Here is a separate question for you. The RAF has a bunch of BS equipped with Liberator III's. The upgrade for that plane is Liberator VI's. The VI is almost the same (stats) as the III. It has a little more gun value, but significantly less range (3 or 4 hexes less for normal/extended range). Was this really the case with the Liberator III and VI? Why would the British consider it an upgrade?
Many upgrades are only marginal. Crews like anything that makes defense better. Contractors like anything that increases funds!
Okay, you now have these units starting at 3 aircraft ler unit. That's good. My question is three the maximum number of aircraft that these units will be allowed to have at any time?
In this system, air units are not like land units. We do not get a TO&E they can build up to.
For Japan - where I did a comprehensive review of air groups - I am NOT doing this for the Allies (it would take a long time and no one has asked me to) - IF I wanted a unit to start at a particular size (because that was right for the first day of the war) and build UP to a higher size, I gave it the "extra" planes as "damaged" - and THEN I "damaged" the unit in that proportion. That way the unit cannot use the planes on the first day - nor some days thereafter. It won't take a long enough time to build up though - so I don't like that system very much. For training units I am considering "damaging" 100% of the planes and 99% of the unit (the most allowed) - just to delay how long before the unit can even begin gaining experience. It still is not severe enough - but it helps.
Anyway, a Dutch element with 3 planes will never get bigger as far as I know.
BTW, I believe your problem with Do24Ks has to do not with their being listed as Torpedo Bombers, as they are listed as Patrol Bombers, but that they were given torpedoes as standard loadout. None of my reading has ever indicated that the Dutch used these aircraft with torpedoes (but my reading on this particular subject is quite limited), so I can agree with you in that respect. Maybe you should adjust the weapons load for the D024K-2 instead.
I have good material on all German aircraft (Dornier is a German company). It is a fine plane, but it had no provision for offensive weapons - just defensive ones. So yes, we adjust the weapons load - to zero. It only had machine guns and cannon. See Green's Warplanes of the Third Reich. Also Combat Aircraft of World War Two, Aircraft of the Luftwaffe and Seaplanes of the World.
Let's say for example, you start the game with a squadron of P-40Bs that has 12 aircraft, but it's maximum number of aircraft is 24. Once the extra P-40Bs come into the pool, they can be assigned to increase the size of the squadron beyond the twelve planes up to 24 planes. Now, if you've created a bunch of squadron fragments that have three aircraft at start, but are allowed to be increased up to twelve aircraft, this can be a problem. While we know that there will not be any more TIVs available, once the squadron has been upgraded to a different aircraft (say a B25, or F5A) this has ahistorically increased the allied order of battle.
What you may be talking about is not under my control. At certain times the hard code redefines air units. This at least happens to IJN carrier units. If a unit is defined as a squadron, and a squadron definition in hard code is 24, nothing I can do about it. I have never seen any Dutch unit actually go from 3 to anything - but they rarely survive long enough.
I know of no way to prevent it. For JAAF I can define a unit as a Chutai, a Daitai, or a Sentai - but not as a Shotai. I CALL some units Shotai - but they are DEFINED as Chutais - the smallest option available to code. At start the unit size is the sum of the ready plus damaged planes. But later that definition might change in hard code - if it does we don't know to what? Or when? And we cannot control it.
"I have good material on all German aircraft (Dornier is a German company). It is a fine plane, but it had no provision for offensive weapons - just defensive ones. So yes, we adjust the weapons load - to zero."
Please don't. While the Germans may not have equipped the Do24K, the Dutch Do24Ks were capable of carrying bombs. They definitely carried out bombing missions against Japanese shipping in the theatre, even claiming the sinking of a destroyer (pp201, "Bloody Shambles" by Christopher Shores - though the authors point out that Japanese records show that the ship succumbed to a mine). The same page lists their weapons as 450lb (probably 200kg?) bombs.
I have never seen any Dutch unit actually go from 3 to anything - but they rarely survive long enough.
Hmmm, are you talking CHS here? The dutch patrols never went past 3 in stock as there were no replacements. But you could increase them to their maximum of 8 by either combining them or by waiting until they could upgrade to US Catalinas. If the combined squadrons were changed to SW Pacific the disbanded squadrons would reappear in Sydney with Cats later.
Please don't. While the Germans may not have equipped the Do24K, the Dutch Do24Ks were capable of carrying bombs. They definitely carried out bombing missions against Japanese shipping in the theatre, even claiming the sinking of a destroyer (pp201, "Bloody Shambles" by Christopher Shores - though the authors point out that Japanese records show that the ship succumbed to a mine). The same page lists their weapons as 450lb (probably 200kg?) bombs.
