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: RHS Design Theory: JB-2 Loon Devices (two of them)

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: RHS Design Theory: JB-2 Loon Devices (two of them) Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: RHS Design Theory: JB-2 Loon Devices (two of them) - 10/27/2012 12:35:19 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		First, a story. You know sailors and sea stories, right?

To digress - there is a Navy saying: What is the difference between a sea story and a fairy tale?

A fairy tale begins with "once upon a time"

A sea story begins with "this is no s..t"

Otherwise, no difference.

Well, this is a true story, sailor or not. Once upon a time, in the early 1980s, I found myself
assigned by my company to work as "resident computer engineer" at the USAF SIL (Software
Integration Laboratory) for the ALCM at the Kent Spaceflight Center of Boeing.

After you entered the secure area with the actual computers and devices which permitted them
to measure the "flights" of simulated missiles (the control surfaces, driving motors and guidance
portions of the missles were physically present, but sensors measure the movements so computers
can calculate the impact on flight)

on your right hand, on the wall over a desk, was a standard sheet of typing paper - on its side
- with a charcoal drawing of a V-1 missile.

Its caption read "The First Cruise Missile"

Now I knew that it was the first jet powered operational cruise missile when the Germans used it in WWII.

I even knew we had copied it and studied it in several forms.

But I didn't know it was OUR first operational and mass produced cruise missile.

So much for my story. The point is that I worked in the world of analysis of cruise missile flight profiles.

After careful consideration of all the factors I can think of, I conclude that the surface attack version
of the JB-2 Loon can be best simulated in the AE system as a Ground Attack Rocket. While it is true the
actual maximum range of the JB-2 version of the V-1 is 149 statue miles - more than three hexes -
its accuracy is so terrible that at such a range it will miss a specific target by 3/8 of a mile. As a terror
weapon launched against a vast metropolis like London, it was marginally useful - even then most missed.
But our system does not provide for such random area targets. The simple AE engine wants to assign
one device to one target - and does so automatically. The entire option for strategic bombardment by
bombers seems not to work anything like actual strategic bombing. Even atomic bombs don't work
anything like actual atomic bombs.

Note the planning for Olympic and Coronet contemplated firing the JB-2 as "pre invasion bombardment" -
it was not intended as a strategic or terror weapon in the sense the V-1 was. For these reasons, using it
in the same hex makes sense. So its use as a ground bombardment rocket with a rather large warhead
makes sense. So my second JB-2 device - available from 1/45 - is the JB-2 Loon/SSM. My first
launching platform is a modified LST - designated LST(G) w Loon SSM - to make it easy for players who
have not read my notes to gasp what it is. The LST is a standard USN Type II LST with the forward
40 mm mounting replaced by a JB-2 launcher - it fires one round with 100 reloads. Cargo capacity
of the LST is reduced to only 450 - the rest of the space is for storage of missiles, assembly areas,
fuel storage areas, and an elevator so the missiles can be moved when assembled to the upper deck.
It is almost identical to the JB-2 Loon/Radar ASM - except it has an accuracy of 5 (vice 50) and a range
of 74 (vice 66).

Second, the other device, created yesterday, before the surface version described above:

The aircraft contemplated for use during WWII was the PB4Y - and the test aircaft which
was also considerd for operational use post war was the B-17E. The B-29 was also
contemplated as a platform.

I have created an experimental ASM version I consider to be radar guided. For that
reason its useful range is lower than the missile's absolute range - due to target
acquisition issue. For that reason the "out of hex" issue is not germane, and the existing
code should work fine.

For the record, the absolute range is 149 miles.

The device is called

JB-2 Loon/Radar ASM

it is a plane guided missile

Weight 5023 pounds

warhead 2100 pounds

range in this form 66 (37.5 miles)

Alternate device 206 (4,000 pound bomb)

A strictly historical scenario would define it as available on a PB4Y
(probably two per plane)

A slightly more liberal scenario would probably have B-17E and B-29
carriers - likely two per B-17 to normal range - four for a B-29
with two for B-29 extended range

I elected to have the strictly historical scenarios (101 through 104)
get B-17E and PB4Y carriers in September, 1945 - with the B-29
a month later. In 105 they are a month sooner.

The surface launch version is available nominally from January, 1945,
but you must convert ships to launch them, and then sail them to the
battle area. So far only the LST conversion is available in the data set.
Next I will create a CVE. Finally I will look at the possibility of submarines
because it was an immediate post war concept, and try to figure out what
sort of land unit was to launch them?

Most missiles are on the Axis side - because they developed them first.
Even this missile is a copy of an Axis weapon! However, I have already
added the JB-1 Bat, and investigated Project Bumblebee - a wartime
effort to get naval SAMs. I will continue to look for Allied cases that might
apply.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 10/27/2012 12:43:02 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 151
RE: RHS Design Theory: USN Lark SAM ships - 10/28/2012 2:09:45 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Seems the USN got into the SAM research business because of German
guided bombs and missiles. Later, the program got a lot more priority because
of the kamakaze threat, something never really solved. The primary wartime
naval SAM research was Project Bumblebee - a program far ahead of its time
which proposed a supersonic ramjet (at a time no such engine was understood
in the USA) on top of a booster (because a ramjet does not work until it is at
high speed). The guidance systems proposed were even more complicated, so it took 10 to 20 years for 3 of the 4 programs (Terrier, Talos and Tarter, in that order) to become operational, while the most complex of all (Typhoon) was eventually abandoned on cost grounds (but its guidance system eventually became what we call Ageis radars). All very interesting, but of little use for a game that ends in 1946. There were, however, wartime ship designs based on the prototype Talos concept,
the XGM-1 (Experimental Guided Missile 1). These contemplated completing USS Hawaii with side mounted SAM launchers and two "pits" aft in the former heavy gun mounting area for JB-1 Loon SSMs. [A variation proposed completing the USS Kentucky - the sixth numbered and fifth laid down Iowa class - the fifth numbered ship having never been actually started]

The Loon was more of an emergency project, and was specified in subsonic and, initially, radio controlled forms, so it could see service in wartime. A fairly basic missile, it weighed nearly a ton (920 kg - 530 kg for missile and 370 kg for booster stage), had a range of 55 km, a speed of 0.87 mach, and initially depended on a human "fire control computer" to compare radar signals and "fly" the missile by radio command so it would intercept the target. It survived until 1950 in various forms, and its vehicles were used by different projects of the three major services. It was practical and might have seen service in 1946 had not wartime priority sharply declined in 1945. I simply took this missile and substituted it for the XGM-1 in the Alaska class. The original Lark designation was KAQ-1

Alaska Class ships, built as "large cruisers" or "B type cruisers" - were candidates for conversion to AA ships and command ships. Stripped of their heavy guns, they would mount 18 of the new 5 inch 54s - 3 twins forward - two on each beam - two more aft. It is this form of the ship which can be upgraded to a missile cruiser. The after mountings are replaced with JB-2 Loon launchers. The beam mountings are replaced
with Loon launchers. Not shown in the original design, I restored the after superfiring 5 inch position because there is no coverage by more than 40mm otherwise, an oversight I am pretty sure would have been addressed if the ship had been proceeded with (since the magazine and mounting position were already present). Unlike the first generation T missile programs, the WWII era design contemplated only single arm launchers - and because each missile had to be controlled by an operator - this makes some sense. The XGM-1 project, using prototype Taylos missiles, was utterly impractical, with reloading estimated to take as much as 8 hours! Substituting the simple Lark was the only reasonable wartime possibility.

The Iowa conversion is far less radical and produces a far more reasonable combination of ship features - except for the special case of amphibious flagship (a task for which battleships and cruisers heavy guns rendered them less than ideal).
With no need for the SSM mountings, the SAMs simply replace two of the five side mounts of 5in/38s. The other 3 are upgraded to 5in/54s - producing about the same weight of metal on aircraft - at greater range and altitude than the 5in/38s did. But to get this conversion, at a critical stage in a long war, one must take an Iowa out of service at a size 49 shipyard for 90 days: a nicely agonizing tradeoff.


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 152
RE: RHS Design Theory: JB-2 Loon Devices (two of them) - 10/28/2012 6:58:02 PM   
Natali

 

Posts: 103
Joined: 9/18/2012
From: Ocatillo Land
Status: offline 		You wrote the sea story somewhere else, but didn’t respond to my mention of Travis Taylor and moved your story. I’m sorry if you have a problem with Dr Taylor he does take his redneck persona a bit far.

I did my Masters Thesis on extremely high altitude pulse-jet engine combustion/deflagration/detonation physics and owe a debt of gratitude to the early pioneers, like Karavodin, Gosslau, Schmidt, et al.

I haven’t worked for Boeing, but have worked for subcontractors. I know the players pretty well. You must know Gerry Randolph, because he was the project manager for the original LRBM and then there was Chris Joyce who you may have known as Rocketman.

People like us need to stick together. A good friend is taking me to Huntsville in December and it would be nice to pass on your hellos to the NASA folks.

Please send me a pm with your info. Thanks.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 153
RE: RHS Design Theory: JB-2 Loon Devices (two of them) - 10/29/2012 12:36:31 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		To tell the truth, I do not have a good memory for names. I cannot immediately recall a single name from the era - more than 30 years ago -
with the exception of those who remain in contact with me. However, Travis Taylor is pretty famous, and I don't think he was associated with
either the NASA or the USAF SIL labs at the Spaceflight Center. He may have visited, but I don't think we had anyone of his stature as a
resident (assigned there). [The NASA activity there was the IUS - or Inertial Upper Stage - a booster for satellites launched from the
Space Shuttle] The SILs "test fly" things which don't exist yet - or if they do - in modified forms which don't exist yet. They are the reason
it almost never happens a plane or missile does not work - something that used to be common. They take physical parts of the bird that
cause it to maneuver - connect them to the actual guidance system - and then pretend to "fly" - measuring what the creation does as it
goes through the mission. Computers use the measurements to calculate the effects on the "flight" - so even a "fatal" maneuver is only
a matter of what happens in the software - not a real event. Yet the physical part of the system is very real - the part which will eventually
fly for real - so you are really finding out what happens in any flight regime you care to test. It is more boreing than exciting, and does not
attract the more important people. Unless something goes dreadfully wrong. [Nothing like threatening the existence of a big funding program
to get interest from all and sundry. For example, we determined that an ALCM, which only looks strait down using a radio altimeter, was too
dumb to avoid a building or hill - a problem severe enough that the program was terminated in favor of a later missile.]

(in reply to Natali)
Post #: 154
RE: RHS Design Theory: JB-2 Loon Devices (two of them) - 10/29/2012 6:47:03 PM   
Natali

 

Posts: 103
Joined: 9/18/2012
From: Ocatillo Land
Status: offline 		Didn’t know Dr Taylor worked for Boeing. Know from his books and papers he is still with NASA and has done tons of projects for “other” people. I like him because of attitude and because he pays a lot of attention to propulsion systems. Know from my (very limited) work in the field that there aren't many folks in the field, and everybody knows and works with everybody else.

