CHS 2.08 bug list

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: timtom

We can only model one A/C type pr. sqd at a time in WitP. Logically that should be the majority A/C. Based on the evidence available to me (which, I'll admit, isn't conclusive), it would seem that the LB-30 doesn't fit this definiton in even a single case. IMO the LB-30 should be scrapped altogether while representing the airframes with an increase of the B-17/B-18 pool.

It doesn't help either that 6th BG operation exclusively in the CZ during the time it flew LB-30's.

If the LB-30 was scrapped, it would free up a slot for something else.

Bill

[Sardaukar]

BTW, got the idea from Ron Saueracker's (I hope I spelled *that* right ) PBEM game. How about making CHS vesion where aircraft weapon accuracy is halved but other stats are basic CHS ? It seems to work well for them for A2A and is reasonable easy to edit.

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

If the LB-30 was scrapped, it would free up a slot for something else.

Bill

Another option is to represent it with the B-24D.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: Reg
No No No!!! RAAF Beaufighter squadrons were raised, equipped and trained for the long range fighter (strafer) role. Though their aircraft were theoretically capable of torpedo strike, the squadrons were never issued with the weapons or trained in their use. (Ever wondered in the game why they are are classed as fighter/bomber rather than torpedo bomber like the Beaufort??) This was done (after a long hard fight) so the Beaufighter squadrons could conduct their historical missions.

If you can put up a convincing argument that RAF Torbeaus were used in the India/Burma areas, I'm sure you will get a sympathetic hearing for the creation of a new aircraft class as a torpedo bomber.

The RAF Beaufort squadrons that were sent to the CBI were trained for torpedo work. And most Beaufort squadrons converted to Beaufighters later in the war. No Beaufort dropped a torpedo in anger in the Far East because they never had any targets. They were only used in India and Burma and there were no shipping targets to attack by the time they got there.

I don't believe any land based RAF aircraft dropped a torpedo in anger in the Far East after the Indian Ocean raids of early 1942.

While there may have been torpedo trained RAF Beaufighter squadrons in India and Burma (I don't know if there were or not), they were never used. If they were in the game, it would take house rules to prevent them from being deployed in other areas where there are more shipping targets.

I was pointing out that the Beaufighters did have the torpedo equipment. I do not know one way of the other if the Far East Beaufighter squadrons had any torpedo training. The few times torpedoes were dropped by crews that weren't trained in that kind of attack, the results were dismal. The only drop I can think of that had any chance of success was the B-26 that dropped on the Rjuyo in the Aleutians in June 1942 and a wave carried the torpedo over the deck of the carrier. If the seas hadn't been so rough, the torpedo might have hit.

Bill

At least No. 22 Squadron RAF was a dedicated torpedo squadron that used the Beaufighter TF.Mk.X ("TF" stands for "torpedo fighter"). This squadron used Vildebeasts and Beauforts before receiving its Beaufighters in May 1944. Don't know if other RAF squadrons in the Far East received TF's.

No. 788 Squadron FAA (a land-based training squadron) had tried to attack Japanese ships with its torpedoes (they were equipped with Swordfish torpedo planes) during the Ceylon raid of 1942 (they did not hit anything, but they tried).

[DuckofTindalos]

Hmmm, according to the official RAF site, 22 Squadron moved to the Far East in 1942, where it used Beaufighters in anti-ship rocket attacks.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Hmmm, according to the official RAF site, 22 Squadron moved to the Far East in 1942, where it used Beaufighters in anti-ship rocket attacks.

There were no Japanese ships large enough to waste torpedoes on it in the CBI in 1944 (the TF.X carried either bombs or rockets in addition to its torpedoes).

[DuckofTindalos]

Why would they bother carrying torpedoes if there were no targets worthy of them?

I know that Coastal Command strike wings used to split up their Beaufighters into purely torpedo- and rocket-armed aircraft when they went on their anti-shipping strikes. No idea if that applied elsewhere as well...

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Why would they bother carrying torpedoes if there were no targets worthy of them?

I know that Coastal Command strike wings used to split up their Beaufighters into purely torpedo- and rocket-armed aircraft when they went on their anti-shipping strikes. No idea if that applied elsewhere as well...

They probably didn't bother to mount the torpedoes when attacking barges, but No. 22 Squadron had flown other torpedo-carrying planes before. If a Sunderland would have spotted the Yamato steaming in direction of Trincomalee or Chittagong, they certainly would have used torpedoes instead of rockets. The Coastal Command had some Beaufighters Mk.XIc(Mk.X's without hardpoints for torpedoes) in use in the ETO, but No. 22 Squadron used only Mk.X's.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Found the problems with Australia-class CAs and Leander-class CLs. Both lose their a/c capacity with upgrades, causing their float plane units to resize to size 0.

Again, this is not an error but actually reflected wartime refits that added additional AA and Electronics. British Cruisers that had catapults/aviation facilities removed(not comprehensive):

1941
Achilles: 1943-1944
Ajax: 1941
Arethusa: 1941
Galatea: 1940
Penelope: 1940
Sheffield: 1944
Glasgow: 6/44
Liverpool: 6/45
Birmingham; 4/43
Belfast: 8/45
Hobart: 8/43
Australia: 1944

Due to the limitations of the database some fudging had to be enacted.
Sources:

1 Raven, Alan, and John Roberts. British Cruisers of World War Two. Annapolis, Md: Naval Institute Press, 1980.

2 Whitley, M. J. Cruisers of World War Two: An Intrnational Encyclopedia. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1995.

