RHS Level I Updates Suspended

[el cid again]

Not certain - Mifune manages the site.

There is an updated RHS installer - pm me for a copy.

Development is suspended and we are into long term testing. Series 7 has just begun
with the Control game (vs a handwritten script as Allies) has just been executed -
while manual games have a Japanese start turn ready for Allied input.

There is also supplimental material - most of it in this thread - available as Word documents.

[moonraker65]

Ah ok thanks Sid. Got your e-mail by the way

[moonraker65]

Had a strange occurrance whilst playing scenario 104. I have had ships turn up at Balboa and Cristobal as reinforcements but when I look they don't show up in port. Similarly I am moving TK's to Abadan and they too are being swallowed up and no longer showing in the ships in port screen.

[el cid again]

What is the date?

Do you know the names of any of the ships?

[moonraker65]

This is 12/28/41 and still early game. No I can't rememeber the names but all are ships which turn up as reinforcements

[el cid again]

I recommend using updated files. Ships should correct. I have recompiled all the latest eratta into a new installer and sent it to you
by private email. I also have sent it to all on the RHS list. Anyone else just ask. The current build - as of today - is 4.18. If you get
the installer, only SCEN files are affected - assuming you were current on art and pwhexe files. If unsure - update them as well.

[el cid again]

Originally a US Navy Electronics Technician Radar, I have always had an interest in radar history. I have not been comfortable with the WITP or AE treatment of Japanese radar in particular, but had too many other demands on my time to investigate it in detail. The AE system had a number of problems. But AE had enough devices to permit reasonable modeling of the Japanese systems.

First of all, unlike other nations, Japan had two different kinds of radio detection of aircraft - called Type A and Type B by the Army. Type A systems were not radars, however. They were radio interference detectors and had more range than most radars, but no indication of bearing or range. Operated in pairs, they revealed when a formation crossed the line between them - typically 250 km apart (but the longest example was 400 km). Using maps and information about when lines were crossed, it was possible to track a B-29 raid all the way from India to Japan, and to issue 2 or 3 hour warnings at the target city for civil defense and manning of air defenses. This type of device was produced en mass in 1940 and 1941 and kept in service longer than intended. I found a way to model this kind of device as a weird radar with lots of range but almost no accuracy or effectiveness.

Second, the first production army Type B radar was the Tachi 6 - an abbreviation for two words - the first for the radar institute location - the second meaning land based. Tachi numbers below 6 are not air search radars and did not come earlier in time, so they do not belong in the data set. This basic radar was the foundation of what followed, and its versions were essentially only slightly smaller and easier to make variations - with no change in range or effectiveness. In late 1943 the Tachi 7 was introduced - in limited numbers - to address the need for a much smaller set. It was on the same frequency and had the same range, but slightly greater effectiveness. It never replaced the 6 and only supplimented it in service. In early 1944 this the 6 was finally replaced by the Tachi 18, a radar so similar there was also no increase in range, but some increase in accuracy. It was, however, very much smaller, just as the 7 had been, but produced in mass instead of very limited numbers like the 7 was.
Only in 1945 was the radar finally improved significantly with the Tachi 20. Range remained as before but accuracy increased greatly - in part because for the first time operators had an indication of target altitude. The Tachi 35 was in a replacement which was identical in game terms. Germany eventually decided to release radar information to Japan, including plans and sample equipment, but the Wurtzburg system supplied was not quite ready for manufacture when the war ended. RHS models this for the first time - for games that go beyond August 1945. But Wurtzburg is not a longer range radar like the Tachi series was - it was simply more effective. So Wurtzburgs are additional radars, not replacements for the Tachi system. Based on German materials (German is my second language), the particular Wurtzburg variant involved is given a range of 88,000 yards. Tachi 6 through 35 radars have a range of 325,000 yards. The original Tachi-6 series sets are gigantic and have weights from 60 to 72 tons - explaining why they were not practical for ship use. They also used multiple antennas - usually three - sometimes four. This technique was long not the norm in the world, but is becoming more common today. It more

By contrast, Navy radars were smaller, had less range, and weighed a great deal less than Army radars did. The Type 2 Model 1 (or type 21) used by ships was virtually identical with the Type 1 Model 2 (or Type 12) - and had an effective range vs a formation of planes of 109,000 yards. It was much smaller than the Type 1 Model 1 (or Type 11) and could be mounted on any vessel - even a submarine. The Type 11 had a much greater range (of 273,000 yards) - but it came with a gigantic (and unmistakable) antenna. A later version of the Type 11 was the Type 13 - but it was only slightly more effective and had no more effective range. Taiho and Shinano were designed to mount two of these radars, but only the forward one could do a 360 degree search. The second one was blind forward, so its facing should be specified as "rear" - which also sees both sides. Medium sized carriers only got one of these. None should ever be specified for a ship smaller than a cruiser, and only a late design carrier should ever have more than one.

The Navy also had a smaller, microwave radar, the Type 22. When introduced, Japanese and US microwave development were only a few weeks apart in time. But the Japanese never improved on it. In game terms this is a surface search radar. Actually all Navy radars were both surface search and air search radars, but the Type 2 Model 2 was much better with small surface targets than the others were. It had a range of 60,000 yards. It was mass produced - thousands were made - but it was not improved on in any important sense.

