Opinions solicited.
Something less than 800 PT boats were sent to PTO by USN - possibly quite a few less. With three boats per slot - that is about 266 slots. Since they regenerate - we don't want them all in - or we would get too many.
We have hundreds of slots devoted to these vessels. It will take time to enter all their names and classes properly.
Those slots we don't use become free - for modders - or for other vessels. [There are always more LSTs to add - never mind AKs]
What would be a good number given the way they regenerate?
Stock has 268 PT boats. CHS and, until now, RHS had 394. The latest microupdate of RHS has 1182 - more than were built - never mind served in PTO - and way too many if they regenerate. [We could kill regeneration if we wanted too - by moving the class slot - as another option]
We don't know exactly how many were sent - or would have been sent if the war lasted longer than Aug 45 -
but it would have been less than the number built by the number used for experiments/training and sent to other theaters and/or other countries. Probably no more than 600 as a very crude guess - but had the war lasted longer we could have built more - and transferred some as well - and even in RHS we allow ship reinforcements until the end of September 1945. [CHS and stock run the game well into 1946 - we terminate the scenario on Jan 1 1946 with no reinforcements after 1 October 1945 - and recommended ending dates of 1 September if there is atom bomb usage and 1 November if there is not - the date USSBS said the war would end with US victory without atom bombs and without invasion of Japan]
US PT Boats: How many is enough?
Moderators: wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
RE: US PT Boats: How many is enough?
Cid I mailed you a list of squadrons which included locations, hull numbers, and dates.
Perennial Remedial Student of the Mike Solli School of Economics. One day I might graduate.
RE: US PT Boats: How many is enough?
Sid,
Most of the house rules re: PT boats operate in multiples of 6. E.g. No less than 6 or 12 PT boats at a base. I would suggest therefore that rather than going for 3 PT boats per slot that you would make it 6 per slot. That halves the number of slots and fits very easily with all the house rules out there.
As to respawning etc... My personal view would be that the respawning of PT boats should be removed and that, as compensation, the Allies should get 800 or so PT boats. I don't see how one can justify putting in 600 or 700 PT Boats AND allow respawning which would mean that the only limit would be 6 or 700 AT A TIME but would allow the Allies to have an unlimited number of PT boats over the course of the war ( which is ahistorical).
Most of the house rules re: PT boats operate in multiples of 6. E.g. No less than 6 or 12 PT boats at a base. I would suggest therefore that rather than going for 3 PT boats per slot that you would make it 6 per slot. That halves the number of slots and fits very easily with all the house rules out there.
As to respawning etc... My personal view would be that the respawning of PT boats should be removed and that, as compensation, the Allies should get 800 or so PT boats. I don't see how one can justify putting in 600 or 700 PT Boats AND allow respawning which would mean that the only limit would be 6 or 700 AT A TIME but would allow the Allies to have an unlimited number of PT boats over the course of the war ( which is ahistorical).
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
Well, that's that settled then.
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16984
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: US PT Boats: How many is enough?
I originally proposed PT boats in groups of 6. Cobra could not work out the art for six and suggested 3. I went with that for practical technical reasons - and testing indicated 3 was a better value anyway. Larger groups are too hard to sink and too deadly - and we also have the matter that some places only had small numbers. Philippine Army, for example, has 3 boats. It is easier to represent small numbers with multiples of 3 - 4 can be 3, 8 can be 9, but it is harder to justify 4 being 6 or 9 being 6 or 12. Groups of 3 work out fairly well - if you have power in your TF you tend to sink 3 or 6 instead of 1 or 2; if they were in groups of 6 you tend to sink 0. Anyway - testing with 3s - and art with 3s - is good enough to warrant extended testing at that multiple.
I am going with 144 divisions = 432 boats for now. That is still combined with respawn - and frees up 250 ship slots for something else. I do like the idea of no respawn - and time permitting during some update - I may go with a few more boats and no respawn. But there cannot have been even 600 boats operational in PTO altogether - about 800 were built - and many were used in other places or given to other countries. On the other hand, some units - those that are at San Diego for example - that will probably never respawn - not having much chance of getting sunk. If we had about 180 divisions (540 boats) we could kill respawn altogether - but the data entry is too much for me to accomplish today.
