Allied Aircraft (last chance to add new planes)

[el cid again]

I have reorganized Allied aircraft into FIVE sections:

FAA carrier aircraft
US carrier aircraft
US land based aircraft
Soviet land based aircraft
Other Allied land based aircraft

all in alphabetical order. This makes it possible to have a sense of how many nearly identical aircraft there are - and there are many of these. So far I just got rid of one obscure Dutch trainer used for recon by two detachments - replacing them with Dutch torpedo bombers. And I added the SBD-3 at war start - replacing the generic SBD with it - because the existing plane is modeled on the SBD-5 - not available until 1943. I then created a separate, true SBD-5 upgrade. I added both the C-54A (from 10/42) and its USN cousin R5D (from 2/43) - which is only fair since I allow Japan to build its version of the DC-4. I am considering adding the Soviet heavy bomber (Pe-8) - but only if it was deployed in the Far East - which I have not yet established (most plane types did serve in all areas). I have seven free allied plane slots - and I may create a few more by combining types. Is there any type that should be added? Perhaps the big flying boat transports? Or the many kinds of light transports? Or some kind of combat aircraft?

[bradfordkay]

Cid, I am against the switching of the RNEIAF recon a/c to torpedo squadrons. I think that this will ahistorically increase the power of the RNEIAF, especially against Japanese invasion forces. I've been reading "Bloody Shambles" and was impressed by the work the CHS folks did to bring the RNEIAF a workable, historic OOB.

If you are switching them, what is their upgrade path? Are they going to be recon units or bomber units?

[TheElf]

cid what are you adding these aircraft to? The CHS or the RHS?

[el cid again]

Actually, the CHS mod has TOO many torpedo planes for the NEIAF - since it rates all Do-24Ks as torpedo planes - which is false. I added NO new torpedo plane type. I also did not increase the number of torpedo planes. I just reassigned fairly small detachments into the standard recon packages of 3 planes. I found one unverifiable plane in two detachments and wanted to save the plane slot. I found some of the trainers were indeed armed and I got exact machine counts, including NAF units sent from UK before the Pacific campaign began. Since they were historically used in the armed recon role, I kept them, with corrected counts. The only torpedo armed plane was not used, as it might have been, in a single armed unit, so I felt it was reasonable to use it in its historical role - for recon. However, it is possible to use other recon planes for the two detachments in question - and I almost did. There is no change to the number of units and plane counts are similar - but instead of production you get the exact historical plane count in the pool. There is no Dutch "production" at this time for the Allies.

[el cid again]

cid what are you adding these aircraft to? The CHS or the RHS?

I have no CHS assignment at this time - except to help with a review of Japanese aircraft if there are any questions. So for RHS. BUT anything I do is always available to CHS if they want it - and I expect some of it will be eventually.

[lucascuccia]

Are we ever going to see a PB4y2 Privateer? Having a heavily armed, lower flying, longer ranged naval plane would be nice.

Also, what about the F-7 liberator recon for really long range photagraphy.


Lucas

[el cid again]

[quote]Are we ever going to see a PB4y2 Privateer?

There IS a PB4Y-1. I will review this subject - because I must review all planes for performance anyway - having changed the definition of ceiling - and I check all fields and counts when I look at a record. Perhaps the -2 is a better choice than the -1?

[el cid again]

The F-7F, F-8F and F-4U-4 are NOT carrier planes! Anyone have a problem with this? If so, how can we deal with it?

One possibility would be to combine some FAA and USN plane types. Or USMC/USN plane types. If the numbers are small, it might be OK.
The other obvious one is get rid of some minor type.

[Terminus]

The F-4U4 and the Bearcat ARE CV-capable! Slots 243-249 have been Allied carrier-capable since v.1.4.

I assume the Tigercat was placed where it was because it only operated from land bases during the short operational career it had before the end of the war.

