RHSCVO 7.946 findings

[Mistmatz]

Clemson Class DD, 42/01, ID 1314

- one 4in/50 Mk 9 gun should be on the RS instead of two on LS.
- second entry for 21 in Mk 15 Torpedo should have Num and Mount fields set to 3.

[el cid again]

I am unable to confirm this report: both class and individual ship records show the guns properly distributed.
- Oops - I see it - it is in the upgrade subclass - at least in CVO.
Revised: it is in all Level 7 scenarios - but not earlier ones. The upgrade from there is also not wrong - just this one in the middle of the sandwich. Hard to see how that could happen in all Level 7s but not 6s?


As for the torpedo mounts, I can confirm the report - but if memory serves the data is correct: these vessels had 6 tubes per side in banks of 3 - a total of 12 - at least as built.

[el cid again]

CV Taiho and CV Shinano have incorrect deck armor - IF we stay with the current scheme.

Otherwise most carriers get a change - and all IJN will change - slightly smaller. Modest changes to durability to not require production revisions - there is a production surplus for naval construction in a properly managed account big enough to handle this.

Anyway - an eratta update is possible at some point - and no decision is yet made re carrier deck armor. Will research the Allies on this next.

[Mistmatz]

The Seminole class PGs can be converted in San Francisco which is a good idea because of their low cruise speed of only 8 knots.

The only option displayed is a conversion to a PT boat tender (AGP). If selected the vessel is converted to an AR of the Niagara class instead of the AGP displayed as only option.

Not a big issue, just interesting.


EDIT: Hmmm, just noticed there is also a Niagara class PG vessel and its stats look similar to the converted Seminole IIRC. Seems that the conversion changes to a different type of vessel (AR) instead of keeping it as an PG. But then no conversion at all would be needed, a simple upgrade would have done. I'm puzzled now, in the ship availibility they are shown as AR, let's see what I get in 180 days...

[el cid again]

Memory is dim - but I think this is correct. That is - historical. The same hull often can serve a completely different function.
Note that an ancient minesweeper class has a variation that is a seaplane tender - and I think ultimately converts to a gunboat or sub chaser. Another thing you will see in RHS is deliberate misclassification - so code will permit the ship to perform missions it really could perform.
Thus - a river vessel that has large guns will be classed as a CL or CA - so it can bombard and be a fast transport. Others are classified as DM -if they could lay mines - or DMS - if not - so they can fast transport. These vessels might also have RGB in the name if there is room - to tell you their real classification. There are hundreds of tiny vessels which were added or reworked - sometimes with just single ship variations - because those variations are real - and I thought it might be interesting to include them (but it isn't really important).