RHS Aircraft Lists (With PR Spitfire)

[el cid again]

Designation Type Maneuverability Durability FerryRange NormRange ExtRange OpCeiling FwdFirepower RearFirepower Payload [=Bombload+Rockets+Droptanks or Cargo]
A5M4 Claude Fighter 19 5 13 3 5 25590 2 0 132 Carrier Fighter
A7M2 Reppu Fighter 26 7 13 3 5 28463 28 0 1102 Carrier Fighter
A6M2 Zeke Fighter 22 5 32 9 12 26112 16 0 824 Carrier Fighter; 1xDrop Tank
A6M3 Zeke Fighter 22 5 25 7 9 29507 16 0 824 Carrier Fighter; 1xDrop Tank
A6M5 Zeke Fighter 23 5 20 6 8 30656 16 0 1002 Carrier Fighter; 1xDrop Tank
A6M7 Zeke Fighter-Bomber 24 6 13 4 5 27679 20 0 551 Carrier Fighter
A6M8 Zeke Fighter-Bomber 24 6 13 4 5 29247 18 0 1278 Carrier Fighter; 8xRockets = 16
F1M2 Pete [FF] Float-Fighter 15 5 8 2 3 24652 2 1 264
A6M2-N Rufe [FF] Float-Fighter 18 5 18 5 7 25580 16 0 264
N1K1 Rex [FF] Float-Fighter 21 6 18 5 7 28045 16 0 132
J2M2 Jack Fighter 26 6 20 5 7 30814 28 0 264
N1K1-J George Fighter 23 7 26 7 10 32769 28 0 264
J7W1 Shinden Fighter 29 7 16 4 6 37804 40 0 264
Q1W1 Lorna Dive Bomber 4 7 18 5 7 15948 14 1 1102 ASW Dive Bomber; 1xASD Radar
Ki-44IIIN Tojo Fighter 28 6 15 4 5 30847 28 0 0 Army Carrier Fighter
Ki-76 Stella Level Bomber 7 5 9 2 3 14701 1 0 264 Army Carrier ASW Bomber
D3A2 Val Dive Bomber 17 5 14 4 5 27419 2 1 815 Carrier Dive Bomber
D4Y2 Judy Dive Bomber 22 5 37 11 14 27941 2 2 1234 Carrier Dive Bomber
B4Y1 Jean Torpedo Bomber 10 5 16 4 6 15748 0 1 1764 Carrier Torpedo Bomber
B5N2 Kate Torpedo Bomber 14 6 21 6 8 21570 0 1 1764 Carrier Torpedo Bomber
B6N2 Jill Torpedo Bomber 20 6 18 5 7 23606 1 1 1764 Carrier Torpedo Bomber
B7A2 Grace Torpedo Bomber 21 6 31 9 12 29377 14 2 1764 Carrier Torpedo Bomber
C6N1 Myrt Recon 24 6 55 16 22 27340 0 1 1764 Carrier Recon; 1xDrop Tank
C6N1-S Myrt [NF] Night Fighter 12 9 55 16 22 27357 14 0 1000 CV Night Fighter; 1xDrop Tank; 1xType 3 AI Radar
G3M2 Nell Torpedo Bomber 7 9 45 13 18 23645 1 7 1000 1xTorpedo
G4M1 Betty Torpedo Bomber 8 10 63 18 25 26112 1 8 1764 1xTorpedo
G4M2m22 Betty Torpedo Bomber 8 10 63 18 25 23371 2 14 1764 1xTorpedo; 1xASD Radar
G4M2e Betty (w Okha) Level Bomber 7 10 52 15 20 21178 2 14 2205 Okha Manned Missile Carrier
P1Y1 Frances Torpedo Bomber 5 16 56 16 22 24556 2 6 2646 1xTorpedo; Mark 6 Nav Radar; 1xASD Radar
G8N1 Rita Level Bomber 11 7 77 23 30 32144 4 28 2205 2xTorpedos; 1xMk 6 Nav Radar; 1xASV Radar
C5M2 Babs Recon 20 5 12 3 4 25017 0 1 0
J1N1-C Irving Recon 11 7 42 12 16 26897 0 2 0
H6K4 Mavis Patrol 3 14 63 18 25 25095 1 8 3528 2xTorpedos
H8K2 Emily Patrol 4 17 86 25 34 23110 8 14 4408 2xTorpedos; 1xASD Radar
