dirtbag Capt Ariizumi of the I-8 mentioned in your post?

Ariizumi

He committed suicide at the end of the war. There's no doubt that he would have been brought up on war crime charges.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/I-401.htm

[Dutchgy2000]

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent


Allied fanboys are maybe very prood of their T.IVa but they were made in 1928 and they are far more efficient in WITP than they were in reality. It is easy, they didn't fly operationnaly in real life (except maybe in patrol). They were just too old.

Uhmm.. no... the T.IV was the original 1928 model, the T.IVA is the improved 1935 model and those did fly operationally up to 3/42.

Although it might be a ´lumbering floatplane´ (uhum) like the Mavis, Emily or Catalina the difference is that those types where primatilly designed fore the patrol role while The T.IVA however was primarily designed as a torpedo bomber and the main attack component for the MLD (navy air arm).

Just because any major power would have rated them obsolete for that role and degraded (for lack of a better word) them to patrol plane doesn´t mean the relatively minor Dutch forces had any such luxery. After all there is a reason why there are Do-24 Wals and PBY´s flying around on patrol instead of the T.IVA.

Edit:
Noticed in the following post it has already been changed to patrol, so in one sweep the whole attack capability of the MLD has been obliterated, hmm... well there goes there original historical tactical role. Japan itself couldn´t have done it any better. (well ok, they did it better, just not THAT quick [:)] ).

[Don Bowen]

Here are the changes I got out of today's postings. There are still a number of open items. For one, I am too dumb to figure out supply/oil and will leave that to a smarter member of the team. Also several items are not yet resolved: What to do about coastal airfields (Kyoto, Taiden, Anshan) and possible changes to P-43.


Locations:
Canada (Location 269): Set Fuel and Daily Fuel to 0.
Edmonton (Location 272): Set Fuel to 0.
Krasnoyarsk (Location 284): Set Daily Fuel to 0.
Cristobal (Location 300): Set Fuel and Daily Fuel to 0.
United States (Location 330): Set Fuel and Daily Fuel to 0.
Soochow (Location 386): Reduce Port and Port Build to 0, reduce fuel to 0.
Hue (Location 430): Change to type Base (002) with Port left at 0 (0).
Songkhia (Location 490): Increase initial Port value to 2.
Jambi (Location 510): Set Fuel to 0.

Kyoto (Location 231):. . .| . | Will either be:
Taiden (Location 238):. . > < .changed to Base with Port 0(0)
Anshan (Location 246): . | . | OR have hexes changed from coastal to land.

28th Special Base Force (Location 1498): Change Location to Nagaskai (Location 339).
1st Chinese Air Base Force (Location 3430): Set planning target to current location.
2nd Chinese Air Base Force (Location 3431): Set planning target to current location.
3rd Chinese Air Base Force (Location 3432): Set planning target to current location.
4th Chinese Air Base Force (Location 3433): Set planning target to current location.
7th Chinese Air Base Force (Location 3436): Set planning target to current location.
8th Chinese Air Base Force (Location 3437): Set planning target to current location.
9th Chinese Air Base Force (Location 3438): Set planning target to current location.
10th Chinese Air Base Force (Location 3439): Set planning target to current location.
11th Chinese Air Base Force (Location 3440): Set planning target to current location.
12th Chinese Air Base Force (Location 3441): Set planning target to current location.
13th Chinese Air Base Force (Location 3442): Set planning target to current location.
14th Chinese Air Base Force (Location 3443): Set planning target to current location.
15th Chinese Air Base Force (Location 3444): Set planning target to current location.
16th Chinese Air Base Force (Location 3445): Set planning target to current location.
17th Chinese Air Base Force (Location 3446): Set planning target to current location.


Aircraft:
Lysander I (Aircraft 118): Change Type to Recon (06).
T.IVa (Aircraft 140): Change Type to Patrol (10).

[Don Bowen]

Noticed in the following post it has already been changed to patrol, so in one sweep the whole attack capability of the MLD has been obliterated, hmm... well there goes there original historical tactical role. Japan itself couldn´t have done it any better. (well ok, they did it better, just not THAT quick [:)] ).

We've gone back and forth on this. I'm the first to admit that I have no idea what would be the proper type for the T.IV.

As a Patrol Plane they can be based at advanced bases with seaplane tender support and can still (rarely) make torpedo attacks. This seems right to me.

As a torpedo plane they default to a land plane. This seems wrong to me.

However, I do not care - you all vote and make up your minds and I will implement it.

