Glen Service Rating

[CapAndGown]

It has been noted elsewhere that Glens were not so easy to operate. Yet the standard scenarios give them a service rating of 1. Might it not make sense to give them a service rating of 4?

[spence]

Landing on the water is very stressful on the airframe. As I've mentioned elsewhere lack of freshwater on a submarine would prevent a washdown subsequent to a flight thus the salt water would have an opportunity to corrode the frame. Aluminum is resistant to corrosion: not immune to corrosion. In fact in spots where aluminum is in contact with a different metal it corrodes extremely rapidly. Not sure if that would pertain except perhaps on the motor mounts (that would probably be bad enough though).

Would a service rating of 4 randomly cause it to "break" even when it hasn't flown? If that was the case I guess I would prefer that the Naval Search Mission be removed from its list of missions.

[sfbaytf]

Take it fome someone who's lived in a tropical environment. The salt water and humidity will rust and corrode metals far faster than most realize. Even away from the water the salt gets blown around by the wind and accumulates everywhere. Combine that with high humidity levels and anything made of metal corrodes and rusts with alarming speed.

[JuanG]

From what I understand, setting Service rating to 4 would decrease the number of flights before the plane needs maintenance. It also increases the time spent on said maintenance. Overall this would seem like a reasonable change to make, though maybe 4 is a little harsh and 3 might be better. I plan to add this to my scenarios regardless.

[budman999]

Actually, aluminum does not corrode as easily as you might think. A thin film of oxides forms on the surface of the aluminum which prevents much of the corrosion associated with most metals.
For reference:
http://www.keytometals.com/Article14.htm

[witpqs]

Being partly persuaded by Brady's posts on the other thread, I think 4 is too high. Given the environment, 1 is almost certainly too low, so I think 2 or 3.

[spence]

Actually, aluminum does not corrode as easily as you might think. A thin film of oxides forms on the surface of the aluminum which prevents much of the corrosion associated with most metals.

Aluminum is an active element. It rapidly forms the thin coating on its surface which tends to protect it from corrosion. But Aluminum in contact with other metals creates an electrolytic cell at the junction which immensely speeds corrosion. This became a major problem for more modern ships when aluminum was used in the superstructure to reduce topside weight. The boundary area where the two metals touched corroded enought to lose all strength in less than a year. The marine environment provides all the necessary solvent and ions to enhance and accelerate this process.


Most seaplane operations were conducted from protected anchorages/bays. The famous or infamous as the case may be Operation K (recon of Pearl Harbor prior to Midway) required the use of French Frigate Shoals for refuelling the seaplanes and when USN ships were found there the whole Operation was cancelled. It is curious that not one Glen carrying submarine participated in the 3 patrol lines of submarines that the Japanese set out to warn of the deployment of the US Fleet from Pearl Harbor during the Midway Operation. Just another really stupid move by Combined Fleet staff in a really bad plan? Or maybe open ocean seaplane ops were just too dicey to place any stock in their success. This was supposed to be "The Decisive Battle" after all.

[Brady]

The aircraft reliabality ratings are a function of the aircraft (some engines were not as reliable as others, more engines more work exc...), not how it is used operationaly.

Thier was noting espichaly dificult about how glens operated, less so than some of their larger breathern in fact.

Most Seaplane operations were conducted at sea, in the open Ocean the TROM's a chock full of such refernaces. At least for ships and planes that were intended to conduct such operations.

Bad weahter already curtails a lot of Search Mishions that used to be flown in stock days from Ships at sea, Sea Planes are more likely to have their Flight OP's canceld do to weather than CV planes.

If you realy dont like Glens just dont use them, or make a house rule that curtails their operations.

Another TROM example:

For I-17

8 April 1943:
Departs Truk to reconnoiter Phoenix Island and intercept a converted PT tender whose arrival is predicted by the Combined Fleet's code-breaking unit(Hse found the ship but her torps pased under the target.)

Another example of the US Navy Killing men in Life Boats:

5 March 1943:
25 miles NE from Cape Ward Hunt. About 0500, Lt J. Baylis' USS PT-143 and Lt R. Hamachek's PT-150 discover the I-17 and three lifeboats: a large one with more than 100 soldiers and two smaller ones with about 20 soldiers in each. The men are survivors of the Bismarck Sea battle. The submarine is taking them aboard. Each PT fires a torpedo. The 143’s runs erratically. The 150’s runs true, but misses as the submarine crash dives. The PTs strafe the conning tower as the I-17 submerges, then they sink the three boats with machine gun fire and depth charges.

Four hours and 45 minutes later, the I-17 resurfaces and picks up 34 soldiers, one of whom later dies of his wounds.