H6K2-L Mavis [Xpt] Patrol 3 14 45 13 18 18279 0 0 15165 Cargo Flying Boat
H8K2-L Emily [Xpt] Patrol 4 16 46 13 18 21230 2 7 15435 Cargo Flying Boat
L1N1/AT-2 Thora Transport 7 8 13 3 5 18279 0 0 3749 Cargo
L2D2/DC-3 Tabby Transport 6 9 33 10 13 26112 0 0 10558 Cargo
L3Y1 Tina Transport 6 8 47 14 18 19540 0 1 2095 Cargo
G5N2-L Liz Transport 4 15 47 14 18 18279 0 0 8820 Cargo
E8N2 Dave Float-plane 12 5 9 2 3 18985 1 1 132 Ship Recon
E7K2 Alf Float-plane 11 5 25 7 10 18435 1 1 264 Ship Recon
E13A1 Jake Float-plane 15 6 22 6 8 22797 0 1 551 Ship Recon
E16A1 Paul Float-plane 18 6 25 7 10 26112 7 2 551 Ship Recon
E14Y1 Glen Float-plane 10 4 9 2 3 14179 1 1 132 Submarine Recon
M6A1 Seiran Float-plane 17 7 12 3 5 25852 0 2 1874 1xTorpedo; Submarine Bomber
2xKu-8 Gander & Tug Transport 4 19 17 5 6 16342 1 2 9702 2xGliders & Ki-21 Tug Combination
Ki-27 Nate Fighter 21 5 18 5 7 31988 2 0 221
Ki-43-I Oscar Fighter 21 5 12 3 5 30421 4 0 66
Ki-43-II Oscar Fighter 22 6 33 10 13 35811 4 0 1102
Ki-44IIa Tojo Fighter 26 6 18 5 7 29821 8 0 551
Ki-45 KAIa Nick Fighter-Bomber 11 7 23 7 9 28019 11 1 1102 37mm Gun
Ki-45 KAIb Nick Fighter-Bomber 11 7 23 6 9 27668 19 1 1102 37mm Gun
Ki-45 KAIc Nick [NF] Night Fighter 11 7 21 6 8 26113 26 1 1102 37mm Gun; 1xType 2 AI Radar (when available)
Ki-61-I Tony Fighter 22 6 11 3 4 28463 18 0 0
Ki-61-II Tony Fighter 24 7 21 6 8 33708 18 0 1102
Ki-83 Stan Fighter 14 9 36 10 14 39904 34 0 221
Ki-84 Frank Fighter 25 7 23 6 9 28071 14 0 1102
Ki-100 Tony Fighter 23 7 23 6 9 34653 18 0 1102
Ki-102b Randy Fighter-Bomber 12 9 23 6 9 26112 35 2 1102 57mm Gun
Ki-32/30 Mary/Ann Level Bomber 16 5 20 6 8 22773 1 1 992
Ki-51 Sonia Dive Bomber 17 6 11 3 4 21596 2 1 441
Ki-48-I Lily Level Bomber 9 8 25 7 10 23093 1 1 883
Ki-48-II Lily Dive Bomber 10 9 26 7 10 27889 1 1 1764
Ki-21-II Sally Level Bomber 9 9 28 8 11 26113 1 2 2205
Ki-49 Helen Level Bomber 9 10 31 9 12 24284 1 8 2205
Ki-67 Peggy Level Bomber 10 11 39 11 15 24730 2 9 2359 1xTorpedo; 1xMark 6 Nav Radar
Ki-36 Ida Level Bomber 14 5 13 3 5 21282 1 1 330 Army Cooperation Units
Ki-15 II Babs Recon 21 5 11 3 4 25017 0 1 0
Ki-46-II Dinah Recon 11 7 26 7 10 33771 0 1 0
Ki-46-III Dinah Recon 13 7 48 14 19 33077 0 0 0
J1N1-S Irving [NF] Night Fighter 10 7 39 11 15 24337 28 0 0 1xType 2 AI Radar (when available)
Ki-34 Thora (Ki-59) Transport 7 8 13 3 5 18119 0 0 3749 Cargo
Ki-56/LO Thalia Transport 8 8 27 8 10 20890 0 0 5291 Cargo
Ki-57/MC-21 Topsy Transport 8 9 31 9 12 20890 0 0 5291 Cargo

[Monter_Trismegistos]

Ki-21 could tow TWO gliders? How it is possible? Parallel or serial?

