Page 3 of 3
RE: Denerfing US Aircraft production
Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 7:16 pm
by vettim89
ORIGINAL: treespider
Another "issue" for Japanese Industry is the "all or nothing" effect...in other words an industrial center will produce nothing unless it can be fully funded with resources...
One idea that could be tested (and may have already been) would be to break up the largish industrial centers into smaller centers...to alleviate the "all or nothing" effect...
Would the code tolerate having more than on LI center in a hex? or would you need to move it into adjacent hexes?
RE: Denerfing US Aircraft production
Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 8:28 pm
by wyrmmy
Spreading the LI around might make a better representation of the 'cottage' nature of much of the Japanese subcontractors. Kaigun and Sunburst have much to say on the legally mandated subcontracting in Japanese industry.
RE: Denerfing US Aircraft production
Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 10:42 pm
by Bradley7735
ORIGINAL: wyrmm
Spreading the LI around might make a better representation of the 'cottage' nature of much of the Japanese subcontractors. Kaigun and Sunburst have much to say on the legally mandated subcontracting in Japanese industry.
fixing one thing, breaking another. Strategic bombing of one lump of 100 LI is much easier than bombing 10 lumps of 10 LI. Japan could also repair that damage in 10 turns, instead of 100 (with a huge amount of supply, though.)
RE: Denerfing US Aircraft production
Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 6:20 am
by chesmart
It is very difficult to damage Li in AE. IIRC 1000 bombers damage 30-40 LI. If it was HI it would be in the 100-150 region. I used a mixture of B-29s and B-24s and was playing pre patch 3.
RE: Denerfing US Aircraft production
Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 12:09 pm
by treespider
ORIGINAL: vettim89
ORIGINAL: treespider
Another "issue" for Japanese Industry is the "all or nothing" effect...in other words an industrial center will produce nothing unless it can be fully funded with resources...
One idea that could be tested (and may have already been) would be to break up the largish industrial centers into smaller centers...to alleviate the "all or nothing" effect...
Would the code tolerate having more than on LI center in a hex?
Not sure...which is why I suggested testing would be needed..
or would you need to move it into adjacent hexes?
That would be an alternative although IIRC most bases in Japan have IC's
RE: Denerfing US Aircraft production
Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 7:46 pm
by spence
The thread's title indicates that there may be something wrong with USN aircraft production. Put your discussions of the Japanese Player's fantasies in a different thread if you please.
IRL the USN fielded their carriers throughout 1942 with something approximating the full strength of SBD-3/4s on every one of their carriers and in addition equiped several CVEs with SBD-3/4s AND equiped a large number of USMC squadrons with SBD-3/4s. This does not/can not happen in WitP: AE unless the USN Player never commits his carriers to combat against the IJN in 1942. I for one have a problem with this situation.
The date I have read for the commencement of SBD-3 production is March 1941. The present in game date for the beginning of SBD-5 production is April 1943.
The game accounts for the SBD-4, of which some 780 were produced, by including it in the SBD-3 production. The total of over 1300 SBD3/4s produced between 3/41 and 3/43 represents a production of over 50 a month.
7 carriers carrying 36 SBD-3/4s accounts for somewhat over 250 airframes. A half dozen CVEs which equiped with SBDs (before switching to TBFs) accounts for another 60 or so. The USAAF accounts for nearly 500 but I think they gave some back to the Navy which ended up in the Marines or with the New Zealanders. There are around 500 other SBD-3/4 airframes unaccounted for. The shore establishment in the Atlantic Theater did not end up with many of them. The rest should be in the game as USN replacements.
RE: Denerfing US Aircraft production
Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 8:49 pm
by treespider
ORIGINAL: spence
The thread's title indicates that there may be something wrong with USN aircraft production. Put your discussions of the Japanese Player's fantasies in a different thread if you please.
Didn't notice when you became a mod...why not take your tone to a different thread...if you please.
If you would read, I suggested several posts earlier that the discussion of Japanese Industry would probably be better served in a different thread...however several of the posters here felt that the discussion deserved to be continued.
RE: Denerfing US Aircraft production
Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 9:09 pm
by vettim89
ORIGINAL: treespider
ORIGINAL: spence
The thread's title indicates that there may be something wrong with USN aircraft production. Put your discussions of the Japanese Player's fantasies in a different thread if you please.