I really like his rocket redneck show because he puts it in the face of the intellectuals sayin just cause somebody talks like a hick doesn’t mean they are stupid. Being a hick from the desert I can appreciate that. He talks to the hicks too and says a lot of rocket science isn’t really rocket science and here’s some cool things you can do with stuff out of your shed or from the junkyard. Lots of hicks and rednecks out there realizing that they can play in the big leagues too.

He showed how to build a sounding rocket fueled by shine, and how to make a gun tracking system out of two blenders, a webcam and a laptop. I totally love the watermelon onager they built out of scrap lumber and !!panty hose!!

I was working for Rocketdyne (United technologies) at the time and was writing firmware for the combustion mechanism. Totally boring but I got to go to some of the Program meetings and see some wicked cool stuff. Surprised you don't remember Chris Joyce. He was the front man for the whole project. He would always put all of us in stitches with his unique and eccentric perspective. Anyone who ever had a presentation from Dr Joyce would never forget it. He was so fundamentally sound and dynamic in his presentation that I can still remember almost paragraphs of some of his presentations.

Maybe you just worked on the line, and didn't get to the briefings. I assumed from your text that you were part of the community. Sorry If I caused you any pain and sincerely apologize for any embarrasment caused.

Going back East to see relatives and stopping in Chatanooga for the battlefields. My bud is going to take me down to Huntsville so I can see Rocket City. It would be prime beyond belief if I could actually meet or even see Dr Taylor. Not much hope of that but hope always springs eternal.

Regards. Sam

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 155
RE: RHS Design Theory: JB-2 Loon Devices (two of them) - 10/29/2012 6:51:11 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone™
Status: offline 		Hey El Cid

You're doing a RHS for this AE thing?

I really enjoyed your RHS in the past.

So no matter the many vitriol you were forced to swallow on these boards (not from me that's for sure; some people don't have anything better to do than abusing people on the internets LOL) good luck and fair winds

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to Natali)
Post #: 156
RE: RHS Design Theory: JB-2 Loon Devices (two of them) - 10/29/2012 8:06:38 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
I think perhaps you don't appreciate how old I am, or when I was working in that area? Dr Taylor was born while I was in Viet Nam, and is a
generation younger than I am. So work by such a person pretty much was after my day in the area. I moved to Alaska in 1988. And this stuff
is not on topic re RHS mods.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Natali

Didn’t know Dr Taylor worked for Boeing. Know from his books and papers he is still with NASA and has done tons of projects for “other” people. I like him because of attitude and because he pays a lot of attention to propulsion systems. Know from my (very limited) work in the field that there aren't many folks in the field, and everybody knows and works with everybody else.

I really like his rocket redneck show because he puts it in the face of the intellectuals sayin just cause somebody talks like a hick doesn’t mean they are stupid. Being a hick from the desert I can appreciate that. He talks to the hicks too and says a lot of rocket science isn’t really rocket science and here’s some cool things you can do with stuff out of your shed or from the junkyard. Lots of hicks and rednecks out there realizing that they can play in the big leagues too.

He showed how to build a sounding rocket fueled by shine, and how to make a gun tracking system out of two blenders, a webcam and a laptop. I totally love the watermelon onager they built out of scrap lumber and !!panty hose!!

I was working for Rocketdyne (United technologies) at the time and was writing firmware for the combustion mechanism. Totally boring but I got to go to some of the Program meetings and see some wicked cool stuff. Surprised you don't remember Chris Joyce. He was the front man for the whole project. He would always put all of us in stitches with his unique and eccentric perspective. Anyone who ever had a presentation from Dr Joyce would never forget it. He was so fundamentally sound and dynamic in his presentation that I can still remember almost paragraphs of some of his presentations.

Maybe you just worked on the line, and didn't get to the briefings. I assumed from your text that you were part of the community. Sorry If I caused you any pain and sincerely apologize for any embarrasment caused.

Going back East to see relatives and stopping in Chatanooga for the battlefields. My bud is going to take me down to Huntsville so I can see Rocket City. It would be prime beyond belief if I could actually meet or even see Dr Taylor. Not much hope of that but hope always springs eternal.

Regards. Sam



(in reply to Natali)
Post #: 157
RE: RHS Design Theory: JB-2 Loon Devices (two of them) - 10/31/2012 8:46:03 PM   
Natali

 

Posts: 103
Joined: 9/18/2012
From: Ocatillo Land
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
I think perhaps you don't appreciate how old I am, or when I was working in that area? Dr Taylor was born while I was in Viet Nam, and is a
generation younger than I am. So work by such a person pretty much was after my day in the area. I moved to Alaska in 1988. And this stuff
is not on topic re RHS mods.

Sure I appreciate how old you are. My uncle (now deceased) was a WW-2 vet and my Dad was in Korea. I may be a generation short, but I grew up on the laps of giants and remember every word and have picture books from them. My Dad has supported me since forever and he is a HUGE fan of Dr Taylor. A Rocket Scientist redneck that proves rocket science isn't really rocket science is just his cup of tea.

People who work in this field know who was, who is, and who will or who might be. And of course it's not OT because it's real and the people actually exist today. That is, of course, unless you and your mod are are just wargamer bogus. Hesitate to think that, but anytime I put a reality name out there, you duck away. Been warned away from you by many people. Beginning to understand why, but am still curious as to your curriculum vitae.

You post pages of Internet information, in support of your personal mod, much of which is known to be suspect. You make claims to personal knowledge that you won't verify (you are too old to remember), so what are we to believe? If you are a true and serious modder, why can't you be honest with the reast of us like we are with you? Just who and what are you anyway?

You got issues with that, send me a pm. And poop on the forum people who don't like pms.

Regards. Sam

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 158
RE: RHS Design Theory: RHS Update 4.20 Comprehensive - 11/6/2012 7:48:14 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I have decided not to issue the update today as planned because, yesterday,
I did the US Chair for Mifune in Test 6A2. I was astonished at how few ACM
there are - and realized most places that need them were serviced by the US
Army. I then realized these vessels are not normally listed in naval reference books
(never mind the US Army operated the biggest military fleet of all time in WWII) and
that I have one of the rare exceptions - devoted entirely to US Army Ships and Watercraft (its title). So I will add these vessels - for the benefit of new games - it won't help the present one (unless I find the vessels present but misdefined).

The "Japanese naval radar review and upgrade" is over. As well, all warships that should carry troops, but didn't, have been reviewed (a vastly bigger review, covering
all nations on both sides). As well, Japanese land units with radar have been revised
because some were affected by the changes to the radar or the addition of two new types. Along the way, many ship upgrades or conversions got modified - particularly in scenario 105 - partly because radar is a later in the war matter for Japan - and as long as I was there - I might as well integrate the best information possible. Much eratta was discovered and fixed as well.

The last thing done was a review of the fuel/oil situation for the Allies. Tests indicate our "hydro power" theory works well. I realized yesterday that would solve a fairly difficult problem the Allies have in the Pacific Northwest and in Canada - the inability of the rail system to import enough oil so refineries can make enough fuel to run both industry and support major fleet operations. I was concerned about later in the game, when there is even more industry and even more ships to support. And I realized our "hydro power" theory would solve the problem. So the entire Columbia River system of dams was reviewed, as well as lesser dams on the river system (Walamet) by Portland - another pair by Vancouver BC - Shasta near Redding California - and Grand Coulee (and another big dam) by Las Vegas. The upper Columbia has dams in Canada. The biggest - on the US border - is at Castelgar - which was added as a dot location. It is also the site of a major RR bridge - but map art makes this bridge be in US territory - and since the hex is on a major road system - it will properly link for economic purposes. At the same time, I added lesser dams near Nelson.

Nelson is a problem, however. It was reduced to a dot location - no airfield was built during the war. And so there is no base force - so the RCMP Nelson Base Force (from stock) was removed. However, it is a source of resources and "power" (which we model with fuel - because it is used by industry).

Another addition was the abandoned copper mine and hydro site - long the most efficient in Canada - called Anyox. This has the note (dormant) to indicate it isn't in use. Anyox is a port, a fine deepwater port, between Prince Rupert and Ramree Island. If both Anyox and Ramree are built to level 3 ports, resources from Ketchekan as well as both of them will link to Prince Rupert - and supplies can flow the other direction - automatically. I grew up near a copper mine reopened for WWII - so I know it is an option to do that (in this case, Anyox was stripped of equipment for use other places during the war). Since the dam is being rebuilt RIGHT NOW, the idea it could be rebuild (it closed in 1935) is not unrealistic. So the location joins Kennicot - which is a similar copper mine totally abandoned in Alaska, but which can be repaired back into service if a player wants. Kennicot has a RR - in the pwhex file (viable until the 1962 earthquake). Anyox also had a RR - but if the port is built - it isn't needed - and it was a low efficiency RR that could not use rolling stock from the Canadian main line - so the port local traffic is good enough to model it.

Otherwise, I greatly expanded the refinery at Abadan - the world's largest then and, in fact, to this day (apparently supporting hundreds of thousands of workers, and their families and service industries). Panama and San Diego, and the US East Coast - also got some revisions related to oil supply. And Bakersfield turns out to be the biggest oilfield in the USA (I thought that would be in Texas) - so it got expanded in terms of oil wells. [I was astonished to learn of wells producing 10-30 bbl/day being the norm - even now. We consider 1000 bbl/day without a pump so poor we shut it down in Alaska!]

This update should issue tomorrow and will freeze development, so there will be more time for testing.


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 159
RE: RHS Design Theory: RHS Update 4.20 Comprehensive - 11/7/2012 11:18:44 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I regret to report that there were significant numbers of ACMs in the stock data set -
9 at game start and 12 entering the game early in 1942. Unfortunately, not one
of the 9 were even built in 1941, and 8 were not in USN service under the listed names
before late 1944, most in 1945 - by which time there were no longer doing ACM type duty. And not one of the 12 are ACM at all - but rather motor minesweepers misclassified. Re this, see the nominal class leader (the stock class is named for her at least):


Online Library of Selected Images:
-- U.S. NAVY SHIPS --
USS YMS-346 (1943-1948)
USS YMS-346, a 245-ton auxiliary motor minesweeper built at Jacksonville, Florida, was commissioned in August 1943. She crossed the Atlantic late in the year and spent all of 1944 operating in the English Channel area. After returning to the U.S. in early 1945, the minesweeper went to the Pacific in mid-year, then voyaged onward to Okinawa, where she arrived well after Japan's surrender. She served briefly in Japanese and Philippine waters before being placed out of commission at the beginning of May 1946. YMS-346 was stricken from the Navy register in June 1946. Though considered for transfer to China, this was not carried out and she was sold in October 1948.

