CHS errata

[Iron Duke]

Hi,

my references show only 21 P-40-K's went to the RAF the remaining 595 were P-40-M's BUT your correct that the availability date of aug 43 for Kittyhawk III is way off

P-40-K production ends(completes deliveries) Nov 42 (of which 21 are RAF KittyhawkIII)
P-40-M production starts (deliveries of Allison engined start)dec 42
P-40-M production ends (completes deliveries) Feb 43 of which 595 are RAF Kittyhawk III)

Kittyhawk availability should be mid DEC 42 or there abouts

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Iron Duke

Hi,

my references show only 21 P-40-K's went to the RAF the remaining 595 were P-40-M's BUT your correct that the availability date of aug 43 for Kittyhawk III is way off

P-40-K production ends(completes deliveries) Nov 42 (of which 21 are RAF KittyhawkIII)
P-40-M production starts (deliveries of Allison engined start)dec 42
P-40-M production ends (completes deliveries) Feb 43 of which 595 are RAF Kittyhawk III)

Kittyhawk availability should be mid DEC 42 or there abouts

Thanks Iron Duke. Thought there was an issue.

[JeffroK]

Ron,

In the RAAF the first Kittyhawk III were P-40K-10-CU (First Serial A29-164 or 42-10172) which were delivered from January 1943.

The first seem to have allocated to 77 Sqn around 22 Feb 43

4 P-40K-15-CU served with the RAAF, delivered in Feb 43, a further 4 were lost in transit.

The P-40 M-1 was also called the Kittyhawk III, these arrived in Australia from Feb 43 and were in Squadron service from march 1943.

So March 43 would be a better availability date than August 43.

From ADF Serials

Joe Baughers site has a lot of technical details but not much on their service.

[DD696]

CHS 2.08....Ships 4202 (Crosley APD) and 4666 (Gearing DD) both have same name "Rodgers Blood", the latter being an inclusion as one of Ron's "missing ships" suggestion. Also, with the inclusion of the Bearcat, should not the 3019 Lake Champlain and 3015 Boxer arrive with Bearcats rather than Hellcats as they arrive long after Bearcat production has started?

In addition, the Hellcat production rate has been upped, but the Bearcat arrives in March 45 with a production rate of only 90 per month. Of course, the Hellcat production rate does continue until end of game, but in real life the Hellcat production came to an end and the Bearcats would have been the primary navy fighter in our "it does not have to end on the historical date" game. As the Bearcat production was ramping up, the Hellcat production would have been winding down.....but we cannot simulate this in the game as it is all or nothing. If this war lasts into 1946 then this production rate will be too low to sustain carrier operations against Japan, or even operations until the end of the historical period of war. Granted, only 1200 odd Bearcats were built, but we must take into accout the "What if" situation of the war not ending in Sept 45. I do believe that the Bearcat production would have increased considerably, probably coming close to the Hellcat production rate, in order to sustain the war effort thru this period and a possible invasion of the Japanese Islands. I believe from memory that well over 4000 Bearcats were ordered but were then cancelled due to the end of the war. In our "it does not have to end on the historical date" game, then these missing Bearcats really need to be produced.

I have increased it in my 2.08 "version".

EDIT: Compounding the Bearcat low production problem is the fact that the FM-2 Wildcat also upgrades to the Bearcat, and is subsequently competing with the Hellcat squadrons for the 90 new Bearcats being produced every month.

[spence]

Re: F8Fs

Pretty sure that an improved model of the F8F (Bearcat) was produced post-war too...after a pause in production brought on by the end of the war with Japan. It's inconceivable that such a pause would have occurred had the war dragged on.

[asdicus]

I just used air transport in chs to move one of the marine para bns. The c-47's seem unable to transport the 75mm pack howitzers - device 433 - load cost 18. I am using an older version of chs 1.06 but checking the release notes I can see no mention of any changes to this device in newer versions of the scenario 155. Does the load cost for this device need changing or am I doing something wrong ?

[bstarr]

During the course of my dig for information on the French fleet, I may have stumbled on some useful info for CHS.

Apparently, like most French ships, Le Triomphant was very short legged. Her endurance was only 6600 km, instead of 8000 nm. Sometime between mid 43 and early 44 all four of her class that were in allied posession were returned to the states where their bunkerage was increased to 730 tons - at this point they were redesignated as CLs. Perhaps this is the reason WITP gave the ship higher endurance.