Don Bowen

[bstarr]

I vote patrol plane

[Dutchgy2000]

Well... all I can say to that I already summed up in my former post I guess.

Maybe just to add that the reason the ´old´ T.IV of 1928 was put on the drawingboard again in 1935 and upgraded to T.IVA´s was that the MLD did not have anything else available to forfill what they invisiged to be their attack role, so they needed a torpedo bomber and that was what was available. They were supposed to be replaced by the T.VIII-W/M of the official MLD Torpedodienst (notice how it says torpedo.. not patrol)

For patrol they would just have used more Dorniers (also first ordered 1935) instead of having to fall back on such an old model. Then again.. 140? they wish!

Actually..simple answer... they were and always have been classified as torpedodbomber by the Dutch navy and their crew trained as such, not as patrolaircraft.

[Dutchgy2000]

ORIGINAL: bstarr

I vote patrol plane

Not wanting to sound to.. uhmm... bad, but I don´t see how a vote enters into this. If the Dutch navy classifies them as torpedobomber, trains their crew as such, and in their organisation they would fall under the MLD torpedodienst, and if this game is to reflect historical setup, then how come all of a sudden they are patrol?

[Herrbear]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

The problem is that there was very little wrong with the Lancer. The Americans did not build it because both the P39 and P40 were already in production and they saw that the Lancer was okay but the projected successor was going to be excellent.

The Lancer was a mediocre turner, a better than average roller, good diver, a hair underpowered, weighed 2720kg empty.
The P39 weighed 2478kg empty while the P40E weighed 2880kg empty.

The weakness the Lancer has is its lack of armour and somewhat limited armament.
I will run some combat tests against Nates and Oscars and see what we have.

Mike

The Lancer could also fly higher than the P-40 due to the turbocharged engine.

http://www.warbirdforum.com/richdunn.htm This link indicates that information in 1943 during trials of weapons from Japanese aircraft indicated that the P-43 had armor of 6mm in the back of the set and 9.8mm side armor. It suggests that these are factory installed and not field modifications.

[Herrbear]

ORIGINAL: Dutchgy2000

Well... all I can say to that I already summed up in my former post I guess.

Maybe just to add that the reason the ´old´ T.IV of 1928 was put on the drawingboard again in 1935 and upgraded to T.IVA´s was that the MLD did not have anything else available to forfill what they invisiged to be their attack role, so they needed a torpedo bomber and that was what was available. They were supposed to be replaced by the T.VIII-W/M of the official MLD Torpedodienst (notice how it says torpedo.. not patrol)

For patrol they would just have used more Dorniers (also first ordered 1935) instead of having to fall back on such an old model. Then again.. 140? they wish!

Actually..simple answer... they were and always have been classified as torpedodbomber by the Dutch navy and their crew trained as such, not as patrolaircraft.

I only have one source that lists the T.IV and that is William Green's War Planes of the Second World War. In Vol. 6 on float planes he states "the T.IVa stemmed from a design work initiated in 1926 for a four-seat torpedo-bomber and reconnaissance floatplane to meet MLD requirements" He concludes indicating that they were "used for coastal patrol, long-range reconnaissance and anti-submarine duties".

From that definition, I would reluctanly agree that a patrol plane designation is appropriate.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Dutchgy2000

I don´t see how a vote enters into this.

I asked for a vote in an attempt to generate a discussion. The proper aircraft type for the T.IVa in the game is not clear. Forum members disagree and I do not have sufficient expertise to make a definite call.

So you-all argue it out and I’ll go with the majority. If no clear consensus arises I will simply leave it as it is.

[Hortlund]

Patrol

[Bradley7735]

Hi Don,

I think Dutchy2000 has some good points. I mean, there are tons of Dutch patrol planes already in the game. Yeah, they were used as patrol, but they were also used for Torpedo attacks. Almost all naval planes can patrol as well as perform their main role. I don't have data to back up anything I say, but Dutchy2000 seems to have some good data.

My suggestion is that if this plane is too good at torpedo attacks, then correct that problem instead of changing the planes role. Either reduce the accuracy of the weapon it uses (unless other ships/planes use the same torpedo), or reduce the plane's qualities to make it more vulnerable.

Personally, I can't get any of the Dutch planes to hit anything prior to upgrading them in July. I'll try with them until KB shows up and decimates every last plane. At that point, I withdraw them from combat. Maybe I suck and others use them to much better effect. maybe the other Japanese players use thier ships in unescorted groups and are easy targets. I don't know.

But, I think changing a group from Torpedo to Patrol is pretty drastic. Matrix had them coded this way for a reason.