[el cid again]

The F-4U4 and the Bearcat ARE CV-capable! Slots 243-249 have been Allied carrier-capable since v.1.4.

Thanks. Silly me for believing the manual - which was not updated (of course). I am so spoiled by professional documentation it is hard to get used to this informal system. I will now deal with that - consider it done.

I found the odd thing that Li-2 is in a carrier slot! [That is a C-47 - adm byrd anyone?] So I had a slot for the missing fighter.

Amendment: Oops: Turns out, for technical reasons, slot 243 is NOT a carrier capable slot after all. A programmer probably said slots 243 to 248 - and that translates to slots 244 to 249 for us users - due to an offset. Seems that 0 is used with a special meaning in the editor (no data I think) - and the entire stack gets offset by one so all slots are treated as meaningful. So the Li-2 is not a carrier capable slot and I have to figure out what to do for Tigercat after all. Since the scenario runs 9 months after the end of hostilities, and since Japan gets to use new carrier capable planes, I feel this must be addressed. But how? Where did I put my thinking cap?

Got it. There are two slots for F2Fs (Buffalos carrier capable) - used by only two units (three in stock and CHS, but VMF 111 should be F4F-3).
They have identical armament and engines - I can combine them and then we get the slot we need.

[bradfordkay]

Cid, I wasn't talking about production, but how a player could be able to warp the game if he had many extra squadrons of either F5 recon a/c or B25/B26 bombers available by withdrawing those a/c to Australia and using them once the a/c were available for upgrade. Thus my question about upgrade paths... are you placing a small limit on the numbers of a/c allowed in these units?

[spence]

I think the F7F was envisioned for use aboard the Midway Class CVs. Don't know if you have them or not though.

[GaryChildress]

From what little I've seen mentioned about the F7F so far on the Inet it looks like they were just not suitable for carrier opperations during WW2 and were initially assigned to the Marines for land based use. They required a Midway class carrier to opperate from and most definitely couldn't opperate from anything less than a CV. I currently have them in a carrier capable slot in my mod but will be changing them when I get around to it to a non-carrier capable slot. [:(]

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

cid what are you adding these aircraft to? The CHS or the RHS?

I have no CHS assignment at this time -

How bout digging up some details for me on the VVS-TOF in DEC 41'?

[el cid again]

Cid, I wasn't talking about production, but how a player could be able to warp the game if he had many extra squadrons of either F5 recon a/c or B25/B26 bombers available by withdrawing those a/c to Australia and using them once the a/c were available for upgrade. Thus my question about upgrade paths... are you placing a small limit on the numbers of a/c allowed in these units?

I do not understand your query.

First of all, I have not changed any numbers for Allied air units (unless you count elements of Dutch recon planes Joe once proposed be removed altogether - being smaller than squadrongs - I made these all a uniform 3 machines when some had been a few more - and I gave players every unassigned machine in the pools). For Japan, I used the real unit size. Now since I have not looked up Allied unit sizes, I have no reason to change any unit plane count - unless informed that "123rd bombardment group is too small" or some such.

Second, I do not understand how upgrading to any aircraft could be wrong, or "skew the game" - since real world commanders could really assign ANY plane they wanted to ANY unit - and often did? I have been advised to always define an upgrade for technical reasons I do not understand - so I will insure that some reaonable one is defined. But whatever it is, how could it be a problem if it gets used?

I am about 100% confused by your questions.

[el cid again]

I think the F7F was envisioned for use aboard the Midway Class CVs. Don't know if you have them or not though.

Since I built on the foundation of CHS, and since CHS has all three Midways on their historical dates - all in 1945 - yes - I have them. I think F7F probably could operate from carriers sometime in 1945.

Anyway the game has no plane size limits for carriers. Japan can put big bombers on CVLs - so can USN and RN. So we cannot address this - except maybe as house rules. I myself - on principle - won't operate a big plane from too small a carrier.

