RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/5/2006 3:24:01 PM

Jo van der Pluym

Posts: 834
Joined: 10/28/2000
From: Valkenburg Lb, Netherlands
Status: offline

El Cid Again

Have find the following error(s)

The French Rifle Squad (352) does upgrade to Dutch Marine squad(370)

The only Canadian Rifle Squad (345) has as start date 43 12.
Must there not exist a Canadian Rifle Squad exist with as start date 41 12?
Extra Device slots

I have see that there are 2 Soviet Rifle Squads (378) and(379)are in production before gamestart. One of them can be used as a spare slot.

Also if you need a extra spare slot then suggest I to set of the Soviet Motorized Squad (383) the dat from 42 01 to 41 12. That's a mont earlier. Then is slot Soviet Motorized Squad (382) free

There are also CD guns with no production. If they where replace to slots above 545 etc. Then are these old slots free for other devices.

_____________________________

Greetings from the Netherlands

Jo van der Pluym
Crazy

Dutch

(in reply to Ol_Dog)

Post #: 211

RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/5/2006 5:29:49 PM

Kereguelen

Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The game OBs probably grossly overstate the number of 2 pounders available - and it correctly states the US Army lacked even its "standard" AT weapons in the Philippines.

Where did you get this information? First off the US Army did not use 2 pdrs. It used a 37mm ATG. There are photographs of pre-war Phillipine Army troops training with it ans it was standard equipment way back in 1938. (The War Against Japan- Pictorial record.. Army Green Book, Page 26) It looks like a "real" 37mm ATG to me.

I don't think I said the US Army used 2 pounders. But the ALLIES did, at least in theory, and in WITP too. Except they didn't very often have them.
The US Army was using a new 57mm by the time the war began - it had ended development in 1941 - a lengthened version of the British 6 pounder. Otherwise it nominally used the 37mm you mention - which is NOT in the game. Instead an apparently fictional 47mm ATG is! [OK - here is a test: what country BESIDES Japan had a 47mm ATG? If none, why are there TWO 47mm ATGs? 280 and 422.] I replaced this gun with the 37mm M3 ATG. Still figuring out who actually had it in theater? But I bet those guys in Hawaii had some for one. And I think I have an inventory for the Philippines - I bet there are some there too. Need to check.

I do know that the dutch had a 47mm atg, at least in 1940.

Yes, the Dutch fielded the 47mm Boehler ATG (both in the Netherlands and the NEI).

(in reply to akdreemer)

Post #: 212

RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/5/2006 7:53:37 PM

mlees

Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Not sure why you think it is wrong to have CVLs with 801 Squadron?

I mean that the 801 squadron is not attached to a ship/CVL but on the header RN CVL's waht only os txt but no ship.

OK - 801 Squadron NEVER was in PTO. I only served on ONE carrier - Furious - which never went to PTO. Otherwise it served in UK. So we should delete 801 squadron - and I guess I didn't do that effectively enough. Thanks.

801 Sqn was flying Seafires when it arrived in the Pacific in June 1945 and saw service in the Sakishima/Okinawa area.

(I have no record of prior to this)

From The British Pacific & East Indies Fleets (50th Anniversary)

I have a book that shows the 801 sqdn as serving on the Implacable. It's at home, I'm at work. Anybody need me to revarify later?

< Message edited by mlees -- 6/5/2006 7:54:00 PM >

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 213

RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/5/2006 10:07:44 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

El Cid Again

Have find the following error(s)

The French Rifle Squad (352) does upgrade to Dutch Marine squad(370)

I found that too in a review of all devices last night. Good catch.

The only Canadian Rifle Squad (345) has as start date 43 12.
Must there not exist a Canadian Rifle Squad exist with as start date 41 12?
Extra Device slots

I am not sure what this was for - but I converted it to CW so we have an "evolving" CW infantry squad set.

I have see that there are 2 Soviet Rifle Squads (378) and(379)are in production before gamestart. One of them can be used as a spare slot.

