Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

Copahee`s VRF-3B arrives with no airplanes unlike all other VRFs

Victorious arrives with TBF Avengers. No 832 SQN FAA

I know it operated with USNavy, but should it not be Avengers I ?

BTW Avenger I and Avenger II have the same operational date as 3/44. Avenger I should be earlier

In regards to what a/c type 832 arrived with, according to the FAA website, its initial compliment of a/c when it arrived for duty with the USN consisted of 15 TBF-1 Avengers on loan from the USN. They later converted over to the Avenger Mk I, so apparently its WAD.

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

Copahee`s VRF-3B arrives with no airplanes unlike all other VRFs

Victorious arrives with TBF Avengers. No 832 SQN FAA

I know it operated with USNavy, but should it not be Avengers I ?

BTW Avenger I and Avenger II have the same operational date as 3/44. Avenger I should be earlier

According to the FAA website, 832 Sq was initially equipped with TBF-1 Avengers on loan from the USN. They swapped them for Avenger Is after their tour in the Pacific ended.

Yep. Since the unit is British, it can upgrade to British types later, but it came into theatre with TBFs. I thought it was a mistake too...

ORIGINAL: afspret

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

Copahee`s VRF-3B arrives with no airplanes unlike all other VRFs

Victorious arrives with TBF Avengers. No 832 SQN FAA

I know it operated with USNavy, but should it not be Avengers I ?

BTW Avenger I and Avenger II have the same operational date as 3/44. Avenger I should be earlier

According to the FAA website, 832 Sq was initially equipped with TBF-1 Avengers on loan from the USN. They swapped them for Avenger Is after their tour in the Pacific ended.

Sorry about the double post, thought the first one didn't take, dopey me

ORIGINAL: afspret

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

Copahee`s VRF-3B arrives with no airplanes unlike all other VRFs

Victorious arrives with TBF Avengers. No 832 SQN FAA

I know it operated with USNavy, but should it not be Avengers I ?

BTW Avenger I and Avenger II have the same operational date as 3/44. Avenger I should be earlier

According to the FAA website, 832 Sq was initially equipped with TBF-1 Avengers on loan from the USN. They swapped them for Avenger Is after their tour in the Pacific ended.

Didn't you just say that?[:'(]

Is it me or is the Akitsuki class DD short on endurance by quite a bit. Perhaps original WitP gave them overly generous range, I recall them having a 9000 nm + range while in AE they seem to have a 5000 nm range. Then again, I don't have a working one yet in the Grand Campaign so maybe it's just a oddity of the availability stats.

Why does the Minneapolis TF arrive as a reinforcement in PH??

Why isnt it on the map at sea??

It's probably to keep it from being attacked on day one. The KB didn't know that the Minneapolis was out at the gunnery range over the weekend and weren't looking for it. The game would find it.

ORIGINAL: Dixie

Shouldn't USS Boise and Marblehead (amongst other USN ships) have a withdrawl date?  They both spent time in the Med after repair work.

Not sure that should be the case since both were originally wthdrawn to the east coast due to damaged recieved fighting in the NEIs. There is no way to know that they would have been withdrawn had they not been damaged or if they had been damaged in the central or eastern pacific and withdrawn to the west coast instead.

ORIGINAL: rjopel

It's probably to keep it from being attacked on day one. The KB didn't know that the Minneapolis was out at the gunnery range over the weekend and weren't looking for it. The game would find it.

???

But shouldn't that be an option.

If the KB is silly enough to have its units on Naval attack they takes what they gets.

IMHO, the designers have played God in this, and too many other areas, it should be up to us to choose our fates. There argument for the ability for KB to stay on station is exactly opposite to this. What if the commander of the Miineapolis TF decides to head for San Diego?? Instead, he is stranded in port.

Scenario 002 has all ACM Chimo class boats present on 1941, but perhaps they shouldn't.

