RHS Aircraft Lists (With PR Spitfire)

[Ol_Dog]

"By early 1943, the Japanese were being pressed back and bombing attacks began on their large ground installations. High-altitude bombing became useful, but the B-24 Liberator had longer range, making it more useful for the far-flung Pacific theater, and so was preferred over the B-17, which was needed in the European theater. The Fortress effectively disappeared from the Pacific during 1943.

* The Fortress units that had been diverted from the 8th Air Force in England to the 12th Air Force in Africa began operations from Algeria on 16 November 1942. They were joined the following spring by additional Fortress bomber groups. After the collapse of Axis resistance in Africa, they performed raids on Sicily, preparatory to the invasion of the island. Air operations for the 12th were easier than those for the 8th. The weather was generally sunny, the ranges were shorter and fighter escorts were the norm, and Axis air and anti-aircraft defenses were weaker.

After the invasion of Italy, bases became available on the Italian mainland for bomber operations, and the new 15th Air Force was organized to fly out of them. The 15th primarily operated B-24 Liberators and its strength in Fortresses never amounted to more than a fifth of the B-17s operated by the 8th. The 15th Air Force was primarily focused on attacks against targets in southern Europe, particularly the Ploesti oil fields in Romania. The B-24 offered somewhat greater range and better bombload than the Fortress. Unfortunately, the B-24 was also more vulnerable to combat damage than the Fortress, and the B-17 was preferred more often than not by bomber crews. Pilots almost always preferred the B-17 because it was so easy to fly, while the B-24 was noted for the tiring heaviness of its controls."


Aviation History site also agrees with Wright-Pat, showing a normal range of 2000 miles for 17G and normal bomb load of 6000.

They show the 24J as having normal range of 2200 miles and normal bomb load of 8000. The 24D and 24J had optional external racks for bombs.

[el cid again]

This is a difficult case, as my materials are contradictory and incomplete,
but I am unable to support the data in Weal et al (Combat Aircraft of World War Two) for Seafire. I have attempted to integrate data from British Naval Aircraft since 1912 and British Warplanes of World War II.

Another difficulty is there are two important variations in the game, each with an entirely different engine, and a different drop tank, and we do not have complete data for the earlier variant. However, it is clear that the original version was severely range restricted, while the later one was still not comparable to a Wildcat or Hellcat in range, although it was much more tolerable. Monter's observations were entirely correct. I have revised the data accordingly, as closely as I can translate it in game terms, and also added the nearest to correct size drop tanks to indicate these are extended ranges.

[el cid again]

A review has me convinced that my PBY-5 and PBN data are perfect.
However, I find the Catalina I data reflects (exactly) the PBY-2,
and it is incorrect. Possibly I assumed that Catalina I was an early PBY - but it is a modified PBY-5 (with more guns! and more fuel apparently).
I have addressed this in the data.

Radar added.

[el cid again]

The Catalina I review caused me to notice that PBY-5 had an endurance more than 24 hours (1440 minutes). This will not work in this game system - which has a 24 hour limitation per mission. Further investigation revealed this is an issue for a total of 5 plane types:

H6K4
H8K1
B-29
PBY-5
Catalina I

I compromised - to give players the functional range of these aircraft - by defining their endurance as exactly 1440 minutes and increasing their cruising speed a few mph to get the correct range.

[el cid again]

Something I just don't know about but others might comment - how does the code already handle this? In real life it's my understanding that on occasion a better armed and faster Japanese patrol plane would attack a US patrol plane. Does the code have this built in already?

Before Midway Japanese planes were very aggressive. An H6K4 tried to kill a PBY (it failed) and Nimitz ordered all patrol planes to avoid ANY Japanese plane they might encounter! This may be what you are thinking of. As far as I know, the game engine won't do this - unless we cheat and define the plane as a fighter bomber or something like that. I define the Pete as a seaplane fighter because it DID act as an interceptor with success on rare occasions. I lost the ability for it to bomb by so doing (apparently) - but there are plenty of seaplanes with more bombs - but Joe said "there are lots of seaplanes with bombs".

[el cid again]

Edit Note: This criticism was correct for most B-24 types. Four of five in this list were revised. See post below.

Wright-Patt shows ferry range for B-24D as 4,600 and B-24J as 3,700. It shows normal load of 8,000 for the D and 12,800 for the J. The D has a range of 2,850 with a 5,000 lb load.