Not sure that is right? We need to see how they are used? There are quite different kinds of Soviet units and this may be good simulation. However - did you see their values? Soviets were (always, since stock)
the best soldiers on the planet. [And the real best soldiers - Ghurkas - were rated very badly]

Also if you need a extra spare slot then suggest I to set of the Soviet Motorized Squad (383) the dat from 42 01 to 41 12. That's a mont earlier. Then is slot Soviet Motorized Squad (382) free

Don't worry about spare slots. There were two Dutch infantry squads - identical!

There are also CD guns with no production. If they where replace to slots above 545 etc. Then are these old slots free for other devices.

Turns out this is not a good idea. The devices are working a lot better in stock slots - hard code issues. I tried this for half a year.

(in reply to Jo van der Pluym)

Post #: 214

RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/5/2006 10:12:26 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

Perhaps the Dutch had a 47mm ATG - but not in the game! WE give them 2 pounders and 6 pounders (translated 37 and 57 mm).
Even Jo mentioned them both. Do we have any idea what units might have them, and on what scale?

As for the 20mm Slothern - it is not a squad weapon - so it cannot impact either Dutch Rifle Squads or Dutch Marine Squads. Issued in Japanese fashion (two to a platoon) it is a very small deal - and would show up as a specialized unit - except UNLESS we issue Japanese weapons - we have no such devices - nor slots to put them in. We might use the very high device numbers (which won't replace) - since they won't replace historically. We could do the same for a Dutch 47 mm - IF we knew what unit needed it.

Need to end this: going to move on. I will accept revisions of these matters for 24 hours, then it is frozen until after we test 2.60 for at least a month.

(in reply to Kereguelen)

Post #: 215

RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/5/2006 10:18:01 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

MLEES: My FAA book - a very expensive and comprehensive one - British Naval Aircraft Since 1912 - shows 801 Squadron operating Seafires with three assignments - but never in PTO and only once on a carrier not in PTO. Now FAA is a nightmare - units shifted around a great deal. But I have removed the unit from play altogether because my best scholarly source indicates it should never have been in the game at all. IF FAA was easy I would just say that is the end of that: but it is so confusing I believe even a British naval academic might make a mistake. But I certainly need some idea why he made a mistake? I am NOT changing this - nor inclined to change ANY air groups at this point - because it is time to freeze and issue 2.60. However, I will look at what you think you have if you can find it specifically.

(in reply to mlees)

Post #: 216

RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/5/2006 10:18:51 PM

Jo van der Pluym

Posts: 834
Joined: 10/28/2000
From: Valkenburg Lb, Netherlands
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Perhaps the Dutch had a 47mm ATG - but not in the game! WE give them 2 pounders and 6 pounders (translated 37 and 57 mm).
Even Jo mentioned them both. Do we have any idea what units might have them, and on what scale?

The only mention about the 2 pounder and 6 pounder was the following mesaage

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

El Cid Again

There are equipment that you have give to the KNIL Mobiele Eenheid, but never had.

1. 6 pdr AT-gun (Dutch has 47mm AT Gun)This also for other KNIL/Netherlands units. Only the Tiger Brigade had this AT gun.

This means that all KNIL units has the 47mm ATG.

< Message edited by Jo van der Pluym -- 6/5/2006 10:19:17 PM >

_____________________________

Greetings from the Netherlands

Jo van der Pluym
Crazy

Dutch

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 217

RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/5/2006 10:23:37 PM

akdreemer

Posts: 1028
Joined: 10/3/2004
From: Anchorage, Alaska
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Perhaps the Dutch had a 47mm ATG - but not in the game! WE give them 2 pounders and 6 pounders (translated 37 and 57 mm).
Even Jo mentioned them both. Do we have any idea what units might have them, and on what scale?

2pdr is 40mm, not 37mm. The 57mm would not have been available to the Dutch at this time. The Dutch had 47mm atg organic to their regiments in a mixed heavy weapons company that contained 12 47mm atg and 12 AA mgs.

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 218

RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/5/2006 10:34:31 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Perhaps the Dutch had a 47mm ATG - but not in the game! WE give them 2 pounders and 6 pounders (translated 37 and 57 mm).
Even Jo mentioned them both. Do we have any idea what units might have them, and on what scale?

