RHS Installer/Switcher Updated

[JeffroK]

P-400
1 x 37mm and 6 x 30cal

Should be
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).

The US equivalent was the P39C which did not have the wing guns, but they only made 3.....

[ol][*] War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume Four, William Green, Doubleday, 1964.
[*] The American Fighter, Enzo Anguluci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987.
[*] United States Military Aircraft since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989.
[*] P-39 Airacobra in Action, Ernie MCDowell, Squadron/Signal Publications, 1980
[*] The Calamitous 'Cobra, Air Enthusiast, August 1971.
[*] Airacobra Advantage: The Flying Cannon, Rick Mitchell, Pictorial Histories Publishing Company, Missoula, Montana
[*] Airacobra Advantage--The Flying Cannon, Rick Mitchell, Pictorial Histories Publishing Company, 1992
[*] Bell Cobra Variants, Robert F. Dorr, Wings of Fame, Vol 10, AirTime Publishing , Inc., 1998.
[*] E-mail from Gordon Birkett on disposition of AP347, BW169, AP361, plus serial numbers on USAAF P-400s.
[*] E-mail from Terence Geary on P-400 dispositions.
[*] Andrew Thomas, Bell Airacobra In RAF Service, International Air Power Review, Vol 6, 2002
[*] E-mail from Franek Grabowski on AH728, AH733, AH737, BW118, BX302.
[*] E-mail from Nick Jenkins on crash of AH573. [/size][/color][/ol]

[JeffroK]

P63A Black widow

RHS has 4x20mm TT and 4 x50cal F

This should be 4 x 20mm F & 4 x 50cal TT, thogh as below, they could all be F.

The P61A & P61B saw service, and I believe the turret problem got solved

Only the first thirty-seven of the 45 P-61A-1s were actually equipped with the dorsal turrets. In fact, more than half of all P-61As built actually had this turret deleted. One reason for this omission was that the General Electric remotely-controlled turret mechanism was urgently needed for the B-29 program. However, the primary reason was the occurrence of severe aerodynamic buffeting when the turret was being either elevated or rotated in azimuth during flight. Many flight-test hours were spent in trying to solve this problem, but it was never completely eliminated. In fact, this problem was often so severe that many P-61As in the field had the four 0.50-inch machine guns in the top turret permanently locked into the forward-firing position, being fired only by the pilot, with the gunner having no control at all.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JeffK


I fail how you misunderstood that when I rabbited on about the F4U-1 you didnt understand that I meant the F4U-1.

REPLY: You failed to honor the procedure - even after being told what it was. So finally I (wrongly) gave in - and went down the aircraft list until I came to F4U-1. This showed exactly the six .50s you wanted to see - so I concluded - correctly - that you were not looking at the same data I was. Had you specified the slot numbers - there would have been no confusion. I forgot that we had more than one F4U-1 (we have three) the first of which is land based - the second of which is sea based but only for RN (which used it at sea first) - and the third of which is an upgrade for the first one - but now US sea based. I won't make that mistake again: no slot number = no safe way to know what you are talking about. If you fail to grasp that honoring the procedure prevents such confusion - fine: take my word for it. We won't proceed in any instance the procedure isn't honored - as now I must invest hours of time undoing the "corrections" I should not have made - because it wasn't. I am not going to do that again.

As for the Kittyhawk I, I wasnt aware that any RAF units used them in the Far East, make sure that you use Far East & not Mid East data when looking at things.

REPLY: Our database was developed from CHS - which had Aden as a base - and so it included mideast based air units. Only in Level 7 did we turn Aden into a meta base - off limits to the Axis - with no need for defenses - and were we able to remove mideast units from the OB. This was not honored by gamers - who moved mideast units onto the fighting part of the map - and we had other technical issues as well in Level 7. Aden is now located so that sea range is right - but air transfer range is only acceptable by the limitation of where you may transfer to: Aden can air transfer only to Addu Atol, Karachi, Bombay, Muscat, or points on the Madagascar Mini Map including South Africa. The thing is - along the way - we ended up changing the criteria for what units are in the OB - and the ORIGINAL choices may not be entirely consistent with that. To which add the complication we added South African Air Force units - which might also be a consideration. Then - finally - I think you will find some minor allies were given this machine - e.g. China, Dutch or Indian air units (not sure - there are a host of Hawks/Tomahawks/ Kittyhawks of varoius marks - with differing engines and armament - and many of these were used by Allied air forces). We do have quite a number of slots dedicated to them - and it might be possible to make the set better than it now is. I did add Hawk production at Hyderabad - China Air moved there from Canton with 100 Hawk kits - and the company never left. It exists today as Hindustan Air - and still makes more or less second line performance fighter planes. I added most of the Indian Air Force squadrons - virtually all the SAAF and a number of Dutch and CW units - as well as adding more of RAAF and RNZAF units. There are difficulties and compromises - but too little attention was devoted to it before RHS came along - and I am perfectly willing to continue the process of moving toward a more correct modeling of what really happened. While I don't consider the RAAF and RNZAF as primary - to the extent possible we will try to model them correctly.

