Matrix Games Forums

ML Prins Van Oranje was torprdoed South of Kendari by I-122. She has damage of 69/86/35 and will almost certainly not make port. A Dutch ASW force and and a US/UK ASW forces are racing to the atack hex in the hope of catching the sub - Mike seems to have got wiser and now moves them after an attack...

My bombers had no luck at Taan, destroyed a Nell at Johore Bharu, I lost an A-20 over Brunei and 55th Div suffered 19 casualties at Toungoo. Mike mounted three raids on Singapore, but his bombers mostly came in at 6000 ft. I believe this is because he also has them set for Naval Attack, but it caused heavier than normal flak losses: 6 Sallys, 3 Lilys and a Helen. Over Manila he lost a Helen. Singapore supllies: 93,480 tons. Manila supplies: 41,298 tons. Another smaller shock attack was launched at Singapore as another unit crossed the Strait (see screenie). The Japs loat 143/3 to my 23/1.

2 small B-25 raids on shipping off Cotabato were annihalated. I lost all 7 bombers and a Jap became an Ace. That Zeke unit is a real killer!

One more Albacore escaped from Davao. Hermes has disbanded at Kendari with damage 72/70/0. Indomitable has 33/29/0. Formidable and the rest of Force Z has disbanded at Soerabaya. 8th PS has joined the CAP over Batavia. TK Paula disbanded at Batavia with damage 99/87/2.





What's interesting about the above screenie is that only one of the tank units that was planning for Singapore is actually in hex.

Kaifeng AF is now size 4. Mike is still investing heavily in China. Long may it last, as it is all effort that should be going into offensives elsewhere...

He attacked Yenan, Nanchang, Honan, Wuchow and Sinyang. Next turn 2 I-16 squadrons will attempt an ambush at Yenan - more Claudes to be shot down...

Here is a screenie showing the Wellington versus my current main bomber. I think the Wellington lends itself to strategic bombing against lightly defended targets, but that low ceiling is a worry. The alternative is night bombing, but that tends to be useless. The Canadians will be using them for long range patrol. They will of course be committed to the wearing down of Mike's forces on jungle trails in Burma, preferably out of the range of Zekes.

I had no idea their range was that low. Is it correct or perhaps an error?

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I had no idea their range was that low. Is it correct or perhaps an error?

It's much closer than in stock or CHS, where they have a range of about 10 hexes. I am looking forward to being able to use them at proper ranges. I think the lower altitude accounts for the fact that the engines needed more power in this theatre.

I meant 'altitude' when I typed 'range', but you obviously figured that out! [:)]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I meant 'altitude' when I typed 'range', but you obviously figured that out! [:)]

I thought I'd try to cover both angles [:)]. In the ETO the ELINT Wellingtons operated up to 22,000 ft IIRC. The bombers had a ceiling of about 20,000 ft, but without being able to access my reference material at the moment I can't confirm that or whether that is clean or bombed up. I know that when they were organising Tiger Force they found the later Halifax bombers with air cooled rotary engines had better performance in this theatre than the Merlin engined Lancaster. The decision to standardise on the Lanc had already been taken though.

The Wimpey should make a good ship killer as under our evolved house rules they can come in at 6,000 ft!

12/03/42

Loads of Kates and Vals were reported at Kwajalein by my subs again. S-45 endured many attacks and was hit once. She has laid her mines and is running for Johnston with damage 40/69/0.

Christmas Island is now 58/58/19. The poor PBYs based there are down to 14 morale points and have had to be stood down. 1 10,000 ton 12 kt TK is loading Oil for Australia at San Diego. I have noticed there is 540,000 tons of oil at Colon, so 22 more TKs are sailing there from San Francisco. I have upgraded a few more West Coast based B-18 units to the A-20, just to get the crews in a more useful plane. My cruisers and destroyers from Panama and Colon are cruising to San Francisco.