From DANFS:

"The second Chimo (ACM-1) was built as Colonel Charles W. Bundy for the Army by Marietta Manufacturing Co., Point Pleasant, W. Va.; converted at Norfolk Navy Yard; acquired by the Navy 7 April 1944; commissioned the same day, Lieutenant J. W. Gross, USNR, in command; and reported to the Atlantic Fleet.
"


Another source has more details on the Army MP class:

"
ACM Name Notes
1 CHIMO Ex Army COL. CHARLES W. BUNDY (MP-15, completed Apr 43). Converted by the Norfolk Navy Yard 10-28 Apr 44. Sold by MC to Foss Launch & Tug Co, Seattle, Wash. (probably awarded 19 Feb 48 and delivered 9 Apr 48). Merc. DAY ISLAND (fishing vessel) 1963. Sank 7 Dec 77 in the Caribbean.

2 PLANTER Ex Army COL. GEORGE RICKER (MP-16, completed Apr 43). Converted by the Norfolk Navy Yard 4-27 (or 20) Apr 44. Sold by MC to Foss Launch & Tug Co, Seattle, Wash. (probably awarded Feb 48 and delivered Apr 48). Merc. SAN JUAN (fishing vessel) 1963.

3 BARRICADE Ex Army COL. JOHN STOREY (MP-8, commissioned 7 Nov 42). Converted by the Norfolk Navy Yard 11-29 Apr 44 . To USCG as buoy tender MAGNOLIA (WAGL/WLB-328, in commission 3 Sep 46-13 Aug 71). Sold 15 Nov 72.

5 BARBICAN Ex Army COL. GEORGE ARMISTEAD (MP-3, completed 23 Aug 42). Converted by the Charleston, S.C. Navy Yard 6 Jan-25 Mar 45. To USCG as buoy tender IVY (WAGL/WLB-329, in commission 21 Apr 47-26 Nov 69). Merc. BALBOA (1977), SEA FOX (1981).

6 BASTION Ex Army COL. HENRY J. HUNT (MP-2, completed 30 May 42). Converted by the Charleston, S.C. Navy Yard 4 Jan-14 Apr 45. To USCG as buoy tender JONQUIL (WAGL/WLB-330, in commission 29 Aug 46-15 Sep 69). Sold 6 May 70.

7 OBSTRUCTOR Ex Army 1st LT. WILLIAM G. SYLVESTER (MP-5, completed 7 Sep 42). Substituted for BRIG. GEN. ROYAL T. FRANK (MP-12) as ACM-7 ca. 30 Dec 44. Converted by the Charleston, S.C. Navy Yard 4 Jan-4 Apr 45. To USCG as buoy tender HEATHER (WAGL/WLB-331, in commission 1 Feb 47-15 Dec 67). To Seattle Community College via Dept. of Health, Education & Welfare 12 Apr 68.

8 PICKET Ex Army GEN. HENRY KNOX (MP-1, completed 15 Apr 42). Converted by the Charleston, S.C. Navy Yard 2 Jan-5 Mar 45. To USCG as buoy tender WILLOW (WAGL/WLB-332, in commission 20 Sep 47-10 Oct 69). Sold 22 Feb 72, later merc. KNOX and HENRY KNOX.

9 TRAPPER Ex Army MAJ. GEN. ARTHUR MURRAY (MP-9, completed Aug 42). Converted by the Charleston, S.C. Navy Yard 2 Jan-15 Mar 45. Decomm. and to USCG 20 Jun 46 as cable layer YAMACRAW (WARC-333), stk. 19 Jul 46. Loaned to Navy by USCG 16 Apr 59 (formally returned 1 Jun 59) and commissioned 30 Apr 59 as USS YAMACRAW (ARC-5). Administratively returned to USCG 1 Jul 65 and to MA for disposal. Scrapped by 1 May 68.
"


The perfect solution would be to make them available as Army MP class, and then upgrade to ACM by 1944. If not possible, I reckon it is ok to have both the Army mine planters and the Chimo ACM as a single entry, but they should be available from Apr-42 onwards, not from Dec-41.


Cheers [:D]
fbs

Acquired from the Army & Commissioned on the same day in 1944-45.

They were launched in 1941-42

Maybe they should be ingame but under their Army names.

