Matrix Games Forums

Perhaps you might consider:

AVG/A&E - 74th FS
AVG/PB - 75th FS
AVG/HA - 76th FS

or

AVG/1 - 74th FS
AVG/2 - 75th FS
AVG/3 - 76th FS

ORIGINAL: eMonticello

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Looks like the 48th and 49th Fighter. Both of these squadrons were in California for 6 months and then went to England. I'm trying to balance such withdrawals by either not including them or by dropping a like number of late war squadrons. My squadron research has only progressed into the 20s - more later.

I suggest only including air groups that headed to PTO and exclude any air group that headed to ETO, MTO, or remained CONUS (since many of the CONUS groups were Operational Training Units (OTU) or Replacement Training Units (RTU)).

Generally I agree but I want to first complete my study and determine if sufficient forces will be available at the appropriate times. I have noted that a large number of groups that were active along the west coast during early 1942 subsequently moved east - out of the area of WITP. It is my understanding that this was done to get a sufficient number of experienced groups in the ETO.

My review of US Squadrons has only proceeded up to those numbered less than 80 but I have already identified more than a dozen squadons that saw some service on the west but will not be included in the OOB. There are another half dozen that also "went east" but I am leaning toward retaining. Before I completely exclude some or all of these groups I want to be sure that enought air power will be available during the first year of the war to properly protect the west coast. I expect that I will be retaining some of these early groups and making appropriate adjustments to late-war groups. The US obviously would not have left the west coast open to air attack.

On the AVG/23rd Group, I kind of like the idea of excluding the 23rd and adjusting the AVG squadron names. Since the AVG was only in action for about 6 months, should we just go to the 23rd Group names??

Presently all the RCAF Blenheim squadrons are Mk I except for 115 Sqdn RCAF (changed to Blenheim Mk IV from IF). They should all be Mk IVs as the Bolingbroke was the Mk IV.


http://www.rcaf.com/aircraft/bombers/bolingbroke/serials.php?name=bolingbroke

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Presently all the RCAF Blenheim squadrons are Mk I except for 115 Sqdn RCAF (changed to Blenheim Mk IV from IF). They should all be Mk IVs as the Bolingbroke was the Mk IV.


http://www.rcaf.com/aircraft/bombers/bolingbroke/serials.php?name=bolingbroke

With our current OOB "all the RCAF Blenheim squadrons ... except for 115 Sqdn RCAF" is No.8 Squadron RCAF. Should I change this squadron to Blenheim IV?

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Presently all the RCAF Blenheim squadrons are Mk I except for 115 Sqdn RCAF (changed to Blenheim Mk IV from IF). They should all be Mk IVs as the Bolingbroke was the Mk IV.


http://www.rcaf.com/aircraft/bombers/bolingbroke/serials.php?name=bolingbroke

With our current OOB "all the RCAF Blenheim squadrons ... except for 115 Sqdn RCAF" is No.8 Squadron RCAF. Should I change this squadron to Blenheim IV?

All RCAF squadrons currently showing Blenheim MkI should be Blenheim MkIV. There should be no Blenheim MkIs in RCAF. Guess there was confusion over Bolingbroke MkI which is a Blenheim MkIV.

Ron

I'm slowly getting the idea that you want me to change No. 8 Squadron to Blenheim IV.

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Ron

I'm slowly getting the idea that you want me to change No. 8 Squadron to Blenheim IV.

[:D] Yep...No 8 and 115 (which you have already done).

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Ron

I'm slowly getting the idea that you want me to change No. 8 Squadron to Blenheim IV.

[:D] Yep...No 8 and 115 (which you have already done).

OK - I'll start work on it. Now where are those damn environmental impact forms .....

Don, I've done an extract to an Excel spreadsheet from the same source. I've also got a scenario using it for Andrews Map My email is mkraemer@wwdb.org shoot me an email and I'll send you back a zipped copy.

I've run WITPCHK against the new scenario and also against Scenario 15 (Ver 1.4). They both show the following:

Device ID: 205 (2000 lb GP Bomb) - defined but not referenced
Device ID: 209 (800 kg AP Bomb) - defined but not referenced (coded bombload for Torpedo aircraft?)
Device ID: 211 (100lb ICB Cluster) - defined but not referenced
Device ID: 212 (400lb ICB Cluster) - defined but not referenced
Device ID: 213 (Atomic Bomb) - defined but not referenced

I know better than to touch the Atomic Bomb and I think there might be "special handling" around the 800kg bomb. For the other three:

Can I change one of them to something else - say the British Tallboy bomb - without screwing anything up???

Defined but not referenced only applies to units on map. Honestly, for the sake of not breaking anything, I'd leave it alone.
Just what I would do.

To clarify, in WPO I have seen devices not used till a few years into the game listed as defined but not referenced.

OK - Thanks

How about the two empty slots on t'either side of bombs: 198 and 214. Can I stick a Tallboy into one of them??

I would think so. I won't swear to it, but I don't think it would hurt anything.

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

OK - Thanks

How about the two empty slots on t'either side of bombs: 198 and 214. Can I stick a Tallboy into one of them??

After 1.5 Slot 198 will no longer be free Don

ORIGINAL: pry

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

OK - Thanks

How about the two empty slots on t'either side of bombs: 198 and 214. Can I stick a Tallboy into one of them??

After 1.5 Slot 198 will no longer be free Don

OK (he said - grasping for straws) how about 214??? Oh, and what is going into 198??

Don

US 1000lb AP bomb probably.

214 will still be free

198 and 210 are getting new devices

ORIGINAL: pry

214 will still be free

198 and 210 are getting new devices

214 will still be free

Oh please tell me that 210 will be a 500kg AP bomb...

While playing around with the U.S. Photo-Recon squadrons I found this data. Note that the "date" column indicates date of first flight and not availability for service. Very interesting ....