RHS 5, 6 & 7 .760 Economic Utilities uploaded

[witpqs]

Sid,

In EOS (maybe others too), the M8 Scout Car (Slot 513) upgrades to the T-34/76 Tank (slot 497).

It gives the US infantry divisions a nice boost! [:D]

[el cid again]

Now you know - I am a secret AFB.


Actually - this is a classical editor induced error.

[witpqs]

Squadrons

USN 2/VO-3 (Slot 2050)

and

USN 3/VO-3 (Slot 2051)

are both on board BB Mississippi. One of them should be on board BB Idaho (which has none).

[el cid again]

A typical one value shift - decriment by one to get Idaho. Got it.

[witpqs]

The Narwhal class subs begin without radar, get radar during an upgrade, then lose it during a later upgrade.

12/41 Slot 330 - no radar
04/42 Slot 1347 - no radar
10/42 Slot 1348 - has radar
04/43 Slot 1349 - no radar <---- Takes away radar gained in previous upgrade.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

The Narwhal class subs begin without radar, get radar during an upgrade, then lose it during a later upgrade.

12/41 Slot 330 - no radar
04/42 Slot 1347 - no radar
10/42 Slot 1348 - has radar
04/43 Slot 1349 - no radar <---- Takes away radar gained in previous upgrade.

A whole lot worse than that - the final upgrade somehow adds two sets of torpedo tubes - fore and aft!
This shifted the whole line set downward - onto the radar.

Not one thing about 1349 is an improvement over 1348 - and this upgrade should be done away with.

This is a strange, unique, gigantic submarine. I think she got converted to a transport - if so we can make 1349 into a transport.

Wow - she was used as a transport - but unlike USS Argonaut (which she was a modification of sans mine tubes) they didn't rip stuff out. And she DID get two extra sets of torpedo tubes - under the gun decks! All we do is add the radar - and cargo capacity.

She isn't quite unique: there is a sister (Nautelus) at San Francisco. And the Argonaut should be modified to be able to transport even before removal of her mine tubes - to the same capacity as these near sisters. I also found they were missing their .30 cal AAA (in addition to heavier).

[witpqs]

Thanks. I implied both subs by saying 'class', but I should have been more explicit as it was easy to miss that.

Didn't know that about Argonaut.

[witpqs]

The Hurricane IV fighter, which appears in mid-'43, has a max speed of 286. This is so low (both in absolute terms and compared to earlier versions of the Hurricane) that it must be an error.

Perhaps 386 was meant?

[mlees]

Hi. I have been hesitant to play the RHS set, as it seemed to be in a state of flux all the time.

However, since you seem to be wrapping up this endevour and moving on to other projects...

Is there an FAQ or somesuch, that explains all of the different flavors (CVO, AIO, EEO, level 6, level 7, etc), which variants are suitable for single player gaming, which are intended for PBEM, which ones require their special maps, which are compatable with AB's extended maps, artwork compatability, and so on?

Is there a link to a place where the latest and greatest versions of these scenarios can be downloaded?

Thanks for all the hard work, Cid!

[witpqs]

Here is the RHS web site hosted by CobraAus.

Click on the image, then click on the non-flash entrance. You will find a PDF file 'RHS Manual' that should explain all. If you need more help, come back here. [I know you can get around well so these instructions are brief!]

http://www.rhs.akdreemer.com/rhs_home.html

EDIT: I guess it's called 'Handbook' rather than manual.

[mlees]

Thank you, sir. [:)]

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

The Hurricane IV fighter, which appears in mid-'43, has a max speed of 286. This is so low (both in absolute terms and compared to earlier versions of the Hurricane) that it must be an error.

Perhaps 386 was meant?

This is remarkably hard to find. I have sent off a formal inquiry - everyone lists performance for the Hurricane II - not the IV. But it did have a much bigger engine - so I think you are right - whoever entered the data probably had it right and it either was a typo or an editor classic 1 value shift. But the weapons and wing were a lot heavier - so perhaps this data is right. Hopefully I will get a difinitive answer. It appears we used the lower value in determining maneuverability rating.

[Historiker]

As the last model of the Hurricane, the Mk IV came out in 1943 as MK IIE. It was mainly the MK II, with the Merlin-24- oder Merlin-27-engine, 159kg of extra armour and a wing optimized for strafing runs. In the wing where two 7,7mm MGs, moreover there were two 40mm Kanons, two bombs of up to 227kg, two smaller bombs, eight 76mm AG Rockets with 27kg warhead each or two smoke making installations.
It's engine has 1.620PS (1.208kW) compared with 1460PS of the MK II.
It's top speed was at 531 km/h compared with 518km/h Mk II.
Climb rate: 6.095m in 9min,12" compared with 12min,24" MK II
Max Altitude: 9.935m compared with 9.785m MK II
Range: 1464,5km compared with 1448km MK II

I hope I was able to help

[m10bob]

Yep, and Combat Aircraft of the World (W.R.Taylor) gives Hawker Hurri Mk IV with top speed of 340 MPH also.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Yep, and Combat Aircraft of the World (W.R.Taylor) gives Hawker Hurri Mk IV with top speed of 340 MPH also.