I am going with 144 divisions = 432 boats for now. That is still combined with respawn - and frees up 250 ship slots for something else. I do like the idea of no respawn - and time permitting during some update - I may go with a few more boats and no respawn. But there cannot have been even 600 boats operational in PTO altogether - about 800 were built - and many were used in other places or given to other countries. On the other hand, some units - those that are at San Diego for example - that will probably never respawn - not having much chance of getting sunk. If we had about 180 divisions (540 boats) we could kill respawn altogether - but the data entry is too much for me to accomplish today.
RE: US PT Boats: How many is enough?
"I am going with 144 divisions = 432 boats for now. That is still combined with respawn - and frees up 250 ship slots for something else." I second that motion, sounds like a good work around.
Perennial Remedial Student of the Mike Solli School of Economics. One day I might graduate.
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16984
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: US PT Boats: How many is enough?
There were 46 US PT "Rons" - 1 and 2 were reborn - each existing twice - and then 3 to 44. These had variable numbers of vessels - never less than 6 - sometimes 24 - and often 9 to 12. IF the average was 10, that would be 460;
if 11 then 506, if 12 then 552 = very close to my estimates of "less than 600" and "about 540" above. I think we are in the ball park.
Until now it has not been possible to put them all in. The Russians get most of theirs - but nowhere near all. I have no firm data on RN - but it gets more than it used to get. [Data welcome]. The Dutch seem perfect. Were there Aussie PT boats? We don't see them in any WITP variant (or I am missing them). What about NZ? And RHS has the Japanese ones.
if 11 then 506, if 12 then 552 = very close to my estimates of "less than 600" and "about 540" above. I think we are in the ball park.
Until now it has not been possible to put them all in. The Russians get most of theirs - but nowhere near all. I have no firm data on RN - but it gets more than it used to get. [Data welcome]. The Dutch seem perfect. Were there Aussie PT boats? We don't see them in any WITP variant (or I am missing them). What about NZ? And RHS has the Japanese ones.
RE: US PT Boats: How many is enough?
Sid,
If you allow 432 boats to be present on-map at any one time ( which is your concept) PLUS respawn you are going to definitely end up with far more than 800 boats cycling through the PTO in a hard-fought war. Why not just go for less. Even reducing it to 260 means each boat would have to "cycle" more than twice to represent the total number committed as opposed to just once if you allow for 432.
Obviously I'll do it however I feel is warranted when I mini-mod it but I thought it warranted raising it for your consideration.
If you allow 432 boats to be present on-map at any one time ( which is your concept) PLUS respawn you are going to definitely end up with far more than 800 boats cycling through the PTO in a hard-fought war. Why not just go for less. Even reducing it to 260 means each boat would have to "cycle" more than twice to represent the total number committed as opposed to just once if you allow for 432.
Obviously I'll do it however I feel is warranted when I mini-mod it but I thought it warranted raising it for your consideration.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
Well, that's that settled then.
RE: US PT Boats: How many is enough?
this info may be helpfull
cobra
Squadrons Campaigns Boat Numbers Boat Type
Ron 1 Pearl Harbor, Midway, Aleutians 20-31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 40-41 ELCO
Ron 2 South Pacific, English Channel 20-26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36-40, 42-48, 59-61, 71, 72, 199 ELCO
HIGGINS
Ron 3 Philippines, South Pacific 31-35, 41, 21, 23, 25, 26, 36-40, 45-48, 49-61 ELCO
Ron 4 Training Squadron 59-68, 95-102, 564, 71, 72, 139-141, 199, 200, 295, 296, 314-317, 450-452, 505, 545, 557-559, 613, 616, 619, 620 ELCO
