RHS Installer/Switcher Updated

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: JeffK

We have Vickers K .303 and Vickers V .303 airccraft guns available - in addition to Browning .30 - Lewis .303 - 7,.5 mm MAC M-39 - 7.7 mm SFAT - 7.62 mm ShKAS - 7.92 mm FN - 7.9 mm MG-17 - 7.9 mm MG-81 - all just for Allied .30 cal class armament. If you can show a particular machines primary production variant uses a particular weapon - we will use it.

With all of these you managed to miss the .303 Browning as used by every modern British aircraft, plus a number of the older types.

I don't have the slots. In many cases the names differ but the data is the same. We only have the "right" name for "flavor" - not function. In this case - I regard the Browning .30 and the Browning .303 as close enough to combine them - and you are reading the name to mean "error" when - from my point of view - it is "best choice." If we get more slots in AE we can break them out in more detail. As it is - I think we have too many .30s in the mix - and we probably should combine more types for WITP. But it takes too much time to review hundreds of Allied planes - so I never bothered. You are getting into the modders art here - you MUST compromise - and WHICH compromise is a matter of art and opinion. There is no perfect choice - and no chance to please everyone with any given choice one can make. It isn't that the RHS data is "wrong" - it is that it combined several kinds. There are many instances of this. And ALL forms of WITP do this - wether it is understood or not.

I agree that if slots are tight you make decisions, though I think dropping the .303 Browning was a poor choice. The problem Sid, is that you went with the .303 Vickers K rather than the .30cal Browning. CHS did the opposite and had the .303 and no .30cal which made US armed aircraft look odd.

Its strange that you never bothered to check Aircraft stats, i find it amongst the easiest data to source and the editor is pretty good at presenting it.

I don't understand the last comment. I reviewed aircraft statistics several times - both in individual cases and generally. I find it anything but "easy" - I tend to get lost for days reading - and I found the Allied planes far more difficult because (a) I know a lot more about Japanese planes; (b) Japanese planes tend to all be described in just a few sources; (c) Allied planes are very numerous and not all defined in any source; (d) Allied plane data differs WIDELY in different sources - partly due to different and almost never defined standards of things. Also due to real differences in different services or different theaters for more or less the same plane. And it is often not clear what the version is we want? More than a couple of CHS listings were for planes not in PTO at all. Often the Forum points out issues. If we stopped making corrections - it was due to lack of people pointing out any need for them. Then there is the problem of we only have a few versions of the plane - and even within a version - armament changes. Players objected to using reference book data for P-47s for example - as they were field modified in Australia for PTO use. I find it hard to belive a person familiar with aviation references thinks it is "easy" to get it right.

I am open to the concept - and it involves a lot of work because there are so many planes and scenarios - of making different compromises re which guns to model. What do you think the optimum should be? Be specific: name the guns, and all the statistics in WITP field terms, for each gun you want to add and the one you want to delete. And then explain what gun best is used for the one we delete. I didn't think about this very hard - and I am not an expert in such guns. I only used by then ancient Browning aircraft 30s in Viet Nam - and that on the ground - not on airplanes. I will probably use any well formed suggestion.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Re Australian 9th Infantry Division

You seem to find an odd fact and run with it.

All Australian Divisions were formed and remained with the same name, there was some rearranging of Brigades between Divisions but by April 1941 these had stabilised.
FYI the 8th Division was lost in Singapore.

I cant see how a unit which fought at Tobruk & El Alamein as the 9th Division and is immortal as "The Rats of Tobruk" would have any other name.

As for providing slot numbers, go look them up yourself, spend some time and effort with getting the mods which are so associated with you, correct.

I have 3-4 books relating to British & American Aircraft plus a number of history books which relate to WITP and include statistics. In addition I checked about 6 web sites on the Corsair, I had never seen your fitout so had a good look for it.

By the way, the scen70 download has put the Australian road/rail net somewhere south of Tasmania, Panama is about 10 hexes north but the rest appears to be perfect.