I had the impression a 2 pounder was a 40mm. If this is right - no problem - the game units have 2 pounders. It might also explain why an Allied 47mm - they separated British and Dutch devices?

2pdr is 40mm, not 37mm. The 57mm would not have been available to the Dutch at this time. The Dutch had 47mm atg organic to their regiments in a mixed heavy weapons company that contained 12 47mm atg and 12 AA mgs.

(in reply to akdreemer)

Post #: 219

RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/5/2006 11:29:17 PM

mlees

Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

MLEES: My FAA book - a very expensive and comprehensive one - British Naval Aircraft Since 1912 - shows 801 Squadron operating Seafires with three assignments - but never in PTO and only once on a carrier not in PTO. Now FAA is a nightmare - units shifted around a great deal. But I have removed the unit from play altogether because my best scholarly source indicates it should never have been in the game at all. IF FAA was easy I would just say that is the end of that: but it is so confusing I believe even a British naval academic might make a mistake. But I certainly need some idea why he made a mistake? I am NOT changing this - nor inclined to change ANY air groups at this point - because it is time to freeze and issue 2.60. However, I will look at what you think you have if you can find it specifically.

Sir. please bear in mind, I am not at home, and until I am (in about 3 more hours...), I can only work off memory, which is admitadly shaky. I mentioned the book I have here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1125985&mpage=7&key=? post #209.

I looked here to verify (the only way I can at work): http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Squadrons/801.html

It also mentiones the deployment of the 801 squadron on the Implacable in 1944, and participated in raids on Truk in March of 1945.

I am not nitpicking. I realise the monumental task, and the many different threads you are juggling. I do not have the book you specifically mention. My source could be in error. If so, just let me know "I believe that is in error."

< Message edited by mlees -- 6/5/2006 11:33:41 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 220

RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/6/2006 1:27:40 AM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

MLEES: My FAA book - a very expensive and comprehensive one - British Naval Aircraft Since 1912 - shows 801 Squadron operating Seafires with�three assignments - but never in PTO and only once on a carrier not in PTO. Now FAA is a nightmare - units shifted around a great deal. But I have removed the unit from play altogether because my best scholarly source indicates it should never have been in the game at all. IF FAA was easy I would just say that is the end of that: but it is so confusing I believe even a British naval academic might make a mistake. But I certainly need some idea why he made a mistake? I am NOT changing this - nor inclined to change ANY air groups at this point - because it is time to freeze and issue 2.60. However, I will look at what you think you have if you can find it specifically.

So what Seafire Squadron have you allocated to Implacable?

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 221

RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/6/2006 3:02:37 AM

mlees

Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline

Ok. At home now. My memory served well enough, in regards to what I thought I read, at this point.

My book, Birtish and Empire Warships of the Second World War, is not an operational history of the RN, but more of a design history/study.

For example, it does not mention when HMS Implacable deployed to the Far East. But it does mention, which squadrons were assigned to it, from page 127:

quote:

Implacable
10/44 801 Sqdn 10 Seafire FIII/828 Sqdn 12 Barracuda II/841 Sqdn 12 Barracuda II (amalgamated with 828 Sqdn 11/44)/880 Sqdn 12 Seafire LIII/887 Sqdn 12 Seafire FIII/894 Sqdn 10 Seafire FIII/1771 Sqdn 12 Firefly I

6/45 801 Sqdn 24 Seafire LIII/828 Sqdn 21 Avenger II/880 Sqdn 24 Seafire LIII & FRIII/1771 Sqdn 11 Firefly I

7/45 1771 Sqdn 12 Firefly I

For 801 Sqdn, page 130:

quote:

801 Sqn
9/39 9 Skua; 4/40 9 Skua + 3 Roc; 6/40 6 Skua; 9/40 9 Skua; 3/42 12 Sea Hurricane; 8/42 12 Sea Hurricane + 4 spare; 8/42 disbanded; 9/42 reformed; 11/42 ? Seafire; 2/43 9 Seafire; 4/44 6 Seafire Ib; 8/44 12 Seafire FIII; 6/45 24 Seafire LIII (38 Naval Fighter Wing); 6/46 disbanded

I noted that the 801 Sqdn also appears to have served on the Furious from 9/39 to sometime after 7/40, and from 11/42 to 8/44. It served on the Eagle from 2/42 to 8/42. (Eagle was sunk by Uboat on 8/11/42, and thats why the sqdn was disbanded and reformed...)

