Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

None of the Rufe Groups in Scen 15 Database have a Maximum Aircraft Number Assigned. I assume it should be 9. They are currently set at 0.

According to the Editor manual, if the Max setting is 0, then the value will be determine by the unit's Group Class (page 25)

I would suggest that the SB2U Vindicator be representative of the SB2U-3 as it is only used by the Marines. This model was developed for the U.S. Marine Corps which needed a dive bomber with longer range. A contract was signed on 29 September 1939 for 57 aircraft. The aircraft made its first flight on 10 January 1941 and deliveries to operations squadrons began in March 1941. The main difference is a longer range and the MGs are .50 and not .30. The version in the game mimics the -1 and -2 versions which were used by carriers. The specifications should be IMHO:

MS=243
CS=143
MA=23600
Climb=1070
Armor=1
End=470
Mx Ld=1000
Gun Value=6

Thank you for your consideration.

Sources : Donald, American Warplanes of WWII; Weale, Combat Aircraft of WWII and http://www.microworks.net/pacific/aviat ... icator.htm

First Kudos to Pry and Rich for the extensive oob corrections in 1.3 Excellent work guys.

Just a few things I have noticed that might be worth considering for 1.4

1) VSMB 231 (Vindacaters) should start the game on turn one aboard the Lex. Its the reason the Lex was heading to Midway in the first place. It currently arrives at PH in June 42 IIRC.

2) All the initial Sopac garrison fighter squadrons are missing from the oob. Specifically 67th FS (New Cal) 68th FS (Tonga) 70th FS (Fiji).

The 70th FS should be embarked one day out from SF on turn one or at least start the game at SF equiped with P-36s (upgrade to P-39s).

The 67th FS should arrive equiped with P-400s, the same time and at the same location as the Americal Division since it was historically embarked with the same convoy from the east coast.

The 68th FS should arrive at SF in Mid January equiped with P-40E.

Now the tricky part is these three independent squadrons were combined to form the 347th FG in October 1942. The 347th is in the game arriveing on Oct 42. IMHO since these squadrons actually were deployed in theater almost a year prior to the acitvation of the 347th and since each squadron was historically equiped with 3 different aircraft, it would preferable to remove the 347th from the oob and replace with the 3 independent squadrons.

(Source) USAAF in WWII

Thankyou for your consideration

The 70th British Division in Scenerio 15 does not have an arrival date. Listed as 9999 in the database. I believe it arrived in theater in May 42 to garrison Ceylon.

Regards

Maybe already on the list, but could not find in this thread:

Please revise japanese plane upgrade paths. Especially Oscar II should not be a final upgrade. It is not that hard in real life to convert from one fighter to another, so all aircraft should be able to upgrade to a later design (meaning 44-45 design, instead of 42).

From my problem with air leaders being in command of ships. I noticed 2 OOB things but there maybe several more in Ver1.3 Scen15.
EW Grenfell (12065) arrival date 420201 should be 411206 or 411207 as SS Gudgeon is at start sub.
AK Sipora has RADM in charge J van Staveren (19075), should his rank be changed or another random leader placed in charge & his arrival date is 420301 should it be 411206 or 411207.

Japanese CL - Oi Kitakami class has 20 type Torpedoes

ORIGINAL: pad152

Japanese CL - Oi Kitakami class has 20 type Torpedoes

it's a correct !

special cruiser for a night attacks

excerpt from http://www.combinedfleet.com/kitakami_t.htm

30 September 1941:
Sasebo. The modifications are completed, but only ten sets of Type 92 Model 3 quadruple mounts (shielded) were available for installation, a total of 40 tubes. The TT are arranged in two broadside rows of five, i.e. 20 per side.

Arkady

there are duplicates for 33rd Ftr.Sentai

see database entry for airgroups (scen #15) 75 and 192

Arkady

Ship number 7378 Ogalala is misspelled, should be Oglala.

In Scen 15: Class 501 (Yamato) has no 5.1in turret on RS, but two on R (must be typo).

Now for some items I found on www.combinedfleet.com:

The DD Akigumo (Ship 146) should be Class Kagero (#65), not Yugumo (#66).
The Yugumo upgrade class #579 should still have six 5in guns, as X turret on the Yugumos was not replaced by two triple 25mm as on the Asashios and Kageros, those additional triple mounts were installed on new bandstands abaft the forward funnel.

Lastly, I think the T1 class APDs should be included, as ships of that class were very active on resupply missions in the Philippines

Would the following information be of use? I have only looked at the Japanese Fortresses from v1.21 and did not see correct information for Japanese Coastal Defense Fortresses in Japan. I don't remember any changes made for them in v1.30.

I have always been interested in Japanese Coastal Defense in Japan. In the last year, I came across a reference to a report prepared by United States Coastal Artillery Command? officers after World War II, titled "Survey of Japanese Seacoast Artillery", 1946. I was able to download this report as a pdf file from an official web site located in Carlisle, Pennsylvania which had alot of old disclassified reports from at the end of World War II.