Its been deleted

I don't remember why myself. At one time there was interest in getting the Australian Army strait - and I did a good deal of reading - otherwise listening to Forum members - mainly from Australia. At that time the RHS team was (in terms of man hours) dominated by two people - one of them Australian with an interest in (and relatives who served in) the Australian Army - so I tended to listen (having no such personal connections myself). Apparently Australia had more or less two armies - the Australian Imperial Force - and the Australian Militia Force. Until later in the war, the latter could not be used out of country. If dim memory is near the mark - there may have been more than one 9th Division - and we are talking about the second one here. I really don't remember - and I don't know directly either. But it was the information we had - and lacking anyone saying otherwise - I had no reason to investigate it later. I do know we found many missing elements and added them. And I remember some units reformed - so it would be easy to have duplicated units if one isn't careful. In RHS nothing is sacred - everything can be challenged for cause. I don't love the data - and if there is better data - I will use it.

WITP is not well organized and it can be time consuming to find them. You seem to want many changes and I am uninterested unless the work can be minimized. I am a manager of a project involving many people and more data than you seem to appreciate. You may be respectful of that - or not - but I am in charge of my time. You may honor the RHS conventions - or you may change things as you see fit (as Nemo does) and call whatever you get whatever you like - or you can ignore it. After several thousand man hours I have reached the point this is a back burner project - I have other things to do - and I will support it only when it is time efficient to do so. If you want to be respected - be respectful. It is a condition of the board - and certainly of RHS.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JeffK



By the way, the scen70 download has put the Australian road/rail net somewhere south of Tasmania, Panama is about 10 hexes north but the rest appears to be perfect.

Its been deleted

You have the right location file and pwhex file but the wrong map art.

We moved Australia to make room for Madagascar. We moved and expanded the Panama Mini Map. You need to have map art in sync with the revisions. It is lovely when it is all right - and Australia is on a scale closer to the map average - meaning short range planes are more useful there - more able to hop around.

[JeffroK]

I don't remember why myself. At one time there was interest in getting the Australian Army strait - and I did a good deal of reading - otherwise listening to Forum members - mainly from Australia. At that time the RHS team was (in terms of man hours) dominated by two people - one of them Australian with an interest in (and relatives who served in) the Australian Army - so I tended to listen (having no such personal connections myself). Apparently Australia had more or less two armies - the Australian Imperial Force - and the Australian Militia Force. Until later in the war, the latter could not be used out of country. If dim memory is near the mark - there may have been more than one 9th Division - and we are talking about the second one here. I really don't remember - and I don't know directly either. But it was the information we had - and lacking anyone saying otherwise - I had no reason to investigate it later. I do know we found many missing elements and added them. And I remember some units reformed - so it would be easy to have duplicated units if one isn't careful. In RHS nothing is sacred - everything can be challenged for cause. I don't love the data - and if there is better data - I will use it.

I have never heard so much drivel before, but is consistant with the quality of your database.

As others, far better versed in RHS mods than me, have said, it is totally impossible to try and question your findings. I dont pretend to be a trained historian like some, but have a more than close interest & association with the Australian Army.

Learn to listen to others, be willing to review your  data and if proven wrong, accept it and make the changes.

[el cid again]

If you do not like the RHS databases - take a look at stock - then at CHS. It is astonishing the lack of consistency and the sometimes deliberate errors. Allied bombers were short changed in payload AND range - on purpose. Neither side had heavy air transports. Japanese had submarine aircraft carriers - but no planes for them other than the Glen. No blimps.
The list is long. Ships were worse. The only excuse for Matrix is cost - it is a company and the data set is huge - so getting it right might be too expensive to get product out. But - in sympathy with them - the data set is indeed huge.
We only fix one field at a time. And only if someone notices it is a problem: you do not look at 133,000 fields instantly and with comprehension - and if you think otherwise - try it. Then too - I have to do more than an order of magnitude more than that. When we change something significant it often takes many days of work.