To get that last info, I have to eyeball the ship entries (like the one given for the Implacable, above), and hope I pick out the name of the sqdn from the cluttered manner the info is presented.

< Message edited by mlees -- 6/6/2006 3:10:34 AM >

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 222

RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/6/2006 4:32:16 AM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

The matter of 801 squadron is academic: we cannot change units once a ship enters PTO - and Implaccable has a full suite of squadrons. Should have though of that before. I don't know if 801 squadron made it a few days before the end of the war or not - but it does not count if it only made it by getting on a ship in leiu of another unit already there. We often have to make this sort of compromise in this model. In this case 887 squadron is operating Seafires and the ship has them from May when it enters the theater.

This said, I believe there are MANY errors in FAA data - mine and everyone elses - and I don't think there is any chance of getting it all right. I focused on the big carriers - and a unit that left them in favor of a CVE or just shows up on the big ship - and I put some other unit on the CVEs. Frankly the CVEs are a big problem too, and not just in RN. I found more than a few US CVEs with air groups that never had any - enough to fill the "missing" Essex ships more than three times! I found CVEs in the CHS list which were not PTO. I found ships which are missing from the list. All these things I corrected - but I am certain that I got wrong squadrons on CVEs - and lack the time to fix it now. I figure it does not matter much WHICH squadron was there - but if it gets brought to my attention I will gladly use the data.

In the case of FAA, I followed partially a lot of work submitted by someone this board. Otherwise, I followed the RN book I have, and also two books on carriers - one of them exclusively British Carriers. What is clear is that FAA moved units, reformed units, and otherwise made a very confusing to untangle record.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 6/6/2006 4:39:48 AM >

(in reply to mlees)

Post #: 223

Dutch ATG - 6/6/2006 4:45:56 AM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

It appears CHS wrongly assigned 6 pounders wholesale in KNIL units.
These I am replacing with a limited issue (it won't make more) 47mm
weapon - in a new slot - its old one now has a US 37mm - in case I find it is used. I am sure I have a picture of Philippine Scouts training on it. But just what units? There is that PP AT battalion - I wonder what they gave it?

(in reply to Jo van der Pluym)

Post #: 224

RE: Dutch ATG - 6/6/2006 4:51:48 AM

akdreemer

Posts: 1028
Joined: 10/3/2004
From: Anchorage, Alaska
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

It appears CHS wrongly assigned 6 pounders wholesale in KNIL units.
These I am replacing with a limited issue (it won't make more) 47mm
weapon - in a new slot - its old one now has a US 37mm - in case I find it is used. I am sure I have a picture of Philippine Scouts training on it. But just what units? There is that PP AT battalion - I wonder what they gave it?

What I do not understand is why you need to create a slot for the 37mm atg? It has been present in the device file since the game published. It is the standard US Army and Marine atg.

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 225

RE: Dutch ATG - 6/6/2006 4:52:09 AM

Nomad

Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline

I really hope that all of the RHS and CHS senarios have the dates imbedded in the name for things that upgrade. In the stock things like USA Infantry Squad had the same name for all of the different upgrades. It made it hard to know why certain units would not recombine.

_____________________________

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 226

Mariner's Brigade - 6/6/2006 5:27:30 AM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

This unit is now completely revised to include heavy weapons including tanks and amtraks. It arrives at Colon Panama in January 1945 - where it will remain unless a player provides the shipping to move it forward.

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 227

Blackforce problems - 6/6/2006 5:55:44 AM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

I am not able to create Blackforce at this time.