[el cid again]

RHS Japanese Carrier Logic

This is a presentation of the Japanese carrier program to reinforce the ships that start the war on active duty: the "big six" CVs, the CVLs Ryujo and Zuiho, the Hosho (always listed as a CVL but treated as a CVE by AE, and properly so), and the CVE Taiho. It is about the date of appearance, the form the ship appears as, and any variations between Scenarios 101 to 104 vs Scenario 105. Scenario 100 uses an entirely different logic stream, starting long before the war.

Historical Name RHS Name RHS Date Stock Date Notes

CV Junyo Junyo 420503 420503
CV Hiyo Hiyo 420731 420731
CV Taiho Taiho 440307 440307
CV Shinano Shinano 440704 441119 Not in 105 Note 3
CV Shinano Iwami 430219 Not in Stock Only in 105 Note 2
BB 111 (Kii??) Iwari 430822 Not in Stock Only in 105 Note 2
CV Unryu Unryu 441219 440806 430806 in 105 Note 1
CV Amagi Amagi 450724 440811 430906 in 105 Note 1
CV Katsurigi Katsurigi 441015 441015 440806 in 105
CV Kasagi Kasagi 450515 450515 440810 in 105
CV Aso Aso 450615 450615 450106 in 105
CV Ikoma Ikoma 450615 Not in Stock 450110 in 105
CV Kurama Kurama 450915 Not in Stock 450613 in 105
CV Azuma Azuma 450617 Not in Stock Only in 105 Note 5
CVL Shoho Shoho 420126 420126 Sister of Zuiho
CVL Rhuho Ryuho 421128 421128
CVL Ibuki Ibuki 430901 450515 Note 4
CVL Isama Isama 430911 Not in Stock Note 4
CVL Shinyo Shinyo 431215 431215 430615 in 105 Note 6
CVL Kaiyo Kaiyo 450724 431123 430823 in 105 Note 7

Historical Name RHS Name RHS Date Stock Date Notes

CVL Kaijo Kaijo 430827 Not in Stock Only in 105 Note 7
CVL Mizuho Mizuho 430604 Not in Stock Note 10
CVL Nisshin Nisshin 420427 Not in Stock Note 11
CVL Chitose Chitose 430503 CVS in Stock Note 12
CVL Chiyoda Chiyoda 430431 CVS in Stock Note 12
CVE Unyo Unyo 420531 420531
CVE Chuyo Chuyo 421125 421125
CVE Shinyo Shinyo 4301215 431215 430615 in 105 Note 14
CVE Kamakura Maru Kamakura Maru from 4306 AP in Stock 411106 in 105 Note 13
CVE Shimane Maru Shimane Maru 450215 450215 440317 in 105 as 1TL
CVE Otakisan Maru Otakisan Maru 450515 450515 450214 in 105 as 1TL
CVE Yamashiro Maru Yamashiro Maru 450127 450127 450119 in 105 as 2TL
CVE Chugasa Maru Chugasa Maru 450615 450615 450215 in 105 as 2TL
CVE Ominisan Maru Ominisan Maru 430929 Not in Stock 430929 in 105 as 2TL
CVE Nippo Maru Nippo Maru 450615 Not in Stock 441215 in 105 as 1TL
CV Kongo Type Kongo etc. Note 16 Not in Stock From 8/42 (1/42 in 105)
CV Nagato Type Nagato etc. Note 16 Not in Stock From 8/42
CV Ise Type Ise etc. Note 16 Not in Stock From 8/42
CV Fuso Type Fuso etc. Note 16 Not in Stock From 8/42

Note 1: In Scenario 105, Unryu and Amagi are repeat Soryus rather than Unryu class design, so it may lay down sooner.

Note 2: In Scenario 105, Yamato Class hulls Shinano and No 111 are not suspended on mobilization - but keep building while a conversion design is drawn up - and then completed to a full hanger deck CV rather than as a support carrier as IRL: air group = 96. In addition, after 7/44 in all scenarios it is possible to convert any Yamato class Battleship to a Shinano CV. 105 features a full air group.

Note 3: In Scenarios 101 to 104, support aircraft carrier: air group = 43. May convert to a Yamato class battleship. This represents a decision to build the ship as a gunship vice as a carrier.

Note 4: May upgrade to CA form. This represents a decision to build a gunship vice a carrier. This second hull was laid down ten days after Ibuki, but was cancelled a month later. In RHS, the player decides if it is to build or not? In 105 only, these ships lay down as repeat Suzuya class and may complete to a CVL form identical with Ibuki. Since carriers take less time to build, the CVL form appears first - and if a player wants the gunship - simply converts it to one after it appears.

Note 5: Historically eight Unryu's were authorized (the original plus 7 follow ons) not counting eight slightly larger follow on designs. This is the seventh hull of the series.

Note 6: In Scenario 105, Scharnhorst is converted early.

Note 7: In Scenarios 101 to 104, APs Argentina Maru and Brazil Maru may convert to CVLs Kaiyo and Kaijo. Stock has Argentina Maru represented by two hulls, and does not allow Brazil Maru to convert.

Note 8: In Scenario 105 Nippo Maru, Shimane Maru and Otakasan Maru appear as Type 1TL Tankers.

Note 9: In Scenario 105 Yamashiro Maru, Chugasa Maru & Ominisan Maru appear as Type 2TL Tankers.

Note 10: Mizuho starts the game as a CVS in stock and Scenarios 101 to 104. In 101 to 104 she may convert to this CVL form. In 105, it appears in CVL form. Plans existed for this conversion. She is almost identical in hull form with Chitose and the CVL form is identical.

Note 11: Nisshin starts the game as a CVS in stock and Scenarios 101 to 104. In 101 to 104 she may convert to this CVL form. In 105, it appears in CVL form. It did not require deconstructing as much as Mizuho when the decision was made to convert her in July, 1941, so it completes sooner.