I don't think being insulting is honoring the terms of the board - and I won't stoop to your standard of language. I am becoming less interested in your technical or historical opinion because of it: people who have something positive to contribute usually do so in a positive way. And RHS is something like CHS: it does require a SOURCE for data BEFORE we change it - lest we continue the problem of too much undocumented garbage in the data set. You are notably NOT giving any sources - and if that doesn't change - well the data won't change. If there was a big problem - I bet the Forum would have reported it. And - note - I change even little things - upon notice - if the notice is clearly tied to facts. But facts are not things merely asserted.

You probably have no idea how much time I spend on this activity - never mind other activities. Sleep is not something I do much or often. I work 20-40 hours a week, I do research for authors or official agencies 20-30 hours a week, I raise a family and I have other projects than this one. You may drop back 10 yards and punt (that is apologize) for repeatedly being disrespectful - and honor the standards of RHS/CHS and Matrix - or I will stop responding to you. Your choice.

If you read the responses I have written above you will find the charge you cannot challenge data to be utterly false: I have said I am open to changing things. I told you how to go about it. You have yet to give a single source for a single datum point. I did not claim to know about the Australian Army up front - and I let those down under guide our expansion of it - our expansion of the unit designation system to help it be clear to players which units should not leave the mainland until late in the war IF things are going well - etc. I will let you join that club - guide away: but give me a source. Lest some later person object to the changes we make. If we are going to change it - tell me what is wrong and how to verify that? Just complaining is not germane to getting where you wish to go.

If you were honest, honorable and fair I would expect compliments for all the Aussie things we added and modified - right down to properly named landing craft formations that - like IJA - would sail the open ocean. That you are not being even handed and saying "you guys added a lot missing even in CHS" implies you either don't know enough to know that - or you just like to be negative. I prefer being positive. I also prefer total honesty: if I don't remember from two years ago why we did this or that, I say so - instead of - well - not being open and honest. I expect praise for that too - not criticism. But Joe warned me that you cannot please everyone - even if you really want to and really try. I am done trying with you - unless you wish to be positive and cooperative in terms of sources of what you allegedly know.

[el cid again]

The 8th Division was raised to fight Nazi Germany, and was trained for the conditions of the Middle East. In December 1940, the 24th Brigade was sent to North Africa, and became part of the 9th Division. It was replaced in the 8th Division by the 27th Brigade. [quote from wikipedia article on 8th division]

From this we see that one element of the 8th Division indeed did become part of the 9th Division.

It also appears the 27th Brigade transferred from the 9th Division to the 8th Division: [quoting wikipedia]

27th Australian Infantry Brigade – from 9th Div., 1941
2/26th Australian Infantry Battalion, Queensland (Qld)
2/29th Australian Infantry Battalion, Vic.
2/30th Australian Infantry Battalion, NSW [end quote]


The unit in RHS is the 9th Division after it reformed in Australia - and the 8th Division does not appear as such - rather it appears in its component parts. We could just call it the 9th Division if that were somehow more clear. The use of dual designations is an RHS methodology to indicate units that had different associations at different times. But in this case the dual association pre dates PTO erupting into war.

It appears RHS lets the 9th Division appear too soon: 430115 [quoting 9th division article]:

The 9th Division began embarking for its return to Australia on 24 January 1943. The division arrived at Fremantle in Western Australia on 18 February whereupon all members of the division were granted three weeks leave. The division reformed in April 1943 in the semi-tropical Atherton Tableland region of Far North Queensland where it began re-organising and re-training for jungle warfare. As part of the conversion to a Jungle Division many of the division’s units were either separated from the division, reorganised into new roles or disbanded. After completing amphibious training near Cairns the 9th Division departed for Milne Bay in New Guinea in late July and early August 1943.


So the date should be no earlier than 430715 at Cairns - not at Aden.

Since the 9th Division did indeed transfer from the Mideast - making it available at Aden was reasonable - but it is probably better to let the division rest - reform - and train for the very different kind of operations before it is allowed to be used by players. The unit appeared on Feb 15 1943 in stock (and probably CHS) at the Australian default location - and RHS probably backdated it exactly a month so it could appear at Aden.

