Allied Aircraft (last chance to add new planes)

[el cid again]

If Derfel has it right, the answer is to allow Indomitable to enter the Indian Ocean only in August 1942. That way it never needs to have any Sea Hurricanes. IT also can participate in the Madagascar operation - which it won't do if we let Allied players have it. This is too important to the Pacific Theater to ignore - and Allied players need to be forced to cover that operation. It is a decision taken in London, not the Far East.

[el cid again]

I had Seafire appearing in May 1942. Since its first unit is June 1942 I have changed that. The problem is that in WITP units appear earlier - that is ships with squadrons outfitted with it do. I need to do a complete air group list for the navy - doing RAF just now - to get it right. But in general I won't allow air units to appear before the plane - and I think the game code won't allow it either. That in turn means some carriers cannot appear on the dates given, or that they appear minus some air units, or that they appear with different air units. And all the fictional Seafire units need to lose them. Only 8 ever were in theater - and 3 of that 8 are not in the list. I will figure it out - after finishing RAF squadrons/planes.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

All the squadrons I list WERE in the Far East - otherwise I would not say they were. And my source for AF type planes is the one I have already cited - Royal Air Force Aircraft Since 1912. I am finding it takes skill to read it - but it is rarely wrong. The problem is when you must fill in the blanks - for which other works are OK when the plane was famous. My problem is that these units (and about 5 times that many more) WERE in the Far East during the war - but I don't know when or where. I have unit histories for USAAF and Japan - not for Commonwealth.

Well, then we have conflicting sources. Just try this site http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/.

It's the homepage of the RAF (historical branch). Not very detailed, but it clearly states that the squadrons you mentioned did not serve in the FE. I would assume that the RAF should know best were its squadrons served (I'm generally sceptical about online sources, but in this case it has some "air of authority")

K

[JeffroK]

Re 453 & 488 Sqns

These were both Article XV (Empire Air Training Scheme) squadrons and as such were on the strength of the RAF.

More accurate would be 453(Australian)Sqn RAF & 488(New Zealand)Sqn RAF.

The RAAF & RNZAF has seperate numbering sequences.

[JeffroK]

From Iron Duke
Hi,

453 in game
4 pru not in game but should be [singapore ?]
all others 458,244,521,231,39,55 and 223 didn't serve in FE

52 re formed '44' @ Dum Dum with Dakota's
96 arrive FE May '45' with Dakota's

60 should start with Buffalo I > Blenhiem IV > Hurri IIc > Thunderbolt II

ref RAF Squadrons
wingcommander C.G.Jefford

cheers

In the RAAF Histories, 4PRU gets a mention in February 42 flying Buffalo's

I cant see 60 Sqn flying Buffalo's, the rest of the line is 2/41 Blenhiem, Hurricanes in 1943 and Thunderbolt II in May 1945

Of the others listed, and El Cid says another reference says were in the Far East.
521 & 231 never left the UK
39, 55 & 223 were in the Med. 39 was the Recce unit Warburton flew with.
244 was based at Masrirah in the Near East.

I am also concerned about any reference about 617 being in the Far East, in May 45 it was obliterating the Bielfeld Aqueduct in Northern Germany.

[JeffroK]

Also earlier is a comment that Beaufighter 1C didnt see action in the Pacific.

The first 72 Beaufighters used by the RAAF (A19-1 to A19-72) were Mk 1C with the RADAR removed.

The RAAF also used 65 Mk VIC, 20 Mk XIC, 62 MkX and 365 Mk 21 (Australian Made)

[el cid again]

Well, then we have conflicting sources. Just try this site http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/.

It's the homepage of the RAF (historical branch). Not very detailed, but it clearly states that the squadrons you mentioned did not serve in the FE. I would assume that the RAF should know best were its squadrons served (I'm generally sceptical about online sources, but in this case it has some "air of authority")

I know what you mean - in every sentence. I once decided to look up my name in a database of those who served in Vietnam. Although I went there three times - official enough I got out of paying taxes and received combat pay - I am not in the database. So much for web sources. I know a retired JLSDF captain who works for an official Japanese military history activity. But there are certain things he won't say - period. No matter if I have original documents from participants or not, that didn't happen. And in the 1960s we got so used to press, academic and official stories being unrecognizably different from our on the scene experience we coined the term "real world" to distinguish what actually happened from what was said to have happened. Nevertheless, I agree that RAF should know where its units were. I also have evidence that reference books - no matter how comprehensive and detailed - contain errors. In fact - I sometimes correct them before they get printed! Once I was doing this for the English edition of Flottes des Combat (Combat Fleets of the World), and I took the proof copy with me on a service call to Adak - a remote naval station in the Aleutians (no longer a Naval base, it also is not quite as abandoned as is officially stated). While there we had a tiny conflict with Lybia - and two frigates were burning so badly smoke prevented their identification. A worldwide FLASH message was sent to help 6th Fleet identify them. I saw this come in at the operations center and told a petty officer I could identify the ships. The captain came over and asked me about this. I explained I had a book over in BOQ which had photographs, and that the radar antennas were above the smoke. Since only three ships of this class were in the Lybian navy, it had to be two of them. He said "Let me get this strait: you have a book that isn't published yet. But you don't need to look at it, because you have the information in your head?" He didn't bother to send for the book - he sent off the ID with the comment "If we go to war you are back in the Navy." Regretfully, one cannot know information in great detail for all periods for all services, and so we must depend on our references.

I have just learned that another point is in error in the same reference - although I am sure it was believed: Both Blenheim I and IF are listed as being in Malaya in Bloody Shambles - so they did serve in places other than Greece and North Africa after the war began.

I suppose any large data set must contain errors. And sometimes we don't know if the alleged errors are really errors - or not?