3 Lenton, H. T., and J. J. Colledge. (British) Warships of World War II. London, UK: Ian Allen, 1964.

4 Campbell, John. Naval Weapons of World War Two. 1985. Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press, 2002.

[Tanaka]

So when's the next update? [:D]

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

So when's the next update? [:D]

Not for a while yet. Please keep in mind that the intention behind this update is the fixing of bugs and errors. It will take some time as I don't have a lot of free time to dedicate to it at present...

Andrew

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Found the problems with Australia-class CAs and Leander-class CLs. Both lose their a/c capacity with upgrades, causing their float plane units to resize to size 0.

Again, this is not an error but actually reflected wartime refits that added additional AA and Electronics. British Cruisers that had catapults/aviation facilities removed(not comprehensive):

1941
Achilles: 1943-1944
Ajax: 1941
Arethusa: 1941
Galatea: 1940
Penelope: 1940
Sheffield: 1944
Glasgow: 6/44
Liverpool: 6/45
Birmingham; 4/43
Belfast: 8/45
Hobart: 8/43
Australia: 1944

Due to the limitations of the database some fudging had to be enacted.
Sources:

1 Raven, Alan, and John Roberts. British Cruisers of World War Two. Annapolis, Md: Naval Institute Press, 1980.

2 Whitley, M. J. Cruisers of World War Two: An Intrnational Encyclopedia. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1995.

3 Lenton, H. T., and J. J. Colledge. (British) Warships of World War II. London, UK: Ian Allen, 1964.

4 Campbell, John. Naval Weapons of World War Two. 1985. Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press, 2002.

Ok, fair enuff...but then the Walrus units should be removed...is that possible even ? Now they just remain onboard but resize to 0...and just basicly waste a slot..[:'(]

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
Ok, fair enuff...but then the Walrus units should be removed...is that possible even ? Now they just remain onboard but resize to 0...and just basicly waste a slot..[:'(]

If the aircraft are there at the start, but are "removed" during a later refit, then there is still the need for a slot.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Found the problems with Australia-class CAs and Leander-class CLs. Both lose their a/c capacity with upgrades, causing their float plane units to resize to size 0.

Again, this is not an error but actually reflected wartime refits that added additional AA and Electronics. British Cruisers that had catapults/aviation facilities removed(not comprehensive):

1941
Achilles: 1943-1944
Ajax: 1941
Arethusa: 1941
Galatea: 1940
Penelope: 1940
Sheffield: 1944
Glasgow: 6/44
Liverpool: 6/45
Birmingham; 4/43
Belfast: 8/45
Hobart: 8/43
Australia: 1944

Due to the limitations of the database some fudging had to be enacted.
Sources:

1 Raven, Alan, and John Roberts. British Cruisers of World War Two. Annapolis, Md: Naval Institute Press, 1980.

2 Whitley, M. J. Cruisers of World War Two: An Intrnational Encyclopedia. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1995.

3 Lenton, H. T., and J. J. Colledge. (British) Warships of World War II. London, UK: Ian Allen, 1964.

4 Campbell, John. Naval Weapons of World War Two. 1985. Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press, 2002.

Ok, fair enuff...but then the Walrus units should be removed...is that possible even ? Now they just remain onboard but resize to 0...and just basicly waste a slot..[:'(]

Ship upgrades are not mandatory, if you upgrade then before beach the Walruses. At least they can perform some duty that way. Other than this I do not know of any other way of getting around it. US Cruisers also have this roblem where most of the older treaty heavy cruisers start losing one catapult and half their aircraft.

[VSWG]

Any idea about the ETA of the new version? Days? Weeks? I would wait until it is released before I start a new PBEM.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: VSWG

Any idea about the ETA of the new version? Days? Weeks? I would wait until it is released before I start a new PBEM.

It will not be days. With Xmas and the new year intervening, it will be weeks for sure. The bug fixes that the editor shows up (see above) will take a while to complete...

Andrew

[VSWG]

Okay.

What about AVG's Anti-Zero bonus? IIRC it applies to some random fighter squadron at Pearl Harbor right now. I'd say it should either apply to AVG's 1st squadron OR AVG should be recombined in its old slot OR it should not apply to any air unit.

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: VSWG

Okay.

What about AVG's Anti-Zero bonus? IIRC it applies to some random fighter squadron at Pearl Harbor right now. I'd say it should either apply to AVG's 1st squadron OR AVG should be recombined in its old slot OR it should not apply to any air unit.

That slot can be used for float plane unit, like in RHS, IIRC.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: VSWG

Okay.

What about AVG's Anti-Zero bonus? IIRC it applies to some random fighter squadron at Pearl Harbor right now. I'd say it should either apply to AVG's 1st squadron OR AVG should be recombined in its old slot OR it should not apply to any air unit.

It looks to me like it currently applies to AVG 1st Squadron.

This seems to have been an unforseen ( at the time) problem with splitting the AVG into squadrons.

It can either be left that way, or the AVG can be recombined, which is probably more correct as it matches the design intent.

Andrew

[Halsey]

Leave it as is.
One sqdrn with the bonus is plenty.

That should keep the JFB's happy.[;)]