Whenever we issue a general update - this unit will now appear at Cairns on 15 July 1943 - and it will be called the AIF 9th Division - as in stock - rather than a composite name. 8th Division exists in several forms - brigades and even battalions - not as a unified formation.

[JeffroK]

Using Wiki as a reference[8D]
 
But this appears to be correct.
 
The mobilization of the AIF went through a number of steps, originally 6th Div had 4 Bn Brigades(16,17 & 18) but dropped a Bn from each Bde to meet the British standard, these Bns formed 19 Bde which was made part of 6 Div & 18 Bde went to 7 Div. A Bde in Britain was formed from service troops & reinforcements and later sent to the Mid East, therefore 27 Bde stayed in Australia.
 
When the force went to Greece in early 1941, As well as 6 Div(16,17 & 19 Bdes), the best trained Bdes went to 7 Div (18, 21,25 Bdes) as it was intended to be sent to Greece, and 9 Div got 20, 24 & 26 Bdes. This was the basic structure for the rest of the war though temporary reassignments happened, 19 Bde went to Darwin and often Militia Bdes were attached as needed.  8 Div got 22, 23 & 27 Bdes, 22 & 27 were captured at Singapore & 23 Bde formed the "Bird" forces sent to Rabaul, Koepang & Ambon.
 
Please continue with your research, the RHS series which has a wealth of new ideas, suffers when easily researched & resolved errors can be fixed.

[el cid again]

I don't like or entirely trust Wiki - but it is fast - and I don't have a book on the Australian Army. For some reason the idea I wanted a source for data didn't get a response. We don't just change it because someone makes an assertion. The problem with research of a topic like PTO is - it never ends. I found horrible errors everywhere I looked - and I am sure places I never looked (e.g. destroyers) have lots of errors about when they appear, where they appear, etc - mainly for the Allies. I just did cruisers - and found it took weeks of work. But I have been doing this for decades - and Joe had it right when he answered the question "when does development end?" - he said "for the game designer or modder, at death."

[JeffroK]

Start with the simple things, IMHO things like 9 Div and basic armament of Allied aircraft are simple.

The hard to research things, like DEI OOB or ship upgrades take forever.

Get the basic product right.

[ggm]

I think Jeffk may be overly harsh. having just started playing witp i can say i was a little overwhelmed by the game. even more so by the confusing and poorly documented mods such as chs and its various forms and offshoots. the only mod that had a clear instruction manual, web page and installer was the rhs by el cid and his assistants. it made playing witp fun given that i could choose my scenario with ease. my favourite bbo because of the russians and the airplane data base is more conventional than his other scenarios. once i found it , it took me less than an hour to install it and set it up. i still cant even find empires ablaze, nevermind figure out the base chs install for it...

keep up the good work el cid ,
cant wait to try your new 1.6

ggm

[JeffroK]

At east 1 fan,  ggm, as you play the game more & more you will make your own opinion on its accuracy.

I loaded CHS easily, didnt have any prob with the pwhex file matching the map,  but thats me.

I am less worried about the playability than I am about its accuracy, and while no simulation will ever ne 100% correct, I expect the basic areas to be correct.

Have you ever seen the Coarsair F4U-1 with mixed guns?    Or only with 6 x 50cal.

If as Sid say, the japanese aircraft database is better, things like this have the effect of dropping some Allied aircraft firepower by up to 50% (The F4U-1 has 8pts against 12pts with correct armament) and limits their ability to compete with their mid war japanese counterparts.

Have fun with the mod, it certainly looks into different corners.

[ggm]

you may  be right about the data base jeffk, but i did not notice many errors in the bbo scenario. perhaps its in the other rhs scenarios with the jap and allied aircraft combined so as to have extra slots that the errors exists. ill have to take a look. now that ive installed rhs ive found big b and empires ablaze websites (there really should be links for these in the mods section). Ill give installing them a try once i get an external drive for my gaming machine...