[el cid again]

Thanks Jeff. I have a B-24 book - so I read some of it. It says approximately this was a plane for lots of missions in lots of theaters, and that it was anything but standardized. Within each model are HUNDREDS of variations! This may take some sorting out. Every bit helps. I spent the night reviewing Allied bombers and will post my findings as soon as they are in spreadsheet form.

[el cid again]

Ki-21 could tow TWO gliders? How it is possible? Parallel or serial?

Note that the ALLIES also tow TWO gliders per tug. I have a book The History of the World's Glider Forces. It indicates that one line was longer than the other. I assume that (heavier, longer) line results in the second glider being lower than the first one in general (that it is more natural not to try to maintain the full altitude of the tug).

The term for these tows is "combination." And there are "double combinations" with one tug and one glider and "triple combinations" with one tug and two gliders. But all the big glider operations used the triple combination. The most common tug for the Japanese was the Ki-21 or the Ki-49. The most common tug for the Allies was the C-47. But many other tugs were used.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
It indicates that one line was longer than the other. I assume that (heavier, longer) line results in the second glider being lower than the first one in general.

When I read this for one second I wanted to shout:
"Hey what about take-off? There is severe danger that line of second glider will be cut off by the engines of the first one." Forgot that gliders don't have engines

But I still think that it would not work during take off operation. The better solution would be that 1st glider is towing the 2nd one...

[spence]

Further, land planes rated as "patrol" cannot bomb - forget history - that is the way the code works.

OK, so are PV-1, PBJ and PB4Y then relegated to mainly search missions?

So there will be 4 squadrons of Jarhead PBJs (B-25s) helping the Squids find the IJN while the grunts take a licking from the IJA.

And although the Hudson gets to attack shipping the upgunned, faster, more heavily armed successor (patrol) bomber, the PV-1, doesn't?

And the even more heavily armed successor to the PV-1 (PB4Y) doesn't either?

[el cid again]

But I still think that it would not work during take off operation. The better solution would be that 1st glider is towing the 2nd one...

Since it was the standard technique on both sides, I must assume

1) it worked

2) it was more efficient than a single glider per combination

3) that some take reasonable take off procedure existed.

Nevertheless, I do not volunteer to fly in one of the gilders! [But then, I also don't like helicopters. I saw three lost with all hands - a few minutes apart - and it was not in a war zone either! When a helo goes into the Pacific due to engine failure, no one gets off. Ugh.]

[el cid again]

Further, land planes rated as "patrol" cannot bomb - forget history - that is the way the code works.

OK, so are PV-1, PBJ and PB4Y then relegated to mainly search missions?

So there will be 4 squadrons of Jarhead PBJs (B-25s) helping the Squids find the IJN while the grunts take a licking from the IJA.

And although the Hudson gets to attack shipping the upgunned, faster, more heavily armed successor (patrol) bomber, the PV-1, doesn't?

And the even more heavily armed successor to the PV-1 (PB4Y) doesn't either?

The good news is you have it backwards! I have classified all land patrol planes as "level bombers" (with the wierd exception of Q1W1 Lorna which is classified as a "dive bomber" - because it was!) - so you these planes can do ANY mission really possible with a single exception: they cannot carry troops! [I can't fix that so I won't deal with it]

FYI the Lorna is a strange (and probably ineffective) ASW plane. It DOES attack its target by diving. This gives it a better chance of a hit - as it should. And it is so lousy in performance and durability it won't work as a land or naval dive bomber normally does - try it and probably you die.
A side effect is it can take off from a carrier - but only to transfer to a land base - and since it really could - I have no problem with that.

Also FYI - I wanted to classify most flying boats as "level bombers" - but could not if I also want them to work at level 0 base hexes (attended by ship tenders). And I classified dedicated flying boat transports as "patrol" too - they can be assigned patrol missions other than transport but have no weapons. Actually that is useful - a transport really CAN fly recon - or even patrol. [In 1982 an Argentine C-130 not only did recon, it found a tanker, and bombed it - WITHOUT a bomb rack! Kicked the thing out the ramp! And managed to hit - but the bomb did not detonate.] In that war airliners with radar were used to shadow the enemy too. A transport is a fine search platform - but a lousy attack plane.

