Matrix Games Forums

121st Sqdn (MLD) Ceylon from July 42 to december 44
12 catalina's from the UK
9 catalina's escapes from NEI
From december 1944 patrol B-24 Liberators

Source De Vliegende Hollanders (The Flying Dutchs)

OK -- you get THREE Cats in Columbo from July 42 upgrading to Liberators. The max size is 12 - so the squadron will build up to that level if in supply.

19th NEI Sdn RAAF raised out NEI Transport Section on 1 February 44
Machine count ? Suggest standard RAAF Transport sqn.
Same source

OK - you get 12 Dakotas - but only from 15 February - I require 2 weeks to get the unit operational.

ORIGINAL: JeffK

There wasn't a 19Sqn in the RAAF
I assume you mean 119 Sqn (NEI AF) RAAF
source: Australian War Memorial

ORIGINAL: el cid again

19th NEI Sdn RAAF raised out NEI Transport Section on 1 February 44
Machine count ? Suggest standard RAAF Transport sqn.
Same source

OK - you get 12 Dakotas - but only from 15 February - I require 2 weeks to get the unit operational.

I have made a little error. Sorry for it. Not the 19th NEI was raised on 1 February 44. But the NEI Transport Section

The following have I find on the web

TRANSPORT SQUADRONS
There were no formal Dutch Transport Squadrons until September 1944. There were initially two transport sections:-

NEI-Transport Section, Brisbane (NEI-TSB)
NEI-TSB was equipped with three Lockheed Lodestars and five B-25 Mitchell´s. They were based at Archerfield.

NEI-Transport Section, Melbourne (NEI-TSM)
NEI-TSM was equipped with a number of de-armed B-25 Mitchell´s and nine Lockheed Lodestars

Both of these Transport Sections were used to ferry men and material to 120 (NEI) Squadron in Merauke (later Biak) and 18 (NEI) Squadron at Batchelor.

In November 1944, both the above Transport Sections were combined into No. 1 NEI-Transport Squadron. The aircraft pool was expanded with four C-47´s and five Lockheed 12a light transports.

On 15 August 1945, the unofficial transports used by the Netherlands East Indies KLM (KNILM) was renamed 19 (NEI) Transport Squadron and officially taken on the strength of the RAAF. It had 13 Dakota´s.

ORIGINAL: JeffK

source: Australian War Memorial

Have they a website?

http://www.awm.gov.au/

(Be prepared to loose some sleep)

The reference to 119 Sqn is at http://www.awm.gov.au/atwar/structure/raaf_codes.htm

ORIGINAL: JeffK

http://www.awm.gov.au/

(Be prepared to loose some sleep)

The reference to 119 Sqn is at http://www.awm.gov.au/atwar/structure/raaf_codes.htm

JeffK

I have look to youre sources.

And in the next link I read
http://www.awm.gov.au/alliesinadversity ... /index.asp

Enough Dutch airmen escaped to Australia to equip an operational squadron, although shortages of ground staff remained a problem for the remainder of the war. No. 18 (NEI) Squadron, RAAF, was raised in Canberra in April 1942 and equipped with US B-25 Mitchell bombers. This unit gained an enviable reputation, operating from bases in northern Australia and Borneo. Training of new Dutch personnel was undertaken in the United States and Australia, and by 1944, there were enough pilots available to raise a fighter unit, No. 120 (NEI) Squadron, RAAF, which operated Kittyhawks from Dutch New Guinea. No. 19 Squadron (transport & communication) and No. 119 Squadron (bombers) were also raised for service.

This are then 4 Squadrons.
No. 18 NEI Sqn (Bombers)
No. 19 NEI Sqn (Transport)
No. 119 NEI Sqn (Bombers)
No. 120 NEI Sqn (Fighters)

Jo

I had a quick look at the RAAF History and it doesnt mention a 19 Sqn, neither does the list of Sqn Codes.

Could it have been formed as a Dutch Air Force Unit rather than a RAAF??

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym
The crews of the Sqns in the RAAF are for the most part about 70 to 80% evacuated from the NEI. The others came from the UK, US West Indies etc.

Also late in the war when Allieds liberated parts of the NEI came more crews available.

The reason I asked about where the aircrews and aircraft came from is that, in the game players can, and do, evacuate Dutch squadrons from the DEI. If we also add these units, does that lead to a duplication, at least in part?

Andrew

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym
The crews of the Sqns in the RAAF are for the most part about 70 to 80% evacuated from the NEI. The others came from the UK, US West Indies etc.

Also late in the war when Allieds liberated parts of the NEI came more crews available.

The reason I asked about where the aircrews and aircraft came from is that, in the game players can, and do, evacuate Dutch squadrons from the DEI. If we also add these units, does that lead to a duplication, at least in part?