This page features our only view of USS YMS-346.


So all 12 were reclassified as YMS. Since they might be able to preform minefield tending duties, I reversed the conversion option between the ACM and YMS versions - and a player who wants more ACM and thinks these are suitable may convert them. But not before any YMS were built - which is to say - before March 1942. So every one had to be delayed in service. None appear where stock has them - all come from the East Coast - and must transit to the PTO. And they are all vastly too big. Class slots 788 & 789 should have a size of 245 tons, and a date of 4/42. All the vessels (slots 9966 to 9977) should be rated as YMS (that is, class 789) vice ACM (slot 788).
All 12 need later dates of appearance and to appear at Eastern USA. Alder no sooner than 1 February 1945 (since she was in ETO until "early 1944") and none of the others before any of the class were built - surely not before April 1942. That said, there were hundreds of MMS, and more might be added. Many had numbers without names. None of these vessels were ACM at all - although I am permitting conversion to that if a player wants AND believes it is reasonable. So adding more is a question of do you want more minesweepers, not ACM.


The 9 listed at game start fall into two categories. One is a special case, an actual USN vessel when built (and probably not a ACM), so it will be treated separately below. The rest were all former Army "mine planters" - and they are the wartime built class - none of them extant when the war began. The listed vessels are all instances where they eventually entered USN - AFTER the Army gave up the mission - and none of those which remained in the Army are listed at all. Similarly, none of the pre war Army mine planters got listed. And all of the 8 that are listed have the wrong name for 1941.

These ships - even if no others are - need to be classified as US Army and assigned to Army commands. They are NOT similar to USN minelayers - even though they "plant" mines. They do NOT serve under naval command efficiently and have a specialized mission no naval vessels can perform efficiently. Army controlled mines are a wholly different weapon system from naval mines, which are not controlled and not "planted" with precision at a known location - a process that takes many hours per mine - or even days (because, besides determining the location, electric cables need to be laid for sensors and control purposes, not mooring purposes).

The Army Class involved should be formally named M-1 - because that is its name. Both class slots 781 and 782 should be renamed, and resized to 1256. There were never any 20 mm guns - so these should be removed. The names should be Army names. I added the Army number (MP-1 etc) and a Navy number (ACM-1) if space allowed and if it eventually went to the Navy. Only those with ACM numbers should ever be allowed to be assigned to naval commands IMHO. However, three more may be added (use slots 9988-90 right after the others to make em easy to find):

Col H Spurgin MP-16

Gen S M Mills MP-7

Gen H L Abbott MP-1

None of these vessels were built in 1941, so all need delayed dates between 2/42 and 12/42. Slot 9979 is 420215. Slot 9981 is 421215. Other dates are not in the Army reference material immediately to hand.

The Army names by slot are

9979 Col Armistead MP-2

9980 Col Hunt MP-4/ACM-6

9981 1LT Sylvester MP-5

9982 Gen Knox MP-6/ACM-8

9983 A Murray MP-8/ACM-9

9984 - Different class (see below)

9985 Riker MP-15/ACM-2

9986 C Bundy MP-14/ACM-1

9987 Jn Story MP-4/ACM-3

There ARE Army mine planters in theater at the start of the game, but all require adding new classes. I used slots 822, 823 and 824 (with 821 being used by the Navy Butress class, described below). These classes are generally identified by the year they were designed - 1909, 1919 and 1937. 1937 is the prototype for the M-1 deiign of 1942, so it is almost the same. There was only one ship -

LtC Ellery W Niles - and she starts at San Francisco. The ship has diesel electric engines and is very range efficient - if you use only one (of three) generator sets you can get 6400 miles at 8 knots. If you use all three, you make the same 12 knots as the 1942 design. But this vessel mounts a 3 inch gun forward instead of a single 40 mm. Because of its range superiority, in Scenario 105, I had the 1942 class built to 1937 specifications. In strictly historical scenarios, Niles is the only ship in the class. Displacement is 1235 tons. The mine count is the same as M-1 = 20.

There is one 1919 class ship in the Philippines, at Cavete = Bataan hex. She is Col F E Harrison. Two others are at Panama and a fourth never enters PTO. This class is fairly similar to the M-1/1942 class. Max speed is 11 knots, range 4500 nm, and instead of the 40 mm forward there is only a .50 AAMG - or nothing at all. The mine count is 18. These two are Gen Wm M Graham and Gen J Franklin Bell. At least one should remain at Panama, but the reason there are two may be so one can go to either Atlantic or Pacific at need. I put both in to give players control over the deployment, but the primary RHS rule - if you don't think it would be done, don't do it - may well apply to one or both.

The 1909 class only has BGen Royal T Frank in the Pacific - at Hawaii - and she is an early war loss. Note that all 1909 and 1919 ships names were repeated in the 1942 series - but can be distinguished in RHS because the early vessels lack MP numbers (which, in fact, they didn't have). This is a much smaller class, 282 tons, durability 2, 10 knots, cruise 8 knots and endurance 4000 nm with 60 tons of fuel. They are unarmed or have a single HMG. There are also two Light Mine Planters on the map, and I rate them as identical to the 1909 for convenience, and they are almost the same except slightly smaller. These are Neptune AMPS (Army Mine Planter Service) at Manila and Randol AMPS at Portland. The mine count is 10.

There is one additional vessel, actually listed, and the only ACM with its correct name when it appears on the map in the stock list. This is USS Buttress, ACM-4, former PCE-878. I used class slot 821. Max speed 15, cruise 12, endurance 4000, durability 4, tonnage 903, mine count 15. It may not actually have been an ACM - and its date needs to be changed to 440313 (or later - that is commissioning) at Portland. She is a fine ship, with a 3 inch forward, a quad 40 right aft, and a supermounted twin also aft facing. This class can be converted from class slot 759 - which needs to have its tonnage increased to 795 and durability increased to 3. [So does slot 760] These are the PC-461 classes - which I renamed PCE-461 after historical USN usage. The ability to convert these PCEs into ACMs, and also the YMS described at the top of this article - at least mean the Allies have the option to get more ACMs by conversion if the player wants them.









(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 160
RE: RHS Design Theory: Third Generation RHS atomic bom... - 11/8/2012 5:10:01 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		US Carrier Logic as well as RN & Commonwealth Carrier Logic documents (two posts below)
are revised.

This to reflect the addition of conversion options for Iowa class battleships and HMS Vanguard.
A fifth Iowa and Vanguard have been added. So has USS Hawaii. So have missile conversions
for Iowas and the Alaska class, along with a command version of the Alaska class. Also,
about ten of Casablanca class carriers which could have completed in 1945 or 1946 are added -
one more in 105 than in the other scenarios (because the one not added was assigned to
training duty in historical ones). IJN gains escort production until the summer of 1946 - IF
it can keep industry fed and in tact for them to appear. The main purpose of these additions,
which only affect new game starts, is to flesh out Scenario 106 - Downfall - which is in development
but can be used as a test bed for late war planes, ships and devices at this time. The secondary\
purpose is for games that last past the end of the historical war - to address the sudden cut off
of reinforcements which would not actully be likely in that case.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 11/11/2012 8:50:37 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 161
RE: RHS Design Theory: JB-2 Loon Devices (two of them) - 11/10/2012 4:11:51 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Although normally the most complex institutional and organizational concepts are Japanese, in the area of aircraft carriers and associated FAA units, probably the British hold the record. Trying to build a "historical" model of WWII era carriers and their air groups is not as easy to do as it is to say. Since I intend to freeze development for some time, and since I remembered that the RHS review of these matters was "preliminary" and always intended to have a more diligent and in depth revision, I decided to fold that in to the last update in the current micro update series - which will be called 4.20. This process involves air groups, classes and ships - and due to discovery of two eratta - also aircraft.

I found that rating aircraft carrier capacity properly imposed problems with air group sizes. It seems that stock assumes the full deck capacity of British carriers is going to be used in most cases, so if you reduce the ship capacity, the groups often are too big for it. IRL the British often ran well BELOW capacity - and this had real advantages in terms of efficiency of flight operations. In addition to this factor, RHS does NOT use a "deck park" capacity for any carrier with a hanger: first to be fair, we have a common standard; second there is no game mechanism forcing players to run from bad weather or lose all the planes on deck, a real life consideration if you cannot strike them below. And finally, it was found that the Midway class, in particular, could embark more aircraft than could be operationally employed efficiently. [Probably related to the fact only one plane lands at a time and only one or two take off at a time as well as deck handling considerations if it is perpetually crowded.] For this reason, the "hanger deck capacity" standard was adopted for all cases where there is a hanger deck.

I have been able to add one more fleet carrier, six more light fleet carriers (CVL in British naval parlance), and several "class C carriers" (CVE in British). More have changed their date and/or location of appearance, based on thorough research. All CVL and CVE types have picked up pennant numbers. This not counting creating the historical option of a carrier conversion for the Vanguard (that is, of HMS Lion's hull, as renamed). IMHO this conversion is the best historical CVB design, compared to other WWII options (all of which are in RHS): the Shinano, the Midway and a historical option to convert Iowa's. I used historical design data, not just "whatever you feel like" - and the ship has (a) a full size air group compared with the others; (b) a good fleet speed; (c) superior protection (even better IRL than can be modeled in game terms) do to the focus on vertical protection; (d) superb range and (e) the most efficient AAA defense of any carrier (adopted from the later British CV practice, with what amounts to 4 twins forward and 4 twins aft - all above the flight deck (where admittedly they impinge on deck park) - but AA defense - and armored protection vs bombs - matter late in WWII in the PTO.

I am wrapping up documenting these changes and am expanding the UK & CW carrier list to include the CVE type ships. In many cases, CVEs appear a year or two sooner. It is wise to not send them directly into operations - but since the Japanese get carriers the day they commission - it is fair that the Allies come close to that in some cases. However, I did not change carriers that went to another theater, or were assigned training duties (always in another theater) - except that I assumed other theater duty ends in August 1945 - so that (unless engaged in training) they become available in the fall of 1945 for transfer to PTO. I found one carrier assigned to the wrong class (this a stock issue) - and crated the right class for it. [Activity ship slot 3140. In particular her capacity is only 10, so her embarked air group was too large. Since it was divided into 6 bombers and 4 fighters, I preserved that in a way that permits a player to combine them if they wish into a single type.] Other than it and those already defined, I did ignore the many one and two off British CVE types - assuming they take up various training or other duties off map. I also found that Vindex [ship slot 3116] never was in PTO - so delayed her transfer until after the end of hostilities.