My point was you have the 17 with 20% greater range and 100% bigger payload. That is wrong. The 24 was designed and built to fly faster, farther and with a bigger payload - just not a high.

Data is not the same in all sources. And that does not make data from any of the sources actually wrong either: one must attempt to get comparable data - which is hard to do. One way to do it is to use a single set of data - which I did. Even so, I have found some issues (see the Seafire case, where I conclude Weal et al may be wrong on range).
They are inconsistent - reflecting different data in their sources - sometimes giving us "maximum range" and sometimes "normal range."
Even then, the conditions of the range are almost never given in any source. That said, I will investigate this with a view toward adopting your ranges, and I will post my conclusions.

There is a bit of controversy about B-17 vs B-24, but there also is almost a consensus that the B-24 was the better bomber (I mean you often hear B-17 crew saying they think so). The wartime decision to build more B-24s probably reflects this. The entire concept of high altitude precision daylight bombing was based on a theory of air warfare which itself is controversial and in the event probably not justified. [See Freeman Dyson in Weapons and Hope. Dyson was the statistical analyst for Bomber Command during WWII - and under the conditions - just about the only person who knew at the time - due to information restrictions.]
Even to the extent one might argue it worked in ETO, it failed utterly in PTO, because of the conditions in Japan (where targets could not be seen 5 times in 6, and where unpredictable stratospheric winds turned out to deflect the bombs in the 6th case). In the end, the B-29, intended for high altitude bombing like the B-17, was used for low level delivery of mines and incendiaries - at night! That may imply the B-24 was a better idea - in the sense not so much was traded off for super high altitude.

[el cid again]

Unfortunately, the B-24 was also more vulnerable to combat damage than the Fortress, and the B-17 was preferred more often than not by bomber crews. Pilots almost always preferred the B-17 because it was so easy to fly, while the B-24 was noted for the tiring heaviness of its controls."

The first statement may be incorrect: This isn't what I heard B-17 crews say at my home. But the second statement is certainly true. From the point of view of the enemy, engaging either was not regarded as particularly easy.

[el cid again]

Review caused range revisions for USAAF and RAF B-24/Liberator models (a total of four types). It did not revise the USN/USMC patrol version.

Also discovered was that RAF aircraft had significantly different armament - including quad 20mm gun packs retractable into the bomb bay - reducing the bomb load and vastly increasing forward firepower.
Radar was also added to both RAF types.

[JeffroK]

Your RAF Liberator with 4 x 20mm would only be used by Coastal Command in the Atlantic.

My Janes has
Liberator I = B24A with .303 replacing the .50 & .30cal MGS
Liberator II = No USAAF equivalent
Liberator III = B24D There was a GR.Vversion with extra range and less armour for Coastal Command
Liberator IV = B24E
Liberator B.VI = B24G,H,J Basic difference was trhe firm that built them. There was also a GR.VI , again with extra fuel and less armour for Coastal Command

For the B24J, Janes has:
Max speed 297mph / 475kmh at 25,000ft
Normal range 1540 miles / 2465 km at 237mph at 25000ft with normal fuel and maximum internal bomb load
Service ceiling 28,000ft
Max Internal bombload = 8,000lbs (plus external racks for 2 x 4,000lb bombs)

[JeffroK]

From Janes again:

B17G
Max speed 295mph at 25,000ft
Service Ceiling 35,000ft (And RAF types saw A-A combat at about 30,000ft)
Normal range with max bomb load and normal fuel 1,100 miles at 220mph at 25,000ft
Normal Bomb Load = 6,000lbs

[JeffroK]

Seafire Info from Janes:
Seafire I was a conversion of the Spitfire VA, normal range of 460-480 miles dependent on the engine. 8 x .303 MGs
Seafire II was the Seafire MkI with a new wing fitted with 2 x 20mm and 4 x .303. It could be fitted with the universl wing which had either bomb fittings or 4 x 20mm
Seafire III was the same as Mk II except with folding wings
Seafire XV had the RR Griffon Standard fitting had 2 x 20mm and 4 x .303 plus a 500lb bomb. Speed was about 395mph and rate of climb 4680 ft/min

[spence]