Also, Le Fantasque class (Le Triomphant in WITP) apparently used a 139mm/40 M1934 main gun, which translates to 5.5in/40 M1934. This is really slitting hairs, but there is a difference.

and the L'Adroit class mounts a 130mm/40 M1924 main gun. Not a 5.5incher, this is 5.1, much closer to a 5incher. You could use the new Russian 5.1; it seems a little powerful, but it'll work better than the 5.5. There's certainly no need to create a new slot for a solitary French DD. Then again, the two 13.2mm AA slots could be combined.

[VSWG]

Australian AMC Class, ID 428:

Same as the British AMCs: the crews of the 4 ships of this class have horrible experience values. Without an increase, they won't even know how to fire all those nice 6in guns. BTW, I think that the two forward facing 6in guns can be combined into 1 slot, single mount.

EDIT: Same for the only Canadian AMC class ship: AP Prince Robert, ID 6422.

EDIT2: And then there's the US Q-ship AK Anacapa, which was manned by US Navy personnel. ID 8736.

What's the verdict on AVG?

[Monter_Trismegistos]

ORIGINAL: bstarr
Also, Le Fantasque class (Le Triomphant in WITP) apparently used a 139mm/40 M1934 main gun, which translates to 5.5in/40 M1934.

I thought their calliber was described as 138mm...

[bstarr]

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

ORIGINAL: bstarr
Also, Le Fantasque class (Le Triomphant in WITP) apparently used a 139mm/40 M1934 main gun, which translates to 5.5in/40 M1934.

I thought their calliber was described as 138mm...

I've got one source that says 138 and another that says 139.

138.5, maybe? [:D]

[bstarr]

ORIGINAL: bstarr

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

ORIGINAL: bstarr
Also, Le Fantasque class (Le Triomphant in WITP) apparently used a 139mm/40 M1934 main gun, which translates to 5.5in/40 M1934.

I thought their calliber was described as 138mm...

I've got one source that says 138 and another that says 139.

138.5, maybe? [:D]

I was kidding about the 138.5 thing, but there may be more true than poetry there. I found another source that gives the gun as a 138.6mm.

[Herrbear]

ORIGINAL: VSWG

Australian AMC Class, ID 428:

Same as the British AMCs: the crews of the 4 ships of this class have horrible experience values. Without an increase, they won't even know how to fire all those nice 6in guns. BTW, I think that the two forward facing 6in guns can be combined into 1 slot, single mount.

EDIT: Same for the only Canadian AMC class ship: AP Prince Robert, ID 6422.

EDIT2: And then there's the US Q-ship AK Anacapa, which was manned by US Navy personnel. ID 8736.

What's the verdict on AVG?

Shouldn't that last 6 inch gun be facing Rear and not Forward. That would make more sense for the use of two slots.

[VSWG]

There's another slot used for a rear mounted 6 inch guns.

[VSWG]

I did some reading on the 4 Australian AMCs:

AP Kanimbla (ID 6640) is scheduled to upgrade to a "Small AP (Allied)", but should upgrade to "Australian LSI Class".

Armament as LSI:
1 x 4-inch gun
2 x 40mm Bofors anti-aircraft guns
2 x 2-pounder anti-aircraft guns
12 x 20mm Oerlikon anti-aircraft guns

Conversion completed: Okt. 1943.

http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/ships/kanimbla1.html

---

AP Manoora (ID 6641): should also upgrade to "Australian LSI Class", not "Small AP (Allied)".

Armament as LSI:
1 x 6-inch gun (later replaced by 2 x 4-inch guns)
2 x 3-inch anti-aircraft guns
8 x 20mm Oerlikon anti-aircraft guns
6 x 40mm Bofors anti-aircraft guns (added later)

Conversion completed: March 1943.

http://203.147.135.184/spc/history/ships/manoora1.htm

---

AP Manowai (ID 6642): I couldn't find any info on this ship. I guess this should be the NZ AMC Monowai. This ship is scheduled to upgrade to "Australian LSI Class".

Armament as LSI:
no info available.

Conversion date to LSI: Feb. 1944.

Monowai left the PTO for Europe in April 1943.

http://www.merchant-navy-ships.com/index.php?id=52,0,0,1,0,0
http://www.nzmaritime.co.nz/monowai/monowai.htm
http://www.navy.mil.nz/ops/ship.cfm?ship_ID=34

Maybe no upgrade for her at all? Although she would have probably converted to "Australian LSI Class", too, when remaining in the Pacific.

---

AP Westralia (ID 6643): should also upgrade to "Australian LSI", not "President Coolidge Class".