Another reason for not changing them is that only the Dutch torpedo bombers and the British torpedo bombers can damage the Japanese BB's. (plus the POW). If you take them away, then it's even more impossible to damage a Japanese BB, prior to 8/42. Ok, that's not a great argument for my opinion.

Anyway, I just thought that Dutchy2000 made some good points.

[AmiralLaurent]

I should say that Dutchy2000 seems to me far more informed about the T.IVa than me.

I was speaking from what I knew of the campain (where the T.IVa played no role at all) and of the game, where even against escorted TFs provided with CAP 90% of the time, T.IVa usually torpedoed half a dozen ships, including CAs and DDs, in some months.

The baddest side of the T.IVa in the stock scenario is not its role but the fact that replacements are available. Where do they come from ?

So if CHS has them as torpedo bombers, but with a replacement rate of 0, that's OK for me. They will be the best antishipping Dutch plane but are so few that will be a one-use weapon.

By the way, the best BB killers the Dutch have are their submarines.

[janushm]

make the T.IVa a patrol....fine by me. but really i do think they should get replacement planes that are available sooner. flying brewsters until early/mid 1943 is madness....

[Lemurs!]

Herrbear,

The P43 had no armour, the P43A did have 'limited' armour installed. Still no self sealing fuel tanks. You may notice that the Ki43-II has a zero armour rating; that plane also had pilot armour but no real self sealing tanks.

This is a limitation of the armour system started by Gary. It works okay in the European theatre but not so well in the Pacific.

Also the P43A was not as fast, did not climb as well, had a larger turning radius etc because of that armour. It would cut at least 1 from mnvr value.

--------------------------------------------------------------
On the TIVa.... boy i hate to talk about stuff i don't know a ton about but i have researched this for the last 3 days.

I am going to switch and say we leave the plane a naval attack bomber. Their crews were trained for that it seems and they were issued torpedoes regularly while most patrol units were not.
Plus, in a pure game thought, it is about the only naval bomber the Dutch have and with us stopping the replacements I think that will stop the aircraft from being a scourge of Japanese shipping.

Mike

[Don Bowen]

with us stopping the replacements

Actually we currently have replacements set at 1. It was 5 in Scenario 15. Many obsolete or out-of-production aircraft are currently set to replacement 1 to allow for arrivals from out of theatre, civilian impressment, depot repairs, etc.

Here is the current list of "replacement=1" aircraft:

80 - F2A-2 Buffalo
82 - F4F-3 Wildcat
91 - SB2U Vindicator
97 - TBD Devastator
105 - Singapore
106 - Empire
111 - C.XI-W
119 - Wirraway
122 - Hawk 75A
123 - CW-21B Demon
124 - Brewster 339D
125 - Buffalo I
138 - Vildebeest IV
140 - T.IVa
146 - Martin 139
157 - P-26A
159 - P-36A Mohawk
165 - P-38F Lightning
179 - B-18A Bolo
193 - B-17D Fortress

There are three aircraft with zero replacements:
108 - Do 24K-2
135 - CW-22 Falcon
136 - F.K.51


Any recommendations for changes appreciated.

[Bradley7735]

165 - P-38F Lightning

I can't remember what P-38's are represented in scen 15, but is this correct? I'm guessing the one that comes in in 10/42 is the G?

Also, not that I disagree, but what is the reasoning behind zero replacements for the 3 Dutch planes when all others have 1?

Also, it might be a good idea to add 1 off map production for all Japanese planes, since the same logic should apply to them as well. It won't add that many planes in the long run. all planes in R&D status won't be produced until their start date as well.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

165 - P-38F Lightning

I can't remember what P-38's are represented in scen 15, but is this correct? I'm guessing the one that comes in in 10/42 is the G?

Also, not that I disagree, but what is the reasoning behind zero replacements for the 3 Dutch planes when all others have 1?

Also, it might be a good idea to add 1 off map production for all Japanese planes, since the same logic should apply to them as well. It won't add that many planes in the long run. all planes in R&D status won't be produced until their start date as well.

I don't recall the P-38 model introduction dates in Scenario 15. The P-38F in CHS represents both the "E" and "F" models and, representing the "E", is in service at the outbreak of the war.

I do not recall the reasoning behind setting some aircraft to zero and some to 1 - putting both lists on the forum was an invitation to just such a discussion. As to Japanese planes, another CHS member will have to answer that question.

[Lemurs!]

The reasoning behind some aircraft being set to zero is that is how Matrix had it and i did not change it.

Don, if you wish you could make those '1' but they are very non important aircraft.

Mike