RHS 5 & 6.758 comprehensive update uploaded/frozen/final?

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Terminus



The Dutch used a Norwegian torpedo?

And an Italian one as well...wonder if they had Moosi?

[el cid again]

[quote]ORIGINAL: treespider

There is also this website-

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/waf/neth/mld/types/fokker_TVIII-W.htm


Fokker T.VIII-W * Retired *
Five T.VIII W/G1 ordered 23 September 1938 (R-1 to R-5) and nineteen T.VIII W/G2 ordered 1 January 1939 (R-6 to R-24). Total of 24 ordered. Delivered 25 April 1939 - 28 July 1939 and 10 May 1940 - 12 May 1940. Only 6 of second batch actually delivered (making a total of 11 aircraft) due to German invasion. Torpedo-bomber reconnaissance floatplane. Eight escaped to UK on 14 May 1940, and used to form 320 sqn RAF on 1 June 1940.
Twelve T.VIII W/M version ordered 1 February 1940 for use in NEI. Serials R-25 to R-36 allocated but not used. Captured by Germans before any completed. Total ordered was 36. Two further aircraft, under construction for Finland as FW-160 and FW-161, were taken over by the MLD as R-37 (c/n 5636) and R-37 (c/n 5637) respectively, but were not completed before capture by the Germans.
One example (R-25?) escaped from the Netherlands to the UK on 6 May 1941. This aircraft was then used for covert flights into occupied Europe, before being struck off charge.

REPLY: That text is word for word lifted from Weal - so it is what I was reading. I think it is pretty close.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: treespider

Another Dutch areial torpedo..but should the T-IV be allowed to carry them???

IV45
Used aboard submarines, and kept in reserve for the new Fokker T-8W torpedoaircraft




Specifications

Diameter
45 cm ( 18 inch )

Origin
British

Manufacturer
Horten, Norway

Length
5,43 m

Engine
4-cylinder radial

Charge
180 kg trotyl

Overall weight
820 kg

Range
2500 m @ 40 knots
6000 m @ 28,5 knots
6700 m @ 28 knots
7500 @ 26,5 knots

Service
1928 - 1946

Total number purchased
64

The Dutch used a Norwegian torpedo?

They mainly used Horton torpedoes from UK - at least re air.

[el cid again]

Bob: In RHS Cobra does art and technical support and RHS site management, I do coordination and testing and verification, Mifune does the manual and technical support, and Alvrmartin does utility error tracking. All of us do OB, along with major contributions from AKWarrior, Joe Wilkerson, and others at times, and the Forum as a whole. But if something is disputed - it is my job to figure out what to do about it? Goes with coordinator.

[Herrbear]

According to Tom Womack's book The Dutch Naval Air Force Against Japan, the T-IVs could carry torpedeos but was not used that way in the NEI. According to him "...several of these planes were used for bombadier training; most were modified shortly after the outbreak of war to carry three depth charges and were assisgned to fly A/S and reconnaissance patrols along the north coast of Java and over the Java Sea."

The new loadout that Sid has of only 2 DC and 2 bombs is a reasonable load.

[el cid again]

6.65 is in upload. Level 5 transmits in 6 hours (must go to work now). Level 5 and 6 development is ended - but we will fold in eratta reported in a x.651 update. We will also keep these up with Level 7 development - and issue seasonal maps to enhance them (summer first).

[JeffroK]

The Dutch had aerial torpedoes (I dont know which type) available in the DEI as the Do Flying boats launched some night Torp attacks. According to Bloody Shambles.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

According to Tom Womack's book The Dutch Naval Air Force Against Japan, the T-IVs could carry torpedeos but was not used that way in the NEI. According to him "...several of these planes were used for bombadier training; most were modified shortly after the outbreak of war to carry three depth charges and were assisgned to fly A/S and reconnaissance patrols along the north coast of Java and over the Java Sea."

The new loadout that Sid has of only 2 DC and 2 bombs is a reasonable load.

Thanks Brian...I appreciate your sources. I just had a gut reaction to back handed comments from Sid:
"I regard making a big deal about 2 dozen wholly obsolete secondary aircraft exclusively used for recon and patrol work as something of a waste of time - and have done so as a courtesy. Had I just taken this poster's suggestion - we would be flying T VIIIs which never were in theater - and giving the Dutch more than 3 times the number that ever served with them (even in ETO). I have considered the suggestions - found the addition of the T VIII unwarranted - and the idea of making the planes have more possible missions a reasonable one - so I added bombs which permits that. It is as far as I am prepared to go absent specific information that we can reasonably give players a further capability (which we need to admit is ahistoric in the sense it was not used - but which we might want to do if it was technically possible). "

Sometimes he's kinda like a bull in a china shop. I had already posted MY correction (my assumption the T.VIII had made it to the NEI,) but Sid does not seem too keen on reading every word in a paragraph.
I understand.
We are of the same generation and as much as he reads, he may still be stuck on that Evelyn Woodhead/JFK speed reading technique of "scanning" for nouns/verbs..
Sometimes, you miss important stuff this way.
Not the first time he has missed something in the threads..
It's come to be an expectation by some, and has turned off many who might have been of a positive mind in the beginning.