I have a problem with HDMLs. They are listed as capable to provide local minesweeping. But that option is not available. I am trying to use the ones that start at Rangoon. The only TFs I can put them in are Support and Escort. Not entirely useful.

ORIGINAL: fbs

Scenario 002 has all ACM Chimo class boats present on 1941, but perhaps they shouldn't.

(snip)

The perfect solution would be to make them available as Army MP class, and then upgrade to ACM by 1944. If not possible, I reckon it is ok to have both the Army mine planters and the Chimo ACM as a single entry, but they should be available from Apr-42 onwards, not from Dec-41.


Cheers [:D]
fbs

We are aware of the deployment of American ACM at the start of the war. There were, in fact, only three of them (one each at Manila, San Franciso, Puget Sound). Also one converted into an inter-island transport and a named working boat at Manila. There were however, large numbers of smaller carft that were used in this war. Unnamed US Army "L" and "M" boats that serviced the mines themselves and electrical connections/junction boxes to them. A similar situation existed for most countries.

We certainly weren't going to put in a fleet of these small boats. So that left us three options:
1. Build mine maintenance directly into the port size. Similar to what WITP did but was in conflict with our basic decision to separate civilian port functions (port size) from military ones (Naval Support).
2. Use Naval Support for mine maintenance. Too general, and we already have a number of functions lumped into Naval Support (one of which I would have liked to move to yet another Support type - Shore Parties).
3. Expand the ACM fleets using ships that historically could have been used in that role. This is what we did.

The two main groups of US ACM are the US Army Mine Planters (represented by the Chino Class) and US Coast Guard Buoy/Lighthouse Tenders (Alders).

Japan also has an extensive force of ACM that includes could-have-beens.

The intent is to provide the player the ability to use a reasonable force of ACM to offset the unavailability of all those working boats and to allow the use of ACM to protect the harbors that the player decides to protect.

Having said that, I am a fanatic for historical accuracy and it will probably change when my buddies and I get around to doing a mod. Still not sure what to do about the working boat issue though.

Incidentally, the DANFS history for the ex-USAMP only starts when acquired by the navy. They were in army service earlier in the war - until the threat to US ports was considered to have abated and they were no longer deemed needed. The dividing line between army and navy in minelaying has always been "interesting".

ORIGINAL: Nomad

I have a problem with HDMLs. They are listed as capable to provide local minesweeping. But that option is not available. I am trying to use the ones that start at Rangoon. The only TFs I can put them in are Support and Escort. Not entirely useful.

I believe the manual says they can go into Local Minesweeping TFs, not that they can provide local minesweeping.

Y'all read this, I've gotten a bunch of questions in a similar vein.

HDMLs can be in a number of TF Types (missions) as escorts. They can not be the primary type in those TFs. To create a minesweeping TF you need a minesweeper. If you do have a minesweeper and create a minesweeping TF, you can add an HDML to it. But you can not create a minesweeping TF with only an HDML as HDML is not a defined minesweeper type.

It's a bit clearer with destroyers and Air Combat TF. DDs can be added to Air Combat TFs but a port that has no carriers and is full of destroyers will not allow you to form an Air Combat TF.

Nice distinction. I'll quit asking questions, I sure don't want to bother you.

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Nice distinction. I'll quit asking questions, I sure don't want to bother you.

No way!. I want all the questions I can get. Just not the same one too many times please.

Not sure that should be the case since both were originally wthdrawn to the east coast due to damaged recieved fighting in the NEIs. There is no way to know that they would have been withdrawn had they not been damaged or if they had been damaged in the central or eastern pacific and withdrawn to the west coast instead.

If WITM40 sees the light of the day i fixed that making the ships that were retired because of damage retiring only when they were repaired.

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Nice distinction. I'll quit asking questions, I sure don't want to bother you.

No way!. I want all the questions I can get. Just not the same one too many times please.

And get snarled at because I asked a question someone else might have? No thank you. It will be easier to just forget about it or work it out myself.

Do ACM need to be in TF to maintain a minefield - or being disbanded in port is enough?