I notice that the PV-1 Ventura is designated a patrol aircraft. Though its use in the ETO/Atlantic was pretty much restricted to maritime and ASW patrol the Navy frequently used it as a daylight light/medium bomber (sort of a Navy A-20) in the Pacific. Since it originally was built with a radar it was often used as a pathfinder for other bombers at night and especially notably in the raids on the Kuriles.
Originally equipped with 2x.50s in the nose, an additional 3 pack of .50s was later retrofitted in the nose on many PVs. During an attack run the 2 x .50s in the top turret would fire over the cockpit to suppress flak (so up to 7 x .50s strafing). 8 x 5 inch rockets were carried on the wings later in the war.
Once the bombs were gone the PV could sprint at up to 320 mph in level flight at medium altitude (faster than many Japanese fighters).
The PV-2 Harpoon was a little slower (295 mph) but came standard with the heavier armament and had a bit more endurance.

My father flew these birds in the war on both bombing and patrol missions and thought very highly of them. Signal Publications has a really good pamphlet on them as well (great photo sequence of a Betty getting shot down by a PV too)

[el cid again]

I notice that the PV-1 Ventura is designated a patrol aircraft.

That is the literal meaning of "PV" - a unique designation meant to imply it was ONLY intended as a patrol aircraft. It is a bomber modified from a Lockheed transport, and it was never intended for other missions. So it says in several of my references. This is an experimental data set - I have set ALL patrol planes to the "patrol" designation - to see how it works and how players like it. Note the PB4Y and PBJ as other examples.

[el cid again]

B17G
Max speed 295mph at 25,000ft
Service Ceiling 35,000ft (And RAF types saw A-A combat at about 30,000ft)
Normal range with max bomb load and normal fuel 1,100 miles at 220mph at 25,000ft
Normal Bomb Load = 6,000lbs

Please note that in the CHS set I began with most Allied heavy bombers had a normal bomb load of 4,000 pounds (and some even less). My references have data for range with 5,000 pounds so I used that value. What is "normal" is possibly doctrinal - you can load anything you want - and it may have been different in ETO than in PTO - because ranges were less. In any case, range is a function mainly of load and speed - and you need a complete set to have correct range. [That is, a different cruising speed gives a different range for the same load! This is even a bigger issue in the jet age - fuel efficiency is tripled at stratospheric altitudes as a general rule. Technically I should restrict altitude - you cannot fly to maximum range with the same load at low altitude as you can at high - for propeller bombers it is about half! But that is not something I can do in this system until I get code.]

[spence]

The Lockheed PV-1 (Model 237-27-01) had its origin in a deal cut in mid-1942 between the Navy and the USAAF. At that time, the USAAF was still flying antisubmarine patrols in support of the battle against German submarines in the Atlantic. The US Navy was very unhappy about this, since it had always felt that antisubmarine warfare was its responsibility. In support of this mission, the Navy was anxious to acquire a long-range, land-based heavy maritime reconnaissance and patrol aircraft capable of carrying a substantial bombload. However, the USAAF had always resisted what it perceived as an encroachment by the Navy into its jealously-guarded land-based bomber program, and forced the Navy to rely on long-range floatplanes such as the PBY Catalina, the PBM Mariner, and PB4Y Coronado to fulfill the long-range maritime reconnaissance role. However, the USAAF needed an aircraft plant to manufacture its next generation of heavy bombers, the B-29 Superfortress. It just so happened that the Navy owned a plant at Renton, Washington, which was at that time being operated by Boeing for the manufacture of the PBB-1 Sea Ranger twin-engined patrol flying boat. The Army proposed that the Navy cancel the Sea Ranger program and turn over the Renton factory to them for B-29 production. In exchange, the USAAF would agree to get out of the antisubmarine warfare business and would drop its objections to the Navy's operation of land-based bombers. In support of the Navy's new land-based antisubmarine patrol mission, the USAAF agreed that the Navy could acquire navalized versions of the B-24 Liberator and the B-25 Mitchell. In addition, it was proposed that Lockheed would cease all production of B-34/37 Venturas for the USAAF and would start building a navalized version of the Ventura for the Navy under the designation PV-1 for use in maritime reconnaissance and antisubmarine warfare. The Navy readily agreed to this arrangement.

Sorry, should have cited the link - just Google PV-1 Ventura.