The only error i found in the bbo aircraft data base is the p-400 which should have a hispano 20mm instead of twahe 37mm. but perhaps the pacific version was different from the export version. i could be wrong on this one, as i dont have the game in front of me.

but yes halfing the corsairs firepower is a serious issue.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Start with the simple things, IMHO things like 9 Div and basic armament of Allied aircraft are simple.

The hard to research things, like DEI OOB or ship upgrades take forever.

Get the basic product right.

In the beginning I assumed the OBs were done well in CHS. I was wrong. I only intended to add missing things.
Next - I got help - in particular from Dutch Forum members - with the Dutch OB - and others - for things that were clearly inadequate - e.g. China and the USSR (far to weak in CHS).
For Australia I had the luxury of an Aussie partner - and several other Forum members - and we did do a lot of changes - but since I had Aussies feeding me - I let them advise me.

A coordinator cannot do everything - and so one manages what one discovers or is advised is a problem. However good or bad it was - we don't make it any worse by ignoring it: all we do is make it better when we change things for cause.

But note the for cause part. There has to be a reason - or you will end up accepting objections like "what hapened to the long range Pete?"
Pete had no long range - and we should not listen to such an objection.

As for aircraft - we devoted a man year or two to them. We had techncial problems to resolve. And I think we did improve them vastly - and added as many kinds and loadouts as possible in the system. I have yet to see any evidence of a problem either - and I am not inclined to go looking for any: a lot of changes = a vast amount of work and unless someone provides a REASON to change anything - we won't do that. It is anything but easy to pin down aircraft data - after half a century of research this much is clear to me. Specific changes will be entertained on a case by case basis IF AND ONLY IF they come with a REASON to review them:

Francillon - p.60 - says zeros have a range of 6000 nm - so range should be 100 hexes for slot 3. Fictional example.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

At east 1 fan,  ggm, as you play the game more & more you will make your own opinion on its accuracy.

I loaded CHS easily, didnt have any prob with the pwhex file matching the map,  but thats me.

I am less worried about the playability than I am about its accuracy, and while no simulation will ever ne 100% correct, I expect the basic areas to be correct.

Have you ever seen the Coarsair F4U-1 with mixed guns?    Or only with 6 x 50cal.

If as Sid say, the japanese aircraft database is better, things like this have the effect of dropping some Allied aircraft firepower by up to 50% (The F4U-1 has 8pts against 12pts with correct armament) and limits their ability to compete with their mid war japanese counterparts.

Have fun with the mod, it certainly looks into different corners.

You will find that I am a fanatic for nit picking accuracy. But I can not make RHS perfectly accurate because

1) What is the truth? Sometimes data differes. Sometimes data is absent. One must make a choice - a guess - and it may not be right.

2) There is a limit on time. I wanted to do RHS in about two months - and spend over three years. I can either research until I die - and not be done then - or issue product.

3) The sheer size of the data set prevents devoting excessive research on one item. We have violated that principle a hundred times - but that leaves 132 900 more to go.

4) The amount of errors in the data were more than are imaginable - and probably mean we never should have tried to fix them. One Forum member devoted a man year or so just to getting LSTs right - and got sick of it before he finished.

5) If you want to make things more accurate - instead of railing in general - be specific - WITH DOCUMENTATION. I don't care what you know or remember - we have a standard - and it is - something must tell us the facts we use. If possible a standard reference any player can use to verify it.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: ggm

you may  be right about the data base jeffk, but i did not notice many errors in the bbo scenario. perhaps its in the other rhs scenarios with the jap and allied aircraft combined so as to have extra slots that the errors exists. ill have to take a look. now that ive installed rhs ive found big b and empires ablaze websites (there really should be links for these in the mods section). Ill give installing them a try once i get an external drive for my gaming machine...

The only error i found in the bbo aircraft data base is the p-400 which should have a hispano 20mm instead of twahe 37mm. but perhaps the pacific version was different from the export version. i could be wrong on this one, as i dont have the game in front of me.

but yes halfing the corsairs firepower is a serious issue.