Didn't notice when you became a mod...why not take your tone to a different thread...if you please.
If you would read, I suggested several posts earlier that the discussion of Japanese Industry would probably be better served in a different thread...however several of the posters here felt that the discussion deserved to be continued.
In fairness to Spence, the thread started about F4F-4 production and about half way down page one, we drifted off into Japanese aircraft production. SO if you were just scanning the forums, the title of the thread is a bit misleading. After thoroughly researching the F4F-4 numbers I think the game accounts for nearly every one of the buggers that made it to the PTO. Problem is so many of them are bound to CV/CVL/CVE that arrive with full air groups as reinforcements. So the Allied player is denied access to a big chunk of the -4's as they arrive near the end of the production cycle on ships. My solution is to increase production and lower those air groups to minimal strength. That way if the war has gone well and the pools are full, the air groups can be filled out. If the situation is desperate, the Allied player will not be force to give up 22 F4F-4 that arrive on the Indepence the same month F6F-3 production starts.
Was going to work on SBD's but got sidetracked with China. But the is another thread topic
RE: Denerfing US Aircraft production
Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 9:36 pm
by spence
I apologize for my Japanese fantasies comment.
The real point of the post was that somewhere around 500 SBD-3/4s are not accounted for by either the CV airgroups, the Atlantic carriers, or Army A-24s and there has been no evidence presented that they all ended up flying out of Floyd Bennett, Quonset or Argentia. Since the USN kept its air groups up to strength in the Pacific and the Marines simultaneously equipped their VMSB squadrons with SBDs it would seem that the game is imposing an unrealistic and unhistorical operational constraint on the USN player. With the current production a even victorious battle such as Midway, given the historical losses of SBDs in that fight, would put the USN out of business for 6 months unless they chose (can they even do this?) to use Helldivers and Vindicators to fill up their Scout and Bombing squadrons.
RE: Denerfing US Aircraft production
Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 10:05 pm
by wyrmmy
Unfortunately most squadrons once upgraded to SBD-3 cannot downgrade in scenario 1.
RE: Denerfing US Aircraft production
Posted: Thu May 27, 2010 9:25 am
by spence
As posted in another thread by Don Bowen it would seem that the following link could set to rest most arguments re the allocation of all USN aircraft to the PTO.
http://www.history.navy.mil/a-record/ww ... loc-ac.htm
For instance, even at the time of Torch it looks like there were less than 50 SBD-3/4s in the entire ETO and that all the rest of SBD-3/4 production to that point was deployed in the Pacific.
RE: Denerfing US Aircraft production
Posted: Fri May 28, 2010 11:09 am
by timtom
However a closer reading of the data suggests a more complicated picture. Nor does it appear to bear out the assertion that "the USN kept its air groups up to strength in the Pacific and the Marines simultaneously equipped their VMSB squadrons with SBD".
The PacFleet returns for 5/11/42 were as follows:
VB-3 16xSBD-3
VS-3 5xSBD-3
VB-6 6xSBD
VS-6 17xSBD-3
VB-8 13xSBD-3
VS-8 17xSBD-3
VB-10 18xSBD
VS-10 18xSBD
VB-11 16xSBD
VS-11 17xSBD
VB-12 6xSBD
VS-12 6xSBD
VS-71 4xSBD-3
VS-72 None
= 88 SBD, 72 SBD-3 (160 a/c vs TO/E of 252 a/c)
MAG-24 HS 2xSBD-3
VMSB-131 18xSB2U-3
VMSB-132 11xSBD-1
VMSB-142 10xSBD
VMSB-141 14xSBD-3
VMSB-143 6xSBD-3, 2xSBD-4
VMSB-144 10xSBD-3
VMSB-151 7xSBC-4
VMO-155 9xSBC-4
VMSB-233 12xSBD-1
VMSB-234 10xSBD-1
VMSB-241 19xSBD-2
VMSB-243 9xSB2U-3
VMSB-244 11xSB2U-3
= 10 SBD, 33 SBD-1, 19 SBD-2, 32 SBD-3, 2 SBD-4, 38 SB2U-3, 16 SBC-4 (148 a/c vs TO/E 234 a/c excl. MAG-24 HS; SBD, -3, -4 only 44 a/c vs TO/E 72 a/c)
ie 98 SBD, 104 SBD-3, 2 SBD-4 for 204 a/c presuming all "SBD" were -3's or -4's. We don't know how many, if any, were with ATCG PAC or CASU's 1 through 6, but it seems a reasonable presumation that the sum was greater than zero.