[el cid again]

There is a wierd plane case:

LB-30 Liberator is a small batch (total 75) of Liberator Is which USAAF siezed from an export order. The Liberator I is an RAF equipped B-24D.
Four squadrons (12 planes each) - 21, 27, 392 and 435 - are assigned this aircraft. It is identical to B-24D in game terms. Is there any reason not to put those 75 machines in the B-24D pool and to assign B-24Ds to those four units?

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

There is a wierd plane case:

LB-30 Liberator is a small batch (total 75) of Liberator Is which USAAF siezed from an export order. The Liberator I is an RAF equipped B-24D.
Four squadrons (12 planes each) - 21, 27, 392 and 435 - are assigned this aircraft. It is identical to B-24D in game terms. Is there any reason not to put those 75 machines in the B-24D pool and to assign B-24Ds to those four units?

I lack historical knowledge to add, but here is a game comment. I am currently in late December 1944 in current CHS as Allies (vs. AI). The LB-30 does not have the same stats as teh B-24D. It has a longer range - useful for maritime search - and (I think) a lesser bombload. I do not know about the Liberator I. Is that another name for the LB-30?

Here is a separate question for you. The RAF has a bunch of BS equipped with Liberator III's. The upgrade for that plane is Liberator VI's. The VI is almost the same (stats) as the III. It has a little more gun value, but significantly less range (3 or 4 hexes less for normal/extended range). Was this really the case with the Liberator III and VI? Why would the British consider it an upgrade?

[bradfordkay]

"First of all, I have not changed any numbers for Allied air units (unless you count elements of Dutch recon planes Joe once proposed be removed altogether - being smaller than squadrongs - I made these all a uniform 3 machines when some had been a few more - and I gave players every unassigned machine in the pools)."


Okay, you now have these units starting at 3 aircraft ler unit. That's good. My question is three the maximum number of aircraft that these units will be allowed to have at any time?

Let's say for example, you start the game with a squadron of P-40Bs that has 12 aircraft, but it's maximum number of aircraft is 24. Once the extra P-40Bs come into the pool, they can be assigned to increase the size of the squadron beyond the twelve planes up to 24 planes. Now, if you've created a bunch of squadron fragments that have three aircraft at start, but are allowed to be increased up to twelve aircraft, this can be a problem. While we know that there will not be any more TIVs available, once the squadron has been upgraded to a different aircraft (say a B25, or F5A) this has ahistorically increased the allied order of battle.


BTW, I believe your problem with Do24Ks has to do not with their being listed as Torpedo Bombers, as they are listed as Patrol Bombers, but that they were given torpedoes as standard loadout. None of my reading has ever indicated that the Dutch used these aircraft with torpedoes (but my reading on this particular subject is quite limited), so I can agree with you in that respect. Maybe you should adjust the weapons load for the D024K-2 instead.

[el cid again]

I lack historical knowledge to add, but here is a game comment. I am currently in late December 1944 in current CHS as Allies (vs. AI). The LB-30 does not have the same stats as teh B-24D. It has a longer range - useful for maritime search - and (I think) a lesser bombload. I do not know about the Liberator I. Is that another name for the LB-30?

In the form you are playing with them, Liberators (and most other Allied heavies) have too little range (also too little bomb load). In future CHS and in RHS this will be fixed. The LB-30 IS the Liberator I, but the I order was only 139 machines, and 75 of those were siezed by USAAF (to become LB-30s). The Liberator I is not in the game and seems not to have made it to the Far East. I am proposing to fold the 75 LB-30s into the B-24D - and that B-24D will have the correct range. [It is not clear why, but game heavies ran only 80% of normal bomb load to significantly less ranges than data in reputable tables suggests. This may have been deliberate - once upon a time players felt heavies were "too effective" and Matrix listened and "fixed" the problem.] Note that by increasing the maximum bomb loads I also make it impossible to use heavies from smaller airfields - they will require big ones - as they should.