All very interesting. But CHS (according to my supervisor, Joe) is supposed to use VERIFIABLE data. I have NO reference stating ANY DO-24 EVER had bombs. I see your datum point - but that is not really good enough to produce a game model. What was the bomb load? What was the range with that bomb load? How were the bombs dropped? [In the Falklands war Argentina managed to actually HIT a tanker with a bomb rolled out the cargo door of a C-130 - but the bomb failed to detonate! But that incident did not cause me to rate C-130s as bombers.] UNLESS you could get a group consensus to say "lets make engineering calculations for the DO-24K that are realistic" I won't do it. [I was once resident computer engineer at two different Software Integration Laboratories at Boeing - and I spent years supporting other Boeing activities for a major defense subcontractor. I know how to make the calculations. You will NOT get the same phenominal range for the plane if it plays bomber, for one thing. And if there is no evidence of actual bomb racks and proper sights and release gear, this is going to be a nightmare to figure out - because it is like that C-130 kicking bombs out the cargo door - not a proper bomber and the hit chances have to be adjusted accordingly.] I won't do such an ahistoric thing UNLESS the community agrees to theoretical calculations - and then I will require they be reviewed for errors. It is probably MORE correct to rate the DO-24K as it was designed then to make up something off the top of your head - that is for sure. And that is what is in the game now - a DO-24K with torpedoes no less.
Oddly, TBF and TBM are both in the game as seperate planes - in spite of being the SAME plane!!! [Someone loves history so much they want OBs to look right, designation wise - no matter the impact on slots]. The difference is what company made the plane - not how the plane behaves!
But there were different models of this plane - later ones had better performance as you can imagine. The -3 is the critical change from the -1. So I propose to redefine the planes two lines as follows:
TBF/TBM-1
TBF/TBM-3
That way you get to have the higher performing plane as well as the original model in the game. But you can no longer tell in an OB what company made the plane!
Oddly, TBF and TBM are both in the game as seperate planes - in spite of being the SAME plane!!! [Someone loves history so much they want OBs to look right, designation wise - no matter the impact on slots]. The difference is what company made the plane - not how the plane behaves!
But there were different models of this plane - later ones had better performance as you can imagine. The -3 is the critical change from the -1. So I propose to redefine the planes two lines as follows:
TBF/TBM-1
TBF/TBM-3
That way you get to have the higher performing plane as well as the original model in the game. But you can no longer tell in an OB what company made the plane!
Sid, what WITP specs are you planning on using for your TBF variants? Also, what WITP specs are you planning for your SBD variants?
Let's say for example, you start the game with a squadron of P-40Bs that has 12 aircraft, but it's maximum number of aircraft is 24. Once the extra P-40Bs come into the pool, they can be assigned to increase the size of the squadron beyond the twelve planes up to 24 planes. Now, if you've created a bunch of squadron fragments that have three aircraft at start, but are allowed to be increased up to twelve aircraft, this can be a problem. While we know that there will not be any more TIVs available, once the squadron has been upgraded to a different aircraft (say a B25, or F5A) this has ahistorically increased the allied order of battle.
What you may be talking about is not under my control. At certain times the hard code redefines air units. This at least happens to IJN carrier units. If a unit is defined as a squadron, and a squadron definition in hard code is 24, nothing I can do about it. I have never seen any Dutch unit actually go from 3 to anything - but they rarely survive long enough.
I know of no way to prevent it. For JAAF I can define a unit as a Chutai, a Daitai, or a Sentai - but not as a Shotai. I CALL some units Shotai - but they are DEFINED as Chutais - the smallest option available to code. At start the unit size is the sum of the ready plus damaged planes. But later that definition might change in hard code - if it does we don't know to what? Or when? And we cannot control it.
I think only carrier air units get redefined. I think what Bradford is talking about is just the maximum size for each squadron. If the max size is 12 and it has 7 planes, it will fill out when planes are available (like when the plane type is upgraded to a more plentiful model). If you want it to stay at 7 (even after model upgrades), make the max size be 7. I think that's what Bradford meant.
Right now in CHS various Allied land based squadrons have various maximum sizes: 24, 16, 12, 8, 6, and 3. Maybe other sizes that I can't think of right now.
"All very interesting. But CHS (according to my supervisor, Joe) is supposed to use VERIFIABLE data. I have NO reference stating ANY DO-24 EVER had bombs."
I'd suggest getting the "Bloody Shambles" series, which verifies what I have posted. After all, it is the most detailed work on the subjet matter in question: the air war in SouthEast Asia. It is apparent from reading this work that the Dutch were regularly using the Do24Ks on strike missions, IMO wasting many good search a/c in the process. They actually sank a large tanker (19,000 tons) in Davao harbor on Dec 23, 1941.