I will provide you with references later.

Then I will respond later.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JeffK


I am amazed that a researcher such as you is not aware of the fantastic works of eithe Joe Baugher and his US Military aircraft serial (tail numbers) and a similar work by Darren Crick who has done the same for RAAF & RNZAF aircraft. This is one of the sources I use.

REPLY: Be amazed if you like. Since you didn't cite it - and STILL have not cited it by name - I was not saying I wasn't familiar with something you had not named. The single word "serial" does not say what you are talking about. It is common for afficianados to assume everyone knows what they are talking about - to the extent they don't actually name what they are talking about. This is not ideal practice - because it never works well.

Both the RAAF & RNZAF used the Kitty IA, which was the equivalent to to P40E with some British equipment, usually radio. These were equipped with 6 x 50cal.

Again, a major Allied fighter in the early years has its firepower cut from 12 to 8.

REPLY: Maybe. I seem to remember reading that some planes were modified and that the reference book armament is not the field armament for various reasons. For example, look at RAF Buffalos used in 1941 in Malaya. It is an assumption on your part the data is wrong - and until you get specific - it is not possible to confirm your assumption. I found many errors - and amazing errors - in the aircraft data set - and in every other data set we looked at - every time. It is not likely we got them all. But not every "error" is an error. Sometimes it is a matter of information. I wish there was a single source we could go to - and for Japan there almost is. [In two senses - we have two books - for different periods - that are almost comprehensive. And I have a database developed over 40 years which has every last plane in it - even one offs by the most obscure individuals or manufacturers.] But for the Allies there is no such source - and so a lot of what we use is from quite different sources. It is perfectly possible to have some source say x and another explain why it was really y in practice - or yet another saying z - with no explanation why it contradicts x. Nor is it possible to have every source - or even if you have as many as I have - to read and comprehend them all: clearly more points of view will help getting the germane items forward. If there is a difficult matter - I am perfectly willing to let a Forum discussion look at it.

You have the Kitty I/P40D, 560 KittyI were received by the RAF and 24 by the RCAF (from the 560) and only 20 P40D received by the USAAF. This has 4 x 50cal, I am unsure yet whether they also had 2 x 30cal as pages often report an increase without detailing any deductions.
As the RAF didnt field any Kitty squadrons in the Far East, only 24 may be accuratly portrayed (And I am unsure where the RCAF versions were based, they did have a Sqn in the Mid East)

REPLY: This hints at the difficulties of CW air services. But there is more: If RCAF has a unit in the West - players might transfer it into the theater (if they pay political points) - and that is legitimate. Same for SAAF. So we sometimes have to allow more planes in the contested part of the map than were really sent there. In general - CW aircraft availability is low - and not to high - so being generous is not really a bad thing at these low numbers. I also doubt it is time efficient to research every last unit equipment set - and we are design limited to only one specified upgrade per unit (which players do not have to allow). We need to be somewhat philosophical about this - a game is dynamic and not really going to be identical to the real war - and indeed the politics that decided things IRL may not well apply to a given game situation. So we try to get close - for flavor - but not precise except at start - because later on it is not that definite anyway.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

P43A Lancer  Slot is in the 100's
RHS has 2 x30cal & 2 x 50cal.

Again from Joe Baugher
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.

[ol][*] War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume 4, William Green, Doubleday, 1964.
[*] The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987.
[*] United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989.
[*] American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982
[*] E-Mail from Gary Barns, Melbourne, Australia
[*] Website of RAAF Museum, http://www.raafmuseum.com.au/research/index.htm [/ol]

This is probably correct. It is also not germane - since we lack slots to differentiate. Here we go with the basic principle: you get the planes in the form they entered production/service as. It would be wrong to model the P-43s in service at the start with better armament. In an ideal world - we would upgrade to the P-43A - IF we had the slots. We don't - so we don't worry about it. In the game world - there was more ruthless refusal to modify things in production - if you want a rationalization. We will change this in AE - assuming we get an AE - because it has the slots to permit it. But - in general - expect RHS to represent a plane in the form it existed on the day the specified model enters production. Note here the model specified is P-43 - not P-43A - and since it is right - well - it is right.

[JeffroK]

Sid, did the P-43 serve in WW2 or only the P-43A?