HIGGINS
Ron 5 Panama, South Pacific,
Southwest Pacific 52-65, 103-114, 314-319 ELCO
Ron 6 South Pacific,
Southwest Pacific 115-126-187, 188 ELCO
Ron 7 Southwest Pacific 127-138 ELCO
Ron 8 Southwest Pacific 66-68, 110, 113, 114, 120-122, 129, 130, 142-150, 188, 189 ELCO
Ron 9 South Pacific,
Southwest Pacific 126, 151-162, 187, 318, 319 ELCO
Ron 10 South Pacific 108, 116, 124, 125, 163-174 ELCO
Ron 11 South Pacific,
Southwest Pacific 175-186 ELCO
Ron 12 Southwest Pacific 127, 145, 146, 150-152, 187-196 ELCO
Ron 13 Aleutians,
Southwest Pacific 73-84 HIGGINS
Ron 14 Panama Sea Frontier 98-102 HUCKINS
Ron 15 Mediterranean 201-218 HIGGINS
Ron 16 Aleutians, Southwest Pacific 71, 72, 213-224, 235, 241, 242, 295-301 HIGGINS
Ron 17 Hawaii, Southwest Pacific 71, 72, 225-234 HIGGINS
Ron 18 Southwest Pacific 103-105, 147, 148, 362-367 ELCO
Ron 19 South Pacific 235-244 HIGGINS
Ron 20 South Pacific, Southwest Pacific 235-238, 245-254 HIGGINS
Ron 21 Southwest Pacific 128, 131, 132, 320-321 ELCO
Ron 22 Mediterranean 302-313 HIGGINS
Ron 23 South Pacific, Southwest Pacific 241-244, 277-288 HIGGINS
Ron 24 Southwest Pacific 106, 332, 343 ELCO
Ron 25 Southwest Pacific 115, 134, 344-355 ELCO
Ron 26 Hawaii 255-264 HUCKINS
Ron 27 South Pacific, Southwest Pacific 356-361, 372-377 ELCO
Ron 28 South Pacific, Southwest Pacific 378-383, 546-551 ELCO
Ron 29 Mediterranean ELCO
Ron 30 English Channel 450-461 ELCO
Ron 31 Pacific Fleet 453-455, 462-473 HIGGINS
Ron 32 Pacific Fleet 474-485 HIGGINS
Ron 33 Southwest Pacific 137, 138, 488-497 ELCO
Ron 34 English Channel 498-509 ELCO
Ron 35 English Channel 510-521 ELCO
Ron 36 Southwest Pacific 522-532 ELCO
Ron 37 Pacific Fleet 533-544 ELCO
Ron 38 Southwest Pacific 565-576 ELCO
Ron 39 Pacific Fleet 575-588 ELCO
Ron 40 Southwest Pacific 589-600 ELCO
Ron 41 No Action 601-612 ELCO
Ron 42 No Action 613-622 ELCO
Ron 43 Lend Leased to USSR 625-632 HIGGINS
Ron 44 Lend Leased to USSR 637-648 HIGGINS
Ron 45 Lend Leased to USSR 649-660 HIGGINS
Coral Sea Battle = My Birthday
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16984
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: US PT Boats: How many is enough?
Yes and no. Since the prototype US PT boat was 70 - and the first line series actually taken into units was 71 to 94 -
clearly there is bad data here. In fact, while there was a PT 9 and 10 to 19, the series then skipped to 33 to 44, and then skipping to 57 to 68, there were never any 20 series at all (and other gaps) - and the lot (along with PTL 1 to 12) went to RN - not US units! So this listing is either wrong - or USN does not know the disposition of its own official numbers - or other numbers were used for some reason in the field.
clearly there is bad data here. In fact, while there was a PT 9 and 10 to 19, the series then skipped to 33 to 44, and then skipping to 57 to 68, there were never any 20 series at all (and other gaps) - and the lot (along with PTL 1 to 12) went to RN - not US units! So this listing is either wrong - or USN does not know the disposition of its own official numbers - or other numbers were used for some reason in the field.
RE: US PT Boats: How many is enough?
ORIGINAL: el cid again
Yes and no. Since the prototype US PT boat was 70 - and the first line series actually taken into units was 71 to 94 -
clearly there is bad data here. In fact, while there was a PT 9 and 10 to 19, the series then skipped to 33 to 44, and then skipping to 57 to 68, there were never any 20 series at all (and other gaps) - and the lot (along with PTL 1 to 12) went to RN - not US units! So this listing is either wrong - or USN does not know the disposition of its own official numbers - or other numbers were used for some reason in the field.
Take a look at this site. http://www.ptboats.org/20-06-05-boatdata-001.html
Also shows a picture of PT20. http://www.ptboats.org/20-01-05-ptboat-004.html
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16984
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: US PT Boats: How many is enough?