This suggests that neither the USN or the USMC were hip-deep in SBD's as of the date above - in fact both were more than 33% understrength, in spite of the relatively limited scope of operations undertaken in '42, and in spite of 70% of USMC a/c being older types.
RE: Denerfing US Aircraft production
Posted: Fri May 28, 2010 2:31 pm
by Nikademus
TimTom's done his homework. [:)]
RE: Denerfing US Aircraft production
Posted: Fri May 28, 2010 3:36 pm
by wdolson
ORIGINAL: timtom
However a closer reading of the data suggests a more complicated picture. Nor does it appear to bear out the assertion that "the USN kept its air groups up to strength in the Pacific and the Marines simultaneously equipped their VMSB squadrons with SBD".
The PacFleet returns for 5/11/42 were as follows:
VB-3 16xSBD-3
VS-3 5xSBD-3
VB-6 6xSBD
VS-6 17xSBD-3
VB-8 13xSBD-3
VS-8 17xSBD-3
VB-10 18xSBD
VS-10 18xSBD
VB-11 16xSBD
VS-11 17xSBD
VB-12 6xSBD
VS-12 6xSBD
VS-71 4xSBD-3
VS-72 None
= 88 SBD, 72 SBD-3 (160 a/c vs TO/E of 252 a/c)
MAG-24 HS 2xSBD-3
VMSB-131 18xSB2U-3
VMSB-132 11xSBD-1
VMSB-142 10xSBD
VMSB-141 14xSBD-3
VMSB-143 6xSBD-3, 2xSBD-4
VMSB-144 10xSBD-3
VMSB-151 7xSBC-4
VMO-155 9xSBC-4
VMSB-233 12xSBD-1
VMSB-234 10xSBD-1
VMSB-241 19xSBD-2
VMSB-243 9xSB2U-3
VMSB-244 11xSB2U-3
= 10 SBD, 33 SBD-1, 19 SBD-2, 32 SBD-3, 2 SBD-4, 38 SB2U-3, 16 SBC-4 (148 a/c vs TO/E 234 a/c excl. MAG-24 HS; SBD, -3, -4 only 44 a/c vs TO/E 72 a/c)
ie 98 SBD, 104 SBD-3, 2 SBD-4 for 204 a/c presuming all "SBD" were -3's or -4's. We don't know how many, if any, were with ATCG PAC or CASU's 1 through 6, but it seems a reasonable presumation that the sum was greater than zero.
This suggests that neither the USN or the USMC were hip-deep in SBD's as of the date above - in fact both were more than 33% understrength, in spite of the relatively limited scope of operations undertaken in '42, and in spite of 70% of USMC a/c being older types.
Is this May 11 or November 5? I'm assuming November. It makes sense that the numbers would be this way. The Marines were getting priority for aircraft at that point because the navy had no fully operational carriers. The Saratoga nearing the end of her repairs from torpedo damage and the Enterprise was badly damaged but was kept operational because there was nothing else.
Some navy squadrons had been fed into the Guadalcanal meat grinder and been used up. VT-8 was the last USN squadron evacuated. At the end they were operating with a couple of Frankenstein monster aircraft cobbled together from parts. When the first USMC torpedo squadron arrived, they were supposed to take over any remaining TBFs on the island. They took one look at VT-8's remaining aircraft and grounded them permanently.
Earlier in the year when the USMC had few critical spots to defend (Midway was the only one between Wake and Guadalcanal) and the USN had many operational carriers, the USN got priority for aircraft and the Marines got the scraps. At time of Midway, most of the SBDs in Marine hands were -1s and -2s because the USN was flying most of the available -3s.
I wonder why air groups 10, 11, and 12 are listed, but not air group 9, which was working up to deploy on the Essex.