As a fan of the Corsair - and with Forum interest - we reseaerched it and modeled it with several slots. It starts out in a land plane version - evolves to a very different carrier plane - and its characheristics change. The first version has a very unusual bomb system - later deleted - for example. I don't remember the gun armament - but I didn't make it up - so what it says is what we found and published. If there is a conflict in some source - no one has yet cited it.

[ggm]

well el cid has a point about tthe corsair. f4u wiki has the xf4u as having 2 50 and 2 30 cal as main armament. its only after production models late in 43 that we see the 6 50 and other stuff added. so if he has 3 p36 and 3 buffoloes in his mod i see no reason why he shouldn't have early model xf4us.

ps thanks for this great mod...

[JeffroK]

If there is a conflict in some source - no one has yet cited it.

Whats your source, I have yet to see a single reference to combat aircraft having anything other than 6 x 50cal or 4 x 20mm.
From Wiki
Reports coming back from the war in Europe indicated that an armament of two .30 caliber (7.62 mm) (mounted in engine cowling) and two .50 caliber (12.7 mm) machine guns (one in each outer wing panel) was insufficient, and so when the U.S. Navy asked for production proposals in November 1940, heavier armament was specified.[10] The Navy entered into a letter of intent on March 3, 1941, received Vought's production proposal on April 2 and awarded Vought a contract for 584 F4U-1 fighters on June 30 of the same year.[11] [12] It was a remarkable achievement for Vought; compared to land-based counterparts, carrier aircraft are "overbuilt" and heavier, to withstand the extreme stress of deck landings

Production F4U-1s featured several major modifications compared with the XF4U-1. A change of armament to six wing mounted .50 cal (12.7 mm) AN/M2 Browning heavy machine-guns (three in each outer wing panel) and their ammunition (400 rounds per gun for the inner pair, 375 rounds per gun for the outer

From f4ucorsair.com
At design stage
Armament consisted of 1 x 50cal in each wing and 1 x30cal and 1x50cal in the fuselage.  There was also room for 20 small anti personel bombs, stored in the wings.

F4U-1 changes

6 x 50cal MG's
No further comments appear about the bomblet bays, though further development saw an increase in fuel carried in the wings.


And you linked it with the AU-1
AU-1 The AU-1 was a dedicated low-level attack version of the F4U. The XAU-1 was created by converting a F4U-5NL, and initially the contracts called it the F4U-6. It was powered by a R-2800-83WA with a single-stage supercharger and water injection, that delivered 2800hp at sea level. The air scoops were again removed from the engine cowling. The AU-1 was given more amour for the pilot and the engine. Four 20mm cannon with 231 rounds each were installed in the wings. The number of outer wing racks was increased from eight to ten. Performance had, of course, decreased. The handling had suffered even more, and the AU-1 was unpleasant to fly. Only 111 were built between February and October 1952.

From http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_F4U-1.html
The prototype Corsair was built in response to a U.S. Navy design competition of February 1938. Chance Vought built their candidate around the Pratt & Whitney XR-2800-2 Wasp radial air-cooled engine, capable of providing 1,800 hp (in comparison the Bf 109E, in develop in 1938, had a 1,175 hp engine). This powerful engine really needed a large propeller – the model eventually used was a thirteen foot three blade Hamilton Standard propeller. With normal straight wings, this would have resulted in abnormally tall landing gear. The designer’s solution to this was to use the inverted gull wing, which by lowering the bottom of the wings allowed the use of more normal landing gear. The prototype aircraft was armed with two .30 calibre machine guns in the nose and one .50 calibre machine guns in each outer wing panel. Those wing panels could fold up for carrier use. The wings could also each carry twenty small 5.2 pound anti-aircraft bombs to be used against enemy bombers.