6 March 1943:
Despite air and PT attacks, the I-17 rescues another 118 soldiers and four sailors.

Later:

25 July 1943:
The I-17 departs Truk to reconnoiter Espiritu Santo, New Hebrides and Noumea, New Caledonia and raid enemy communications. She carries a Yokosuka E14Y1 "Glen" floatplane for this mission.

10 August 1943:
The Glen's pilot reports the presence of several battleships and carriers in the harbor. LtCdr Harada sends a report with the results of the reconnaissance flight over Espiritu Santo. This is the last message sent by the I-17.

19 August 1943:
40 miles SE of Noumea, New Caledonia. The I-17's Glen floatplane has reconnoitered Noumea and spotted a convoy that has just cleared the harbor. After stowing the plane, the I-17 sets out after the convoy. The New Zealand armed trawler HMNZS TUI makes an asdic contact, closes and drops depth charges.

If you have the time Read the TROM's guy's their facanating.

Thier are these TROM's one can go over that show a lot of interesting stuff about the Glen:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/I-9.htm

http://www.combinedfleet.com/I10.htm

http://www.combinedfleet.com/I-11.htm


This one is interesting it shows the use of a "Slim", note even in Late Nov. of 43 she was still using her Glen to recon Pearl:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/I-19.htm

This Boat did some interesting things as well, refueling Jakes to extend their radious of operation, Imagine alowing these Subs to act as AV's:)

http://www.combinedfleet.com/I-26.htm

This Boat even used her Glen, to do ad hoc ASW patroles:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/I-29.htm

Thier are many more, if you folow the link back to the Sub Page and Look under Aircraft Carrying Boats their are Scades more. Interesting is just how many times key points of interest Like Pearl, Nouma and other Magor bases were reconiotered by Sub launced Float planes, even relatively late in the war

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Brady
If you realy dont like Glens just dont use them, or make a house rule that curtails their operations.

The comments I have seen about Glen usage refer to open ocean search missions, rather than recon (although the two go together as far as the game is concerned). For example, all of the reports you have posted are for recon missions against specific ports.

Out of interest, how many instances are there in the TROMs of Glens flying from subs, in open ocean, in 360 degree searches looking for convoys or TFs at sea?

Andrew

[spence]

If it was such a great idea to fly airplanes off of submarines why is it that the whole concept pretty much faded into the dustbin of history in every other nation in the world (and has not been revived)? Because submarines were too limited in space to support sustained operations by even one aircraft. It is utter fantasy to conceive of any submarine of the time acting as an AV. At best they offered nothing more than a gas station for aircraft.

If it was such a great idea how come the Combined Fleet Staff did not deploy a single aviation capable submarine to patrol the approach routes of the US Fleet to its supposed destruction at Midway: THE Decisive Battle that was the foundation of all IJN strategy prior to and during the war? The answer is that aviation capable submarines could not be counted on to accomplish the mission. Better to send them off to the far corners of the ocean to contribute as they might in subsidiary operations (the TROMs indicate the aviation capable subs were reconoitering Cape Town and Sydney and Kodiak).


I think that if the Glen is allowed to perform the Naval Search Mission then it's service rating should be 4 simply because the submarine was not fully capable of servicing the aircraft. If the Naval Search Mission is removed then it's rating should still be worse than the typical single engine (again because of the submarine's limitations). A couple of flights should be all it is capable of. Brady "forgot" to point out the mentions of Glens wrecking themselves while landing (in the TROMs) for some reason.

Incidentally one of the foremost advocates of seaplane utility in the US Coast Guard (for search and rescue) earned the comment "anybody who thinks that landing a perfectly good airplane on the water over and over again is a good idea is not all that smart" from the District Commander.

[Brady]

I did not forget to point out that a Glen or two wreaked themslefs on landing ( I found three instances in all the TROM's I read), I mentioned that in all the reading of the TROM's I did I only found a couple instances of OP losses for them, this in spite of the fact that many of their recon flights were at night. An OP loss for a Glen was a rare thing we see far more in game thn hapened historicaly.

I also posted (I thought) a refernace to a crew reparing a glen with damage at sea.



Other than the instances I already posted whear the Boats reacted to Ships spoted by their Glens:

In the Indian Ocean I-8 Used her Glen to find ships as another Example.



I-8

June 1944:
Departs Penang, carrying a "Glen" floatplane.

29 June 1944:
Indian Ocean. 200 miles ESE of Diego Garcia. The I-8's floatplane spots the 6,942-ton Eastern and Australia Line's freighter NELLORE that is independently en route from Bombay, India to Fremantle, Melbourne and Sydney with 2,720 tons of general cargo including government stores.