Andrew

Yes, it seems that Dutch squadrons (apart from No. 18 RAAF) were left out because of this. But by now (with the new disband feature from 1.8/1.81) it may be worth to add them (number of reinforcement pilots stays the same anyway) if one deletes the two Dutch Recce/Army Cooperation Squadrons flying FK.51. But the "new" Dutch RAAF/RAF squadrons should probably enter the game with a limited number of planes (1-3) and pilots (and the Dutch squadrons present at start should have no upgrade paths.

K

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Jo

I had a quick look at the RAAF History and it doesnt mention a 19 Sqn, neither does the list of Sqn Codes.

Could it have been formed as a Dutch Air Force Unit rather than a RAAF??

Yes, first was a Dutch Air Unit, but because troubles with Australian Civilain Workers on Airfields was het made the 19th NEI Sqdn RAAF.

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen
Yes, it seems that Dutch squadrons (apart from No. 18 RAAF) were left out because of this. But by now (with the new disband feature from 1.8/1.81) it may be worth to add them (number of reinforcement pilots stays the same anyway) if one deletes the two Dutch Recce/Army Cooperation Squadrons flying FK.51. But the "new" Dutch RAAF/RAF squadrons should probably enter the game with a limited number of planes (1-3) and pilots (and the Dutch squadrons present at start should have no upgrade paths.

Good points, and I agree in theory, but will this work in practice? My understanding of the new disbanding rule is that the airgroup has to be in its nation's "main base", which for the Dutch are Tjilitjap and Soerabaja, I believe.

Not that this is a huge deal - CHS, for example, already has the No.18 and No.120 RAAF squadrons.

Andrew

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen
Yes, it seems that Dutch squadrons (apart from No. 18 RAAF) were left out because of this. But by now (with the new disband feature from 1.8/1.81) it may be worth to add them (number of reinforcement pilots stays the same anyway) if one deletes the two Dutch Recce/Army Cooperation Squadrons flying FK.51. But the "new" Dutch RAAF/RAF squadrons should probably enter the game with a limited number of planes (1-3) and pilots (and the Dutch squadrons present at start should have no upgrade paths.

Good points, and I agree in theory, but will this work in practice? My understanding of the new disbanding rule is that the airgroup has to be in its nation's "main base", which for the Dutch are Tjilitjap and Soerabaja, I believe.

Not that this is a huge deal - CHS, for example, already has the No.18 and No.120 RAAF squadrons.

Andrew

Dutch Homebase is Sydney.

Found it


On 15 August 1945, the unofficial transports used by the Netherlands East Indies KLM (KNILM) was renamed 19 (NEI) Transport Squadron and officially taken on the strength of the RAAF. It had 13 Dakota´s.

As they were formed after the end of WW2 nothing I looked at showed them.

(Is that a good enough excuse!!)

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen
Dutch Homebase is Sydney.

So is the manual wrong on this as well? According to the manual the bases are Tjilitjap and Soerabaja.

Andrew

V2.57 medium upgrade released link on Rapidshare link page

This includes a reworking of US bombardment groups to be in time sync with new plane dates in RHS - and found some errors in location and unit creation dates; [Similar issues for other Allied air forces will be resolved tonight]

It totally redefines ALL tankers for all nations - but not by very much. Mostly the fuel is separated from the cargo - a few lose or gain range - and many have higher on board fuel requirements; Cargo drops by 1 or 2 thousand tons.

It continues to redefine Dutch units based on technical information;

it adds two Dutch and one Mexican squadron, and deletes one USAAF one (never used as a combat unit and disbanded as well);

And a number of field corrections as usual.

Cobra Aus

So is the manual wrong on this as well? According to the manual the bases are Tjilitjap and Soerabaja.

this was change of home base for Dutch in Patch 8.1

Cobra Aus

ORIGINAL: CobraAus

So is the manual wrong on this as well? According to the manual the bases are Tjilitjap and Soerabaja.

this was change of home base for Dutch in Patch 8.1

Cobra Aus

Not quite. Arrival locations for all Dutch units are Batavia and Soerabaja. No change was made to this in 1.8.

What was changed was the addition of Canada to a list of National Home Bases that are used for planning purposes (including AI) and for Disband. In this list, the Dutch use the Australian Home Base.

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
Not quite. Arrival locations for all Dutch units are Batavia and Soerabaja. No change was made to this in 1.8.

What was changed was the addition of Canada to a list of National Home Bases that are used for planning purposes (including AI) and for Disband. In this list, the Dutch use the Australian Home Base.

Thanks Don, I missed that. Nice addition.

Andrew

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: el cid again
I am thinking of setting all merchant skippers to "zero" = random. Let the code pick who it likes.

Frankly, I think this makes sense. I know that some purists might object, but effort in this area hardly can pay dividends.

I agree also.

It totally redefines ALL tankers for all nations - but not by very much. Mostly the fuel is separated from the cargo - a few lose or gain range - and many have higher on board fuel requirements; Cargo drops by 1 or 2 thousand tons.

One has to wonder, will tankers run out of fuel if they have full cargo on board? Also, a tanker or cargo ship running in ballast only surely has a greater range than one that has a full fuel/cargo load?