Turns out, the number of US PT boats in PTO is even less - because some PTRONs didn't serve there (duh).
That means we have more than enough slots now. So
From now on RHS PT boats will NOT respawn -
and instead some Allied landing craft of types that didn't respawn should respawn in their place. There is also no reason in principle (other than data entry time) not to fold in all the remaining Soviet PT boats and all the remaining US LSTs.
The number of spare Allied ship slots now approaches 400 - and if we ever convert the rest of Allied PC and MS to 2 unit divisions, it will grow by at least a close order of magnitude more. Similarly, we can convert Japanese PC (as we did Japanese MS, Soviet PC and Soviet MS) andwe will gain several dozen more Japanese ship slots. There are already more than there used to be in spite of representing vastly increased numbers of Japanese landing craft.
As for boat numbers, Mifune thinks both sets of data are right, if you check the dates - you see the early ones transferred out to RN he says. That also probably means boat count for those PTRONs is inflated - that all the numbers listed didn't serve at the same time - but some replaced the transfers. Since the early boats had 2 tubes - it makes sense they might be replaced by 4 tube boats. I don't see how that explains the "missing" numbers - but there were changes and renumbering going on in the records we have - and possibly there were still others we don't have. Why skip numbers - except maybe to confuse the enemy? [Soviet and Chinese navies do that, along with changing the numbers from time to time] There were also duplicated numbers with different prefixes (e.g. the first case was PTL instead of PT - then the boats reverted to PT with wholly different numbers!]
RHS now has 453 US PT boats - none of which ever "transfer to RN" (so our total boat count is smaller than the unit total boat count, and while you don't get to change from 77 foot to 80 foot - the 77 footers do upgrade armament) - if the war lasts through the end of September, 1945 - none of them ever respawn - and the production rate increases over time. It is 3 in December 1941, 6 per month in 1942, 9 per month in 1943, 12 per month in 1944 and 15 per month in 1945 (divide by 3 to get units in RHS game terms). The vast majority are Elco (Electric Boat) 80 footers, but there are many Higgans 80 footers as well - except a few 77 footers to start with. The Philippine Army uses a British type, on which our 77 footers were based, but unlike the British boats they nominally "copy" - or indeed our own initial copies for USN - they have more tubes. US PT boats begin with a twin .50 cal fore and aft - replacing that with a 20mm in most cases midwar (one case has a twin 50 and a 20mm). Additional single .50s are added Port and Starboard, as are DCs, 2 and then 4, and also radar. The final form has the fore and aft 20s replaced by a 37mm and a 40mm respectively. The last few ELCO boats are cancelled orders - which don't get cancelled if your war lasts longer than the real one did.
That means we have more than enough slots now. So
From now on RHS PT boats will NOT respawn -
and instead some Allied landing craft of types that didn't respawn should respawn in their place. There is also no reason in principle (other than data entry time) not to fold in all the remaining Soviet PT boats and all the remaining US LSTs.
The number of spare Allied ship slots now approaches 400 - and if we ever convert the rest of Allied PC and MS to 2 unit divisions, it will grow by at least a close order of magnitude more. Similarly, we can convert Japanese PC (as we did Japanese MS, Soviet PC and Soviet MS) andwe will gain several dozen more Japanese ship slots. There are already more than there used to be in spite of representing vastly increased numbers of Japanese landing craft.
As for boat numbers, Mifune thinks both sets of data are right, if you check the dates - you see the early ones transferred out to RN he says. That also probably means boat count for those PTRONs is inflated - that all the numbers listed didn't serve at the same time - but some replaced the transfers. Since the early boats had 2 tubes - it makes sense they might be replaced by 4 tube boats. I don't see how that explains the "missing" numbers - but there were changes and renumbering going on in the records we have - and possibly there were still others we don't have. Why skip numbers - except maybe to confuse the enemy? [Soviet and Chinese navies do that, along with changing the numbers from time to time] There were also duplicated numbers with different prefixes (e.g. the first case was PTL instead of PT - then the boats reverted to PT with wholly different numbers!]