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 162
RE: RHS Design Theory: Completely revised and expanded... - 11/11/2012 8:49:08 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		RHS RN & CW Carrier Logic

Early in the war, all the considerations that led to the design and ordering of Allied carriers remain valid. In scenario 105, AFTER the ADDITIONAL carriers of the REVISED shadow program and regular production programs begin to appear that the Allies change what they did historically. In scenarios 101 to 104, all dates are date of commission unless there was another deployment besides PTO. Stock sometimes uses dates before commissioning! Other times later. Scenario 100 uses an entirely different logic stream, starting long before the war. [In this list, Vancouver = Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada]

Historical Name RHS Name RHS Date Stock Date Notes

Victorious Slot 3034 RN Victorious R38 430201 430201 Note 4 Starts at UK
Indomitable Slot 3035 RN Indomitable R92 420117 420117 Note 5 Starts at Aden
Illustrious Slot 3036 RN Illustrious R87 420605 420428 Starts at Capetown
Indefatigable Slot3037 RN Indefatigable R10 441101 441015 Starts at Aden
Formidable Slot 3038 RN Formidable R67 420315 420315 Note 3 St @ Capetown
Implacable Slot 3039 RN Implacable R85 450415 450415 Starts at Aden
Colossus Slot 3041 RN Colossus R15 450312 441216 To France 1946
Venerable Slot 3042 RN Venerable R63 450301 450615 Starts at UK; RNN 1948
Vengeance Slot 3043 RN Vengeance R71 450525 450615 St @ Aden; RAN 1952
Glory Slot 3044 RN Glory R62 450523 459402 Starts at UK
Hermes Slot 3045 RN Hermes R95 411206 411206 Starts at Trincomalee
Warrior Slot 3053 RCN Warrior R31 450402 451202 Note 1 Start @ Quebec
Ocean Slot 3060 RN Ocean R68 450808 450808 Starts at UK
Unicorn Slot 3113 RN Unicorn D72 440113 440130 Note 13
Perseus Slot 3114 RCN Perseus R51 451019 451019 Only in 105. Note 8
Pioneer Slot 3115 RN Pioneer R76 450208 450208 Mars in 105 Note 2
Vindix Slot 3116 RN Vindix D15 450915 450714 Note 12 Enters at UK
Attacker Slot 3117 RN Attacker D02 441001 450415 Enters at UK
Battler Slot 3118 RN Battler D18 431001 431015 Enters at Aden

Historical Name RHS Name RHS Date Stock Date Notes

Chaser Slot 3119 RN Chaser D32 440415 450615 Enters at Aden
Fencer Slot 3120 RN Fencer D64 450315 450415 Enters at Aden
Hunter Slot 3121 RN Hunter D80 450221 450615 Enters at UK
Pursuer Slot 3122 RN Pursuer D73 450715 450315 Enters at UK
Searcher Slot 3123 RN Searcher D40 450715 450615 Enters at UK
Stalker Slot 3124 RN Stalker D91 450715 450215 Enters at UK
Striker Slot 3125 RN Striker D12 441114 450315 Enters at Aden
Ameer Slot 3126 RN Ameer D01 430720 441215 Enters at Tacoma
Arbiter Slot 3127 RN Arbiter D31 440801 450515 Enters at Aden Note 14
Begum Slot 3128 RN Begum D38 440301 440315 Enters at Aden
Emperor Slot 3129 RN Emperor D98 440901 450515 Enters at Aden
Empress Slot 3130 RN Empress D42 430813 450315 Enters at Tacoma
Khedive Slot 3131 RCN Knedive D62 450901 450115 Enters at Aden
Reaper Slot 3132 RCN Reaper D82 440221 450715 Enters at Tacoma
Ruler Slot 3133 RN Ruler D72 430821 450615 Enters at Vancouver
Shah Slot 3134 RN Shah D21 440301 440315 Enters at Aden
Slinger Slot 3235 RN Slinger D26 430811 450415 Enters at Aden
Smiter 3136 RN Smiter D55 450915 450715 Enters at UK
Speaker Slot 3137 RN Speaker D90 450122 450815 Enters at Aden
Atheling Slot 3138 RN Atheling D51 430731 450815 Enters at Vancouver
Trumpeter Slot 3139 RN Lucifer D09 450601 440515 Enters at UK
Activity Slot 3140 RN Activity D94 440915 440915 Enters at UK
Tracker Slot 3141 RN Tracker D24 451015 450101 Enters at UK
Raja Slot 3142 RN Prince D10 440911 440911 Enters at UK Note 14

Historical Name RHS Name RHS Date Stock Date Notes

Ranee Slot 3143 RN Ranee D03 431108 440208 Enters at Vancouver
Leviathan Slot 3225 RN Leviathan R08 460218 Not in Stock Only in 105 Note 10
Eagle Slot 3226 RN Audacious R05 451124 Not in Stock Only in 105 Note 6
Vanguard Slot 16017 RN Vanguard R01 450612 Not in Stock If converted Note 9
Puncher Slot 16018 RCN Puncher D79 450915 Not in Stock Enters at UK
Queen Slot 16019 RN Queen D19 450815 Not in Stock Enters at UK
Trouncer Slot 16020 RN Trouncer D85 440131 Not in Stock Enters at Portland
Patroller Slot 16021 RN Patroller D07 450128 Not in Stock Enters at UK Note 14
Premier Slot 16022 RN Premier D23 451015 Not in Stock Enters at UK
Terrible Slot 16023 RN Terrible R93 461030 Not in Stock Only in 105 Note 10
Magnificent Slot 16024 RN Magnificent R22 451216 Not in Stock Only in 105 Note 10
Powerful Slot 16025 RN Powerful R06 460327 Not in Stock Only in 105 Note 10
Majestic Slot 16026 RN Majestic R07 450827 Not in Stock Only in 105 Note 10
Arc Royal Slot 16027 RN Irresistible R09 460603 Not in Stock Only in 105 Note 7
Hercules Slot 16028 RN Hercules R12 460212 Not in Stock Only in 105 Note 10

Note 1: This ship commissioned twice in RN, and once in RCN, and references rarely get the first one!

Note 2: In Scenario 105, it is assumed Pioneer is not used as a maintenance carrier and it is assigned a proper air group. She uses her original name (Mars), as intended for the line carrier role.

Note 3: Withdraw 420904, return 420915.

Note 4: Withdraw 431015; return 440612.

Note 5: Withdraw 420705; return 440612.

Note 6: Audacious, renamed Eagle, commissioned in 1951. In 105, she is laid down as a repeat Implacable on her historical laying date, and built at the same rate as Illustrious = 37 months. Starts at United Kingdom.

Note 7: Arc Royal laid down more than six months after Audacious, commissioned in 1955. In 105, she is laid down as a repeat Implacable on her historical laying date, and built at the same rate as Illustrious. Starts at United Kingdom.

Note 8: Originally named Edgar. Reconstructed as a maintenance aircraft carrier. No air group. Historically not in PTO. Enters PTO after the end of historical hostilities since that was an option.

Note 9: "A proposal was made in 1942 to convert the Vanguard to an aircraft carrier." In RHS the player has the option to accept this proposal, by converting the battleship after she appears. This is also an option in strictly historical scenarios. This is in my view a superior CVB design with exceptional range, AAA, protection and a large air compliment. Enters the map at United Kingdom.

Note 10: Majestic class carriers, none of which ever served in RN, were originally additional units of the Colossus class. Their design was modified, and construction delayed, such that the war ended, and work was suspended, although five were eventually completed for other nations. In the presumably worse situation in Scenario 105, and in any future "enhanced Japan scenarios" (likely including Scenario 100, still in development by Mifune), the original plan is preserved, and they will complete in 1945 or 1946. 13 months from launch is the time it took to complete Ocean. This value is used for the first three Majestic class (which are in all ways identical to Colossus). 15 months from lay down to launch is the time it took for the Powerful, third unit of the Majestic class. This is combined with 13 months to obtain total build time of 28 months, is used for the last three.

Note 11: R numbers for hulls not completed for RN and given them historically use the next issued R numbers historically issued (that is, the Centaur class numbers), in date order. Exception: Vanguard (ex Lion) gets R01 - after the unnamed CV01 project - a superior CVA design. Unfortunately, the Vanguard R number exists only in this list, because we don't want the BB version to have an R number in the game! So it is as theoretical as the historical CV01 project was!

Note 12: Not in PTO historically. Was historically used for Firefly night fighter trials. Could have been sent to PTO after the end of historical hostilities. Air group size increased to 21 vice 18 in stock.

Note 13: Aircraft maintenance carrier and aircraft transport. No air group but capable of operating one. This was so successful other carriers were modified for a similar mission. Critics of the final Shinano design concept take note.

Note 14: No air group. Served as an aircraft transport.




< Message edited by el cid again -- 11/14/2012 1:50:04 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 163
RE: RHS Design Theory: JB-2 Loon Devices (two of them) - 11/11/2012 11:42:39 AM   
dwg

 

Posts: 319
Joined: 1/22/2008
Status: offline
quote:

it was found that the Midway class, in particular, could embark more aircraft than could be operationally employed efficiently. [Probably related to the fact only one plane lands at a time and only one or two take off at a time


Exactly the opposite. The problem once airgroups climbed towards three figures was carriers struggled to launch their complete groups before having to switch to the recovery part of the cycle to recover the first aircraft launched. The fundamental problem was not being able to launch and recover simultaneously, which was the issue the angled deck addressed.

quote:

Vanguard (that is, of HMS Lion's hull, as renamed)


Vanguard isn't a renamed Lion, though her hull was a derivative of the Lion design. Lion's keel was laid down in July 1939 at Vickers' Walker yard, but suspended in October and never restarted, finally being scrapped post-war. Vanguard was laid down in October 1941 at John Brown's Clydebank Yard and launched in November 1944.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 164
RE: RHS Design Theory: Completely revised and expanded... - 11/11/2012 11:54:44 AM   
dwg

 

Posts: 319
Joined: 1/22/2008
Status: offline 		Don't know whether these continue into your database, but:

quote:

Vindix Slot 3116 RN Vindix D15 450915 450714 Note 12 Enters at UK


Vind_e_x

quote:

Khedive Slot 3131 RN Knedive D62 450901 450115 Enters at Aden


K_h_edive

quote:

Arc Royal Slot 16027 RN Irresistible R09 460603 Not in Stock Only in 105 Note 7


Ar_k_ Royal, Irresist_a_ble

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 165
RE: RHS Design Theory: USN CVE Theory - 11/13/2012 12:21:11 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		RHS US Light Carrier Logic

Early in the war, all the considerations that led to the design and ordering of Allied carriers remain valid. In scenario 105, AFTER the ADDITIONAL carriers of the REVISED shadow program and regular production programs begin to appear, THEN the Allies change what they did historically. I assume that something like the attack on Pearl Harbor happens, so the original revisions to pre war planning still occur in game terms. Here we ONLY look at further changes after that. However, in scenarios 101 to 105 US carriers get the ORIGINAL names assigned, not renames (which depend on what sank in the war). In scenarios 101 to 104, all dates are date of commission. Stock sometimes uses dates before commissioning! Other times later. Scenario 100 uses an entirely different logic stream, not documented here and not finished.