Bill
RE: Denerfing US Aircraft production
Posted: Sat May 29, 2010 10:12 am
by spence
No matter how you slice it, by examining the SBDs of all models in the Atlantic Fleet at different dates in the link you can see one thing very clearly and that is that relatively few SBDs of any model (prior to SBD-5) were assigned to the Atlantic Fleet ship or shore establishment at any time: less than 50 even for "Torch". The fighting was in the Pacific for the SBD and the losses were in the Pacific and that is where the overwhelming majority were sent. 1364 SBD-3/4s were produced between March of 1941 and April of 1943 and that comes out at around 50 a month. The Atlantic Fleet got a max total of around 10% of the production.
RE: Denerfing US Aircraft production
Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 10:44 am
by timtom
Bill - November - in response to Spence.
The question is less how many SBD's went to the Atlantic than how many went to the Pacific. I wouldn't necesarily agree than we can make the presumption that an absence of SBD's in the Atlantic means that they must then be in the Pacific. Not least because this prediction isn't borne out by the same source suggesting the Atlantic absence. As I've stated a few times, before, without knowing the losses in some detail the LOC date can only take us so far and we're still left with having to hypothesise.
RE: Denerfing US Aircraft production
Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 11:30 pm
by wdolson
ORIGINAL: timtom
Bill - November - in response to Spence.
The question is less how many SBD's went to the Atlantic than how many went to the Pacific. I wouldn't necesarily agree than we can make the presumption that an absence of SBD's in the Atlantic means that they must then be in the Pacific. Not least because this prediction isn't borne out by the same source suggesting the Atlantic absence. As I've stated a few times, before, without knowing the losses in some detail the LOC date can only take us so far and we're still left with having to hypothesise.
Later in the war new aircraft were kept in the states for training, but I can't think of a single example where units in the field were short of aircraft because new airframes were being held back for training. A number of -3s and -4s have been recovered from Lake Michigan where they were lost on training missions, but the loss dates were all after newer versions were available.
Some new aircraft were kept stateside because of quality problems. All Brewster F3A Corsairs were retained for training because they were so poorly built that the Navy wouldn't certify them for combat.
I think from patterns of deployment doctrine, the newest SBDs that were not in the Atlantic were almost all in the Pacific or in work up to go to the Pacific. I think the training in type was mostly done with airframes retired from combat.
Bill
RE: Denerfing US Aircraft production
Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 9:47 am
by treespider
Just to cover all of the different threads about this topic...
SBD-3 & SBD-4 LOSSES
EAST COAST THROUGH JUNE 1943
TOTAL = 44
Code: Select all
410621 SBD-3 4556 VA
410806 VS-5 SBD-3 4551 WHITEHURST FIELD VA
411103 VS-5 SBD-3 4635 LITTLE CREEK VA
420507 VC-24 SBD-4 10754 AT SEA NY
420929 VGS-29 SBD-3 6560 ELIZABETH CITY NC
421125 FERRY SBD-4 6811 ATLANTA NRAB GA
421215 VGS-28 SBD-4 6681 FENTRESS FIELD VA
421229 VS-22 SBD-4 6881 CREEDS FIELD NAAS VA
430102 FERRY SBD-4 6906 NEW CANAAN CT
430112 VB-16 SBD-4 6925 PROVIDENCE RI
430204 VSB#3 SBD-3P 6608 DAYTONA BEACH NAS FL
430208 VS-9 SBD-4 10449 NORFOLK NAS VA
430210 VS-23 SBD-3 6878 PARRIS ISLAND MCAS NC
430212 UNKNOWN SBD-4 6858 PARRIS ISLAND MCAS NC
430222 VS-9 SBD-4 10455 NORFOLK COUNTY VA
430226 VS-16 SBD-4 6874 COCKEYSVILLE MD
430313 VB-23 SBD-4 10516 WAKEFIELD RI
430318 UNKNOWN SBD-4 10676 LITTLE CREEK VA
430325 VC-24 SBD-4 10528 BROOKLYN NAS NY
430329 VSB#3 SBD-4 10366 DAYTONA BEACH NAS FL
430329 VSB#3 SBD-4 10370 DAYTONA BEACH NAS FL
430330 VB-42 SBD-4 6826 SWAMPSCOTT MA
430408 VMSB-341 SBD-4 10675 HOG ISLAND NC
430413 CQTU/G SBD-4 6932 LAKE MICHIGAN IL
430414 CQTU/G SBD-4 6976 LAKE MICHIGAN IL
430422 VSB#3 SBD-4 10374 ORMOND BEACH FL
430424 OTU#1 SBD-4 10721 MILEBRANCH FL
430427 VSB#3 SBD-4 10493 DAYTONA BEACH NAS FL
430428 VB-23 SBD-4 6873 USS LEXINGTON MD
430502 OTU#1 SBD-4 10720 FOREMOST FIELD FL
430512 OTU#1 SBD-4 10706 CECIL FIELD FL
430514 OTU#1 SBD-4 10726 CUMMER FIELD FL
430519 VSB#3 SBD-4 10492 ORMOND BEACH FL
430520 VC-24 SBD-4 10563 WILDWOOD AT SEA NJ
430520 OTU#1 SBD-4 10703 LAWTEY FL
430523 VSB#3 SBD-4 10499 BANANA RIVER NAS FL
430525 OTU#1 SBD-4 10727 CECIL FIELD FL
430525 VC-24 SBD-4 10788 CHESEPEAKE BAY MD
430609 CQTU/G SBD-3 4541 HALFDAY FIELD IL
430610 VB-27 SBD-4 6548 CREEDS FIELD NAAS VA
430619 VSB#3 SBD-4 10363 DAYTONA BEACH NAS FL
430620 FERRY SBD-4 6729 MIDLAND AAF TX
430622 OTU#4 SBD-4 10709 CECIL FIELD FL
430623 VSB#3 SBD-3 6493 DAYTONA BEACH NAS FL
TOTAL = 17
Code: Select all
430701 OTU#1 SBD-3 12305 LEE FIELD FL
440501 OTU#4 SBD-4 10770 HERLONG FIELD FL
440511 OTU#4 SBD-4 6903 HERLONG FIELD FL
440511 VMB-612 SBD-4 9697 PETER FIELD NC
440512 OTU#4 SBD-3 28089 CECIL FIELD FL
440512 VD-2 SBD-3 10441 SUFFOLK AAF VA
440513 OTU#1 SBD-4 10711 BRANAN FIELD FL
440514 CQTU/G SBD-4 10577 DOUGLAS AIRPORT IL
440515 OTU#1 SBD-4 10573 BRANAN FIELD FL
440515 OTU#1 SBD-4 10799 HERLONG FIELD FL
440517 OTU#1 SBD-4 10705 BLACK CREEK FL
440517 OTU#4 SBD-4 10712 CECIL FIELD FL
440528 CQTU/G SBD-4 10694 USS SABLE IL
440606 OTU#4 SBD-4 6905 CECIL FIELD FL
440611 OTU#1 SBD-4 10425 BRANAN FIELD FL
440618 OTU#4 SBD-4 10571 BRANAN FIELD FL
440628 CQTU/G SBD-4 10603 DOUGLAS AIRPORT IL
TOTAL = 40
Code: Select all
411004 ACTG/P SBD-3 4621 SAN DIEGO BAY CA
411106 VB-3 SBD-3 4601 BORDER FIELD CA
411110 ACTG/P SBD-3 4653 BORDER FIELD CA
