Page 4 of 4
RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1?
Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2015 11:37 am
by m10bob
If you look at that website I offered ref the Wakefield, Ranger, etc, you may see it also reveals the USS Vincennes was part of the escorting unit, whereas the game has that CA delayed till 2/42 IIRC, which is not accurate..
RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1?
Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2015 11:49 am
by m10bob
These are the ships of the convoy which were carrying reinforcements to Singapore.
Note several do not enter the game till 2/42, but were in fact very much in theater earlier than Pearl harbor and during!
THE FOLLOWING VESSELS MADE UP CONVOY WILLIAM SAIL 12X
Rear Admiral Arthur B. Cook, Commander in 'Ranger' SOAP-OTC-COM AIR LANT(a)
Aircraft Carriers 'Ranger' CV 4 Captain W K Harrill
Heavy Cruisers 'Quincy' CA 39 Captain C E Battle Jnr
'Vincennes' CA 44 Captain F L Riefkol
Troopships 'Mount Vernon' (1) AP 22 Captain D B Beary (b)
'Leonard Wood' AP 25 Commander H G Bradbury USCG
'Joseph T Dickman' AP 25 Commander C W Harwood USCG
'Orizaba' AP 24 Captain C Gulbranson
'Wakefield' (2) AP 21 Commander W K Scammel USCG
'West Point' (3) AP 23 Commander F H Kelly
Fleet Oiler 'Cimarron' AO 22 Commander H J Redfield
SCREEN: Screen Commander - Captain T C Kinaid (c) in 'Wainwright'
Destroyers 'Wainwright' DD 419 Lt Cdr T L Lewis
'Moffett' DD 362 Commander P R Heinman
'McDougal' DD 358 Commander D L Madeira
'Winslow' DD 359 Commander H R Holcomb
'Maryant' DD 402 Lt Cdr E A Taylor
'Rhind' DD 404 Commander H T Read
'Rowan' DD 405 Lt Cdr B R Harrison
'Trippe' DD 403 Lt Cdr R L Campbell
RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1?
Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2015 6:11 pm
by LargeSlowTarget
ORIGINAL: m10bob
I really appreciate the research you guys are doing..Adding quite a bit to my personal database...
+1
Threads like this are responsible for the fact that personal mods tend to stay "almost finished" eternaly - there is always someone who digs up something that merits to fire up the editor again. Thanks for sharing!
RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1?
Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2015 1:20 pm
by m10bob
Hello...The missing Bogue, Card and Core are not missing. They were either assigned to the Atlantic, or were only in the Pacific for a really short time at the end of the war, pretty much ferrying land planes back to the U.S. from the front.
Bogue was very successful in the Atlantic as a subkiller, and in fact DID sink a "Japanese" sub, but it was a former German U boat!..
It has a fascinating history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Bogue_%28CVE-9%29
RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1?
Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2015 10:31 am
by Buck Beach
A "so what" comment follows-
I served on the USS Cimarron (AO-22)for a short time in 1963. I left her Nov 22 and was in the Greyhound bus depot in Long Beach, waiting to go to San Diego to muster out, when they announced that President Kennedy had been shot in Dallas. I heard that he had died on the radio on the bus in transit.
That was 52 years ago when I was a week shy of 21. I turn 73 early next month.
Like I said "so what"!
Buck
RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1?
Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2015 11:02 am
by m10bob
Wow, Buck...We will always remember exactly where we were at that exact moment.
What a historically active ship!
RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1?
Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2015 11:16 am
by m10bob
ORIGINAL: Barb
and Errata for Destroyer Escorts:
Evarts GMT:
DE-25 Wintle - not in game
Buckley TE:
DE-636 Witter - should arrive as DE, in game arrives as APD
DE-637 Bowers - should arrive as DE, in game arrives as APD
(both ships were converted to APDs while in repairs after being hit by kamikaze)
Cannon DET: - not in game
DE-168 Amick
DE-171 Caroll
DE-172 Cooner
DE-176 Micka
DE-180 Trumpeter
DE-181 Straub
DE-182 Gustafson
DE-763 Cates
DE-765 Earl K.Olsen
DE-766 Slater
Edsall FMR: - not in game
DE-130 Jacob Jones
DE-131 Hammann
DE-132 Robert E.Peary
DE-138 Douglas L.Howard
DE-139 Farquhar
DE-141 Hill
DE-142 Fessenden
DE-144 Frost
DE-145 Huse
DE-148 Brough
DE-238 Stewart
DE-239 Sturtevant
DE-240 Moore
DE-241 Keith
DE-242 Tomich
DE-243 J.Richard Ward
DE-244 Otterseter
DE-245 Sloat
DE-246 Snowden
DE-247 Stanton
DE-248 Swasey
DE-252 Howard D.Crow
DE-255 Sellstrom
DE-329 Kretchmer
DE-335 Daniel
DE-336 Roy O.Hale
DE-337 Dale W.Peterson
DE-338 Martin H.Ray
DE-383 Mills
DE-385 Richey
DE-386 Savage
DE-387 Vance
DE-388 Lansing
DE-389 Durant
DE-390 Calcaterra
DE-391 Chambers
DE-392 Merrill
DE-394 Swenning
DE-395 Willis
DE-396 Janssen
DE-397 Willhoite
DE-398 Cockrill
Rudderow TEV:
(none)
John C.Butler WGT:
DE-360 Johnnie Hutchins - in game as "Hutchins"
DE-423 Duffilho - in game as "Duffilmo"
I checked all of these ships histories...All were assigned to Atlantic duty, and the few which made it to the Pacific did not get there till roughly August 1945.
Still appreciate your research......
I personally have now corrected the spelling errors you located..Thank you..
RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1?
Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2015 2:44 am
by Barb
Ships being transferred from Atlantic to Pacific (like Bogue and DEs, and others):
The game has a time frame up to june 1946-well with operation Downfall timeframe. All those ships transferred undertook heavy duty in Atlantic, undertook repairs and upgrades on the East coast before being sent to the Pacific in july/august 1945.
Why should they not be included in game if they could have helped in the planned Downfall. E.g. Bogue arrived at San Diego on 3rd july 1945. That is almost a year of possible game existence to mid 1946 in game. Why not have her if we have two Midway class carriers that were not even in Pacific in the time frame? I know the scenario designers pushed some things ahead to have them available should the war continue. So why not have also things that really available?
At least that was my reasoning in including these in the list that should have been in Pacific (was ship in commission in theathre between 7.12.1941 and 31.6.1946?).
Anyway, it is up to scenario designer to make his decisions. I got some data, made few "best guess" calculations, or took up data from the original scenario when no other option was available...
RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1?
Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2015 11:46 am
by m10bob
ORIGINAL: Barb
Ships being transferred from Atlantic to Pacific (like Bogue and DEs, and others):
The game has a time frame up to june 1946-well with operation Downfall timeframe. All those ships transferred undertook heavy duty in Atlantic, undertook repairs and upgrades on the East coast before being sent to the Pacific in july/august 1945.
Why should they not be included in game if they could have helped in the planned Downfall. E.g. Bogue arrived at San Diego on 3rd july 1945. That is almost a year of possible game existence to mid 1946 in game. Why not have her if we have two Midway class carriers that were not even in Pacific in the time frame? I know the scenario designers pushed some things ahead to have them available should the war continue. So why not have also things that really available?
At least that was my reasoning in including these in the list that should have been in Pacific (was ship in commission in theathre between 7.12.1941 and 31.6.1946?).
Anyway, it is up to scenario designer to make his decisions. I got some data, made few "best guess" calculations, or took up data from the original scenario when no other option was available...
You are correct!
I still appreciate your research and the correct ship class finds.
I am sure giving the editor a work out, LOL
RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1?
Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2015 2:21 pm
by Hotschi
Barb, please keep up your excellent research, that's all very useful info.
Some long time ago, I started an Excel-sheet, comparing the construction times of all war-built larger combattant vessels of the USN (down to destroyers, no DE's or submarines yet). I did it primarily because I wondered about all the mods available which add more or different IJN ships - thus giving the Japanese more punch. My thought was - and is - that if the Japanese were stronger, thus able to drag out the war, would the US have slowed down construction (as it did historically)? When you see it plain in a table, it's amazing how different the average construction times were near the end of the war, especially visible when looking at the Gearing-class destroyers.
That sheet isn't finished yet, and who knows when it will be finished... And mid-time into it I realized I forgot about the 29th February, so there's need to recalculate some values - if only I knew where and when I stopped that...