Historical Name RHS Name RHS Date Stock Date Notes

Sangamon Slot 3049 Sangamone CVE-26 421205 421215 Start @ SE USA
Chenago Slot 3050 Chenago CVE-28 421215 421215 Start @ SE USA
Suwannee Slot 3051 Suwannee CVE-27 421205 421215 Start @ SE USA
Santee Slot 3052 Santee CVE-29 440213 430512 Start @ SE USA
Nassau Slot 3054 Nassau CVE-16 421010 421015 Note 3
Atamaha Slot 3055 Atamaha CVE-18 421027 421027 Start @ Tacoma
Copahee Slot 3056 Copahee CVE-12 420615 420815 Start @ Tacoma
Breton Slot 3057 Breton CVE-23 430412 430615 Start @ Tacoma
Prince Wm Slot 3058 Prince Wm CVE-31 430409 421023 Note 3
Barnes Slot 3059 Barnes CVE-20 430220 430421 Note 3
Casablanca Slot 3061 Casablanca CVE-55 430708 430815 Note 4
Corregidor Slot 3062 Anguilla Bay CVE-58 430831 430612 Start @ Vancouver
Anzio Slot 3063 Coral Sea CVE-57 430827 430601 Note 1
Liscome Bay Slot 3064 Liscome Bay CVE-56 430807 431015 Start @ Vancouver
Manila Bay Slot 3065 Manila Bay CVE-61 431005 431115 Note 5
Natoma Bay Slot 3066 Natoma Bay CVE-62 431014 430820 Start @ Vancouver
Kalinin Bay Slot 3067 Kalinin Bay CVE-68 431127 431227 Start @ Astoria
White Plains Slot 3068 Elbour Bay CVE-66 431115 440115 Start @ Astoria

Historical Name RHS Name RHS Date Stock Date Notes

Kitkun Bay Slot 3069 Kitkun Bay CVE-71 431108 440108 Start @ Vancouver
Gambier Bay Slot 3070 Gambier Bay CVE-73 431228 440215 Start @ Astoria
Nehanta Bay Slot 3071 Nehanta Bay CVE-74 440103 440204 Start @ Astoria
Ommoney By Slot 3072 Ommoney Bay CVE-75 440311 440311 Start @ Vancouver
Petrof Bay Slot 3073 Petrof Bay CVE-80 431229 440318 Start @ Vancouver
Savo Island Slot 3074 Kaita Bay CVE-78 440203 440303 Start @ Vancouver
Rudyerd Bay Slot 3075 Rudyerd Bay CVE-81 440225 440325 Start @ Vancouver
St Lo Slot 3076 Chapin Bay CVE-63 431023 441023 Start @ Vancouver
Fanshaw Bay Slot 3077 Fanshaw Bay CVE-70 431209 440109 Start @ Vancouver
Kadashan Bay Slot 3078 Kadashan Bay CVE-76 440118 440218 Start @ Vancouver
Saginaw Bay Slot 3079 Saginaw Bay CVE-82 440302 440402 Start @ Vancouver
Cape Esperance SL3080 Tanaek Bay CVE-88 440409 440509 Note 2
Hogatt Bay Slot 3081 Hogatt Bay CVE-75 440111 440211 Start @ Astoria
Wake Island Slot 3082 Dolomi Bay CVE-101 441120 431207 Start @ Balboa
Marcus Island SL 3083 Kanalku Bay CVE-77 440126 440206 Start @ Astoria
Shipley Bay Slot 3084 Shipley Bay CVE-85 440321 440421 Start @ Vancouver
Stikoh Bay Slot 3085 Sitkoh Bay CVE-86 440328 440428 Note 6
Steamer Bay Slot 3086 Steamer Bay CVE-87 440404 440504 Start @ Vancouver
Makassar Strait SL 3087 Ulitaka Bay CVE-91 440427 440527 Start @ Astoria
Thetis Bay Slot 3088 Thetis Bay CVE-90 440421 440521 Note 2
Wyndham Bay SL 3089 Wyndham Bay CVE-92 440503 440603 Note 2
Bismark Sea Slot 3090 Alikula Bay CVE-95 440520 440620 Start @ Vancouver
Kwajalein Slot 3091 Bucarelli Bay CVE-98 440607 440707 Note 2
Lunga Point Slot 3092 Alazon Bay CVE-94 440514 440614 Start @ Vancouver

Historical Name RHS Name RHS Date Stock Date Notes

Makin Island Slot 3093 Woodcliff Bay CVE-94 440509 440609 Start @ Astoria
Bougainville Slot 3094 Didrickson B CVE-100 440618 440718 Note 2
Hollandia Slot 3095 Astrolabe B CVE-97 440601 440701 Note 2
Matanikau Slot 3096 Matanikau CVE-101 440624 440724 Note 6
Munda Slot 3097 Tonowek B CVE-104 440708 440815 Note 2
Roi Slot 3098 Alava Bay CVE-103 440606 440806 Note 2
Salamua Slot 3099 Salamua CVE-96 440526 440626 Start @ Vancouver
Sargent Bay Slot 3100 Sargent Bay CVE-83 440309 440509 Start @ Vancouver
Attu Slot 3101 Attu CVE-102 440527 440730 Start @ Vancouver
Admiralty Is Slot 3102 Admiralty Is CVE-99 440613 440713 Start @ Astoria
Tulagi Slot 3103 Fortezilla B CVE-72 441021 440121 Start @ Balboa
Shamrock Bay SL3104 Shamrock B CVE-84 441118 440415 Start @ Balboa
Kassan Bay Slot 3105 Kassan Bay CVE-69 441226 440109 Start @ Balboa
Takanis Bay Slot 3106 Takanis Bay CVE-89 440526 440522 Note 2
Long Island Slot 3107 Long Island CVE-1 420510 420521 Start at SE USA
Com'mnt B Slot 3108 St Joseph B CVE-105 441127 441227 Note 3
Block Island Slot 3109 Sunset Bay CVE-106 441230 450128 Start @ Tacoma
Gilbert Islands 3110 St Andrews B CVE107 450205 450415 Start @ Tacoma
Cp Gloucester SL3111 Willapa Bay CVE-109 450305 450405 Start @ Tacoma
Vella Gulf Slot 3112 Totem Bay CVE-111 450409 450519 Start @ Tacoma
Kula Gulf Slot 3252 Vermillion B CVE-108 450512 Not in Stock Note 7


Historical Name RHS Name RHS Date Stock Date Notes

Selerno Bay Slot 16029 Winjah Bay CVE-110 450519 Not in Stock Start @ Portland
Siboney Slot 16030 Frosty Bay CVE-112 450515 Note in Stock Start @ Tacoma
Puget Sound SL16031 Hobart Bay CVE-113 450618 Not in Stock Start @ Tacoma
Rendova Slot 16032 Mosser Bay CVE-114 451022 Not in Stock Start @ Tacoma
Barioko Slot 16033 Portage Bay CVE-115 450716 Not in Stock Start @ Tacoma
Badoeng Strait SL16034 Alberto Bay CVE-116 451114 Not in Stock Start @ Tacoma
Saidor Slot 16035 Saltery Bay CVE-117 450904 Not in Stock Start @ Tacoma
Sicily Slot 16036 Sandy Bay CVE-118 460227 Not in Stock Note 8
Point Cruz Slot 16037 Trocadero B CVE-119 451016 Not in Stock Start @ Tacoma
Mindoro Slot 16038 Mindoro CVE-120 451204 Not in Stock Note 9
Rabaul Slot 16039 Rabaul CVE-121 460114 Not in Stock Note 10
Palau Slot 16040 Palau CVE-122 460115 Not in Stock 105 Only Note 9
Tinian Slot 16041 Tinian CVE-123 450305 Not in Stock Note 11

Note 1: USS Anzio was originally Alikula Bay. This name was later allocated to CVE-95 and she entered service as Coral Sea. She was renamed again so CVB-43 could have it. But there is no CVB-43 in RHS, because the ship cannot complete until 1947 or later, and we need a name other than Bismark Sea for CVE-95. So she carries the name she entered service with: Coral Sea. Starts at Vancouver, Washington.

Note 2: No air group. Historically a transport. Starts at Vancouver, Washington.

Note 3: No air group. Historically a transport. Starts at Tacoma, Washington.

Note 4: No air group. Historically a transport. Starts at Vancouver, Washington. Originally Ameer for RN, then Alazon Bay, finally Casablanca (before completion). Alazon Bay used by CVE-94, and Casablanca became famous as class name. So, unusually, RHS uses the rename.

Note 5: Originally Bucarelli Bay, the name is needed for CVE-98. A famous victim of a kamikaze attack, she unusually retains her rename in RHS. Starts at Astoria, Oregon.

Note 6: No air group. Historically a transport. Starts at Astoria, Oregon.

Note 7: No air group. Historically a transport. Starts at Portland, Oregon.

Note 8: No air group. Completed after the end of historical hostilities. No data on planned air group. Serves as a transport Starts at Portland, Oregon.

Note 9: Designated for Atlantic ASW duty. Starts at Tacoma, Washington.

Note 10: Not completed historically. Completes six months after historical launch. Starts at Tacoma, Washington.

Note11: No air group. Completed after the end of historical hostilities. No data on planned air group. Serves as a transport Starts at Portland, Oregon. Not in scenarios 101 - 104 or 106.





< Message edited by el cid again -- 11/14/2012 1:42:00 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 166
RE: RHS Design Theory: Completely revised and expanded... - 11/13/2012 12:24:43 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: dwg

Don't know whether these continue into your database, but:

quote:

Vindix Slot 3116 RN Vindix D15 450915 450714 Note 12 Enters at UK


Vind_e_x

quote:

Khedive Slot 3131 RN Knedive D62 450901 450115 Enters at Aden


K_h_edive

quote:

Arc Royal Slot 16027 RN Irresistible R09 460603 Not in Stock Only in 105 Note 7


Thanks I had Vindix start at UK.

But didn't have Khedive - had her in the Med and so started her at Aden.
Will now go read her service history to figure it out.


Ar_k_ Royal, Irresist_a_ble



Here are the germane lines: We know when she passed Suez.



January Post refit trials and prepared for passage to Indian Ocean.

Embarked 24 HELLCAT aircraft and 808 Squadron personnel.

11th Took passage to Trincomalee

24th Transit of Suez Canal



That said, I value nit picking. The only way to get things "right" is to challenge data that may be wrong. It is an opportunity to reconsider the decisions involved in creating that data. Wether or not it is changed, we are better off for the chance to look at it. Often data is entered very fast, with minimal thought, and occasional dyslexia from long sessions!