Armament as LSI:
1 x 6-inch gun
2 x 3-inch anti-aircraft guns
12 x 20mm Oerlikon anti-aircraft guns

Conversion completed: June 1943.

http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/ships/westralia1.html

---

3 other ships upgrade to "Australian LSI Class":

AP Mount Vernon (ID 6395): This is a US Navy Ship, not Australian. I couldn't find any info about a conversion.
http://troopships.pier90.org/ships/m/mountvernon/default.htm
http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/22022.htm

AP Narkunda (ID 6436): sunk 1942 off Algeria. Should a conversion to "Australian LCI Class" be possible?

AP Neptuna (ID 6607): sunk Feb. 1942 in Port Darwin. Should a conversion to "Australian LCI Class" be possible?

---

"Australian LCI Class" in CHS:
1x 4in
2x 3in
2x 40mm AA
10x 20mm Oerlikon
4x .303 Vickers MG

I think the Vickers MGs should be dropped. Maybe replace the 4in with 6in?

[mikemike]

ORIGINAL: bstarr

ORIGINAL: bstarr

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos



I thought their calliber was described as 138mm...

I've got one source that says 138 and another that says 139.

138.5, maybe? [:D]

I was kidding about the 138.5 thing, but there may be more true than poetry there. I found another source that gives the gun as a 138.6mm.

These quotes grow like Topsy. Ah, well...

The Le Fantasque class was armed with 138,6 mm Modèle 1929 guns. The Modèle 1934 was used only on the Mogador class, both of which were scuttled in Toulon in 1942. The weird caliber is traditional French - it was used for naval guns before WWI. The French had a lot of other weird calibers - 370 mm, 340 mm, 194 mm, 164 mm, 65 mm, neither of which are "round" numbers either in the metric or the Imperial system. They are possibly derived from some traditional French artillery designation system - maybe a conversion from the Napoleonic era 24pdrs etc? By the way, the now-universal 155 mm is another of those cases - the US Army adopted it from the French in WWI, when the units that were sent to Europe were initially equipped mainly with modern French guns. The famed 155 mm gun and its carriage were essentially a development of the French Filloux GPF-T.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

ORIGINAL: mikemike
The weird caliber is traditional French - it was used for naval guns before WWI. The French had a lot of other weird calibers - 370 mm, 340 mm, 194 mm, 164 mm, 65 mm, neither of which are "round" numbers either in the metric or the Imperial system.

370mm (BTW I never heard about this calliber - was it a naval weapon?), 340mm, 65mm seems bloody round callibres for me. These are normal callibres for metric system.

[Terminus]

I can find a 274mm, but not a 370mm naval gun. The 164.7mm and 138.6mm is also easily locatable.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNFR_Main.htm

Them Frenchies do things their own way...

[Terminus]

If this has been mentioned earlier, I apologise, but in the basic CHS 2.08 scenarios (#155 and #156, which are the ones I've downloaded) class #89 is set to upgrade to class #0. I don't know if this can cause any ill effects, but having seen first hand how a single misplaced character in a data field can cause a CTD, I thought I'd mention it.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: bstarr

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

ORIGINAL: bstarr
Also, Le Fantasque class (Le Triomphant in WITP) apparently used a 139mm/40 M1934 main gun, which translates to 5.5in/40 M1934.

I thought their calliber was described as 138mm...

I've got one source that says 138 and another that says 139.

138.5, maybe? [:D]

Close, actually 138.6mm according to Naval Weapons of World War Two by John Campbell

[mikemike]

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

370mm (BTW I never heard about this calliber - was it a naval weapon?), 340mm, 65mm seems bloody round callibres for me. These are normal callibres for metric system.

No, the French Navy apparently never planned beyond the 340 mm in WWI, intending to use twelve in quad turrets in the Normandie class (one of which was completed as the carrier Béarn) and sixteen in quad turrets on the Lyon class. The 370 mm was used as a railway gun, both in WWI (by the French) and in WWII (by the French and the Germans). It might originally have been designed on spec for future ship designs, but I have found nothing else about those guns.

The thing concerning "round" calibers was perhaps awkwardly expressed. What I meant was that nearly everybody used inch-based calibers or at least metric calibers close to them (6 in vs 150 mm,
15 in vs 380 mm etc). 340 mm is close to 13,5 in (343 mm), but 65 mm is 2,6 in and 370 mm is 14,6 in, both outside the usual range of gun calibers. Perhaps the French value originality above everything else, even in technical matters. Looking at, for instance, Citroen cars, you might certainly think so, and there, it´s both a blessing and (more often) a curse.