I'll agree that the Do24Ks should not have the ability to carry torpedoes, but it does appear that the RNEIAF made wide use of them as strike aircraft (again, incorrectly IMO). I understand about the range issue, but the Dutch were staging the aircraft in forward locations from which to make the strikes, a standard WW2 practice that UV/WITP does not simulate, so to me that is less of a concern than it appears to be to you.
Rather than disparaging what others have to offer, you might try widening your database. Or at least adjusting your attitude towards those who disagree.
Well let's see from another point of view. El cid: does any of your sources about DUTCH version of Do-24 (that's important as every country ordered planes for their needs) mention that they didn't have bombs? If no, leave them as they are - because CHS is supposed to use VERIFABLE data.
Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą
"All very interesting. But CHS (according to my supervisor, Joe) is supposed to use VERIFIABLE data. I have NO reference stating ANY DO-24 EVER had bombs."
I'd suggest getting the "Bloody Shambles" series, which verifies what I have posted
I am sorry sir. You misunderstood my meaning. I SAID "I see your datum point" - I have BS and I greatly respect it. But it is NOT a data source on the performance of a Do-24K with an unspecified bomb load!
It does NOT tell us what the bomb load was or what impact that had on range. I can NOT just interpret a "450 pound bomb" (which, FYI, is NOT a WITP device) as "leave the 18 inch torpedo entry as is" NOR do I know what the range should be if it carried an unspecified number of these? Worse, I do not know if it was kicked out the door, or properly released (as field modded A6M5s could drop a 250 kg bomb could)? We do not even know if the weapon ever worked? [BS says there was a claim, NOT verified by the other side. That is not the same as a viable weapon - even if technically dropped - if it was like the C-130 kicking incident in 1982 - it does NOT equate to a bomber]. We need to know more - and I will not even look for the data unless people want to believe this was a real weapon system with a chance of success. Even then, we must actually FIND real data - or estimate it - if you trust me to do that. A real simulated plane needs realistic data - otherwise just make up superman pieces to play with.
Rather than disparaging what others have to offer, you might try widening your database. Or at least adjusting your attitude towards those who disagree.
Sir, you have misunderstood my meaning. I will not insult (except possibly in response to a string of insults) on principle. When I say I disagree it is not in the least because I do not value feedback - and in fact I have got several valuable things from feedback - almost always things I didn't know.
Further, you really misunderstood my reaction to your datum. I have BS, I read it, I confirm your datum (except not the part about "widely used for strike" and not the part about "sank" anything - it does not say that - but it says there were attacks and there was a CLAIM of a sinking - and I believe you as well as your source - which I regard as first class).
My reaction was technical: it is not enough even if true - even if there is a sinking. We don't know the bomb load. We don't know the impact of that load on range. We don't know the release mechanism (yet). That impacts how we treat the chance of a hit (is it like a normal bomb, or less? Translate - were there bomb sights - or not? Was it kicked out the door - or properly dropped?} Get me THAT data I will use it. Convince me most players want it in the game- I will do an engineering calculation for you too - THAT is what I said.
Well let's see from another point of view. El cid: does any of your sources about DUTCH version of Do-24 (that's important as every country ordered planes for their needs) mention that they didn't have bombs? If no, leave them as they are - because CHS is supposed to use VERIFABLE data.
Yes - I tried to say that. There is no mention in AIRCRAFT references of ANY offensive bomb load for ANY version of the DO-24 - INCLUDING the Dutch order. That is my problem. The guidelines laid down by Joe would not permit me to make up data not in any source. The BS item is about USE - and it is not technical data - except it tells us about a "450 pound bomb" - something very odd sounding. I also agree to modify the plane data anyway but ONLY IF it is a consensus that this is a case warranting that. So I did not quite say no - just 'not enough data to say yes'.
Okay, Sid, I guess that my feathers were a little ruffled by the tone of your previous post. Thanks for clarifying.
BTW, Bloody Shambles did not say that there was a claim for the sinking of the tanker, it claimed that in the air raid of Dec 23 (conducted by 3 Dorniers of GVT-5 from Talesei Island, New Guinea and 3 Dorniers from Tondano, Celebes) the GVT-2 aircraft made one direct hit and two near misses on the 19,262 ton tanker Tonau Maru, leaving it burning - from which it was to sink later. Since you do know this work (BS), you will note that they didn't say that the pilots made a claim of a sinking, but rather that they sank the tanker (as opposed to the 17th Dec action where a GVT-2 Dornier claimed the sinking of the destroyer Shinonome, but the authors pointed out that it was reported to have succumbed to a mine - the difference in the way they present the information is the clue that they feel the tanker is a good claim).