3,500 tons of oils has arrived at Geelong from Perth. 2,000 tons of fuel from Perth arrived at Darwin. Perth received 3,000 much needed tons of supllies from Capetown. In another week I should finally be on top of Perth's supply requirements.

8th, 12th, 35th and 36th PS (all P-39), 8th BS (A-24), 70th, 71st BS (both B-26) and 434th BS (B-25) and 60,000 tons of supplies are unloading at Brisbane. 9th PS flew from Darwin to Koepang.

A Nell from Legaspi or Cotabato attacked S-36, but she was not hit. TK Paula and ML Prins Van Oranje have sunk.

My attack on Johore Bharu destroyed a Lily and a Nell on the ground. At Brunei my B-17s scored another oil hit, taking damaged centres to 118. At Toungoo 55th Div took 51/1 casualties from my various raids by Blenheim light bombers.

The Japs raided Singapore (3 times), Tarakan and Davao. Coming in at 6,000 ft at Singapore was costly again with 3 Sallys, 9 Lilys, 2 Marys and a Helen shot down. Manila: 42,271 tons. Singapore: 93,011 tons.

I got one more Albacore out of Davao. Hermes is now 72/68/0, with Indomitable 33/17/0. The DDs that will need to escort Indomitable to Aden are chasing a sub contact moving Eastwards. I have changed 45th Pp Scouts at Manila to SWPAC to allow a small cadre to be evacuated. SS Grenadier will temporarily suspend transport ops to lay the remaining mines at Manila off the Jap landing areas. The Dutch C-60A squadron at Batavia has moved to SEAC and is being evacuated to Madras. 3,500 tons of fuel from Aden arrived at Colombo.

In a couple of days my Naval forces in the region will get a massive boost. HMS Lion is an enlarged KGV with 16 inch guns!

Over Yenan I lost an I-16 in exchange for 3 Claudes and a Mary. My crack Lancer squadron will rejoin this battle tomorrow.

The Japs also attacked Nanchang, Honan, Sinyang and Wuchow. 4 Sonias fell to flak at Wuchow. At Sinyang ass the units I was withdrawing into reserve had stalled at 59 miles. I have reset them with orders to move 1 hex only.

The Japs are advancing from Canton.

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

Over Yenan I lost an I-16 in exchange for 3 Claudes and a Mary. My crack Lancer squadron will rejoin this battle tomorrow.

The Japs also attacked Nanchang, Honan, Sinyang and Wuchow. 4 Sonias fell to flak at Wuchow. At Sinyang ass the units I was withdrawing into reserve had stalled at 59 miles. I have reset them with orders to move 1 hex only.

The Japs are advancing from Canton.

Damn Carl, It looks as if the Chinese are everywhere ...... Glad I'm not in that situation ...... yet ......

ORIGINAL: scout1

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

Over Yenan I lost an I-16 in exchange for 3 Claudes and a Mary. My crack Lancer squadron will rejoin this battle tomorrow.

The Japs also attacked Nanchang, Honan, Sinyang and Wuchow. 4 Sonias fell to flak at Wuchow. At Sinyang ass the units I was withdrawing into reserve had stalled at 59 miles. I have reset them with orders to move 1 hex only.

The Japs are advancing from Canton.

Damn Carl, It looks as if the Chinese are everywhere ...... Glad I'm not in that situation ...... yet ......

Hi Scott

Although I am a little short on supplies in China at the moment in this mod, I keep making a nuisance of myself. I want him to commit forces here. It's a sponge that will drain his blood. I have been quite successful in the air here, with an attendant effect on his aircraft pools/production. In our games I think China is pretty stalemated...

My understanding is that some of the underpowered planes in the ETO ( a lot of British heavy bombers were underpowered in my book ) had significant drop-offs in performance when transferred to the PTO and didn't achieve their ETO figures in the PTO. Am I 100% sure of the figures? No, as always there is a bit of guesswork in there too.

Any idea why the drop-off in performance from one theater to another?