The models that went to China were P43A-1, and the USAAF ones didnt see combat .

So potray the model which saw combat, the the advanced trainer/home duties only model.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: JeffK


I am amazed that a researcher such as you is not aware of the fantastic works of eithe Joe Baugher and his US Military aircraft serial (tail numbers) and a similar work by Darren Crick who has done the same for RAAF & RNZAF aircraft. This is one of the sources I use.

REPLY: Be amazed if you like. Since you didn't cite it - and STILL have not cited it by name - I was not saying I wasn't familiar with something you had not named. The single word "serial" does not say what you are talking about. It is common for afficianados to assume everyone knows what they are talking about - to the extent they don't actually name what they are talking about. This is not ideal practice - because it never works well.

Both the RAAF & RNZAF used the Kitty IA, which was the equivalent to to P40E with some British equipment, usually radio. These were equipped with 6 x 50cal.

Again, a major Allied fighter in the early years has its firepower cut from 12 to 8.

REPLY: Maybe. I seem to remember reading that some planes were modified and that the reference book armament is not the field armament for various reasons. For example, look at RAF Buffalos used in 1941 in Malaya. It is an assumption on your part the data is wrong - and until you get specific - it is not possible to confirm your assumption. I found many errors - and amazing errors - in the aircraft data set - and in every other data set we looked at - every time. It is not likely we got them all. But not every "error" is an error. Sometimes it is a matter of information. I wish there was a single source we could go to - and for Japan there almost is. [In two senses - we have two books - for different periods - that are almost comprehensive. And I have a database developed over 40 years which has every last plane in it - even one offs by the most obscure individuals or manufacturers.] But for the Allies there is no such source - and so a lot of what we use is from quite different sources. It is perfectly possible to have some source say x and another explain why it was really y in practice - or yet another saying z - with no explanation why it contradicts x. Nor is it possible to have every source - or even if you have as many as I have - to read and comprehend them all: clearly more points of view will help getting the germane items forward. If there is a difficult matter - I am perfectly willing to let a Forum discussion look at it.

You have the Kitty I/P40D, 560 KittyI were received by the RAF and 24 by the RCAF (from the 560) and only 20 P40D received by the USAAF. This has 4 x 50cal, I am unsure yet whether they also had 2 x 30cal as pages often report an increase without detailing any deductions.
As the RAF didnt field any Kitty squadrons in the Far East, only 24 may be accuratly portrayed (And I am unsure where the RCAF versions were based, they did have a Sqn in the Mid East)

REPLY: This hints at the difficulties of CW air services. But there is more: If RCAF has a unit in the West - players might transfer it into the theater (if they pay political points) - and that is legitimate. Same for SAAF. So we sometimes have to allow more planes in the contested part of the map than were really sent there. In general - CW aircraft availability is low - and not to high - so being generous is not really a bad thing at these low numbers. I also doubt it is time efficient to research every last unit equipment set - and we are design limited to only one specified upgrade per unit (which players do not have to allow). We need to be somewhat philosophical about this - a game is dynamic and not really going to be identical to the real war - and indeed the politics that decided things IRL may not well apply to a given game situation. So we try to get close - for flavor - but not precise except at start - because later on it is not that definite anyway.

Can you quote your source that says RAAF & RNZAF Kittyhawk 1A had their armament lessened. I'm not sure this ever happened.

163 Kittyhawk 1A served with the RAAF, I dont have the RNZAF numbers but 50'ish.

So 1-2 field mods change the data for 200+? I know C Caldwell took out his 20mm cannon from the Sptifire VIII and replaced them with 50cal, is this good enough to change all Spit VIII?

And 24 aircraft which may or may not have been in theatre sees the majority suffer?
(edit 6 RCAF Sqns flew Kitty1, 1 on the East Coast, 1 equipped in 1944 and 4 on the West Coast/Alaska)

In case I'm not clear, the RAF Kittyhawk 1 served in the Mid east, which covers the Western Desert, not anywhere near the PTO. As there was a Canadian fighter Sqn in the Mid East this MAY have been the destination of the RCAF Kitty 1. (edit This is wrong)

[el cid again]

Our problem here is two fold:

1) We lack slots
2) The USAF ones DID enter service DURING the war - at a critical time - and COULD have seen combat.
In a game world we cannot tell the Japanese to stay out of the USA - or the US player not to assign P-43s to his units. In EOS family - we did away with the P-26 - and assigned the Philippine Air Force the P-43 in its place - a logical choice in the face of a stronger armed Japan.