< Message edited by el cid again -- 11/13/2012 12:31:58 PM >

(in reply to dwg)
Post #: 167
RE: RHS Design Theory: RHS US Cruiser Logic - 11/16/2012 5:27:50 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		RHS US Cruiser Logic

Early in the war, all the considerations that led to the design and ordering of Allied cruisers remain valid. In scenario 105, AFTER the ADDITIONAL carriers of the REVISED shadow program and regular production programs begin to appear, THEN the Allies change what they did historically. I assume that something like the attack on Pearl Harbor happens, so the original revisions to pre war planning still occur in game terms. Here we ONLY look at cruisers CL-42 and later. However, in scenarios 101 to 105 US cruisers get the ORIGINAL names assigned, not renames (which depend on what sank in the war). List in pennant number order.

Historical Name RHS Name RHS Date Stock Date Notes

Brooklyn Brooklyn CL-40 Not in RHS Not in Stock Atlantic to 1947
Philadelphia Philadelphia CL-41 Not in RHS Not in Stock Atlantic to 1948
Savannah Slot 3282 Savannah CL-42 450901 Not in Stock 440915 in 105 Note 3
Nashville Slot 3279 Nashville CL-43 420311 42020 Start at NE USA Note 2
Vincennes Clot 3201 Vincennes CA-44 420304 420301 Starts at NE USA
Wichita Slot 3203 Wichita CL-45 421109 421119 Starts at NE USA
Phoenix Slot 3278 Phoenix CL-46 411206 411206 Starts at Pearl Harbor
Boise Slot 3280 Boise CL-47 411206 411206 Starts USN Cruiser 1
Honolulu Slot 3281 Honolulu CL-48 411206 411206 Starts at Pearl Harbor
St Luis Slot 3276 St Lewis CL-49 411206 411206 Starts at Pearl Harbor
Helena Slot 3277 Helena CL-50 411206 411206 Starts at Pearl Harbor
Atlanta Slot 3260 Atlanta CL-51 420331 420401 Starts at NE USA
Juneau Slot 3261 Juneau CL-52 420822 420802 Starts at NE USA
San Diego Slot 3262 San Diego CL-53 420110 420424 Starts at NE USA
San Juan Slot 3263 San Juan CL-54 420228 420601 Starts at NE USA
Cleveland Slot 3283 Cleveland CL-55 421205 421126 Starts at NE USA
Columbia Slot 3284 Columbia CL-56 421109 421206 Starts at NE USA
Montpellier Slot 3285 Montpellier CL-57 420909 430101 Starts at NE USA
Denver Slot 3286 Denver CL-58 421015 430115 Starts at NE USA

Historical Name RHS Name RHS Date Stock Date Notes

Amsterdam Amsterdam CL-59 Not in RHS Not in Stock Became CVL-22
Santa Fe Slot 3287 Santa Fe CL-60 431124 430301 Starts at NE USA
Tallahassee Slot 3301 Tallahassee CL-61 Not in RHS 450901 Became CVL-23
Birmingham Slot 3288 Birmingham CL-62 430813 430813 Starts at SE USA
Mobile Slot 3289 Mobile CL-63 430324 430630 Starts at SE USA
Vincennes Slot 10997 Flint CL-64 440421 Not in Stock Starts at Balboa
Pasadena Slot 3292 Pasadena CL-65 440608 440915 Starts at NE USA
Springfield Slot 3295 Springfield CL-66 450105 Not in Stock Starts at Balboa
Topeka Slot 3297 Topeka CL-67 441223 450409 Starts at NE USA
Baltimore Slot 3204 Baltimore CA-68 430415 430709 Starts at NE USA
Boston Slot 3205 Boston CA-69 430615 431021 Starts at NE USA
Canberra Slot 10996 Pittsburgh CA-70 431014 Not in Stock Starts at NE USA
Quincy Slot 10999 St Paul CA-71 431215 Not in Stock Starts at NE USA
Pittsburgh Slot 3206 Albany CA-72 441010 450111 Starts at NE USA
St Paul Slot 3207 Rochester CA-73 450217 450507 Starts at NE USA
Columbus Slot 11000 Columbus CA-74 450615 450815 Starts at NE USA
Helena Slot 3314 Des Moines CA-75 450904 Not in Stock Starts at NE USA
New Haven New Haven CL-76 Not in RHS Not in Stock Became CVL-24
Huntington Huntington CL-77 Not in RHS Not in Stock Became CVL-25
Dayton Dayton CL-78 Not in RHS 450401 Became CVL-26
Wilmington Wilmington CL-79 Not in RHS Not in Stock Became CVL-28
Biloxi Slot 3290 Biloxi CL-80 430831 431201 Starts at SE USA
Houston Slot 10983 Vicksburgh CL-81 431220 Not in Stock Starts at SE USA
Providence Slot 11004 Providence CL-82 450515 450815 Starts at NE USA

Historical Name RHS Name RHS Date Stock Date Notes

Manchester Slot 3299 Manchester CL-83 460625 Not in Stock Only in 105 Note 4
Buffalo Buffalo CL-84 Not in RHS Not in Stock Cancelled 1940
Fargo Fargo CL-85 Not in RHS Not in Stock Became CVL-27
Vicksburg Slot 3294 Cheyenne CL-86 450101 450115 Starts at Balboa
Duluth Slot 3296 Duluth CL-87 440918 450415 440613 in 105 Note 5
Not Named Not Named CL-88 Not in RHS Not in Stock Cancelled 1940
Miami Slot 3291 Miami CL-89 440416 440516 CVL-48 in 105
Astoria Slot 16042 Wilkes-Berra CL-90 440517 Not in Stock CVL-49 in 105
Oklahoma City SL3298 Oklahoma City CL-91 441222 460409 440722 Note 5
Little Rock Slot 11003 Little Rock CL-92 450617 450915 451206 in 105 Note 4
Galveston Slot 16043 Galveston CL-93 460430 Not in Stock Starts at NE USA
Youngstown Youngstown CL-94 Not in RHS Not in Stock Cancelled in 1945
Oakland Slot 3264 Oakland CL-95 430715 430115 Starts at San Francisco
Reno Slot 3265 Reno CL-96 431228 430227 Starts at San Francisco
Flint Slot 3266 Spokane CL-97 440831 441117 Starts at San Francisco
Tucson Slot 3267 Tucson CL-98 450203 450515 Starts at San Francisco
Buffalo Buffalo CL-99 Not in RHS Not in Stock Became CVL-29
Newark Newark CL-100 Not in RHS Not in Stock Became CVL-30
Amsterdam Slot 3300 Amsterdam CL-101 450108 450601 Starts at SE USA
Portsmouth Slot 11005 Portsmouth CL-102 450625 450815 Starts at SE USA
Wilkes-Berra Slot 3293 Newark CL-103 441101 441101 Starts at NE USA
Atlanta II Slot 3313 New Haven CL-104 441203 Not in Stock Starts at NE USA
Dayton Slot 16044 Dayton CL-105 450107 Not in Stock Start at NE USA
Fargo Slot 11006 Fargo CL-106 451209 460215 450423 in 105 Note 8

Historical Name RHS Name RHS Date Stock Date Notes

Huntington Slot 11007 Huntington CL-107 460223 Not in Stock 450604 in 105 Note 8
Newark Slot 16053 Newark CL-108 450917 Not in Stock Only in 105 Note 8
New Haven New Haven CL-109 Not in RHS Not in Stock Cancelled in 1945
Buffalo Buffalo CL-110 Not in RHS Not in Stock Cancelled in 1945
Wilmington Wilmington CL-111 Not in RHS Not in Stock Cancelled in 1945
Vallejo Vallejo CL-112 Not in RHS Not in Stock Cancelled in 1944
Helena Helena CL-113 Not in RHS Not in Stock Cancelled in 1944
Roanoke Roanoke CL-114 Not in RHS Not in Stock Cancelled in 1944
Not Named Not Named CL-115 Not in RHS Not in Stock Cancelled in 1944
Tallahassee Slot 16054 Tallahassee CL-116 450931 Not in Stock Only in 105 Note 8
Cheyenne Cheyenne CL-117 Not in RHS Not in Stock Cancelled in 1945
Chattanooga Chattanooga CL-118 Not in RHS Not in Stock Cancelled in 1945
Juneau (ii) Slot 16045 Vallejo CL-119 460215 Not in Stock 450515 in 105 Note 1
Spokane Slot 16046 Helena CL-120 460517 Not in Stock 450715 in 105 Note 1
Fresno Fresno CL-121 Not in RHS Not in Stock Completes Nov 46
Oregon City Slot 11001 Oregon City CA-122 460216 460315 451109 in 105 Note 6
Albany Slot 11002 Wilmington CA-123 460611 Not in Stock 460308 in 105 Note 6
Rochester Slot 16047 Rochester CA-124 Not in RHS Not in Stock Completes Dec 46
Northampton Northampton CA-125 Not in RHS Not in Stock Completes 1953
CA-126 & 127 CA-126 & 127 Not in RHS Not in Stock Not launched
CA-128 & 129 CA-128 & 129 Not in RHS Not in Stock Not laid down
Bremerton Slot 16047 Bremerton CA-130 450429 Not in Stock 441202 in 105 Note 6
Fall River Slot 16048 Fall River CA-131 450701 Not in Stock 450120 in 105 Note 6
Macon Slot 16049 Macon CA-132 450826 Not in Stock 450315 in 105 Note 6
Historical Name RHS Name RHS Date Stock Date Notes
Toledo Slot 16050 Toledo CA-133 451005 Not in Stock Only in 105 Note 6
Los Angeles Slot 16051 Los Angeles CA-134 450722 Not in Stock 460120 in 105 Note 6
Chicago Slot 16052 Chicago CA-135 450110 Not in Stock Start at NE USA
Norfolk Norfolk CA-136 Not in RHS Not in Stock Cancelled in 1945
Scranton Scranton CA-137 Not in RHS Not in Stock Cancelled in 1945

Note 1: In Scenario 105, completes in the same time (5 months from lay down) as USS Atlanta CL-51, a ship of the same class, due to higher priority. Starts at NE USA.
Note 2: On Neutrality Patrol in Bermuda until March 1942. Sent to Pacific with USS Hornet.
Note 3: Not in PTO during historical war. Sent to Pacific in late 1945 in strictly historical scenarios. Sent after repairs from a German FX1400 in Scenario 105. Starts at NE USA.
Note 4: In Scenario 105, this ship completes in the same time (20 months from lay down) as Topeka CL-67, a ship of the same class, due to higher priority. Starts at NE USA.
Note 5: In Scenario 105, this ship completes in the same time (5 months from launch) as USS Topeka CL-67, a ship of the same class, due to higher priority. Starts at NE USA.
Note 6: In Scenario 105, completes in the same time (5 months from launch) as USS Helena CA-75, a ship of the same class, due to higher priority. Starts at NE USA.
Note 7: In Scenario 105, completes in the same time (24 months from lay down) as USS Helena CA-75, a ship of the same class, due to higher priority. Starts at NE USA.
Note 8: Historically, CL-103 to 105 were ordered as Fargo class (1942 Cleveland redesign), but actually built as repeat Cleveland class. In Scenario 105, CL-106 to 108 and CL-116 are also built as repeat Cleveland class.