[spence]

In the case of the converted airliner (PV-1) things like bomb bays, guns, and radar made its utility as a troop carrier rather limited. With a limit on the number of slots, using one or more for the stripped down, passenger carrying versions of various bombers wouldn't make any sense.

The USCG basically used troop carriers for maritime patrol/search for many many years...only recently (last 10 yrs or so) putting some kind of armament on any of its a/c.

[el cid again]

In the case of the converted airliner (PV-1) things like bomb bays, guns, and radar made its utility as a troop carrier rather limited. With a limit on the number of slots, using one or more for the stripped down, passenger carrying versions of various bombers wouldn't make any sense.

True. But heavy bombers were able to transfer ALL their ground support elements! And even the mosquito carried troops! [They made sort of modified drop tanks with windows forward - carried two men each. These were used to carry wounded. And Neils Bohr excaped from Denmark that way - the plane had orders to drop him into the sea if intercepted!]
But a Sonya or Ann or other light bomber is almost useless as a t ransport - I wish there was more than one kind of level bomber - one that can and one that cannot move troops.

[JeffroK]

I have a feeling history is being twisted a bit here.

Didnt the Mossie have its Bombbay refitted to carry a couple of passengers?? The drop tanks as used by a Mossie were minute.

I'm suprised we havent got to Hurricanes & Mustangs being tagged as transport aircraft, I've definetly got factual incidents of them carrying extra passengers.

Make sure you diferentiate between what happened and what theroetically could happen, or was used in absolute emergency.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

In the case of the converted airliner (PV-1) things like bomb bays, guns, and radar made its utility as a troop carrier rather limited. With a limit on the number of slots, using one or more for the stripped down, passenger carrying versions of various bombers wouldn't make any sense.

True. But heavy bombers were able to transfer ALL their ground support elements! And

I cant see a Queen mary trailer fitting in a Lancaster, nor a Petrol Bowser or Bomb carrying trains.

Ground crew, and basic tools was about all they could carry.

[el cid again]

I have a feeling history is being twisted a bit here.

Didnt the Mossie have its Bombbay refitted to carry a couple of passengers?? The drop tanks as used by a Mossie were minute.

I'm suprised we havent got to Hurricanes & Mustangs being tagged as transport aircraft, I've definetly got factual incidents of them carrying extra passengers.

Make sure you diferentiate between what happened and what theroetically could happen, or was used in absolute emergency.

I do not understand your meaning? But please remember that I must work INSIDE the EXISTING code limitations. I would prefer a troop transport mission for bombers - and I regret that it is not SOP. When I design a system like this one, one of my fields is "passengers" - in fact TWO of my fields are passengers - I define cargo, passengers, and weapons for TWO different loadings per plane (this system calls them normal range and extended range; I call them maximum load range and normal load range, respectfully). Then I have a way to carry less than normal load still farther, but it is not a field, it is a calculation in the code itself. But I cannot do this sort of thing here. Note, however, I pointed out even the Mosquito could carry four passengers (not that I want to ride in those drop tanks with windows!).

[el cid again]

True. But heavy bombers were able to transfer ALL their ground support elements! And


I cant see a Queen mary trailer fitting in a Lancaster, nor a Petrol Bowser or Bomb carrying trains.

Ground crew, and basic tools was about all they could carry.

You need to read what I say more precisely: I am a technical person who also does legal stuff so I usually say what I mean. In the PTO it became SOP for a heavy bomber unit to transfer itself, as an entity, to its next base, acting as an air transport. I just read about this in a B-24 book last night - my memory is not dim. There is nary a word about carrying heavy vehicles. Perhaps you are interpreting "all their ground support" to mean more than the service elements and equipment of the unit itself? I didn't say that and I do not mean that. But I COULD have said that it was possible to move SUFFICIENT material to create an ENTIRE forward operating base in a heavy bomber acting as a transport.
See Burma. It is amazing the things they had - even tiny bulldozers that were worth a lot compared to pioneers with hand tools - but were hardly more than a modern garden tractor in size and weight. Even so, I believe that SOP would be to have heavy base materials moved by true transport aircraft, or ships if it was possible, and not bombers. But it was very efficient to say to a bomber squadrong "move to Henderson Field" and they could do it on own assets - I am sure. But it only means the planes, unit staff and ground crews, plus their essential field equipment, and there are no trailers or heavy vehicles involved at all.