We simply must model two things:

1) That the USAAF did put the P-43 into service at a critical time - and if need be it would have to fight
2) That the USAAF had the P-43 in inventory - at a time it didn't have P-40s in sufficient production - and when otherwise it had only older types in small numbers in the inventory - except of course P-39/P-400s - which are also represented and are also available as options for players. There are FEW options in RHS for early Allied fighter units - just as there were IRL - and this is one of the better options.

The P-43 and P-43A are substantially the same aircraft. Either could represent the whole production run. It is our criteria to go with the first version - but one might reasonably specify the standard "go with the greater number of planes." It does not happen to be the standard Joe and I evolved when working on Japanese planes for CHS - but I don't mean to say it is the only reasonable possible compromise. It just is our compromise.

EDIT: The only problem with the above is that we seem to have specified the plane as P-43A. So either the designation should change to P-40 - or we should use P-43A armament - assuming we are not already doing that. I will review this tomorrow when we are reviewing some ship data. I have a dim memory that P-43s may have rearmed to P-43A standard as well. It may be possible to let P-43A represent the lot - as we seem to be saying with the name.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Can you quote your source that says RAAF & RNZAF Kittyhawk 1A had their armament lessened. I'm not sure this ever happened.

[/quote]

It does not appear we have an issue here. That is, it appears that I selected a Kittyhawk model based on the most numerous RAAF variant in the series - and that it was not improperly armed. A P-40D in CW service had nose guns removed and four wing guns - just as we show. The salient feature of the P-40E was the introduction of six wing guns. We have both versions in the mix - which is what I intended - and a good modeling of the inventory given the few slots we have. It would be wrong to give the Kittyhawk I/P-40D six guns - which it nominally had if the nose guns were retained. While there may have been six gun Kittyhawks in ETO - these would have .30s vice .50s in all stations - it appears most or all of them had the nose guns removed - and served as low level recon planes with four .30s instead. But for our area of interest - it does seem we have it right. I try to be specific with designation of the aircraft - and if you strictly read that - there should never have been a challenge to the Kittyhawk I/P-40D armament.

It does appear the Kittyhawk was a RAAF/RNZAF/SAAF aircraft in the main in PTO. [RCAF units - only two - may never have served in PTO] "In the RAF it served exclusively in the Mediterranean theater" Royal Air Force, p. 194. Going on"It differed from the Tomakawk chiefly in having a more powerful Allison engine in a modified cowling, a re-designed cockpit canopy and the armament of four guns concentrated in the wings, the twin guns in the nose being deleted. The Kittyhawk 1A equivalent to the P-40E, differed in having six guns in the wings and in other minor details." Since our Kittyhawk I is a P-40D - it clearly is the four gun version - and it is correct. The earlier Tomahawk - which I think was in CHS - was removed because I could find no units using it in theater. The RHS case - slot 190 - appears clearly designated Kittyhawk I/P-40D - and this appears to be a germane case - and it has the right armament - at least according to the RAF reference. It served in SAAF but apparently in the mideast. It served in 9 RAAF squadrons in SW Pacific area - and also 7 RNZAF squadrons in the same area. RHS appears to have it right in a quick squadron review as well.

[JeffroK]

Our problem here is two fold:

1) We lack slots     UNDERSTOOD
2) The USAF ones DID enter service DURING the war - at a critical time - and COULD have seen combat.   VERY DOUBTFUL, ONLY A FEW SERVED WITH THE RAAF IN A PR ROLE, THE USAAF KEPT THEM IN THE REAR.
In a game world we cannot tell the Japanese to stay out of the USA - or the US player not to assign P-43s to his units. In EOS family - we did away with the P-26 - and assigned the Philippine Air Force the P-43 in its place - a logical choice in the face of a stronger armed Japan.
EOS GOES AWAY FROM HISTORY, YOUR HISTORICAL VERSIONS SHOULD NOT REPLICATE THIS

We simply must model two things:

1) That the USAAF did put the P-43 into service at a critical time - and if need be it would have to fight   AS ABOVE, VERY DOUBTFUL IN AN HISTORICAL MOD.
2) That the USAAF had the P-43 in inventory - at a time it didn't have P-40s in sufficient production - and when otherwise it had only older types in small numbers in the inventory - except of course P-39/P-400s - which are also represented and are also available as options for players. There are FEW options in RHS for early Allied fighter units - just as there were IRL - and this is one of the better options.
I'D LOVE TO SEE THE ABILITY TO DRAW ON EAST COAST RESOURCES, AT A SUITABLE VP PENALTY TO COVER THIS CIRCUMSTANCE.