In other words it was one of those 'Pentagon Games' played out in peacetime by bureaucrats intent on grabbing their piece of the budget. Once the cat was out of the bag though, the Navy started using suitable 'P' aircraft in the 'B' role regularly. The fact that the squadrons used the designation VB-# or VPB-# indicates that the Navy intended them to perform in the bombing role as well as the maritime search/ASW role.

[el cid again]

However, the USAAF needed an aircraft plant to manufacture its next generation of heavy bombers, the B-29 Superfortress. It just so happened that the Navy owned a plant at Renton, Washington, which was at that time being operated by Boeing for the manufacture of the PBB-1 Sea Ranger twin-engined patrol flying boat.

This is quite true - I have worked there - and the seaplane ramp to Lake Washington is still there to see! This plant is not just any plant - it was the largest building in the world - and remained so until the Boeing Everett plant was built in the 747 era. So wanting this building for B-29 manufacture makes some sense - it was a major thing. And it was built on land originally owned by Japanese "truck farmers" - vegtable gardeners who were forced to sell - and interned - under Executive Order 1066 - and they were never paid anything like the land was worth.

[el cid again]

The Lockheed PV-1 (Model 237-27-01) had its origin in a deal cut in mid-1942 between the Navy and the USAAF.

Actually not. The PV-1 was taken over for US use AFTER we got into the war. Taken over becuase its origins were British. Lockheed got into the "modify a transport as a bomber" business for France and the UK - and the Ventura was just one of a series of these ventures - based on a different transport model than the others. Bit the US designation did indeed originate as stated.

I am going to investigate the differences in game terms between "patrol" and "bomber" to see if your concern warrants a change?

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The Lockheed PV-1 (Model 237-27-01) had its origin in a deal cut in mid-1942 between the Navy and the USAAF.

Actually not. The PV-1 was taken over for US use AFTER we got into the war. Taken over becuase its origins were British. Lockheed got into the "modify a transport as a bomber" business for France and the UK - and the Ventura was just one of a series of these ventures - based on a different transport model than the others. Bit the US designation did indeed originate as stated.

I am going to investigate the differences in game terms between "patrol" and "bomber" to see if your concern warrants a change?

Primarily the dominate role the plane is assigned to. All bobmers, for instance, can be patrol planes, however didicated patrols planes are not usually employed in the bombing role.

[spence]

Primarily the dominate role the plane is assigned to. All bobmers, for instance, can be patrol planes, however didicated patrols planes are not usually employed in the bombing role.

In the game pre-war "Patrol" a/c such as the PBY can not be assigned daytime Naval, Airfield or Port Attacks...perhaps the simple designation "Patrol" doesn't control the missions the plane can be assigned to but if it does it would be an ahistorical restriction on the use of PVs, PBJs (mostly Marine a/c BTW and hence with little immediate need of a maritime patrol a/c) and PB4Ys.

[el cid again]

1) We do not have to revise durability ratings upward. It is difficult to tell, but attrition is not too high in any sense (operational, AAA, air combat).

2) We must use "patrol" for ALL flying boats - or you cannot operate them from flying boat tenders. This interestingly includes flying boat transports - not done before. Further, land planes rated as "patrol" cannot bomb - forget history - that is the way the code works.

3) I found quite a number of Allied bombers should be rated with radar of one sort or another - including an interesting case of a BACKWARDS pointing AI radar - to aim the tail guns! Also navigation radars and surface search radars - particularly on patrol aircraft and flying boats.

4) Air air combat seems reasonable - it takes time to get comprehensive data - but it is not clearly in the wrong range. It appears we may get better results using the proposed maneuverabilty ratings. I have updated and posted these - and audit corrections - for Japan - and will do the Allies next.

5) Slot 24 is a CARRIER slot ! So we had a carrier capable G3M! Not a good idea. I modified the Japanese list and reinstated the B4Y ancient torpedo bomber as a carrier plane. That permits Hosho to have the correct group. It also permits the Suzuka training group to operate obsolete planes. We gave up one of two almost identical navy fighters - N1K2-J - in terms of game factors there was no particular need for it. I would like to classify the Lorna as a patrol plane - but fear some players might treat it like a flying boat! - so I did not. It ties with the Ki-76 and Ki-36 as the most awful of bombers (none of them are really bombers - the first two are here for ASW and the other one is in some cooperation units as an combination recon/spotter plane - preserved from stock and CHS).