[JeffroK]

From el cid
True. But heavy bombers were able to transfer ALL their ground support elements! And even the mosquito carried troops! [They made sort of modified drop tanks with windows forward - carried two men each. These were used to carry wounded. And Neils Bohr excaped from Denmark that way - the plane had orders to drop him into the sea if intercepted!]
But a Sonya or Ann or other light bomber is almost useless as a t ransport - I wish there was more than one kind of level bomber - one that can and one that cannot move troops.

ALL their ground support elements means ALL their GS elements, not just the men and thir toolkits!!

Where did the Mosquito carry troops?? It was used by BOAC as a very poor VIP transport with the passengers in the Bomb bay, I have never seen a reference to it carrying wounded, let alone putting them in droptanks. The Mossie used the "slipper" type tank. (I recall seing a P-38 with something like this?) Niels Bohr went to England in the Bomb Bay, asleep, due to Oxygen deprivation because he didnt put the mask on!!)

Other amazing comments like the Hudson as a Fighter-Bomber , only a flight of Vengeances in service, make me fear for the accuracy and detail of a work which you have clearly spent many hours on.

[el cid again]

Where did the Mosquito carry troops??

Where I do not know - presumably everywhere - it was an ubiquitious aircraft. How is stated in British Warplanes of World War II: they made two man carriers out of drop tanks with a forward end of plexiglass so they men could see. Mostly it was used for evacuation of casualties. But in several histories of atomic science it is recorded that Neils Bohr rode one in his escape from Denmark. Only that account left out the how - presumably because the authors didn't know how.

[el cid again]

I recall seing a P-38 with something like this?) Niels Bohr went to England in the Bomb Bay, asleep, due to Oxygen deprivation because he didnt put the mask on!!)

I forgot that - but now you bring it up - yes - I remember tha detail.

[el cid again]

Other amazing comments like the Hudson as a Fighter-Bomber , only a flight of Vengeances in service,

I promised you that I would change the Hudson back if the statement it served as an RAAF fighter was not supported. It was indeed not supported, and I changed it back - two sub versions ago - see the posted listing. I was being respectful - we have a number of Aussies and fans thereof and I assumed this was valid data. But I cannot justify a classification without more than someone said so on the web.

And I did find (and also was advised by Alaskan Warrior) about the Vengeances in RIAF serving in Burma. [I didn't find them in New Guinea though - got a source?] Please cut me some slack - the subject of Allied aircraft is vast - and it appears even fairly reputable references are less than comprehensive in their treatment of minor types. It further appears that Commonwealth air forces are not that well documented in American and British materials. I really did fine a total of one detachment of them in RAF - and it not really a combat application - and a reference to wide usage in secondary duties like target towing by non line units. I have since found other material, and one line unit used them for "biological warfare tests in West Africa" - one wonders what that means? [UK did some awful tests on a Scottish island with anthrax during the war - and insured German assets knew about it. US did something similar with chemicals on an island off Panama. Both were uninhabited. But in West Africa? I have not heard about that one - but it might be grim. The tests went on through 1946, so they probably have Cold War implications. At that time we were trading freedom to Japanese BW scientists for technical information.]

Do you have a good listing, squadron by squadron, for Commonwealth air units, showing location, aircraft type, date of formation, and date of transfer? I have this data for USA and Japan, and to a lesser extent for RAF and FAA, but the information on CW units appears spotty.

As for accuracy, I am supposed to be reviewing a data set that was originally done by Matrix and corrected - apparently twice - for historical accuracy by CHS. Yet the data set is riddled with things that either are errors, or are not in standard materials. I post to get quick answers from a broader set of knowledge than I personally have. I am trained to assume errors MUST exist in ALL data sets "greater than 10 lines" - and to make a reasonable effort to identify them. That is what this thread is about. I am questioning the decision to include so many types used in such tiny numbers. In the end we can not do everything, and marginal cases need to give way for the important ones. In simulation, it is important to identify what is significant? This is a judgement call - and I prefer to consult. Consulting reveals I am not perfect. Well - I am not afraid to reveal that. I want to hear from those who have some knowledge about something I do not - to insure my choices are the best possible ones. I am secure enough not to pretend to have all the answers in my head - or even to know where they are in my books - or some other materials. I want to do this fast - so I am not reading exhaustively - which would take years for 245 types.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Where did the Mosquito carry troops??