RHS now has 453 US PT boats - none of which ever "transfer to RN" (so our total boat count is smaller than the unit total boat count, and while you don't get to change from 77 foot to 80 foot - the 77 footers do upgrade armament) - if the war lasts through the end of September, 1945 - none of them ever respawn - and the production rate increases over time. It is 3 in December 1941, 6 per month in 1942, 9 per month in 1943, 12 per month in 1944 and 15 per month in 1945 (divide by 3 to get units in RHS game terms). The vast majority are Elco (Electric Boat) 80 footers, but there are many Higgans 80 footers as well - except a few 77 footers to start with. The Philippine Army uses a British type, on which our 77 footers were based, but unlike the British boats they nominally "copy" - or indeed our own initial copies for USN - they have more tubes. US PT boats begin with a twin .50 cal fore and aft - replacing that with a 20mm in most cases midwar (one case has a twin 50 and a 20mm). Additional single .50s are added Port and Starboard, as are DCs, 2 and then 4, and also radar. The final form has the fore and aft 20s replaced by a 37mm and a 40mm respectively. The last few ELCO boats are cancelled orders - which don't get cancelled if your war lasts longer than the real one did.
RE: US PT Boats: How many is enough?
Why not just assign the correct boats to their resepctive classes. There are planty of class slots.ORIGINAL: el cid again
Turns out, the number of US PT boats in PTO is even less - because some PTRONs didn't serve there (duh).
That means we have more than enough slots now. So
From now on RHS PT boats will NOT respawn -
and instead some Allied landing craft of types that didn't respawn should respawn in their place. There is also no reason in principle (other than data entry time) not to fold in all the remaining Soviet PT boats and all the remaining US LSTs.
The number of spare Allied ship slots now approaches 400 - and if we ever convert the rest of Allied PC and MS to 2 unit divisions, it will grow by at least a close order of magnitude more. Similarly, we can convert Japanese PC (as we did Japanese MS, Soviet PC and Soviet MS) andwe will gain several dozen more Japanese ship slots. There are already more than there used to be in spite of representing vastly increased numbers of Japanese landing craft.
As for boat numbers, Mifune thinks both sets of data are right, if you check the dates - you see the early ones transferred out to RN he says. That also probably means boat count for those PTRONs is inflated - that all the numbers listed didn't serve at the same time - but some replaced the transfers. Since the early boats had 2 tubes - it makes sense they might be replaced by 4 tube boats. I don't see how that explains the "missing" numbers - but there were changes and renumbering going on in the records we have - and possibly there were still others we don't have. Why skip numbers - except maybe to confuse the enemy? [Soviet and Chinese navies do that, along with changing the numbers from time to time] There were also duplicated numbers with different prefixes (e.g. the first case was PTL instead of PT - then the boats reverted to PT with wholly different numbers!]
RHS now has 453 US PT boats - none of which ever "transfer to RN" (so our total boat count is smaller than the unit total boat count, and while you don't get to change from 77 foot to 80 foot - the 77 footers do upgrade armament) - if the war lasts through the end of September, 1945 - none of them ever respawn - and the production rate increases over time. It is 3 in December 1941, 6 per month in 1942, 9 per month in 1943, 12 per month in 1944 and 15 per month in 1945 (divide by 3 to get units in RHS game terms). The vast majority are Elco (Electric Boat) 80 footers, but there are many Higgans 80 footers as well - except a few 77 footers to start with. The Philippine Army uses a British type, on which our 77 footers were based, but unlike the British boats they nominally "copy" - or indeed our own initial copies for USN - they have more tubes. US PT boats begin with a twin .50 cal fore and aft - replacing that with a 20mm in most cases midwar (one case has a twin 50 and a 20mm). Additional single .50s are added Port and Starboard, as are DCs, 2 and then 4, and also radar. The final form has the fore and aft 20s replaced by a 37mm and a 40mm respectively. The last few ELCO boats are cancelled orders - which don't get cancelled if your war lasts longer than the real one did.
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16984
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: US PT Boats: How many is enough?
Since that is the solution adopted, I do not understand the question. You can use the data set to see who built the boat - since the name of the builder is part of the class name - and in every case - with no exceptions - the number is from a series allocated to that builder. More than that, the number is not one transferred to another country either. The numbers are all in the final numbering system - there were other systems for a while and some boats got renumbered - possibly even more than is recorded. Eventually we settled on two letters (PT) and an integrated systtem of numbers (whereas earlier numbers were duplicated) - so you could tell the builder by the number.