The P-43 and P-43A are substantially the same aircraft. Either could represent the whole production run. It is our criteria to go with the first version - but one might reasonably specify the standard "go with the greater number of planes." It does not happen to be the standard Joe and I evolved when working on Japanese planes for CHS - but I don't mean to say it is the only reasonable possible compromise. It just is our compromise.

EDIT: The only problem with the above is that we seem to have specified the plane as P-43A. So either the designation should change to P-40 - or we should use P-43A armament - assuming we are not already doing that. I will review this tomorrow when we are reviewing some ship data. I have a dim memory that P-43s may have rearmed to P-43A standard as well. It may be possible to let P-43A represent the lot - as we seem to be saying with the name.
AT LEAST I AGREE WITH THIS.

IN CAPS AND BOLD ONLY TO DISTINGUSH MY COMMENTS, IF THEY ARE DISTIGUISHED THAT IS.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Our problem here is two fold:

1) We lack slots     UNDERSTOOD
2) The USAF ones DID enter service DURING the war - at a critical time - and COULD have seen combat.   VERY DOUBTFUL, ONLY A FEW SERVED WITH THE RAAF IN A PR ROLE, THE USAAF KEPT THEM IN THE REAR.

REPLY: In the rear is not germane. It is on the map - both sides might make it germane. As Allies I always do. It is better than a P-35 or P-36. If you don't - it is your choice. And even then - your opponent might invade Seattle - in which case - you still need to use them.


In a game world we cannot tell the Japanese to stay out of the USA - or the US player not to assign P-43s to his units. In EOS family - we did away with the P-26 - and assigned the Philippine Air Force the P-43 in its place - a logical choice in the face of a stronger armed Japan.
EOS GOES AWAY FROM HISTORY, YOUR HISTORICAL VERSIONS SHOULD NOT REPLICATE THIS


In "strictly historical" scenarios we keep the P-26 in Philippine Air Force Service. I don't understand the comment - we use appropriate OB in appropriate places. I named the scenario that forces the P-43 into the center of the map. Also - why are you ignoring P-43s in China? They ended up in the center of the map IRL.

We simply must model two things:

1) That the USAAF did put the P-43 into service at a critical time - and if need be it would have to fight   AS ABOVE, VERY DOUBTFUL IN AN HISTORICAL MOD.

REPLY: A game designer or modder must be more open minded than you are - and I am not going to say this again. I don't tell players what they can do - and as a veteran of actual warfare and near warfare - I assert that it isn't safe to assume you know what the enemy will do. Our best guesses were often wrong. Probably more so in 1941/2 than since - but I saw us defeated in every air air engagement there was five months running a quarter of a century later. You never konw - and a good design must allow for anything reasonably possible - regardless of what is likely.

2) That the USAAF had the P-43 in inventory - at a time it didn't have P-40s in sufficient production - and when otherwise it had only older types in small numbers in the inventory - except of course P-39/P-400s - which are also represented and are also available as options for players. There are FEW options in RHS for early Allied fighter units - just as there were IRL - and this is one of the better options.
I'D LOVE TO SEE THE ABILITY TO DRAW ON EAST COAST RESOURCES, AT A SUITABLE VP PENALTY TO COVER THIS CIRCUMSTANCE.

REPLY: I am not sure I agree. But I might agree. Taking things from other theaters is a complicated matter - and figuring out the down stream impacts is not easy to do. It isn't germane - we have no control over code.


The P-43 and P-43A are substantially the same aircraft. Either could represent the whole production run. It is our criteria to go with the first version - but one might reasonably specify the standard "go with the greater number of planes." It does not happen to be the standard Joe and I evolved when working on Japanese planes for CHS - but I don't mean to say it is the only reasonable possible compromise. It just is our compromise.

EDIT: The only problem with the above is that we seem to have specified the plane as P-43A. So either the designation should change to P-40 - or we should use P-43A armament - assuming we are not already doing that. I will review this tomorrow when we are reviewing some ship data. I have a dim memory that P-43s may have rearmed to P-43A standard as well. It may be possible to let P-43A represent the lot - as we seem to be saying with the name.
AT LEAST I AGREE WITH THIS.

IN CAPS AND BOLD ONLY TO DISTINGUSH MY COMMENTS, IF THEY ARE DISTIGUISHED THAT IS.

I will report again tomorrow. I must do something useful not just debate the same point over and over. The P-43 is also not yet officially under review - the criteria for it not yet having been followed. I do remember finding this was an interesting plane design - and going to great pains to research the numbers involved - and the units assigned. It is amazing how many units in the USAAF OB used it - although some were in places off our map for a while - you get them when they transfer ONTO the map. Selfridge Field (Detroit) = you can't have the unit; but something near LA is different - you get it when it moves there. When a unit goes back again - nothing I can do. You get it the FIRST time it enters the map - after that - it is up to you where it goes. And you could send it to New Guinea.