The report I have cover Army Seacoast Artillery, Naval Seacoast Artillery, and Controlled Submarine Mines. They give specs, installations, fire control and locations of all coastal defense artillery arround the coast of Japan. One point of interest was that the Japanese had only one formal coastal defense gun (a 15cm/50) developed between the early 1920's and World War II. This gun was designed to be controled by a coastal defense fire control computer developed for it. Any other references to coastal defense guns in the Pacific islands were jury rigged to fire over open sights (i.e. no computer, fire table or anything).

Also, present is a description of the 16" turrents mounted in fortresses to cover Tsushima Straits at southern entrance to the Sea of Japan.

Also, information on Japanese Controled mines used in Japan, how they operate, where installed, and how many by the end of the war. Interesting fact, when the mines were destroyed after the war by triggering them through their submarine cables (on command), the American Officers were impressed by the realitbility of the mines. A 100% fire rate resulted.

Mike

Yes, DD Akigumo (Ship 146) is Class Kagero (#65), not Yugumo (#66).

HOSHO couldn't carry A6 series & B5 series till she is upgraded.
She carried Claude & B4Y1 till battle of Midway because of her tiny body.
(HOSHO's B4Y1 found HIRYU drifts after MIdway battle. Few survivors of HIRYU who are still left in the ship saw B4Y1 from Hiryu's deck)
After she was upgraded, could carry A6, B5 & D3(couldn't B6, B7 & D4) but cannot go far away from Japan anymore.
Limited to shallow water area around Japan and used for training of navy pilots.

In Mariana scenario, SHOKAKU, ZUIKAKU & TAIHO carried 3 VALs each for ASW historically.

BRAZIL-MARU was planned to be CVE historically(KAIYO CLASS). Before she was convereted, was sunk. She should be upgraded to CVE. Also ASAMA-MARU, TAKITA-MARU & CHICHIBU-MARU were sunk before converted to CVE. Maybe not fit to this thread...

Don't know if its been covered by anybody else yet but.....

Devastaters, historically there were only 127 (ish) built in total and I believe all of them were built pre December '41. Therefore we shouldn't have any replacements built and unless they're on board a ship should be in the replacement pool.

Thanks

CTID98

I suggest that there should be some changes:

-player should have a free hand if he wants to upgrade one model in factories or not (for example my strategy could lead to using fighters with better range like earlier models of mitsubishi zero)

-any unit with aircrafts from one category (figherts,level bombers etc) could be replaced by any aircraft from the same category.even the earlier type.


this model of replacement and production was used in "war in russia" and was good in my opinion.

Devastaters, historically there were only 127 (ish) built in total and I believe all of them were built pre December '41. Therefore we shouldn't have any replacements built and unless they're on board a ship should be in the replacement pool.

You assertion is corroberated here :

And, although Devastator production totaled only 129 aircraft, it achieved a notoriety completely out of proportion to its numbers (as we shall see).

Aviation-History.Com

Interesting. I had no idea that so few were produced. I'm impressed that so many of those produced, so active service (unfortunately for them). I'd have to agree, that TBD production should be restricted. I'd assume you could carry more SBDs, but that would cause a bit a of nightmare for the SBD sqdns. It's not like USN CVs would be going around with hanger-space for 15 extra planes, and not do anything. But if you did expand the SBD sqdn size after a given date (like they do for fighters), what about the player who doesn't get his TBDs slaughtered (and thus making room for the SBDs). Now you have an over-packed CV.

Interesting delimma (or just leave it alone).

-F-

One thing I just noticed: PT-109 without Kennedy, J.F., LtJG, USN?
JFK doesn´t even seem to be contained in the Leaders database. I suppose this issue will date me, but if we are to have every single U.S. ace of WWII in the Pilots database, why not also put the only PT boat skipper to make President into the Leaders?

To continue in this vein, I suppose we could also have Bush, George H.W., as a Navy pilot. I think Carter, James Earl, was in the Navy, too. Nixon, Richard M., was a simple sailor, so is not relevant here. Reagan, Ronald, fought his naval battles on the sound stage in Hollywood. Did I forget any President with a WWII in the Pacific past?

To go on a tangent here: when every single republican president of the recent past (with the exception of Nixon) has a spanking new carrier named after him, even if he isn´t safely dead yet, doesn´t it strike you as peculiar they had just a destroyer to be named after Franklin D. Roosevelt, the president who led his country almost all the way through WWII and who made sure the U.S.Navy had the ships it needed when it needed them?

Edited for spelling (mikemike)

Actually the navy named a Midway class carrier after FDR not just a destroyer. Kind of takes the wind out of your anti-republican rant, doesn't it?

That, plus in the navy, the highest honor that can be bestowed is to have a destroyer named after you. Carriers and all are great, but its navy tradition to want a tin can named after you.

BTW, since you are making a rant on flattops named after Republicans, don't forget about the Harry S. Truman (CVN-75).

That, plus Democrats are typically small military, so when the navy does finally get to build a newflattop, who are they gonna name it after, the Democrat that wanted it scrapped, or the Republican that gave it to them. Just a thought.

(Deleted, sorry)