I need to know to what extent it duplicates other units?

Where it formed up?

When it formed up?

I found Australian documents indicating elements moved in from the Middle East - without heavy equipment! It appears this is an ad hoc unit and it forms on Java itself - but are other things it formed from ALSO in the game? We cannot be duplicating units. So I would subtract the elements already present (or kill the unit). Maybe we just make the 2 battalions appear at Aden and the Allies ship them in - or not? I have a nice article on a US Army firefight apparently part of this units' history. It is a dismal story of too little too late.

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 228

CVE's - SCENARIO 060 - 6/6/2006 6:06:59 AM

Herrbear

Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline

I have looked at a lot of the US/Allied CVEs and they do not show any organic air unit attached nor a VR type squadron for replacements.

Will this cause a problem? Can these be used operationally or are they only good for transporting air groups?

The Dutch T-IVa is listed as a torpedo plane type. Since this is a float plane, don't you lose the ablility to work off of coastal squares with tenders by labeling it a "torpedo" plane type?

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 229

RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/6/2006 7:01:57 AM

mlees

Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline

quote:

The matter of 801 squadron is academic: we cannot change units once a ship enters PTO - and Implaccable has a full suite of squadrons. Should have though of that before. I don't know if 801 squadron made it a few days before the end of the war or not - but it does not count if it only made it by getting on a ship in leiu of another unit already there.

Judging from the commissioning date of Implacable, and the date (10/44) of 801 Sqdn being on board at the same time, I would say 801 Sqdn are "plankowners". But I concede your points.

(As I understand them:)

1) There are only four (or five?) coded slots allowed per CV. My entry for Implacable 10/44 shows 7 discrete FAA units onboard upon commissioning.

2) Units must remain onboard the CV they start the scenario on.

3) Finite number of slots for discrete ships, air units, and land units.

Therefore, judgement calls will have to be made.

I do not envy the task you set out for yourselves. I get to just sit back and wait for a groomed product.

< Message edited by mlees -- 6/6/2006 7:04:54 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 230

RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/6/2006 7:41:05 AM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

Sid,

A few notes.

The graphic for the Mohawk IV/P-36 shows what looks to be a B-26 carrying a torpedo externally. Admittedly it would toast any enemy airplane it connected with!

The graphic for the Prince of Wales shows some other, older design BB (Main gun mounts 2 x forward, 1 x center, and 2 x aft instead of 2 x forward and 1 x aft).

The Dutch bomber squadrons are required to upgrade to the British B-25 (Mitchell III/B-25, I think). This has a low production rate. Given the British need for war materials, is it realistic that the UK would have been providing airframes for salvaged Dutch units, or would they really have come from the USA? I suggest allowing the Dutch bomber groups to upgrade to the US line of B-25's.

The replacement rate for the British and Australian version of the C-47 is about 4 or 5 per month (I forget). Ops losses from just the 8 suaqdrons (4 of each country) deployed by 7/42 exceed this. I want the real deal, so if the replacement rate is correct then that's what it is. But, would it be realistic to allow the Aussie squadrons to upgrade to the US version? Would that have been done, considering the US aid to Australia (P-40's and all)? Just a thought.

Ditto for the Dutch transport squadrons. Would they really have been expected to draw on UK stocks of airframes, or would the USA have supplied them?

And, great job - things are really coming together!

(in reply to mlees)

Post #: 231

RE: Blackforce problems - 6/6/2006 11:30:39 AM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I am not able to create Blackforce at this time.

I need to know to what extent it duplicates other units?

Where it formed up?

When it formed up?

I found Australian documents indicating elements moved in from the Middle East - without heavy equipment! It appears this is an ad hoc unit and it forms on Java itself - but are other things it formed from ALSO in the game? We cannot be duplicating units. So I would subtract the elements already present (or kill the unit). Maybe we just make the 2 battalions appear at Aden and the Allies ship them in - or not? I have a nice article on a US Army firefight apparently part of this units' history. It is a dismal story of too little too late.