Note 12: Chitose and Chiyoda start the game in CVS form in stock and Scenarios 101 to 104. In stock and in 101 to 104 they may convert to this CVL form.

Note 13: Chichibu Maru, an AP, was renamed Kamakura Maru in 1939. She was planned for conversion to a CVE starting from 1943, but was sunk before work began. In 105 she is not used as an AP at all, but instead converted starting in the fall of 1941.

Note 14: In Scenario 104, Scharnhorst starts conversion into CVE Shinyo sooner.

Note 15: Type 1 TL may convert to Shimane Maru CVE and Type 2 TL tankers may convert to Yamashiro Maru CVEs in all scenarios. These are similar to Allied "merchant aircraft carriers" used in the Atlantic but in this case are actually Army aircraft carriers for Army fighters or ASW aircraft.

Note 16: After the Battle of Midway, plans were drawn up to convert every capital ship to carrier or to semi-carrier form. There were three options for each class: a 1/3 conversion as was ultimately done for the Ise class; a 2/3 conversion which is similar but provided about twice as much aircraft capacity; and a full conversion suitable for use with carrier aircraft. RHS provides for 1/3 conversions for Ise and Fuso classes and for full conversion of all classes from 8/42. In 105 there are contingency plans for the fast Kongo class drawn up in the fall of 1941 so conversion is an option from 1/42. Except for Ise and Hyuga, there is no provision for dedicated air groups for these ships. The partial conversions actually got half seaplane air groups, and half carrier planes which could not be recovered by the ship - but there is no way to model this case in AE - so semi-carriers get seaplanes and only full conversions get carrier planes.

[el cid again]

I got a report "I don't have much luck using RN cruisers as fast transports"

So I checked - their troop capacity is uniformly zero - same for cargo capacity -
same for almost every fast transport except for APDs and sometimes minelayers.

Fortunately ship class data of this sort both updates instantly AND does NOT require
going to every ship (like most updates do) - cargo is dynamically linked to ship records real time.

So the next microupdate will attempt to address this matter comprehensively for all classes on both sides.

My first USN ship was an amphib - and I understand how this works. I am not happy that carriers and tankers can not carry anything - and in fact we have a weird ship that is defined in upgrade as a CVE with troop and cargo capacity - so we will be testing that in due course. But certainly cruisers and destroyers can carry troops - inefficiently - as the Fast Transport rule permits (with higher risk of losses). As always, we will use an algorithm. Based mainly on tonnage. A destroyer carriers more or less a company, a cruiser more than one company. Some warships had fold down canvass "bunks" on the sides of passageway walls to facilitate this.

A first pass algorithm which seems to produce reasonable values is

three times the square root of ships size in tons = troop capacity

unless the ship has special cargo spaces - see USN blockade runners (ex 4 piper bananna boats) or HMS Centurian (whose magazines no longer
hold ammunition) - cargo = 1/10 of troop capacity rounded up in tons (based on the actual planning rule of thumb - you need 100 kg per man
for weapons, ammunition and equipment MINIMUM for a military unit movement, not just personell movement)

[el cid again]

This will probably be the last level of development of atomic bomb devices for RHS - we are about at the limit
of what can be done statistically with the ranges available in the fields of the devices.

There are two different RHS atomic bombs - a Little Boy type called UB (for Uranium Bomb) and a Fat Man type
called IB (for Implosion Bomb). There is also a third special bomb for B-29s of the Silverplate (atomic bomb
carrier) version - a conventional Pumpkin Bomb - of the same weight as a Fat Man - for operational use
to give bombers practice (or, if you wish, to have non-atomic bombers in the formation that still drop something -
Silverplate bombers have more range than conventional B-29s do - so Pumpkin Bombs is something you can
drop. It also gives bomber crews experience - as was intended IRL - these weapons were used operationally.)

The two atomic bombs are similar, with slightly different yield assumptions - and slightly different weights.
The differences are pretty academic from a practical point of view - a difference of yield that probably makes
no difference whatever to the target (since it is all but certainly destroyed) and of weight of 300 pounds.
However, just in case different data may sometimes yield different results, and also because availablilty differs
by type, we have the two kinds. In the normal case, the US gets 1 UB per month starting in July, 1945, and
two IB per month starting in August 1945. [This is controlled by issuing special UB and IB Silverplate B-29s
at that rate - and requiring you to either upgrade, that is change - the bomber type in the unit or disband the unit
after you use it to drop an atom bomb.] There is a very slight chance Japan might make UB after the end of the
historical war - first is the G8N - and later the Ki-91 might also be made. That would require enough HI points to
make planes and engines, dedicating a plant to just atomic bombers of one or both types, and none of these
plants suffering damage (HI plants, engine plants, plane factories) - and that there is fuel and resources for the
HI plants to consume. If the G8N goes into production in the fall of 1945, or the Ki-91 later still, the requirement
the air unit disband (there is only one for each) means "production" (or at least use) is limited to one per
four months per type. This may not be fair, but it is in fact optimistic about the ability to produce atomic fuel
for the bombs. While Japan was aware of Plutonium (eka uranium) and had a more sophisticated sense of how
to exploit it in reactor fuel than we did, they made no attempt to master separation technology or to design
implosion bombs - which they also knew about because they had Manhattan project intelligence in detail. So only
gun type Uranium Bombs are a possibility. For the US - bomb production is certain - at a low rate - after August
1945 3 per month. For Japan bomb production is highly uncertain and in no case can exceed 1 every 2 monts -
half that until the Ki-91 is made.