F4U-1 The aircraft the Vought delivered was significantly different from the prototype. The cockpit was moved back three feet. This allowed the fuel tanks to be removed from the wings and placed in front of the pilot. This in turn allowed the installation of three .50 calibre machine guns in the each wings. The cockpit canopy was slightly improved, giving more space for the pilot to move. The under wing anti-aircraft bombs were replaced by two small bomb racks for normal bombs. Finally, the engine was changed to the Pratt & Whitney XR-2800-8, giving 2,000 hp. The top speed rose to 425 mph. These changes did delay the production of the aircraft, but made it a much more potent fighter. wings.Armament consisted of one .50 gun in each wing, and a .50 and a .30 in

These confirm data from American Aircraft of WW2 by David Mondey, The encyclopedia of World Aircraft by Paul Eden & Soph Moeng plus Janes Fighting Aircraft of WW2 (Though this is sometimes off)

[JeffroK]

Fairey Albacore
From Wiki

• Guns:
  
  • One fixed forward-firing 0.303 in (7.7 mm) machine gun in starboard wing
  • One or two Vickers K machine guns in rear cockpit.

From http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Aircraft/Albacore.htm

[size="-1"]One forward firing .303in machine gun in starboard wing with 2 Vickers K in rear cockpit, One 1610lb torpedo, six 250lb or four 500lb bombs[/size]

[JeffroK]

FM-2 Wildcat

From Wiki, a bit unclear
Grumman's Wildcat production ceased in early 1943 to make way for the newer F6F Hellcat, but General Motors continued producing Wildcats for both U.S. Navy and Fleet Air Arm use. From 1943 onward, Wildcats were primarily assigned to escort carriers ("jeep carriers") as larger fighters such as the Hellcat and the Vought F4U Corsair were needed aboard fleet carriers, and the Wildcat's slower landing speed made it more suitable for shorter flight decks.[14] At first, GM produced the FM-1 (identical to the F4F-4, but with four guns). Production later switched to the improved FM-2 (based on Grumman's XF4F-8 prototype) optimized for small-carrier operations, with a more powerful engine, and a taller tail to cope with the torque

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/aircraft/fm-2.htm

[blockquote] When Grumman Aircraft began producing the F6F Hellcat, other Grumman aircraft then being produced had to be manufactured by other companies. The F4F Wildcat and the Avenger torpedo bomber were examples of this, and both types were manufactured under license by the Eastern Aircraft Division of General Motors. The General Motor's Wildcat was given the designation FM-1, with the only difference being that the armament was changed from six .50 caliber machine guns to four, with an increase in ammunition capacity of 20%. During 1943 some 1,127 FM-1s were built, and simultaneously General Motors began working on an improved version designated the FM-2. The FM-2 differed from the FM-1 in that it had a more powerful engine, a taller fin and rudder, and various changes in airframe weight. The latter change was made to allow the FM-2 to operate from the small escort carriers, and the aircraft was developed to have the best possible take-off performance. In fact, later model FM-2s were given a water-injection system to help boost short-term engine output. By the time production was terminated in August 1945, 4,777 FM-2s had been produced. [size="-1"]For more data and photos on this aircraft, click here for the Naval Historical Center webpage.
[/size] [/blockquote] General Motors FM-2 Wildcat Type: single-seat carrier-based fighter
Crew: 1
Armament: four .50 inch machine guns
optional 2 250 lb. bombs or six 5" rockets

From http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Aircr ... ildcat.htm

The Martlet V should be renamed Wildcat V (Change from 1/1/44 Mk IV onwards) and is the FM-1

The Wildcat VI is the FM-2

[JeffroK]

From Joe Baughers fantastic site, and supported by the books I refer to above.
A36A Apache

From http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51_6.html

There is a considerable amount of confusion and misinformation about the correct name for the A-36. Names such as Invader and Apache have also been associated with the A-36, but the correct name is and always has been Mustang. There was a brief effort to change the name of the A-36 to Invader following the invasion of Sicily in order to distinguish it from the fighter versions in press coverage. The Army turned down the request, since they didn't want to reveal to the enemy that they were facing a dive bomber version of the fighter. In addition, the name Invader had already been assignated to the Douglas A-26. There is a persistent myth that the A-36 was initially called Apache, which was the name that the Army had initially assigned to the very early P-51. However, this story has no basis in fact, and was in fact a myth that originated in the 1980s.