OK - here you go: have your cake and eat it too.

I will revise the P-43A slot to have four .50 cal guns BUT
I will NOT revise air UNITS with the P-43 - they will retain the P-43 configuration with two 30s and two 50s.
A unit that UPGRADES will upgrade to P-43A standard - including the Chinese air force units -
but a unit that STARTS with a P-43 will get it as it was. A strictly historical game should not upgrade these units until some agreed upon date in 1942 - but - again - any unit upgrading to P-43 will get P-43A armament.
While later P-43As sent to China had armor - it was ineffective - so I won't give it a rating for having armor - as now.

This technical trick - having multiple loadouts for the same plane type - is a RHS innovation to mitigate the effects of insufficient slots. No reason not to use it here - where it will work well.

[JeffroK]

Got Swanbouroughs books, IMHO, not a definitive reference and I'd be wary of using it as a sole source. While it covers every aircraft some of them could do with better coverage.

F4U-1.  As they only made 1 XF4U-1 using its stats are irrelevant, the wording on p403-404 is poor, It says "Production aircraft had the R-2800-8 engine, 2 more guns in the wings with extra ammunition"
As the table on p407 states the F4U-1 has 6 x 50cal, this means 2 more per wing, but doesnt state that.

From the American Military Aircraft also by Swanborough
Kittyhawk I/P40D   On p208 , when talking of the P40D   "The calibre of the wing guns was increased from .30in to .50in. Similar to the D was the E which had the wing funs increased to 6 x .50in"
As it previously stated th P40C had 2 x50cal Fuselage & 4 x 30cal Wing guns, this would make the P40D 2 x 50cal Fuselage & 4 x 50cal Wings.

With only 22 P40D going to the USAAF & 24 (although maybe 72) going to the RCAF, the Kittyhawk IA with 167 going to the RAAF and a quess of 50 to the RNZAF should be the type portrayed.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Got Swanbouroughs books, IMHO, not a definitive reference and I'd be wary of using it as a sole source. While it covers every aircraft some of them could do with better coverage.

Well - one needs some standard. The great advantage of a universal reference is that presumably the authors used consistent reasoning and definitions. Since most materials don't actually define things - there is a grave danger one does not understand the data listed in them. What is the "range" of an aircraft? Is it the air transfer range with no payload (often - perhaps most often - the answer is yes). What is the "speed" of an aircraft? Is it the maximum possible speed at optimum operating altitude (often - perhaps most often - the answer is yes). Whatever you assume the case to be - it is far better to be using data that is done to the same standard: even if you guess wrong - the relative data is correct. And then there is the matter of time: we have 250 aircraft types: we don't have time to spend lots of time on all of them; so a single source that has them all is wonderful for a quick review - to insure the data is in the ball park.

So for these reasons - Jim and I preferred to use broad references - and made a list of them - and I rank them in order of how comprehensive they are. When he spot checks data - he tends to compare data from about five different broad references - hoping a pattern will emerge which is either accurate - or at least a consensus.

Nevertheless - we found that we had to go with specific information when it grossly contradicted (or clarified) what is in the general references. We just lack the time (or indeed materials) to do that for every case. Someone went to a Dutch museum to help us with a Do-26 for example. That violates the nominal CHS/RHS standard ("any Forum member can easily confirm the data in a major library"). But if it is better - it is better - and I will use it. But to get there - I need the eyes and brains of hundreds of Forum members - whose collective knowledge, exposure to data, access to sources and time must exceed anything I could ever do alone. It is the opposite of what you advocated above: instead of "start with basics like aircraft" - it is "do a general review to insure no gross errors and let the vast resources of the Forum help identify any esoteric thing not obvious in such a process." This way we get product in time to use it (not never) - and it is always getting better.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

F4U-1.  As they only made 1 XF4U-1 using its stats are irrelevant, the wording on p403-404 is poor, It says "Production aircraft had the R-2800-8 engine, 2 more guns in the wings with extra ammunition"
As the table on p407 states the F4U-1 has 6 x 50cal, this means 2 more per wing, but doesnt state that.