The new system involves loading each atomic bomber with 24 bomb devices: the dud bomb device (which works
99% of the time that all the rest fail); the 33% device (from the first generation RHS design, which has 50% -
or 46% - chance of failure so the bombs will tend to be either "near normal yield" or "near maximum yield"
about half the time each. The second generation 11% device is replaced by a 3% device. Instead of carrying
six 11% devices, the plane now carries twenty two 3% devices. The statistical odds are that a single drop
of this package will destroy either 22 or 23 targets - with a slight chance of 24 targets - and a modest chance of
20 or 21 targets. Even in the very unlikely case all the normal yield devices fail, a dud bomb device will work
99% of the time, taking out one target (probably). This is much better than the first generation RHS model with
a maximum of 4 targets, or the second model with 8. But we won't be able to increase it from there. And we probably
don't need to. This probably means the devices will have adequate game effects on enough targets in the target hex
to consider it an atomic bombing.

[el cid again]

First, a story. You know sailors and sea stories, right?

To digress - there is a Navy saying: What is the difference between a sea story and a fairy tale?

A fairy tale begins with "once upon a time"

A sea story begins with "this is no s..t"

Otherwise, no difference.

Well, this is a true story, sailor or not. Once upon a time, in the early 1980s, I found myself
assigned by my company to work as "resident computer engineer" at the USAF SIL (Software
Integration Laboratory) for the ALCM at the Kent Spaceflight Center of Boeing.

After you entered the secure area with the actual computers and devices which permitted them
to measure the "flights" of simulated missiles (the control surfaces, driving motors and guidance
portions of the missles were physically present, but sensors measure the movements so computers
can calculate the impact on flight)

on your right hand, on the wall over a desk, was a standard sheet of typing paper - on its side
- with a charcoal drawing of a V-1 missile.

Its caption read "The First Cruise Missile"

Now I knew that it was the first jet powered operational cruise missile when the Germans used it in WWII.

I even knew we had copied it and studied it in several forms.

But I didn't know it was OUR first operational and mass produced cruise missile.

So much for my story. The point is that I worked in the world of analysis of cruise missile flight profiles.

After careful consideration of all the factors I can think of, I conclude that the surface attack version
of the JB-2 Loon can be best simulated in the AE system as a Ground Attack Rocket. While it is true the
actual maximum range of the JB-2 version of the V-1 is 149 statue miles - more than three hexes -
its accuracy is so terrible that at such a range it will miss a specific target by 3/8 of a mile. As a terror
weapon launched against a vast metropolis like London, it was marginally useful - even then most missed.
But our system does not provide for such random area targets. The simple AE engine wants to assign
one device to one target - and does so automatically. The entire option for strategic bombardment by
bombers seems not to work anything like actual strategic bombing. Even atomic bombs don't work
anything like actual atomic bombs.

Note the planning for Olympic and Coronet contemplated firing the JB-2 as "pre invasion bombardment" -
it was not intended as a strategic or terror weapon in the sense the V-1 was. For these reasons, using it
in the same hex makes sense. So its use as a ground bombardment rocket with a rather large warhead
makes sense. So my second JB-2 device - available from 1/45 - is the JB-2 Loon/SSM. My first
launching platform is a modified LST - designated LST(G) w Loon SSM - to make it easy for players who
have not read my notes to gasp what it is. The LST is a standard USN Type II LST with the forward
40 mm mounting replaced by a JB-2 launcher - it fires one round with 100 reloads. Cargo capacity
of the LST is reduced to only 450 - the rest of the space is for storage of missiles, assembly areas,
fuel storage areas, and an elevator so the missiles can be moved when assembled to the upper deck.
It is almost identical to the JB-2 Loon/Radar ASM - except it has an accuracy of 5 (vice 50) and a range
of 74 (vice 66).

Second, the other device, created yesterday, before the surface version described above:

The aircraft contemplated for use during WWII was the PB4Y - and the test aircaft which
was also considerd for operational use post war was the B-17E. The B-29 was also
contemplated as a platform.

I have created an experimental ASM version I consider to be radar guided. For that
reason its useful range is lower than the missile's absolute range - due to target
acquisition issue. For that reason the "out of hex" issue is not germane, and the existing
code should work fine.

For the record, the absolute range is 149 miles.

The device is called

JB-2 Loon/Radar ASM

it is a plane guided missile

Weight 5023 pounds

warhead 2100 pounds

range in this form 66 (37.5 miles)

Alternate device 206 (4,000 pound bomb)

A strictly historical scenario would define it as available on a PB4Y
(probably two per plane)

A slightly more liberal scenario would probably have B-17E and B-29
carriers - likely two per B-17 to normal range - four for a B-29
with two for B-29 extended range

I elected to have the strictly historical scenarios (101 through 104)
get B-17E and PB4Y carriers in September, 1945 - with the B-29
a month later. In 105 they are a month sooner.

The surface launch version is available nominally from January, 1945,
but you must convert ships to launch them, and then sail them to the
battle area. So far only the LST conversion is available in the data set.
Next I will create a CVE. Finally I will look at the possibility of submarines
because it was an immediate post war concept, and try to figure out what
sort of land unit was to launch them?

Most missiles are on the Axis side - because they developed them first.
Even this missile is a copy of an Axis weapon! However, I have already
added the JB-1 Bat, and investigated Project Bumblebee - a wartime
effort to get naval SAMs. I will continue to look for Allied cases that might
apply.