The A-36A differed from previous Mustang versions in having a set of hydraulically-operated perforated door-type dive brakes mounted at approximately mid-chord on both the upper and lower wing surfaces outboard of the wing guns. The brakes were normally recessed into the wings, but were opened to 90 degrees by a hydraulic jack to hold diving speeds down to 250 mph. A rack was fitted under each wing for a 500-pound bombs, a 75 US gallon drop tank, or smoke-curtain equipment. A built-in armament of six 0.50-inch machine guns (two in lower fuselage nose, four in the wings) was fitted, however the two nose guns were often omitted in service. The wing guns were moved closer to the main landing gear strut in order to minimize stress under taxi and takeoff conditions. The engine was the Allison V-1710-87 (F21R), rated at 1325 hp at 3000 feet. Normal and maximum loaded weights rose to 8370 pounds and 10,700 pounds, and the maximum speed in clean condition fell to 356 mph at 5000 feet and 310 mph with the two 500-lb bombs fitted. With the bombs, range and service ceiling were 550 miles and 25,100 feet respectively.
P26A
Specification of Boeing P-26A: One Pratt and Whitney R-1340-27 Wasp nine-cylinder supercharged air-cooled radial engine rated at 500 hp at 7500 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 234 mph. Range 635 miles. initial climb rate 2360 ft/min. Service ceiling 27,400 feet, absolute ceiling 28,300 feet. Weights: 2197 lbs empty, 2955 lb gross. Dimensions: Wingspan 27 feet 11.6 inches, length 23 feet 7.25 inches, height 10 feet 0.38 inches, wing area 149.5 square feet. Armament: One 0.50-in, one 0.30-in machine guns, or two 0.30-in machine guns mounted in the fuselage sides firing through the engine cylinder banks. Racks were provided under the fuselage for five 30-lb bombs or two 100-lb bombs

P43A

Fifty-four P-43 Lancers were ordered by the Army in late 1940. Serial numbers were 41-6668/6721. They were virtually identical to the YP-43. The engine was the turbosupercharged Pratt & Whitney R-1830-47, delivering 1200 hp. The first P-43 was delivered on May 16, 1941, the last example being delivered on August 28, 1941. Maximum speed was 349 mph at 25,000 feet. Initial climb rate was 2850 feet per minute. Service ceiling was 38,000 feet, and range was 800 miles. Wingspan was 36 feet, length was 28 feet 6 inches, height was 14 feet, and wing area was 223 square feet Weights were 5654 pounds empty and 7810 pounds gross. Maximum takeoff weight was 7935 pounds. Armament consisted of two 0.50-inch and two 0.30-inch machine guns. The P-43 was immediately followed by the P-43A, 80 examples of which were ordered. Serials were 40-2891/2970. Deliveries began in September of 1941. The P-43A was essentially the same as the earlier P-43, but differed in having the turbosupercharged R-1830-49 which afforded its full 1200 hp at 25,000 feet. Armament was increased to a full four 0.50-in machine guns, two in the fuselage and two in the wings. Deliveries began in September 1941. Maximum speed was 356 mph at 25,000 feet. An altitude of 15,000 feet could be reached in 6 minutes. Service ceiling was 36,000 feet, and range was 650 miles. Wingspan was 36 feet, length was 28 feet 6 inches, height was 14 feet, and wing area was 223 square feet Weights were 5996 pounds empty and 7435 pounds gross. Maximum takeoff weight was 8480 pounds

P400

The RAF model was at first named Caribou, but the American name of Airacobra was adopted in July 1941. The British Airacobra was virtually identical to the American P-39D, but the slower-firing 37-mm cannon was replaced with the faster-firing and more reliable Hispano 20-mm cannon with 60 rounds. Two 0.50-inch machine guns were mounted in the fuselage, and four 0.30-inch machine guns were mounted in the wings. The engine of the Model 14 was the 1150 hp Allison V-1710-E4 (-35). The British serials of the Airacobras were AH570/AH739 (170 planes), AP264/AP384 (121 planes), BW100/BW183 (84 planes), and BX135/BX434 (300 planes).