Well a plane's ceiling is a factor of wing loading, wing area and all of those aerodynamics PLUS atmospheric conditions. I'm no flight dynamics physicist but even today planes can suffer from different flight characteristics in deserts etc than in the nice, cold, damp ETO.
 
I have read of US choppers in Vietnam sometimes going up with only half loads in their rocket pods as the weather conditions were too averse for full pods etc to be safe. I've heard of some similar ( although lesser ) problems in Afghanistan nowadays and I also heard of this as an issue for underpowered planes over the heat of India and Burma etc.
 
I have a basic idea of some of the reasons why from some explanations contained in the discussion about choppers in Vietnam but that was a while ago and I think a garbled explanation from me would only confuse things further. I'm sure some current or ex-pilot here will have an answer far superior to my garbled version in a few hours [8D]
 

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

I'm sure some current or ex-pilot here will have an answer far superior to my garbled version in a few hours [8D]

I am not so sure - I think there are only about 10 readers.

Even some modern aircraft struggle with hot and high conditions.

Ok well, simply put, planes are supported by the flow of air over their wings. There's lower presure above ( as the air has to pass over that more quickly due to the design of the wing ) the wing than below and thus the wing generate "lift".
 
If we imagine that a plane is also "supported" by the air below it then the higher we BEGIN the flight the less "support" that thinner air can actually give. Also the hotter the air the less support it gives. I think of it ( incorrectly I'm certain but it serves as a rule of thumb ) that the hotter the air the "less dense" it is and thus the less weight it can support for a given wing area.

This would effect all planes but some ( the underpowered ones yet heavy ones ) would be effected more than others.

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Ok well, simply put, planes are supported by the flow of air over their wings. There's lower presure above ( as the air has to pass over that more quickly due to the design of the wing ) the wing than below and thus the wing generate "lift".

If we imagine that a plane is also "supported" by the air below it then the higher we BEGIN the flight the less "support" that thinner air can actually give. Also the hotter the air the less support it gives. I think of it ( incorrectly I'm certain but it serves as a rule of thumb ) that the hotter the air the "less dense" it is and thus the less weight it can support for a given wing area.

This would effect all planes but some ( the underpowered ones yet heavy ones ) would be effected more than others.

That's it in a nutshell. The other factor to consider is that as hotter air is less dense, there is less oxygen for combustion which will limit the power of engines in these conditions.

I understand that being the difference at ground level, but once up to a certain altitude the temperature drops significantly. Knowing the little that I do about how airplanes work I would expect a max load reduction (must get it off the ground!) but I'm surprised by a ceiling reduction.

Which is different than contending that the figures are wrong. I'm surprised and therefore curious as to the root cause.

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I understand that being the difference at ground level, but once up to a certain altitude the temperature drops significantly. Knowing the little that I do about how airplanes work I would expect a max load reduction (must get it off the ground!) but I'm surprised by a ceiling reduction.

Which is different than contending that the figures are wrong. I'm surprised and therefore curious as to the root cause.

As you climb higher the air density drops away as well, hence the need for oxygen or pressurisation in aircraft, to a degree this is offset by the temperature also falling. If your staring density is low, then everything else after that is going to be lower than it would in a colder climate. The density/temperature relationship doesn't stabilise and become constant until far above the height that most ww2 aircraft could manage (30,000' sounds sort of familiar). Up to this point performance would be degraded due to the air being thinner than the area it was intended for the aircraft to operate. In theory, if the aircraft could make it to 30,000'+ then the performnce in the PTO would be the same as the performance in the ETO above this height. The problem is that getting to that height would require more effort from the engine with increased streeses and fuel consumption.
I'm nost to sure of the exact figures anymore, I learnt this stuff 4-5 years ago and haven't needed it since. Learn and Dump [:D]

Pretty much the same here (learn and dump)! I was pretty sure things became (a little more) uniform at a certain altitude, but was uncertain what altitude that was. 30,000' or thereabouts certainly explains the problem. Thanks!