[el cid again]

Seems the USN got into the SAM research business because of German
guided bombs and missiles. Later, the program got a lot more priority because
of the kamakaze threat, something never really solved. The primary wartime
naval SAM research was Project Bumblebee - a program far ahead of its time
which proposed a supersonic ramjet (at a time no such engine was understood
in the USA) on top of a booster (because a ramjet does not work until it is at
high speed). The guidance systems proposed were even more complicated, so it took 10 to 20 years for 3 of the 4 programs (Terrier, Talos and Tarter, in that order) to become operational, while the most complex of all (Typhoon) was eventually abandoned on cost grounds (but its guidance system eventually became what we call Ageis radars). All very interesting, but of little use for a game that ends in 1946. There were, however, wartime ship designs based on the prototype Talos concept,
the XGM-1 (Experimental Guided Missile 1). These contemplated completing USS Hawaii with side mounted SAM launchers and two "pits" aft in the former heavy gun mounting area for JB-1 Loon SSMs. [A variation proposed completing the USS Kentucky - the sixth numbered and fifth laid down Iowa class - the fifth numbered ship having never been actually started]

The Loon was more of an emergency project, and was specified in subsonic and, initially, radio controlled forms, so it could see service in wartime. A fairly basic missile, it weighed nearly a ton (920 kg - 530 kg for missile and 370 kg for booster stage), had a range of 55 km, a speed of 0.87 mach, and initially depended on a human "fire control computer" to compare radar signals and "fly" the missile by radio command so it would intercept the target. It survived until 1950 in various forms, and its vehicles were used by different projects of the three major services. It was practical and might have seen service in 1946 had not wartime priority sharply declined in 1945. I simply took this missile and substituted it for the XGM-1 in the Alaska class. The original Lark designation was KAQ-1

Alaska Class ships, built as "large cruisers" or "B type cruisers" - were candidates for conversion to AA ships and command ships. Stripped of their heavy guns, they would mount 18 of the new 5 inch 54s - 3 twins forward - two on each beam - two more aft. It is this form of the ship which can be upgraded to a missile cruiser. The after mountings are replaced with JB-2 Loon launchers. The beam mountings are replaced
with Loon launchers. Not shown in the original design, I restored the after superfiring 5 inch position because there is no coverage by more than 40mm otherwise, an oversight I am pretty sure would have been addressed if the ship had been proceeded with (since the magazine and mounting position were already present). Unlike the first generation T missile programs, the WWII era design contemplated only single arm launchers - and because each missile had to be controlled by an operator - this makes some sense. The XGM-1 project, using prototype Taylos missiles, was utterly impractical, with reloading estimated to take as much as 8 hours! Substituting the simple Lark was the only reasonable wartime possibility.

The Iowa conversion is far less radical and produces a far more reasonable combination of ship features - except for the special case of amphibious flagship (a task for which battleships and cruisers heavy guns rendered them less than ideal).
With no need for the SSM mountings, the SAMs simply replace two of the five side mounts of 5in/38s. The other 3 are upgraded to 5in/54s - producing about the same weight of metal on aircraft - at greater range and altitude than the 5in/38s did. But to get this conversion, at a critical stage in a long war, one must take an Iowa out of service at a size 49 shipyard for 90 days: a nicely agonizing tradeoff.

[Natali]

You wrote the sea story somewhere else, but didn’t respond to my mention of Travis Taylor and moved your story. I’m sorry if you have a problem with Dr Taylor he does take his redneck persona a bit far.

I did my Masters Thesis on extremely high altitude pulse-jet engine combustion/deflagration/detonation physics and owe a debt of gratitude to the early pioneers, like Karavodin, Gosslau, Schmidt, et al.

I haven’t worked for Boeing, but have worked for subcontractors. I know the players pretty well. You must know Gerry Randolph, because he was the project manager for the original LRBM and then there was Chris Joyce who you may have known as Rocketman.

People like us need to stick together. A good friend is taking me to Huntsville in December and it would be nice to pass on your hellos to the NASA folks.

Please send me a pm with your info. Thanks.

[el cid again]

To tell the truth, I do not have a good memory for names. I cannot immediately recall a single name from the era - more than 30 years ago -
with the exception of those who remain in contact with me. However, Travis Taylor is pretty famous, and I don't think he was associated with
either the NASA or the USAF SIL labs at the Spaceflight Center. He may have visited, but I don't think we had anyone of his stature as a
resident (assigned there). [The NASA activity there was the IUS - or Inertial Upper Stage - a booster for satellites launched from the
Space Shuttle] The SILs "test fly" things which don't exist yet - or if they do - in modified forms which don't exist yet. They are the reason
it almost never happens a plane or missile does not work - something that used to be common. They take physical parts of the bird that
cause it to maneuver - connect them to the actual guidance system - and then pretend to "fly" - measuring what the creation does as it
goes through the mission. Computers use the measurements to calculate the effects on the "flight" - so even a "fatal" maneuver is only
a matter of what happens in the software - not a real event. Yet the physical part of the system is very real - the part which will eventually
fly for real - so you are really finding out what happens in any flight regime you care to test. It is more boreing than exciting, and does not
attract the more important people. Unless something goes dreadfully wrong. [Nothing like threatening the existence of a big funding program
to get interest from all and sundry. For example, we determined that an ALCM, which only looks strait down using a radio altimeter, was too
dumb to avoid a building or hill - a problem severe enough that the program was terminated in favor of a later missile.]