< Message edited by el cid again -- 11/16/2012 5:28:12 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 168
RE: RHS Design Theory: RHS US Cruiser Logic - 11/16/2012 5:34:20 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		My experience reviewing Carriers was such that my confidence in stock data re historical appearance date
and location was low. As well, it seemed there were far too few USN cruisers. If we add all these carriers,
surely the need for cruiser escorts will be pressing. Review found an amazing and inconsistent data set.
Two cruisers appear both in cruiser form and as CVLs! About three appear half a year before completion,
but almost all the rest appear late - and even if this is because of historical deployments - only rarely enter
PTO on the date listed. But the greatest problem is that many were missing altogether. One reason for this
was to avoid the name/rename issue. If a ship had a later namesake, she was often absent. The RHS
naming convention solves this problem generally. [We use the original name of a ship if possible, and
otherwise an appropriate name not otherwise used, so there is never a duplicate.]

This ends development for build 4.20 of RHS Level 1. The design is frozen and the file set will be issued
with installer forthwith.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 169
RE: RHS Design Theory: RHS US Cruiser Logic - 11/16/2012 6:34:48 PM   
Natali

 

Posts: 103
Joined: 9/18/2012
From: Ocatillo Land
Status: offline 		Your cruiser logic is not logical. The cruisers you say both appear as cruisers and CVLs is confused and wrong.

Don Bowen shows where you are confused with the Dayton – the first Dayton was turned into the Monterey, but the second Dayton was a Cleveland class CL-105. So the database is correct.

YankeeAirRat shows the Tallahassee is not and never was in the database, so you must be confused there too. They both wrote their notes before you posted this, so you should have looked at them. You even responded to Don Bowen’s post, so there is no excuse for that one.

There are NO cruisers missing. Same with the CVLs and CVEs. The accurate mods, like Babes, even have some cruisers and CVEs included that didn’t quite make it during the stock game period.

If you are trying to get historical, I really think you should talk to Don Bowen or JWE before you stick your pud out there and have it chopped off by any well informed 16 year-old. Just FYI, but a little communication yields great benefits, as I have found.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 170
RE: RHS Design Theory: Third Generation RHS atomic bom... - 11/20/2012 10:52:34 PM   
trojan58


Posts: 266
Joined: 8/8/2004
From: bendigo, Victoria, Australia
Status: offline 		Are the scenarios available for download yet as it appears the links and web page are no longer available

thanks

_____________________________

There are two types of ships in the world

Submarines and Targets

D.B.F

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 171
RE: RHS Design Theory: RHS Evaluation and Plan - 11/27/2012 10:14:13 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Most of the data entry related to the following is done and 4.30 will release
shortly - and be the basis for Test Series 8


Three issues have been identified:

1) The victory point system has problems. Long ignored by RHS, these may trigger auto victory, so they need to be addressed. The RHS standard now is:

Minor Location Base Value: A location without a manpower center or other major asset: one point

Significant Location Base Value: A location WITH a manpower center: two points

Important Location Base Value: Any location with a major special asset regardless of the presence of a manpower center: hundreds of oil wells or resource centers for example: three points

Medium Sized City: A location with more than 3 but less than 10 manpower centers:
ten points

Large City: A location with 10 or more manpower centers: 20 points

Major City: A large city with vast industrial assets and developed infrastructures: 30 points.

Opposing Side Value Ratio: This is the multiple of the base value for the location which applies to the other side. In general, for areas likely to change hands a lot, it is one. In general, the ratio of stock is preserved. Exceptions:

a) The ratio is never greater than ten.

b) Korea, where the radio was only two, is now three, like much of China is.

c) Locations in China in area likely to change hands back and forth, the ratio is changed to one if it was three. [This does not apply to points in the far "North" - actually West - on the map - where the ratio remains ten].

Regretfully, this requires changes to most locations defined in the file set.

2) Ship displacement and durability definitions:

Although there is a universal standard, used by every navy in the world, that full load displacement is the primary indicator of the ability of any ship to take damage,

And although this standard has been standard in almost every naval wargame since the pioneers (e.g. Fletcher Pratt and Fred T Jane),

Most Allied warships in the data set use standard displacement ( a legal rather than naval concept ) and most merchant ships do not calculate the naval "deep load" value - instead using commercial tax values.

In addition, the definition of ship durability has not been formally stated anywhere I have seen - and so was long ignored. This led data entry to use inconsistent, seat of the pants values. It has been possible to reverse engineer the stock system which seems statistically certain to be

displacement of the ship divided by 330

plus - if armored - the belt armor divided by 10 (rounded to the nearest 10)

Unfortunately this requires redefinition of every class and variation of it.

3) Greater attention to detail in the micro economy of many locations, in particular in China (classical China - from Manchuria to Indochina - including Hainan). While most locations cannot support major airfield operations or field armies, small forces can "live off the land" except in truly undeveloped areas or the vast "desert" of the Pacific Ocean islands which generate little local (making the exceptions particularly valuable). This matters critically to the effectiveness of Chinese forces - although sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander: greater local light industry also feeds the enemy if captured. There is a difficult to estimate balance here: one does not want to render the Burma Road, or airlift from India, meaningless - so being too generous is not a good idea. But there is room for a significant increase without eliminating the need to import still more supplies to render armies and air forces in China completely effective.

Unfortunately this requires redefinition of a giant number of locations.

All three revisions are nearly completed.

Along the way some interesting things turned up:


A) The Yangtze had no RR bridge until 1956. This means all three RR "crossings" are wrong. The RHS map will turn them into "RR ferries" - minor RR for one hex. Stock like systems without "ferries" should have NO connection across the river at all.

A1) At Nanking, there needs to be a new town on the North side of the River. That is Yangchow - a river port, manufacturing center and resource center. Hex 90/51.

B) Ichang is in the wrong hex and on the wrong side! Location 378 should be named Kianging, and downgraded in terms of local industry (in RHS anyway where it has such).

B2) Ichang itself needs to be located (with all its assets) at 82/47 and put on the OTHER side - as a ROC location. This turns the location of several Chinese corps from an unsupplied and almost impossible to supply point into something far more sensible. However, the airfield potential of Ichang itself needs to be very low - about 3 - which is a change.

C) Location 410 was called Yangku until 1949. It was run by an unusual warlord, considered the most progressive of the species, named Yan Xishan. He cut deals at various times with the communists, the nationalists and the Japanese. His local industry was the only place in China that could make artillery. In 1945, rather than be repatriated, the IJA elected to stay, under his governance, and contributed to unusual economic growth in the area. Probably a "warlord" division, under Japanese control for the duration of the game, with him as commander, is warranted - a static unit unable to move.


ETA for 4.30 and the start of construction of the Series 8 test: 2 days.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 172
RE: RHS Design Theory: Battle of Ichang (historical) - 11/29/2012 5:59:10 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Apparently there was a battle for Yichang (Ichang in the Wade Giles spellings we use on our map) in 1940,
but the ROC actually won, rather than lost.

The Battle of Zaoyang¨CYichang (simplified Chinese: ÔæÒË»áÕ½; traditional Chinese: ——ÒË•þ‘ð; pinyin: Z¨£oy¨ª Hu¨¬zh¨¤n), also known as the Battle of Zaoyi was one of the 22 major engagements between the National Revolutionary Army and Imperial Japanese Army during the Second Sino-Japanese War.

The Japanese were seeking a quicker solution to achieve a Chinese surrender. The Japanese contemplated moving directly down the Yangtze to the relocated Chinese capital, Chongqing. To do so, they would need to capture a critical town in western Hubei province, Yichang.

The Japanese attack did not commit many troops or materiel, which enabled the main Chinese commander, Li Zongren, who had frustrated the Japanese before, to repel the Japanese.

Order of Battle: Battle of Zaoyang-Yichang

[edit] SourcesHsu Long-hsuen and Chang Ming-kai, History of The Sino-Japanese War (1937¨C1945) 2nd Ed., 1971. Translated by Wen Ha-hsiung, Chung Wu Publishing; 33, 140th Lane, Tung-hwa Street, Taipei, Taiwan Republic of China. Page 334-339, Map 20, 21
Map 21 of Tsaoyang-Yichang Campaign
Axis History Forum, Re: Tsaoyang-Yichang Campaign Eary May ¨C Late June 1940

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 173
RE: RHS Design Theory: Third Generation RHS atomic bom... - 11/29/2012 6:01:01 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		The installer is generally available directly on the RHS mailing list, from Mifune and from me.

There was a problem with the site - and we have learned that the files were accidentally destroyed
when maintenance of something else occurred. They should be restored in due course.

PM an email address.


(in reply to trojan58)
Post #: 174
RE: RHS Design Theory: Battle of Ichang (historical) - 11/29/2012 10:08:14 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Apparently there was a battle for Yichang (Ichang in the Wade Giles spellings we use on our map) in 1940,
but the ROC actually won, rather than lost.

The Battle of Zaoyang¨CYichang (simplified Chinese: ÔæÒË»áÕ½; traditional Chinese: ——ÒË•þ‘ð; pinyin: Z¨£oy¨ª Hu¨¬zh¨¤n), also known as the Battle of Zaoyi was one of the 22 major engagements between the National Revolutionary Army and Imperial Japanese Army during the Second Sino-Japanese War.

The Japanese were seeking a quicker solution to achieve a Chinese surrender. The Japanese contemplated moving directly down the Yangtze to the relocated Chinese capital, Chongqing. To do so, they would need to capture a critical town in western Hubei province, Yichang.

The Japanese attack did not commit many troops or materiel, which enabled the main Chinese commander, Li Zongren, who had frustrated the Japanese before, to repel the Japanese.

Order of Battle: Battle of Zaoyang-Yichang

[edit] SourcesHsu Long-hsuen and Chang Ming-kai, History of The Sino-Japanese War (1937¨C1945) 2nd Ed., 1971. Translated by Wen Ha-hsiung, Chung Wu Publishing; 33, 140th Lane, Tung-hwa Street, Taipei, Taiwan Republic of China. Page 334-339, Map 20, 21
Map 21 of Tsaoyang-Yichang Campaign
Axis History Forum, Re: Tsaoyang-Yichang Campaign Eary May ¨C Late June 1940



I'm not against using Wikipedia, but advise to use it with caution. The article on the "Battle of Zaoyang–Yichang" cannot be considered "scientific evidence".

I have found several websites and books which say that Ichang has been captured by Japan in 1940 and that the loss of the city was a serious blow for the KMT as the city was the key transhipment point between Sichuan and the war zones. This was the reason for the big efforts of the KMT in 1941 to recapture it. After the 1941 battles Japan remaind in possession of Ichang until the war's end.