To be able to recreate "BlackForce" you would have to include the Pioneer & MG Bns which while they were Corps troops, basically became organic to the 6,7,8 & 9 Divs. Are they included in the Div TO&E, if so you'll have to deduct them to solve the riddle, if not part of the TO&E, you have a couple more missing units. In addition "BlackForce included some unattached reinforcements, just an ad-hoc unit.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 232

RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/6/2006 12:56:11 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

WITPQS

EDIT: Cobra says the art is right on our end: download and install in the art directory and it should work.

you get faster art service if you tell Cobra - he is de facto art tzar for RHS and he is very good at getting things resolved -

either you have the wrong panels or the panels need revisions - and he can tell 'faster than right now' (almost)

The Dutch DID use British and Aussie support and planes - which is why it is set that way. That is why you see them that way.

CHS had the Dakota rate set at 30. 1900 were supplied under Lend Lease. This corresponds to 45 per month if all were supplied during the Pacific War period (probably not true - which means the real average is smaller). The idea 2/3 of these went to PTO is silly. But what the real rate should be is hard to say? One problem is that our theater touches more than one UK theater - and if we give a Mideast plane to the gamers - it will never fly in (say) Egypt! Yet we do that for fighters and bombers quite a bit (the only way I can justify the CHS OB is to assume "mideast" counts as part of PTO). Still - 4 seems too low. What if we make it 25% = 11?

< Message edited by el cid again -- 6/7/2006 1:31:34 AM >

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 233

RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/6/2006 1:10:45 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

MLEES:

would it be more pleasing if we renamed 887 squadron 801 squadron?

The seafires are in play either way. Machts nichts re practical effect.

801 is a unit with a long history. I know it from the Falklands. I am

willing to differ from my published data on this point - in honor of the

fact it seems to have been able to get on board Implaccable from time to

time.

Edit: This proposal is now executed for 2.60 (or 2.597, whichever is next).

< Message edited by el cid again -- 6/6/2006 1:13:51 PM >

(in reply to mlees)

Post #: 234

RE: CVE's - SCENARIO 060 - 6/6/2006 1:20:26 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

I have looked at a lot of the US/Allied CVEs and they do not show any organic air unit attached nor a VR type squadron for replacements.

Will this cause a problem? Can these be used operationally or are they only good for transporting air groups?

The Dutch T-IVa is listed as a torpedo plane type. Since this is a float plane, don't you lose the ablility to work off of coastal squares with tenders by labeling it a "torpedo" plane type?

To begin at the end, this is the CHS classification. A lot of work was done on the Dutch - and for some reason that judgement was made. We might get someone to tell us why - but I don't know the plane. If she is a float plane, I am willing to so classify it.

To end at the beginning, I don't care if it is a problem or not. My instructions were "get the data right" and there is a second part I should not quote (but you would like it if I did). I think you can put any carrier capable plane on a CVE and get it to work with higher attrition. I think you can get certain types of other planes to ferry on one too - even to fly off - so the manual says. I hope these things work as I am told. I have not tried it. But these ships were ferries - and should not have groups since they didn't have them. I looked up every last one - because I found I could not trust CHS to not assign an air group to such a ship. Turned out they didn't even have all the ships right - and all of them show up early - they sail ready for war on the day they commission! I took out ships never PTO, added in ship not given to us before, and took out air groups not present. Carriers matter - so I spent a lot of effort on them.

(in reply to Herrbear)

Post #: 235

RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/6/2006 1:30:36 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

OL Dog:

The B-29 was not intended to carry 20,000 pounds of bombs to normal range - that was its maximum load. However, it could carry that much internally - and as far as I know it never carried any externally. The B-24 may also not have carried external bombs. I know as a transport its max load was also 8800 pounds - which seems odd if it could carry more.
I have a book on the B-24 - from a production point of view (in fact listing every build number and serial number - and their fate). It may be quite true that I am using only internal data for these planes - and so far as I know there is no other data to include. Some planes ONLY have eternal weapons, some only internal, some both, and some sort of half-half (semirecessed torpedos on Nells come to mind). Max load remains max load. Now - if you want to say that we should NOT count external loads for heavy bombers - that might make some sense - and make the data a bit more consistent. It would not change the range or the normal (or extended) loads either. Its only present impact would be to allow the plane to operate from a smaller airfield. Eventually I hope max load is an optional mission - at short range of course - then it would hurth the planes so defined.