[Natali]

Didn’t know Dr Taylor worked for Boeing. Know from his books and papers he is still with NASA and has done tons of projects for “other” people. I like him because of attitude and because he pays a lot of attention to propulsion systems. Know from my (very limited) work in the field that there aren't many folks in the field, and everybody knows and works with everybody else.

I really like his rocket redneck show because he puts it in the face of the intellectuals sayin just cause somebody talks like a hick doesn’t mean they are stupid. Being a hick from the desert I can appreciate that. He talks to the hicks too and says a lot of rocket science isn’t really rocket science and here’s some cool things you can do with stuff out of your shed or from the junkyard. Lots of hicks and rednecks out there realizing that they can play in the big leagues too.

He showed how to build a sounding rocket fueled by shine, and how to make a gun tracking system out of two blenders, a webcam and a laptop. I totally love the watermelon onager they built out of scrap lumber and !!panty hose!!

I was working for Rocketdyne (United technologies) at the time and was writing firmware for the combustion mechanism. Totally boring but I got to go to some of the Program meetings and see some wicked cool stuff. Surprised you don't remember Chris Joyce. He was the front man for the whole project. He would always put all of us in stitches with his unique and eccentric perspective. Anyone who ever had a presentation from Dr Joyce would never forget it. He was so fundamentally sound and dynamic in his presentation that I can still remember almost paragraphs of some of his presentations.

Maybe you just worked on the line, and didn't get to the briefings. I assumed from your text that you were part of the community. Sorry If I caused you any pain and sincerely apologize for any embarrasment caused.

Going back East to see relatives and stopping in Chatanooga for the battlefields. My bud is going to take me down to Huntsville so I can see Rocket City. It would be prime beyond belief if I could actually meet or even see Dr Taylor. Not much hope of that but hope always springs eternal.

Regards. Sam

[TulliusDetritus]

Hey El Cid [:)]

You're doing a RHS for this AE thing?

I really enjoyed your RHS in the past.

So no matter the many vitriol you were forced to swallow on these boards (not from me that's for sure; some people don't have anything better to do than abusing people on the internets LOL) good luck and fair winds [8D]

[el cid again]

I think perhaps you don't appreciate how old I am, or when I was working in that area? Dr Taylor was born while I was in Viet Nam, and is a
generation younger than I am. So work by such a person pretty much was after my day in the area. I moved to Alaska in 1988. And this stuff
is not on topic re RHS mods.

ORIGINAL: Natali

Didn’t know Dr Taylor worked for Boeing. Know from his books and papers he is still with NASA and has done tons of projects for “other” people. I like him because of attitude and because he pays a lot of attention to propulsion systems. Know from my (very limited) work in the field that there aren't many folks in the field, and everybody knows and works with everybody else.

I really like his rocket redneck show because he puts it in the face of the intellectuals sayin just cause somebody talks like a hick doesn’t mean they are stupid. Being a hick from the desert I can appreciate that. He talks to the hicks too and says a lot of rocket science isn’t really rocket science and here’s some cool things you can do with stuff out of your shed or from the junkyard. Lots of hicks and rednecks out there realizing that they can play in the big leagues too.

He showed how to build a sounding rocket fueled by shine, and how to make a gun tracking system out of two blenders, a webcam and a laptop. I totally love the watermelon onager they built out of scrap lumber and !!panty hose!!

I was working for Rocketdyne (United technologies) at the time and was writing firmware for the combustion mechanism. Totally boring but I got to go to some of the Program meetings and see some wicked cool stuff. Surprised you don't remember Chris Joyce. He was the front man for the whole project. He would always put all of us in stitches with his unique and eccentric perspective. Anyone who ever had a presentation from Dr Joyce would never forget it. He was so fundamentally sound and dynamic in his presentation that I can still remember almost paragraphs of some of his presentations.

Maybe you just worked on the line, and didn't get to the briefings. I assumed from your text that you were part of the community. Sorry If I caused you any pain and sincerely apologize for any embarrasment caused.

Going back East to see relatives and stopping in Chatanooga for the battlefields. My bud is going to take me down to Huntsville so I can see Rocket City. It would be prime beyond belief if I could actually meet or even see Dr Taylor. Not much hope of that but hope always springs eternal.

Regards. Sam

[Natali]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
I think perhaps you don't appreciate how old I am, or when I was working in that area? Dr Taylor was born while I was in Viet Nam, and is a
generation younger than I am. So work by such a person pretty much was after my day in the area. I moved to Alaska in 1988. And this stuff
is not on topic re RHS mods.

Sure I appreciate how old you are. My uncle (now deceased) was a WW-2 vet and my Dad was in Korea. I may be a generation short, but I grew up on the laps of giants and remember every word and have picture books from them. My Dad has supported me since forever and he is a HUGE fan of Dr Taylor. A Rocket Scientist redneck that proves rocket science isn't really rocket science is just his cup of tea.

People who work in this field know who was, who is, and who will or who might be. And of course it's not OT because it's real and the people actually exist today. That is, of course, unless you and your mod are are just wargamer bogus. Hesitate to think that, but anytime I put a reality name out there, you duck away. Been warned away from you by many people. Beginning to understand why, but am still curious as to your curriculum vitae.

You post pages of Internet information, in support of your personal mod, much of which is known to be suspect. You make claims to personal knowledge that you won't verify (you are too old to remember), so what are we to believe? If you are a true and serious modder, why can't you be honest with the reast of us like we are with you? Just who and what are you anyway?

You got issues with that, send me a pm. And poop on the forum people who don't like pms.