Here's my point: the game system, with its inability to simulate raids using a forward staging base as a refueling stop, fudges the situation so much that the difference between the operational range of the Do24K in search mode and the that in bombing mode is not likely to make a huge difference. In many areas of the game we are only hoping to get a flavour of the way the war actually went, not a truly detained simulation (beyond the capabilities of the game engine).
When you add to that the very small numbers of Do24Ks in the game, their use as bombers is less likely to make much difference (as opposed to their use as torpedo bombers - I wholeheartedly agree with you here) in the game overall - except to rid the allied player of reasonable search aircraft early on. Thus I myself would not be one likely to use them in such a manner, until and unless the final Dutch base is in extremis...
My thought is that they should be given the capability to use a 250lb bomb (one each? two each?). This gives them a slight capability to be used in the manner in which the RNEIAF actually used them (which is what we want our game to allow us, correct?), but not a game breaking capability. As I continue to read BS (ooh... I hate that acronym for the books) I will keep my eyes open for any firther information on this matter.
Overall, I have been impressed with much of what you have been proposing in your posts, but this is one area where I feel that what you are proposing is actually removing a realistic flavour of the game. I would rather propose that their load be altered to that of a light GP bomb. That's my take. Thanks for listening...
As far as the "were widely used" comment, think about the numbers of Dorniers originally available to the RNEIAF at this time. Then count the numbers used in these minor raids - it appears to be a large percentage of the numbers of Dorniers they had. It was telling to me that a few days after the raids I mentioned in the post above they reorganized their squadrons, re-equipping some of the Dornier eqipped units with Catalinas (which the player is not allowed to do until May '42).
Here's my point: the game system, with its inability to simulate raids using a forward staging base as a refueling stop, fudges the situation so much that the difference between the operational range of the Do24K in search mode and the that in bombing mode is not likely to make a huge difference. In many areas of the game we are only hoping to get a flavour of the way the war actually went, not a truly detained simulation (beyond the capabilities of the game engine).
It is hard to trust data which says a DO-24K has torpedo armament. But the range is too short - so MAYBE the range is the range with offensive weapons. My version will have much better search value since it will have the correct range. But the real range in the reference books - because it is not tied to a bomb load - is going to be a LOT different than the range WITH a bomb load. Essentially, the operational range of a pure search plane is simply the ferry range minus some reserve factor - likely about 10-15%. [In my games - where weather is more of a factor - you never dare run to full ferry range - or you will lose the plane! You always have at least a 5% fuel reserve even for that - and 10% is smarter.] But the range with bombs will be only 40% of ferry range - in standard WITP terms. The problem is, I don't know what is normal or maximum bomb load, nor what ranges these are associated with, in order to convert to WITP terms. But it DOES make a LOT of difference. Very likely - in this case - the bomb load also meant less fuel could be carried (so the plane would not exceed maximum take off weight) - and if so that would be yet another reduction in range. Planes DESIGNED not to have a bomb load lose a LOT of range when you start carrying bombs.
Your idea - use lighter bombs - is not bad. It would permit using already existing devices. And it might simulate the lower chance of hitting from an improvised system somewhat. But we need more data than we have to know if this bomb release system was somewhat normal or literally a "kick out the door" thing? And if it was the latter, reducing the value of a hit is not as good as reducing the chance of a hit. Because if you DID hit the bomb would not really be smaller. I would like more data - and I suspect this was not an operationally significant thing. But I am willing to be shown otherwise.
It was telling to me that a few days after the raids I mentioned in the post above they reorganized their squadrons, re-equipping some of the Dornier eqipped units with Catalinas (which the player is not allowed to do until May '42).
That can be fixed. When SHOULD the replacement be allowed?
This is an amazing and fine airplane - flying boat - but it was really NOT used! No less than 210 PB2Y-3 were built - 10 went to UK as transports - and 31 more were converted to transports for USN. The other 169 were essentially hack and research aircraft, or unissued. The game shows two squadrons of them - VP 13 and VP 15. But this is basically false. [TTS Pacific did have 4 - and these were technically maintained by VP 13 - but it was not a PB2Y unit and it does not seem to have had more than four. Further, these four appear to have been transport versions. A similar number were assigned to TTS Norfolk - and those were the BIGGEST units to have them at all!]
This is a strange case. The plane was built and bought and held. So it COULD have been assigned to squadrons and used. On the other hand, it was not. If we kill the plane, we get a slot for a plane that was used. If we keep it, we allow players an option real commanders had - but didn't use. Should a "historical" mod ALLOW use of a plane that was not historically considered worth using IF it really did get built and bought?