[el cid again]

The Level 5 updates have begun the upload process.

Edit: Completed.

[el cid again]

Bob: I did indeed miss that you cought the T VIII was not in Java the first time you posted it. And I have indeed missed other things. This isn't entirely something you should regard as a personal flaw on my part: information theory says there will be errors. The amount of data I handle is vast - and in order to finish projects I do not spend a lot of time on every field - or every posting. The more important the field or matter - the more time I devote to it - so hopefully the most important things are also very accurate. But there must be errors - and anyone who handles this quantity of data is going to make them. People who must never be wrong cannot do this sort of thing - because they are going to come face to face with John or Joe noticing this or that error. The data set was remarkably dirty to begin with - and it suffers in several unfortunate ways that might not theoretically have to be the case (including some legacy structural issues, some editor procedures that induce or facilitiate errors, and a lack of definitions of design intent - for which reason I have gone to the trouble to create and publish some standards). Joe Wilkerson told me up front that nothing I could do would please everyone - and while I am the sort who would love to do just that - it appears he is correct. Everyone feels his particular datum is worthy of a great deal of attention - if he did not he would not have brought it up - and not many people have tried to manage things on this scale - so few are sympathetic with the issue that - if we spend many days on each field or record - we will not be done in our lifetime.
There are 133,000 fields in the data set, another 133,000 fields I personally manage just in hex side definitions, 2304 communications codes, 2304 terrain codes, 2304 hex type codes, and a number of other things. One day per field would amount to 747.7 years - and we have spent more than a day on just one value of this or that sort many times.
We cannot continue to do that. But a management decision to limit time so we can get a product is bound to make someone unhappy. I truly regret that - and if I knew a way to spend 10 days per field - I would gladly do so - because in my heart I am a data perfectionist.

EDIT: That is what it takes to do one mod with its own map system. I manage 18 mods and 3 map systems.

[el cid again]

Eratta listings are mercifly short - so 6.51 will issue tomorrow.

More problematic is the matter of Soviet Armor - and other related OB matters. But we will use whatever data is available as it becomes available - and more will fold in every time we correct eratta. I am not going to impose another delay to get it - but I will use every bit of information we get each time we issue any update. I believe that one reason the Soviet Front should remain inactive for much of the war (in RHS Russian active scenarios - 4 of the 6) is that it is too costly for IJA to attack (unless the Soviet player is really really bad). The historical IJA plan - using 14 line divisions and 4 armored "groups" (baby divisions) - is by no means clearly superior to Soviet forces in the Far East. Defending significant river, mountain, swamp and lake barriers, it is by no means clear IJA would have won had it attacked. Also - much of the staff thinking in Kwangtung Army was very unrealistic - and any voice of reason tended to get sacked. [For good material on this see Nomanhan - which covers August Storm and a third conflict between IJA and Red Army as well as the 1938 conflict - and the thinking in between the campaigns] The US Army also has several very fine Leavenworth Papers on these matters - and I believe many US officers study these quite diligently. The US Army has very fine historical materials in English on many Soviet matters.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I believe that one reason the Soviet Front should remain inactive for much of the war (in RHS Russian active scenarios - 4 of the 6) is that it is too costly for IJA to attack (unless the Soviet player is really really bad). The historical IJA plan - using 14 line divisions and 4 armored "groups" (baby divisions) - is by no means clearly superior to Soviet forces in the Far East. Defending significant river, mountain, swamp and lake barriers, it is by no means clear IJA would have won had it attacked. Also - much of the staff thinking in Kwangtung Army was very unrealistic - and any voice of reason tended to get sacked. [For good material on this see Nomanhan - which covers August Storm and a third conflict between IJA and Red Army as well as the 1938 conflict - and the thinking in between the campaigns] The US Army also has several very fine Leavenworth Papers on these matters - and I believe many US officers study these quite diligently. The US Army has very fine historical materials in English on many Soviet matters.

I'm happy to see you read the chapter in Coox dealing with Kwantung army planning for the attack which never materialised.

[el cid again]

When created, RHSEOS for the Allies was identical with RHSCVO (actually RHSRAO - the Russian active version of CVO)

But various considerations have caused us to depart slightly from that standard. Nemo and I became concerned with the possibility the Allies might not be strong enough when planning Tag Team operations, and the Allied Tag Team itself came up with some ideas how to enhanse the historical force, including converting a few more CLs into CVLs (actually a historical option, FDR wanted to convert ALL new CLs to CVLs!), building the Midways as Essex class, (getting 2 in time for the slightly extended war contemplated by RHS), building Alaska class as Baltimore type CAs, and similar things. Nemo himself proposed we double the number of atom bombs, and 2 dropped in August suggests it is not an unreasonable standard, so we did that as well.