Regards. Sam

[el cid again]

I have decided not to issue the update today as planned because, yesterday,
I did the US Chair for Mifune in Test 6A2. I was astonished at how few ACM
there are - and realized most places that need them were serviced by the US
Army. I then realized these vessels are not normally listed in naval reference books
(never mind the US Army operated the biggest military fleet of all time in WWII) and
that I have one of the rare exceptions - devoted entirely to US Army Ships and Watercraft (its title). So I will add these vessels - for the benefit of new games - it won't help the present one (unless I find the vessels present but misdefined).

The "Japanese naval radar review and upgrade" is over. As well, all warships that should carry troops, but didn't, have been reviewed (a vastly bigger review, covering
all nations on both sides). As well, Japanese land units with radar have been revised
because some were affected by the changes to the radar or the addition of two new types. Along the way, many ship upgrades or conversions got modified - particularly in scenario 105 - partly because radar is a later in the war matter for Japan - and as long as I was there - I might as well integrate the best information possible. Much eratta was discovered and fixed as well.

The last thing done was a review of the fuel/oil situation for the Allies. Tests indicate our "hydro power" theory works well. I realized yesterday that would solve a fairly difficult problem the Allies have in the Pacific Northwest and in Canada - the inability of the rail system to import enough oil so refineries can make enough fuel to run both industry and support major fleet operations. I was concerned about later in the game, when there is even more industry and even more ships to support. And I realized our "hydro power" theory would solve the problem. So the entire Columbia River system of dams was reviewed, as well as lesser dams on the river system (Walamet) by Portland - another pair by Vancouver BC - Shasta near Redding California - and Grand Coulee (and another big dam) by Las Vegas. The upper Columbia has dams in Canada. The biggest - on the US border - is at Castelgar - which was added as a dot location. It is also the site of a major RR bridge - but map art makes this bridge be in US territory - and since the hex is on a major road system - it will properly link for economic purposes. At the same time, I added lesser dams near Nelson.

Nelson is a problem, however. It was reduced to a dot location - no airfield was built during the war. And so there is no base force - so the RCMP Nelson Base Force (from stock) was removed. However, it is a source of resources and "power" (which we model with fuel - because it is used by industry).

Another addition was the abandoned copper mine and hydro site - long the most efficient in Canada - called Anyox. This has the note (dormant) to indicate it isn't in use. Anyox is a port, a fine deepwater port, between Prince Rupert and Ramree Island. If both Anyox and Ramree are built to level 3 ports, resources from Ketchekan as well as both of them will link to Prince Rupert - and supplies can flow the other direction - automatically. I grew up near a copper mine reopened for WWII - so I know it is an option to do that (in this case, Anyox was stripped of equipment for use other places during the war). Since the dam is being rebuilt RIGHT NOW, the idea it could be rebuild (it closed in 1935) is not unrealistic. So the location joins Kennicot - which is a similar copper mine totally abandoned in Alaska, but which can be repaired back into service if a player wants. Kennicot has a RR - in the pwhex file (viable until the 1962 earthquake). Anyox also had a RR - but if the port is built - it isn't needed - and it was a low efficiency RR that could not use rolling stock from the Canadian main line - so the port local traffic is good enough to model it.

Otherwise, I greatly expanded the refinery at Abadan - the world's largest then and, in fact, to this day (apparently supporting hundreds of thousands of workers, and their families and service industries). Panama and San Diego, and the US East Coast - also got some revisions related to oil supply. And Bakersfield turns out to be the biggest oilfield in the USA (I thought that would be in Texas) - so it got expanded in terms of oil wells. [I was astonished to learn of wells producing 10-30 bbl/day being the norm - even now. We consider 1000 bbl/day without a pump so poor we shut it down in Alaska!]

This update should issue tomorrow and will freeze development, so there will be more time for testing.

[el cid again]

I regret to report that there were significant numbers of ACMs in the stock data set -
9 at game start and 12 entering the game early in 1942. Unfortunately, not one
of the 9 were even built in 1941, and 8 were not in USN service under the listed names
before late 1944, most in 1945 - by which time there were no longer doing ACM type duty. And not one of the 12 are ACM at all - but rather motor minesweepers misclassified. Re this, see the nominal class leader (the stock class is named for her at least):


Online Library of Selected Images:
-- U.S. NAVY SHIPS --
USS YMS-346 (1943-1948)
USS YMS-346, a 245-ton auxiliary motor minesweeper built at Jacksonville, Florida, was commissioned in August 1943. She crossed the Atlantic late in the year and spent all of 1944 operating in the English Channel area. After returning to the U.S. in early 1945, the minesweeper went to the Pacific in mid-year, then voyaged onward to Okinawa, where she arrived well after Japan's surrender. She served briefly in Japanese and Philippine waters before being placed out of commission at the beginning of May 1946. YMS-346 was stricken from the Navy register in June 1946. Though considered for transfer to China, this was not carried out and she was sold in October 1948.

This page features our only view of USS YMS-346.


So all 12 were reclassified as YMS. Since they might be able to preform minefield tending duties, I reversed the conversion option between the ACM and YMS versions - and a player who wants more ACM and thinks these are suitable may convert them. But not before any YMS were built - which is to say - before March 1942. So every one had to be delayed in service. None appear where stock has them - all come from the East Coast - and must transit to the PTO. And they are all vastly too big. Class slots 788 & 789 should have a size of 245 tons, and a date of 4/42. All the vessels (slots 9966 to 9977) should be rated as YMS (that is, class 789) vice ACM (slot 788).
All 12 need later dates of appearance and to appear at Eastern USA. Alder no sooner than 1 February 1945 (since she was in ETO until "early 1944") and none of the others before any of the class were built - surely not before April 1942. That said, there were hundreds of MMS, and more might be added. Many had numbers without names. None of these vessels were ACM at all - although I am permitting conversion to that if a player wants AND believes it is reasonable. So adding more is a question of do you want more minesweepers, not ACM.