If someone owns the book "War and Nationalism in China: 1925-1945" by Hans J. Van De Ven, or "The Battle for China: Essays on the Military History of the Sino-Japanese War of 1937-1945" by Mark Peattie would you please step forward (I'm not going to spend 139 resp. 57 € on Amazon just to settle this question...)


_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 175
RE: RHS Design Theory: Battle of Ichang Follow Up - 11/29/2012 8:08:45 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I also wrote to Xinhui Andi Chan, a PLA historian. He says you are correct - that by 8 Dec 1941 Japan controlled Ichang

So we have to figure out where all those units shown in what is really the Ichang hex actually were?

Thanks for bringing up this matter. It is formal RHS policy to take all suggestions and corrections seriously - and about half
of the ideas in the package came from people not actively on the development team. Only feedback permits such a vast
set of data to get better.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 176
RE: RHS Design Theory: Battle of Ichang Follow Up - 11/30/2012 8:52:10 PM   
Natali

 

Posts: 103
Joined: 9/18/2012
From: Ocatillo Land
Status: offline 		I am interested in the China Area, but don't know much detail about it. Francois Charton is pushing me to understand more about China and has given me some books to read and website forums to go to.

I think Francois (fcharton) is an excellent resource. He is simply a historian and has no agenda. He would be a good sanity check.

btw, on his recommendation, I'm learning Chinese. So far, so good (still don't know how to order Peking (Beijing) Duck at a restaurant run by Taiwanese).

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 177
RE: RHS Design Theory: Battle of Ichang Follow Up - 11/30/2012 11:31:11 PM   
fcharton

 

Posts: 1112
Joined: 10/4/2010
From: France
Status: offline 		Hi,

Two comments about China.

I very much doubt armies could live off the land after 1941. Eastern China was densely populated, and several years of war and warlordism had ravaged her economy. Just feeding one's troops (even through requisitions) was a very complicated affair for both sides. Keeping armies operational was very difficult, and moving them around like the game currently allows, was almost impossible. The game, as designed, seems to give players a lot more control over their units in China than they really had (you can't really control troops you hardly can feed, and who lack all the rest, oil, coal, wood, clothes, and ordnance), making armies easier to supply looks like a step in the wrong direction.

Ichang is between the Han and the Changjiang (Yangtse), and the map seems correct on that count. For what I understand, the Japanese took the city in the summer of 1940. Over the next year, the IJA, inconclusively, to attack to the south and west (ie along the two roads south and west mapwise). Those are known in Chinese sources as the battles for central and western Hubei, and in Japanese sources as operations on the Han river. In late 1941, during the battle of Changsha, the KMT under Chen Cheng tried to dislodge the IJA from Ichang, without success. At the end of 1941, the front was stabilised, with both sides unable to launch a decisive offensive. This is one aspect the game fails to model : currently, you either have a Verdun-upon-the-Han, or see the IJA retreating to Hankow after holding this strategic position for a year and a half...

Like others, I would take wikipedia with a grain of salt. Just go through the list of battles, and note how all of them, in 1940-1942 are chinese victories, half of them being "decisive".

Francois

(in reply to Natali)
Post #: 178
RE: RHS Design Theory: Technical Sitrep - 12/2/2012 7:54:36 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		There is apparently no substitution for proper editing and comprehensive review, no matter the size of the report. About two years ago, in response to some of my observations on the board, someone wrote "Don't you think, in a community this size, that someone would have noticed if something wasn't right?" I now think that the error is the opposite - never assume ANYTHING is right without checking it. While there are impressive details in the data set (far more shades of US radar on ships than I would have bothered to include, with only the slightest changes from one model to the next each generating new variants of classes of many kinds of ships as an example), the omissions and errors are gross.

Last night I was checking the garrison requirements for a gigantic city (which, in fact, is much bigger than represented). I found it was a part of a division - so one theoretically can combine the units into one formation. But if one does, it won't work properly. Whoever did the unit does not know that the slot number for ALL components of the division must be identical - or that the primary formation components are assumed to be IDENTICAL for all of them? There is no intelligence whatever in the AI, and it does not put identical squads into the right slot for you - you have to "pre sort it" yourself - even if the means leaving lots of empty devices in the formation. The implications are ominous: not only must I figure out the entire division - I must find every other division entered by the same person. Or issue a warning not to combine units - which is poor solution.

Yesterday I became aware that more than a few locations in India have zero - repeat zero - victory points for the Allies - regardless of significance. Also that garrison requirements for the Allies in India are backwards - you cannot tell from AE that India tied up 160 battalions of occupation troops for the British! [India was in a state of rebellion, and the entire unified Congress party - then it included Moslems - was in prison.] Instead of needing more Allied garrison than Japanese, it was the other way around. The panic the Indian National Army had on the British is not hinted at by such a structure. Unlike China, India has almost no minor locations - no vast mountain ranges or deserts with significant towns of low population. Virtually every location is a big deal - population wise. But you can't tell that from the data. Whole industrial cities, even if present, have no indication of it in the data either.

I also found places and units which didn't exist starting the war. A town on Fiji was not started until 1947, and it used the war build air base (today it is the international airport of the island, a common Pacific island story) and its housing as its foundation. But we have the town - and a base force - in 1941! I also found - reviewing ECONOMIC data - no less than three absent Philippine Constabulary regiments - so significant they made the history of the city. The 1941 OB is pretty good - but the Philippine Army continued to form units in 1942 - and they are missing. Some of them stayed in the field to 1946! [No - the war in the Philippines did not end in 1945. Not everywhere. The main army didn't surrender until we brought Yamashita orders from Hirohito. One soldier got orders to stand down 30 years after the war! Seems the Nagano School ordered some troops to continue to fight forever.]

Testing (automated testing) shows better micro economic data works better. And it also is an indicator of the demand for map edge inputs. By ripping out vast amounts of "free supplies" and other things on the map - RHS has forced the economy to function (or not) based on what it has. Mostly that means it is subject to damage - or enemy entering the hex - which is operationally a good thing. Enemy action matters. But it also means we need to insure enough industry exists on the map - not merely en toto - but location by location. That is more difficult than a mere review of victory points or of initial resource stocks at centers with heavy industry - which is nominally what I was up to.

I still intend to complete this review rapidly - and have stopped all other activities in my life to get it done. But it won't happen today. SO

I will issue an interim update - fixing all identified issues - for comments. I will do this in two forms - the installer and individual files for those who cannot get it. The map development is significant due to added locations for various reasons. These account for the beautiful and generally correct road and RR art - and permit RR to become useful (which they are not if there is no dot location in a hex at the end of the line). It turns out that added locations also matter operationally (you can build a fort or an airfield only where they exist) as well as economically (the local micro economy is better modeled).

In spite of the scale of the eratta detected - and the implications in terms of the numbers of records which must be checked - most of this work is done - and a final release is not far off. Perhaps tomorrow.


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 179
RE: RHS Design Theory: Battle of Ichang Follow Up - 12/2/2012 8:17:35 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: fcharton

Hi,

Two comments about China.

I very much doubt armies could live off the land after 1941. Eastern China was densely populated, and several years of war and warlordism had ravaged her economy. Just feeding one's troops (even through requisitions) was a very complicated affair for both sides. Keeping armies operational was very difficult, and moving them around like the game currently allows, was almost impossible. The game, as designed, seems to give players a lot more control over their units in China than they really had (you can't really control troops you hardly can feed, and who lack all the rest, oil, coal, wood, clothes, and ordnance), making armies easier to supply looks like a step in the wrong direction.

Francois



Relative to the first comment, printed above, there are pros and cons about gaming China. In general, it is far more complicated than modeled by stock AE. I have tried to follow War of Resistance (a monster mechanical game with Europa mechanics and absolutely amazing OB research - representing no less than 26 "factions" just on the anti-Japanese side) where feasible. The RHS system is not so simple, and ideally, if you play with a tag team, the Reds and the ROCs should be played by different players! That said, it is impossible not to oversimplify in a simulation - of any kind. The POINT of the simulation is you don't need millions of decision makers to model what happens. But inside that context, that it is oversimplified by necessity and that we have tried to make things much more complex than was the stock case, I agree with you.

As for logistics, I also agree that there are important aspects of military supply not available in China. But that is also quite complicated. Eventually the Chinese get very fine weapons and - even so - eventually the IJA shows it can sweep across China at will - if it is willing to pay the price in terms of casualties and consumption of ordnance (in that case, the successful drive to prevent B-29 basing in China). So it isn't a static situation, and depends critically on when we are talking about? And the broader political willingness to invest in the campaign of either or both sides - something properly under player control. But in a fundamental sense, I agree with you here as well: China cannot afford to support entire army groups so they can engage in continuous combat and have all they need?

I simply went too far down that road. Units should be chronically in need of supplies - unless you are feeding them supplies - by importing them or by attention to LOC to supply sources. This is generally the case. But even so, too few areas can support even small units in terms of non-combat supply,
and the implications are that IJA's order - to live off local supply entirely because shipping could no longer be counted on - is even less practical than it turned out to be in fact. I am trying to mitigate the problem - but not to eliminate it. I do not approve of "free supplies" for example - and use them in tiny packages for specific purposes rather than as a band aid for an economy not working well enough. [In RHS, a single supply point appears at a location IF that location generates more than 365 tons of fresh fruit, fish or other edibles in a year, for example. ONE point. Not enough to feed any major unit. Or a guerilla unit gets - typically - 2/3 of its full strength non combat supply requirement 'free" - simulating living off the land. It will - if not in combat - tend to grow to 2/3 strencth. But to sustain combat or to grow to full size, it needs to suck supply from the grid. It is, however, far more able to go long distances and not disappear from attrition than normal units can. Properly used, guerilla "regiments" - of battalion size - should be jumping on enemy LOC - not fighting battles with units - causing him to waste effort clearing those LOC so his army can eat.] There also are some exceptions: for example I discovered one Chinese city - no longer in Chinese hands - which produces artillery (the only such location in China). So it makes some of the devices used by the NCPC army. Not enough, but not zero either. Less obvious, perhaps, is the great attention to air transport paid by RHS. This matters no where more than in China - eventually. At first - you have to use the national airlines (there are two - both modeled) - with only the DC-3 able to make the hop from India. But eventually all sorts of planes show up for the Allies - including transport variants of the B-24 in numbers. So in addition to the Burma Road - which I do not wish to render meaningless with infinite supplies in China - the Allies have the option to fly in supply - and only to the extent they really do that will it matter. I have no intention of giving China all the supply it needs to to on the offensive with its massive armies (only partly present - the 30 day replacement rule is because we lack the slots to model it all). Only a fraction of them.


(in reply to fcharton)
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: RHS Design Theory: JB-2 Loon Devices (two of them) Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.719