[el cid again]

The RAAF & RNZAF has seperate numbering sequences.

Mostly. But that would be too easy. So there are exceptions - in the very low number area. RAF and RAAF had some duplicates. If that is not enough, some units were disbanded and reformed several times - particularly FAA units. So WHICH abc squadron do you mean - the first, second or third? What a mess.

[Iron Duke]

Hi

4 PRU [Photo Recon Unit] don't have sources to hand at the moment but if i remember correctly it was formed in singapore early 42 and had only 2 to 4 a/c [Buffalo's]

4AACU was a calibration unit with Swordfish ,Sharks and Queen bee's?

Cheers

[Iron Duke]

Hi

from RAF Squadrons - Jefford

Squadron number allocations

1-299 raf
353-399 raf
400-445 canadian
450-467 australian
485-490 new zealand
500-509 special reserve
510-599 raf
600-616 auxillery
617-650 raf
674-699 raf
note: not all numbers were used

also australia , new zealand and canada had there own numbered squadrons

cheers

[el cid again]

4 PRU [Photo Recon Unit] don't have sources to hand at the moment but if i remember correctly it was formed in singapore early 42 and had only 2 to 4 a/c [Buffalo's]

4AACU was a calibration unit with Swordfish ,Sharks and Queen bee's?

Correct. I figured this out last night - and added 4 PRU planes to a squadron. I probably should do the same for the 4AACU as well. To free a slot. Unless very special I prefer to have squadrons or groups to independent flights. Less dirt for players to manage too.

[el cid again]

Hi

from RAF Squadrons - Jefford

Squadron number allocations

1-299 raf
353-399 raf
400-445 canadian
450-467 australian
485-490 new zealand
500-509 special reserve
510-599 raf
600-616 auxillery
617-650 raf
674-699 raf
note: not all numbers were used

also australia , new zealand and canada had there own numbered squadrons

cheers

All correct - except for the tiny little detail that some units are omitted.
Note, for example, all the RAAF units in the low range: most numbers between 1 and 120 are duplicated. RNZAF also causes most numbers from 1 to 31 to triplicate!!! Plus 75. Then RCAF does a lot of numbers from 1 to 165 - permitting up to four identical numbers in the "unified Commonwealth" numbering scheme!

[Don Bowen]

There are separate numbering systems at work here.

The RAF included a number of squadrons (in the 400 number range) that were:
1. Formed by the RAF
2. Equipped by the RAF
3. Manned primarily by pilots from various commonwealth nations
4. Under the command and control of the RAF

An Example of this is No. 453 Squadron RAF at Singapore. Since the pilots were Australian, this squadron is sometimes called an RAAF squadron, but it was Royal Air Force.


The various commonwealth countries also had their own air forces, with their own numbering schemes. There was a No. 1 RAAF squadron, a No. 1 RNZAF Squadron, a No. 1 RCAF squadron as well as a No. 1 RAF squadron.

There are no duplicates.

[el cid again]

CHS has Beaufort I and VI. It has them each in two units. But my RAF reference says none were in theater.

Can anyone confirm any of the following units had Beaufort in the Pacific?

No 22 RAF
No 15 RAAF
No 100 RAAF
No 149 RCAF

[el cid again]

The various commonwealth countries also had their own air forces, with their own numbering schemes. There was a No. 1 RAAF squadron, a No. 1 RNZAF Squadron, a No. 1 RCAF squadron as well as a No. 1 RAF squadron.

There are no duplicates.

Well, the numbers are certainly duplicated. And someone said that the numbers were different for each nation - but it isn't so. And it matters - because references sometimes say one and mean another. In the game a RNZAF unit is called RAF - for example - presumably because of this sort of confusion.

[Don Bowen]

In the game a RNZAF unit is called RAF

Which unit please.

[Hipper]

If Derfel has it right, the answer is to allow Indomitable to enter the Indian Ocean only in August 1942. That way it never needs to have any Sea Hurricanes. IT also can participate in the Madagascar operation - which it won't do if we let Allied players have it. This is too important to the Pacific Theater to ignore - and Allied players need to be forced to cover that operation. It is a decision taken in London, not the Far East.

Hmm so because the sea Hurricane is too unimportant ! to put in the game we will delete an aircraft carrier from its historical availibility date !!!

withdrawal of RN carriers is already modeled

If you absolutly cannot have the Sea Hurricane in the CHS put martlets in instead. seems a shame however !

Hipper

[m10bob]

have added a Hurricane I to represent that- and changed the IIb to the IIc - but let it represent the IIb - and then kept the IId/IV - but gave it rockets. The first fighter in the world with rockets.

Actually...The Nieuport models 11 and 17 had rockets..(1916).[;)]

http://www.firstworldwar.com/atoz/leprieur.htm

http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/nieuport.html

[bbbf]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

CHS has Beaufort I and VI. It has them each in two units. But my RAF reference says none were in theater.

Can anyone confirm any of the following units had Beaufort in the Pacific?

No 22 RAF
No 15 RAAF
No 100 RAAF
No 149 RCAF

I doubt very much that 100 RAAF flew the I, VI apparently flew first with 100 RAAF.

Really not much difference between all the Australian built Beaufort's anyway.

An interesting variant is the Beaufort IX which was nicknamed the Beaufreighter - dorsal turret removed to allow nine seats and cargo carrying capability. 46 made, well remade actually, I believe they were all early Mark converted. You would have thought that more than enough c-47's were being churned out to not require this, but obviously not.

[bbbf]

More digging around, and the Mk VIII was well and truly the most produced (520 units), Mk I only 1 delivered, Mk V 50 units, Mark VI 40 units, Mk VIA 30 units, Mk VII 60 units.

Mk V's come in 41, all the others in 42. You could probably just call them all Mk VIII's for the RAAF.