No longer under discussion. Reviewed, revised and entered. The process was excessive in terms of time required - and validates the reason for our procedural approach. I am moving on. When reviewing 175 Allied plane types I don't have the time to do a scholarly review of each - reading analytically each article - and reading all the articles available to me (never mind reading articles I don't even know about - which nobody could do even in theory). I depend on feedback to indicate better interpretations: but note that I would not just guess or make it up - nor accept what someone says from memory. I go to source and use the data in it. Because of time considerations - and the sheer scale of available informatoin - it is certainly possible to come up with better data. That will always be the case - and no amount of work will mean we have a perfect set of data even though we want it and try for it. We will review any data - but - in general - only when it is time efficient because the challenge was presented in a way facilitating knowning exactly what you are talking about (that is, what slot or slots are bothering you: here there were two - you didn't use the plural - and there were more than two possible places to look) - also - in general - only if you cite a source - and you didn't do that either. Just an off hand "that is wrong" is not sufficient. What exactly would be right - exactly where - and what makes you think so?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JeffK


From the American Military Aircraft also by Swanborough
Kittyhawk I/P40D   On p208 , when talking of the P40D   "The calibre of the wing guns was increased from .30in to .50in. Similar to the D was the E which had the wing funs increased to 6 x .50in"
As it previously stated th P40C had 2 x50cal Fuselage & 4 x 30cal Wing guns, this would make the P40D 2 x 50cal Fuselage & 4 x 50cal Wings.

With only 22 P40D going to the USAAF & 24 (although maybe 72) going to the RCAF, the Kittyhawk IA with 167 going to the RAAF and a quess of 50 to the RNZAF should be the type portrayed.

Also - and improperly because the required format was not used - this matter was reviewed - and I am satisified the data in the set are dead on perfect - and properly identified by the type designation. I used three different references - and also reviewed which models were used in theater by which air forces - and we had made the best choice. It is clear - the nose guns were removed by the British/CW services - and Swanborough indeed makes it appear the nose guns might have remained. I am convinced they meant it when they said the D had four guns and the E six - only context makes it confusing. The RHS form - with four fiftys for the Kittyhawk I/P-40D in CW service - is correct - and I am mildly sorry I bothered to spend half a night confirming it was right. At least when the data is bad we end up with a better product - and my time seems more worthwhile. This experience too convinces me to NOT review when it has not been facilitated by slot specific and reference specific challenge.

This discussion is over for this thread - and you did hijack the thread off its purpose. To the extent it continues - go to the RHS 7.797 update thread - note all the changes described or asked for - and comment as you wish in that location - or add more challenges (in the right format).

I have not yet acted or reported on it - but I like your suggestion re the P-61 Black Widow. It may not be pure theoretical reference data - but it represents practice - and practice = good simulation. The only problem with the suggestion is - you didn't do it in the right way. But I will figure out the slot and implement it - because it is a good suggestion - and there is little chance of getting confused when there is only one slot to look for.

[timtom]

On the P-40D/Kittyhawk I:

"The cowl guns were deleted, and all machine gun armament was mounted in the wings...the new P-40D looked considerably different from the previous P-40C. In fact, the aircraft was so different that the British changes their name for the fighter from Tomahawk to Kittyhawk...Only twenty-three P-40Ds were delivered before the army opted for the P-40E which had two additional machine guns, but the British ordered 560 comparable Kittyhawk Is. The first twenty of these had only four machine guns in the wings, but the rest had six guns like the subsequent P-40E.
Curtis was in the midst of producing 820 P-40E for U.S.Army when America entered World War II in December 1941. Deliveries to the RAF of the 1,500 comparable P-40E-1s began that month, and these aircraft were called Kittyhawk IA by the British...Many of these aircraft were supplied to British Commonwealth nations, and some P-40E-1s were later returned to the U.S.Army where they were flown by American units." (Kinsey 1999 p.4)

"The British government placed an order for 560 aircraft as the Kittyhawk I...as a result of an American requirement for increased armament that the aircraft was fitted with six .50 in wing guns, and this modification was at once adopted by the British, 540 of the initial order being supplied in this configuration as the Mark IA. Early in 1941 substantial American orders were placed for the aircraft, including 1,500 Mark IAs for the RAF...25 of these aircraft were delivered...to the RCAF, and others were sent to the Far East for use by the RAAF and RNZAF." (Shores p.1)

"P-40D (Model H87A2)...The P-40D had...four machine guns of .50in in the wing, the two guns in the engine compartment were omitted. Serial numbers: 40-359/381."
"Kittyhawk I (Model H87-A2) - Designation given to 560 planes approximately the same as the P-40D ordered by the RAF...Only the first 20 planes produced had 4 wing guns as the P-40D; all those remaining were delivered with 6 wing machine guns, a standard which was adopted in the P-40E. Seventy two of these planes were given to Canada."
"P-40E-1 (Model H87-A3, H87-A4) Kittyhawk IA - the same version of the P-40E delivered to the RAF according to the Lend-Lease Act. 163 planes of this type were given to Australia, 117 to New Zealand, 12 to Canada...Serial numbers: 41-24776/25195; 41-35874/36953."
(Angelucci & Bowers 1985 p.167)