Where I do not know - presumably everywhere - it was an ubiquitious aircraft. How is stated in British Warplanes of World War II: they made two man carriers out of drop tanks with a forward end of plexiglass so they men could see. Mostly it was used for evacuation of casualties. But in several histories of atomic science it is recorded that Neils Bohr rode one in his escape from Denmark. Only that account left out the how - presumably because the authors didn't know how.

As I only have British Aircraft of WW2 by Davis Mondey, I cant check the quote. But I have NEVER seen it related to a Mosquito. As for the ubiquious Mossie carrying troops, apart from bring "evaders " back from Sweden maybe, I have also never seen this mentioned before.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Other amazing comments like the Hudson as a Fighter-Bomber , only a flight of Vengeances in service,

I promised you that I would change the Hudson back if the statement it served as an RAAF fighter was not supported. It was indeed not supported, and I changed it back - two sub versions ago - see the posted listing. I was being respectful - we have a number of Aussies and fans thereof and I assumed this was valid data. But I cannot justify a classification without more than someone said so on the web.

YOU entered the Hudson as a Fighter Bomber, I was pointing out such fallacy. It appears that YOU made an entry without checking sources

And I did find (and also was advised by Alaskan Warrior) about the Vengeances in RIAF serving in Burma. [I didn't find them in New Guinea though - got a source?] Please cut me some slack - the subject of Allied aircraft is vast - and it appears even fairly reputable references are less than comprehensive in their treatment of minor types. It further appears that Commonwealth air forces are not that well documented in American and British materials. I really did fine a total of one detachment of them in RAF - and it not really a combat application - and a reference to wide usage in secondary duties like target towing by non line units. I have since found other material, and one line unit used them for "biological warfare tests in West Africa" - one wonders what that means? [UK did some awful tests on a Scottish island with anthrax during the war - and insured German assets knew about it. US did something similar with chemicals on an island off Panama. Both were uninhabited. But in West Africa? I have not heard about that one - but it might be grim. The tests went on through 1946, so they probably have Cold War implications. At that time we were trading freedom to Japanese BW scientists for technical information.]

I would suggest you broaden your research materials, most of this information isnt hard to find, there are excellent books in the USA about the combat history of US built Aircraft plus reams of the stuff on the Net.

Do you have a good listing, squadron by squadron, for Commonwealth air units, showing location, aircraft type, date of formation, and date of transfer? I have this data for USA and Japan, and to a lesser extent for RAF and FAA, but the information on CW units appears spotty.

NO, but I know of 1 that does the RAF pretty well and another for the RAAF, both sites have been advised to you. I also gave you the ADF serial numbers site, similat to Joe Baughers US Aircraft Serial Numbers which provides a lot of information.

As for accuracy, I am supposed to be reviewing a data set that was originally done by Matrix and corrected - apparently twice - for historical accuracy by CHS. Yet the data set is riddled with things that either are errors, or are not in standard materials. I post to get quick answers from a broader set of knowledge than I personally have. I am trained to assume errors MUST exist in ALL data sets "greater than 10 lines" - and to make a reasonable effort to identify them. That is what this thread is about. I am questioning the decision to include so many types used in such tiny numbers. In the end we can not do everything, and marginal cases need to give way for the important ones. In simulation, it is important to identify what is significant? This is a judgement call - and I prefer to consult. Consulting reveals I am not perfect. Well - I am not afraid to reveal that. I want to hear from those who have some knowledge about something I do not - to insure my choices are the best possible ones. I am secure enough not to pretend to have all the answers in my head - or even to know where they are in my books - or some other materials. I want to do this fast - so I am not reading exhaustively - which would take years for 245 types.

Then change what you arent sure about. If you are positive and have conclusive proof, great. But you seem to have made some decisond based on limited data.
Some of the "minor" aircraft performed roles which you would still have to replace, what do you do, throw out the P-26 or P-35 and put in P-40's.

Bugger fast, get it right!! Or else end up like vanilla WITP