The 9 listed at game start fall into two categories. One is a special case, an actual USN vessel when built (and probably not a ACM), so it will be treated separately below. The rest were all former Army "mine planters" - and they are the wartime built class - none of them extant when the war began. The listed vessels are all instances where they eventually entered USN - AFTER the Army gave up the mission - and none of those which remained in the Army are listed at all. Similarly, none of the pre war Army mine planters got listed. And all of the 8 that are listed have the wrong name for 1941.

These ships - even if no others are - need to be classified as US Army and assigned to Army commands. They are NOT similar to USN minelayers - even though they "plant" mines. They do NOT serve under naval command efficiently and have a specialized mission no naval vessels can perform efficiently. Army controlled mines are a wholly different weapon system from naval mines, which are not controlled and not "planted" with precision at a known location - a process that takes many hours per mine - or even days (because, besides determining the location, electric cables need to be laid for sensors and control purposes, not mooring purposes).

The Army Class involved should be formally named M-1 - because that is its name. Both class slots 781 and 782 should be renamed, and resized to 1256. There were never any 20 mm guns - so these should be removed. The names should be Army names. I added the Army number (MP-1 etc) and a Navy number (ACM-1) if space allowed and if it eventually went to the Navy. Only those with ACM numbers should ever be allowed to be assigned to naval commands IMHO. However, three more may be added (use slots 9988-90 right after the others to make em easy to find):

Col H Spurgin MP-16

Gen S M Mills MP-7

Gen H L Abbott MP-1

None of these vessels were built in 1941, so all need delayed dates between 2/42 and 12/42. Slot 9979 is 420215. Slot 9981 is 421215. Other dates are not in the Army reference material immediately to hand.

The Army names by slot are

9979 Col Armistead MP-2

9980 Col Hunt MP-4/ACM-6

9981 1LT Sylvester MP-5

9982 Gen Knox MP-6/ACM-8

9983 A Murray MP-8/ACM-9

9984 - Different class (see below)

9985 Riker MP-15/ACM-2

9986 C Bundy MP-14/ACM-1

9987 Jn Story MP-4/ACM-3

There ARE Army mine planters in theater at the start of the game, but all require adding new classes. I used slots 822, 823 and 824 (with 821 being used by the Navy Butress class, described below). These classes are generally identified by the year they were designed - 1909, 1919 and 1937. 1937 is the prototype for the M-1 deiign of 1942, so it is almost the same. There was only one ship -

LtC Ellery W Niles - and she starts at San Francisco. The ship has diesel electric engines and is very range efficient - if you use only one (of three) generator sets you can get 6400 miles at 8 knots. If you use all three, you make the same 12 knots as the 1942 design. But this vessel mounts a 3 inch gun forward instead of a single 40 mm. Because of its range superiority, in Scenario 105, I had the 1942 class built to 1937 specifications. In strictly historical scenarios, Niles is the only ship in the class. Displacement is 1235 tons. The mine count is the same as M-1 = 20.

There is one 1919 class ship in the Philippines, at Cavete = Bataan hex. She is Col F E Harrison. Two others are at Panama and a fourth never enters PTO. This class is fairly similar to the M-1/1942 class. Max speed is 11 knots, range 4500 nm, and instead of the 40 mm forward there is only a .50 AAMG - or nothing at all. The mine count is 18. These two are Gen Wm M Graham and Gen J Franklin Bell. At least one should remain at Panama, but the reason there are two may be so one can go to either Atlantic or Pacific at need. I put both in to give players control over the deployment, but the primary RHS rule - if you don't think it would be done, don't do it - may well apply to one or both.

The 1909 class only has BGen Royal T Frank in the Pacific - at Hawaii - and she is an early war loss. Note that all 1909 and 1919 ships names were repeated in the 1942 series - but can be distinguished in RHS because the early vessels lack MP numbers (which, in fact, they didn't have). This is a much smaller class, 282 tons, durability 2, 10 knots, cruise 8 knots and endurance 4000 nm with 60 tons of fuel. They are unarmed or have a single HMG. There are also two Light Mine Planters on the map, and I rate them as identical to the 1909 for convenience, and they are almost the same except slightly smaller. These are Neptune AMPS (Army Mine Planter Service) at Manila and Randol AMPS at Portland. The mine count is 10.

There is one additional vessel, actually listed, and the only ACM with its correct name when it appears on the map in the stock list. This is USS Buttress, ACM-4, former PCE-878. I used class slot 821. Max speed 15, cruise 12, endurance 4000, durability 4, tonnage 903, mine count 15. It may not actually have been an ACM - and its date needs to be changed to 440313 (or later - that is commissioning) at Portland. She is a fine ship, with a 3 inch forward, a quad 40 right aft, and a supermounted twin also aft facing. This class can be converted from class slot 759 - which needs to have its tonnage increased to 795 and durability increased to 3. [So does slot 760] These are the PC-461 classes - which I renamed PCE-461 after historical USN usage. The ability to convert these PCEs into ACMs, and also the YMS described at the top of this article - at least mean the Allies have the option to get more ACMs by conversion if the player wants them.