"Curtiss had already begun redesign of the Hawk 81A...The changes included...provision of four .50-in (12.7mm) wing-mounted machine guns...First flown...as the Kittyhawk I, it was identified as Hawk 87A-1 by Curtiss, and as the P-40D by USAAC...Only the first 22 aircraft delivered to the USAAF had the armament of four wing-mounted guns, subsequent deliveries having six guns with the designation P-40E. A total of 1,500 of this version, identified as the P-40E-1 (Hawk 87A-3), was procured by the USAAF for supply to Britain under Lend-Lease, the model being designated Kittyhawk IA." (Mondey p.82)

"The nose guns were removed and two .50 caliber guns were installed in each wing...The Air Corps ordered only 22 P-40Ds while the RAF ordered even less, buying just 20. Serial numbers of the Air Corps batch ran from 40-359, 40-361 through 40-381 while the RAF assigned serials AK571 through AK590 inclusive. The Air Corps cancelled 1,519 of this model later.
The Curtis H-87A-3 was almost identical to the H-87A. Six .50 caliber machine guns were mounted in the wings...Serials for Air Corps versions ran from AC 40-358, 40-382 through 40-681, 41-5305 to 41-5744, and 41-13521 to 41-13599. RAF serials ran from AK 591 through AL 230." (McDowell 1976, p.16)

Bibliography:

Angelucci, Enzo & Bowers, Peter: The American Fighter. Orion Books 1985.
Kinsey, Bert: P-40 in Detail, vol.2: P-40D through XP-40Q (Scale and Detail vol.62). Squadron/Signal Publications 1999.
McDowell, Ernest R.: P-40 in Action. Squadron/Signal Publications 1976.
Mondey, David: American Aircraft of World War II. Chancellor Press 2000 (1982).
Shores, Christopher F.: Curtis Kittyhawk I-IV in RAF SAAF RAAF RNZAF RCAF NEIAF Service (Aircam Aviation No.6). Osprey Publishing, year of publication not given.


(Kinsey 1999 p.10)

[JeffroK]

Thanks Timtom,

Shows the problem of designating one of the less common versions.

I found Swanborough unclear in many cases. Weapons were added but others not deleted. In his US Naval Aircraft he states that a number of F6F-3 had 2 x 20mm & 4 x 50cal (IMHO a better fitout) but I have only seen 6 x 50cal or 4 x 20mm, maybe these were planned but not produced but because he is trying to cover evry aircraft he doesnt give the "major types" a better coverage.

[JeffroK]

From Sid,

This discussion is over for this thread - and you did hijack the thread off its purpose.

Only if the discussion finishes, if you want RHS to remaine flawed, I'll be sure to mention it anytime its brought up.

and you did hijack the thread off its purpose.

The other alternative would be to start a thread RHS IS FULL OF ERRORS, easier this way.

[el cid again]

We have used your "alternative" - hijacking a thread misleads by the thread header - and we will attract more appropriate feedback using a proper header; I did that about two days ago - and I am not going to look for feedback for an update inside threads on other topics. I told you to make suggestions there - and I meant it. I also told you to be respectful - and I meant it. ALL software is "flawed." ALL large data sets MUST contain errors (information theory). Few software projects are as flawed as WITP - which has a poor structure - and which was implemented outside the standard financial system for good software (you should budget the vast majority of development to testing and fixing issues - typically 90 per cent - Matrix inverted this - for the good reason it was the only way to get a product with available resources). Few subjects are more guaranteed to produce errors than a vast survey of esoteric WWII data: there is not enough time to run down every last item - and someone will always find something not yet in the set. You should comment as if you understand and comprehend these things: no one claimed WITP, CHS, RHS or any other variation had perfect data. Even if they did - it would be easy to think otherwise - as this stuff has lots of matters about which different opinions are possible. Only one data set is an open one - subject to immediate review and correction: RHS. That probably results in fewer errors. But even if we never wanted to comlete the work - it will never be perfect: it can only become better than it is/was. The easier and faster it can get better - the better - pun intended. But the process ought to be a polite and respectful one - and the idea that it is flawed - and must always be flawed - should not be the focus. The implication of "there are all these errors that should not be there - you should have started with basics and detected all of them - and you are not willing to just adopt everythign I say because I said it - without even saying what exactly I mean" is more or less nonsense. You got something - present it in the update thread - specifically and supported - and I will confirm it and fold it in. The good news is I do not get my feathers ruffeled easily - I am not in the least upset by criticism - which represents an opportunity to get several positive things: I either can get better data - or I can teach something - either way building credibility - all good IMHO.