I found some data supporting reducing the loads of earlier B-17s. I think the last of these - and the later B-24 - should still have their maximum loads - because many references support that as being possible.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 6/6/2006 1:38:15 PM >

(in reply to Ol_Dog)

Post #: 236

RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/6/2006 10:29:45 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

WITPQS

you get faster art service if you tell Cobra - he is de facto art tzar for RHS and he is very good at getting things resolved -

either you have the wrong panels or the panels need revisions - and he can tell 'faster than right now' (almost)

The Dutch DID use British and Aussie support and planes - which is why it is set that way. That is why you see them that way.

CHS had the Dakota rate set at 30. 1900 were supplied under Lend Lease. This corresponds to 45 per month if all were supplied during the Pacific War period (probably not true - which means the real average is smaller). The idea 2/3 of these went to PTO is silly. But what the real rate should be is hard to say? One problem is that our theater touches more than one UK theater - and if we give a Mideast plane to the gamers - it will never fly in (say) Egypt! Yet we do that for fighters and bombers quite a bit (the only way I can justify the CHS OB is to assume "mideast" counts as part of PTO). Still - 4 seems too low. What if we make it 25% = 11?

Am in contact with Cobra re the art - thanks.

What you propose - taking some percentage of the mideast allocation of Dakotas - makes sense. 11 sounds fine to me. But, maybe someone else (who knows more about the theater) could give you a better-qualified second opinion than I can.

Regarding the Dutch bomber squadrons, I think what they used IRL must be looked at in the context of how many squadrons were actually salvaged? For example, if in real life most were salvaged and they were stuck waiting for UK allocations to build up (looks like maybe a 1944 proposition!), then so be it.

On the other hand, if only a couple of Dutch squadrons were salvaged, the way that was handled in real life may be more representative of 'history' than of 'historical capability'. The point being if more squadrons were salvaged they might have swung over to using USA equipment due to its availability.

If my proposal on Dutch bomber squadrons makes sense, it all depends on how many Dutch bomber squadrons were salvaged in real life:

a) If many were salvaged, then real life is an accurate guide to their handling and things should stay as they are.

b) If only a couple were salvaged, then things might well have been handled differently and we should consider allowing USA equipment.

Anybody have any idea how many Dutch bomber squdrons were salvaged in real life?

< Message edited by witpqs -- 6/6/2006 10:42:54 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 237

RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/6/2006 10:42:34 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

The USN AO Kankakee arrives at San Francisco (in late July '42 I think) with Endurance of '-11072'. When formed into a TF and replenished it increases to '100'. Don't know the slot number (how do you see the slot number on ships anyway?).

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 238

RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/7/2006 12:16:58 AM

Jo van der Pluym

Posts: 834
Joined: 10/28/2000
From: Valkenburg Lb, Netherlands
Status: offline

Comments about NEI Korps Insulade.

1. It must be Korps Insulinde. And it was not a NEI unit. Because 80 to 85% arrives from Europe.

2. There first Commander is Maj. Mollinger F.

3. They where all from medio march in training in Camp D by Colombo Ceylon. The unit is formed and battleready from 1 augustus 1942.

4. They had never mortars.

5. And the HQ must be UK South East Asia. ABDA had all surrend

_____________________________

Greetings from the Netherlands

Jo van der Pluym
Crazy

Dutch

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 239

RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to t... - 6/7/2006 1:34:19 AM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

It appears about 4 Dutch squadrons served in RAF and RAAF after something like a "salvage" operation. We have about 3 of them - only one a bomber unit - one a transport unit - and presumably the other one is a fighter unit.

I can do this both ways - and in PPO I am inclined to swing it the way you propose - and then players can choose "exact history" or "possible history" - in keeping with the RHS philosophy.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 240