420319 VS-3 SBD-3 4583 SAN DIEGO NAS CA
420328 VS-8 SBD-3 3195 OTAY MESA NAS CA
420430 VS-3 SBD-3 3214 OTAY MESA NAS CA
420506 ACTG/P SBD-3 3252 JAMUL CA
420511 ACTG/P SBD-3 3260 OTAY MESA NAS CA
420515 ACTG/P SBD-3 3258 REAM FIELD CA
420520 ACTG/P SBD-3 3262 OTAY MESA NAS CA
420612 ACTG/P SBD-3 3272 SAN DIEGO NAS CA
420616 VB-3 SBD-3 3283 FORD ISLAND CA
420617 ACTG/P SBD-3 3271 REAM FIELD CA
420715 VMSB-142 SBD-3 3267 MIRAMAR NAS CA
420813 VMSB-141 SBD-3 3269 RANCHO SANTE FE CA
420815 VS-72 SBD-3 3362 PACIFIC COAST CA
420819 ACTG/P SBD-3 4605 KEARNEY FIELD CA
420825 CASU-5 SBD-3 3358 MIRAMAR NAS CA
420827 BMDAG-42 SBD-3 6613 SANTA BARBARA MCAS CA
421109 VMSB-243 SBD-4 6757 SANTA BARBARA MCAS CA
421120 VMSB-244 SBD-4 6734 SANTA BARBARA MCAS CA
421120 VS-12 SBD-4 6719 SAN DIEGO NAS CA
421120 VS-12 SBD-4 6739 SAN DIEGO NAS CA
421215 CASU-5 SBD-4 6797 MIRAMAR NAS CA
421226 ACTG/P SBD-3 4587 POINT LOMA CA
430111 CQTU/P SBD-4 6977 REAM FIELD CA
430112 VS-3 SBD-4 10329 EL CENTRO MCAS CA
430114 CQTU/P SBD-4 6932 USS LONG ISLAND CA
430201 VS-12 SBD-4 6916 POINT LOMA CA
430202 VMSB-235 SBD-4 10394 EL CENTRO MCAS CA
430210 VB-12 SBD-4P 6724 SAN DIEGO NAS CA
430213 VMSB-235 SBD-4 6664 EL CENTRO MCAS CA
430217 VMSB-232 SBD-3 6534 EL TORO MCAS CA
430313 FERRY SBD-4 6854 BAKERSFIELD CA
430313 FERRY SBD-4 6921 TEHACHAPI CA
430318 VMSB-236 SBD-4 10533 MOJAVE MCAS CA
430414 VC-34 SBD-4 10701 WHIDBEY ISLAND NAS WA
430522 VB-8 SBD-4 6942 ALEMEDA NAS CA
430611 VMSB-243 SBD-4 6712 PALMYRA NAS CA
430630 VMTB-134 SBD-3 6600 SANTA BARBARA MCAS CA
(Note some of these are duplicate entries of the EAST and West Coast Losses)
TOTAL=27
Code: Select all
411004 ACTG/P SBD-3 4621 SAN DIEGO BAY CA
411110 ACTG/P SBD-3 4653 BORDER FIELD CA
420506 ACTG/P SBD-3 3252 JAMUL CA
420511 ACTG/P SBD-3 3260 OTAY MESA NAS CA
420515 ACTG/P SBD-3 3258 REAM FIELD CA
420520 ACTG/P SBD-3 3262 OTAY MESA NAS CA
420612 ACTG/P SBD-3 3272 SAN DIEGO NAS CA
420617 ACTG/P SBD-3 3271 REAM FIELD CA
420819 ACTG/P SBD-3 4605 KEARNEY FIELD CA
420825 CASU-5 SBD-3 3358 MIRAMAR NAS CA
421125 FERRY SBD-4 6811 ATLANTA NRAB GA
421215 CASU-5 SBD-4 6797 MIRAMAR NAS CA
421226 ACTG/P SBD-3 4587 POINT LOMA CA
430102 FERRY SBD-4 6906 NEW CANAAN CT
430111 CQTU/P SBD-4 6977 REAM FIELD CA
430114 CQTU/P SBD-4 6932 USS LONG ISLAND CA
430313 FERRY SBD-4 6854 BAKERSFIELD CA
430313 FERRY SBD-4 6921 TEHACHAPI CA
430413 CQTU/G SBD-4 6932 LAKE MICHIGAN IL
430414 CQTU/G SBD-4 6976 LAKE MICHIGAN IL
430609 CQTU/G SBD-3 4541 HALFDAY FIELD IL
430620 FERRY SBD-4 6729 MIDLAND AAF TX
430630 CASU-2 SBD-4 6934 BARBAR'S POINT NAS HA
440514 CQTU/G SBD-4 10577 DOUGLAS AIRPORT IL
440528 CQTU/G SBD-4 10694 USS SABLE IL
440608 CASU-10 SBD-4 10411 ESPIRITU
440628 CQTU/G SBD-4 10603 DOUGLAS AIRPORT IL
SO the question remains how many additional aircraft were assigned to CASU, ACTG and CQTU's units that were not lost...which are not represented in the aforementioned LOCATION SUMMARIES