I woke up realizing the T IV issue offers an opportunity to do something similar in a small way: we can offer the plane as it was historically used in the "strictly historical" scenarios - and with al alternative loadout in EOS. When we issue the x.651 update later today - EOS will feature the torpedo loadout for this aircraft.

[BlackSunshine]

El Cid?  When is the final "freeze" version expected to be posted?  I am anxious to restart a PBEM game which had some issues.

[el cid again]

In a sense, never. Because - as we test and identify issues - or as Level 7 development causes things to change useful for Level 6 or Level 5 - we will issue updates.

However,

I am working in rather small lists or eratta and will issue an update including them today.

Experience indicates someone will find something else - so I may repeat the process again tomorrow -
but the lists of eratta are so small that I think it will be safe to start games - say starting tomorrow - and I plan to begin the Tag Team Japanese turn the day after that.

[el cid again]

Eratta punched updates uploading.

There will be one more round as Martin wants to do a manual error search - and I want to fix some PT boat lables.
We might get some Russian tank data corrections by then.

I am going to freeze for play at 6.652 and 6.652 tomorrow - regardless of where we are.


There seem to be remarkably short error lists - often only one line - usually less than ten - and the long lines are all correctable by utility (e.g. fix the class and update). All done.

[drw61]

EOS 6.651
The following ship slots may need to be looked at, the ship weapons and the ship classes have differing layouts.
703 to 705 (Weapon 13.2AAMG has 10 should be 40, and 25MM has 6 should be 24)
709 to 722
771 to 818
872 to 874
9865 to 9873
9877
and 9880 to 9882
 
The Blenheim IV (Slot 173) upgrades to the Blenheim IF-NF should it be the Wellington IC (slot 214)?
The B24D (Slot 112) starts with a pool of 13
The B29/32 (Slot 119) starts with a pool of 14
I can’t find any air groups that upgrade to the P-80A

[el cid again]

I have updated a x.652 data file set (4 files changed) as a courtesy. Real life impinged and unresolved matters re UK 18 Division have prevented freezing.

Only Scenario 60 and 61 are suitable for gaming - all the rest have about 750 too many US PT boats. EOS has some formation pointer issues yet to fix. I must kill those extra PT boats (but all the right ones are now in place) -
and do some technical stuff (make choices re art pointers, free up formation slots used only one time, etc).
This I promise will be done tomorrow. We will freeze at x.653 for play.

You have one more chance to point out eratta - and I have a few pointed out items not yet folded in.

4 UK air units have moved up in date slightly - and 2 AA units moved back - as did 18 Division - but it appears it is still arriving too soon (in all versions of WITP - not just RHS). We should nail that down. Also - if we learn no KV were in Far East - we will get rid of them - and free device slots.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: drw61


EOS 6.651
The following ship slots may need to be looked at, the ship weapons and the ship classes have differing layouts.
703 to 705 (Weapon 13.2AAMG has 10 should be 40, and 25MM has 6 should be 24)
709 to 722
771 to 818
872 to 874
9865 to 9873
9877
and 9880 to 9882

The Blenheim IV (Slot 173) upgrades to the Blenheim IF-NF should it be the Wellington IC (slot 214)?
The B24D (Slot 112) starts with a pool of 13
The B29/32 (Slot 119) starts with a pool of 14
I can’t find any air groups that upgrade to the P-80A

Will look at these in plus six hours. However - DID any air groups use P-80 A? If not - maybe we free up a slot?

Item 1: You are correct.

Item 2: Blenheim update - correct. one of the editors loves to reset the update to current slot minus 1 - so this sort of error shows up regularly.

Item 3: I think this is correct for B-24 - in spite of not being operational.

Item 4: This should be correct - but isn't. That is, if the code worked the way I think it should, we should be able to say "pre production aircraft can be used on the date of initial ops" - but regretfully it is "you can use them immediately" - so it is wrong. This is different from 3 - those machines existed - and could have been allocated when the war began - although you would not get any replacements for 9 months!

Item 5: This is actually correct: "The P-80A Shooting Star was operational with the USAF Strategic Air Command from 1946 to 1948 with its 1st through 46th Fighter Groups." We do not have any unit automatically upgrading to it. However,
it is listed as available to assign from June 1945. I no longer know why this is the case? If I ever did know - it may not be an RHS assignment. EDIT: It is not, it is "inherited" from CHS - and I have no clue what caused them to rate it as operational about a year early? Do you want to take it out? We can make it available later - or just in EOS?

[m10bob]

Using RHS CVO with latest PWHEX file, there are some Indian CA's at Calcutta refusing to move into the ocean.I thought maybe it was that they would not leave "India command" so I tried sending them to Madras..No dice..I have manually tried to "undock them", still no movement..Are these static units, and if so, do they need full fuel loads??