At 1145, the NELLORE is hit by a torpedo and sinks at 07-51S, 75-20E. A week later, the frigate HMS LOSSIE, K.303 (ex-USS PG-108) rescues 112 crewmen, including the NELLORE's Captain, near the Chagos Archipelago and lands them at Addu Atoll. On 17 July, two crewmen are picked up by an RAF "Catalina" and landed at Ceylon. On 27 July, almost 2500 miles from the site of the NELLORE's sinking and a month later, ten crewmen land at Sambavany, Madagascar. Of her 209 passengers and crew, 79 are lost and one gunner and ten passengers are taken prisoner.

2 July 1944:
Indian Ocean, 700 miles south of Ceylon. The 7,176-ton American "Liberty" ship JEAN NICOLET, carrying war materials for the China/Burma/India theater of war, is enroute from Fremantle for Colombo, Ceylon. She is probably spotted by the I-8's Glen. At 1907, Cdr Ariizumi fires two torpedoes and hits the NICOLET on her starboard side. Shortly thereafter she is abandoned. The I-8 then surfaces and destroys the lifeboats, then shells the wreck, setting her afire.

Another:

6 May 1942:
The I-30's "Glen" floatplane sights elements of the British Fleet en route from Durban to Madagascar.

[Dili]

I think increasing the service rating of all ship based floatplanes might be a good idea. But i don't see why they can't be employed in naval search.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Brady
If you realy dont like Glens just dont use them, or make a house rule that curtails their operations.

The comments I have seen about Glen usage refer to open ocean search missions, rather than recon (although the two go together as far as the game is concerned). For example, all of the reports you have posted are for recon missions against specific ports.

Out of interest, how many instances are there in the TROMs of Glens flying from subs, in open ocean, in 360 degree searches looking for convoys or TFs at sea?

Andrew

that´s what I´ve tried to point out in the other thread but Brady doesn´t seem to accept the difference between the recon flights (and the very small number of other missions) of real life he posted and the ongoing full time naval search twice a day that is happening in the game. Again, no real problem for me in a PBEM and as the Japanese player I would use them too, but when we´re talking about realism all the time and how accurate the game should be then those full time nav search missions shouldn´t be possible with a Glen (or whatever ac) from a sub.

[Brady]

Again Weather prevents them from flying much in game, also single planes rarely spot much in game they can only fly one leg of a search arc.

They did do Naval search Mishions operationaly they did do recon mishions operatonaly, given how prety much everything in game does stuff way more often than they did historicaly I cant see why it seams nescessary to some folks to want to neuter these planes. I understand pet peaves I have several of my own but I dont realy get this one.

[Puhis]

Besides Glen would be totally useless as a recon plane only. Glen pilots recon skill is something like 20...30, so they are not going to observe anything on a recon flights.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Brady



Again Weather prevents them from flying much in game, also single planes rarely spot much in game they can only fly one leg of a search arc.

They did do Naval search Mishions operationaly they did do recon mishions operatonaly, given how prety much everything in game does stuff way more often than they did historicaly I cant see why it seams nescessary to some folks to want to neuter these planes. I understand pet peaves I have several of my own but I dont realy get this one.

I agree, Brady. There are a hell a lot of things being done more often than in real life, but the all day full time nav search of the Glen is surely something that is happening at a far higher "more often done than in real life rate" than anything else in the game IMO. It´s not a pet peave of mine though and it ´s something I don´t really care in the game as mentioned earlier. I chimed in due to the fact that seeing two dozen Glens being on nav search daily spotting every convoy in range 60% of the time is (to me) more unrealistic than a couple of other things. Just my 2c.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Puhis

Besides Glen would be totally useless as a recon plane only. Glen pilots recon skill is something like 20...30, so they are not going to observe anything on a recon flights.

ever heard about the training order? [:D] My recon squadrons come in with 30 recon skill and I´ve got to train them, why shouldn´t you train a Glen pilot?

[sprior]

You know a game is deep when you can have a discussion thread about 4 planes.

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Puhis

Besides Glen would be totally useless as a recon plane only. Glen pilots recon skill is something like 20...30, so they are not going to observe anything on a recon flights.

ever heard about the training order? [:D] My recon squadrons come in with 30 recon skill and I´ve got to train them, why shouldn´t you train a Glen pilot?

Because:
A) I don't use them as recon planes anyway [:D]
B) It's too slow to train group of 1 pilot, so I don't bother.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

It has been noted elsewhere that Glens were not so easy to operate. Yet the standard scenarios give them a service rating of 1. Might it not make sense to give them a service rating of 4?

I don't have a problem with this, although I would go with a 3 instead. IIRC service rating 3 is 5-15 days for servicing.