531 kmh / 1.609 km/mi = 330 mph

So which do we use?

With this latter we also have ROC data: 1095 m / 9 min = 2,222 feet / minute

Ceiling is lower - at 32,586 feet

I will convert to RHS values.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

As the last model of the Hurricane, the Mk IV came out in 1943 as MK IIE. It was mainly the MK II, with the Merlin-24- oder Merlin-27-engine, 159kg of extra armour and a wing optimized for strafing runs. In the wing where two 7,7mm MGs, moreover there were two 40mm Kanons, two bombs of up to 227kg, two smaller bombs, eight 76mm AG Rockets with 27kg warhead each or two smoke making installations.
It's engine has 1.620PS (1.208kW) compared with 1460PS of the MK II.
It's top speed was at 531 km/h compared with 518km/h Mk II.
Climb rate: 6.095m in 9min,12" compared with 12min,24" MK II
Max Altitude: 9.935m compared with 9.785m MK II
Range: 1464,5km compared with 1448km MK II

I hope I was able to help

It appears the "universal wing" had ALTERNATE armaments - EITHER 2 x 40 mm OR 8 x rockets OR two 500 pound bombs OR two 250 lb bombs OR two drop tanks. In all cases there were two .303 MMG - not on the wing. Since we have no 40 mm guns as devices - we probably should specify rocket and bomb armed variants - and add the drop tanks - since code will use the tanks at extended range but not the bombs.

It also appears the IIC has the same engine as the IV - so the IV - if heavier - may well have been slower. And external loads do slow a fighter considerably. ROC for the IIC was 2750 feet / minute - so it is significantly better than 2222 - an indication performance was degraded in this configuration. It may be our data is correct.

Nope - the IV had an engine with 1/3 more (400 hp) power - but it also was a lot heavier. We need data to figure this out. I need wing loading, powerloading, empty weight, loaded weight, initial ROC, maximum speed, service ceiling.

And it appears the IIC gets drop tanks - and more range.

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
It appears the "universal wing" had ALTERNATE armaments - EITHER 2 x 40 mm OR 8 x rockets OR two 500 pound bombs OR two 250 lb bombs OR two drop tanks. In all cases there were two .303 MMG - not on the wing. Since we have no 40 mm guns as devices - we probably should specify rocket and bomb armed variants - and add the drop tanks - since code will use the tanks at extended range but not the bombs.

That's right!

Empty weight: 2790kg, max. starting weight: 3833kg
MK II: 2586kg, usual starting weight 3493kg, max weight: 3674kg



Something to EOS:
Don't you think, you should raise the replacement rates of the allied aircraft? At least for the aircraft of the first two years.
The Japanese can built without any problems around 600-900 fighters a month and with the high pilot replacement rate, they stay competititve! Compared with that, the allies don't even have any chance, with the actual small replacement rates.

[el cid again]

Hurricane range is going to increase from 9/3/2 to 15/5/3 for both IIb and IV. The IV will pick up maneuverability - cruising speed and maximum speed.

Hurricane IV speed goes to 330 mph with 286 mph cruise - endurance drops to 100 with 50 gal drop tanks -
ROC increases slightly to 2222 - and maneuverability increases significantly to 25.

[el cid again]

These utilities are first turn economic data for strictly historical scenarios for Japan (and all scenarios for the Allies) for their respective levels. Now we have frozen development, these may be expanded. During the tag team game, we will issue similar reports on a daily basis.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

ORIGINAL: el cid again
It appears the "universal wing" had ALTERNATE armaments - EITHER 2 x 40 mm OR 8 x rockets OR two 500 pound bombs OR two 250 lb bombs OR two drop tanks. In all cases there were two .303 MMG - not on the wing. Since we have no 40 mm guns as devices - we probably should specify rocket and bomb armed variants - and add the drop tanks - since code will use the tanks at extended range but not the bombs.

That's right!

Empty weight: 2790kg, max. starting weight: 3833kg
MK II: 2586kg, usual starting weight 3493kg, max weight: 3674kg



Something to EOS:
Don't you think, you should raise the replacement rates of the allied aircraft? At least for the aircraft of the first two years.
The Japanese can built without any problems around 600-900 fighters a month and with the high pilot replacement rate, they stay competititve! Compared with that, the allies don't even have any chance, with the actual small replacement rates.

The replacement rates are not arbitrary. They are based on data. In order to revise them, we need some understanding they are incorrect. They vary case by case - and not a few have been raised in RHS. In many cases, the aircraft are obsolescent - and there is no production at all - just a pool that, when exhausted, means there won't be any more. Yet others have large numbers in pool - and perhaps also good production - but players don't want to use them! Too bad - you have to use what is available - not what you wish were available.

This is a very difficult matter to figure out. For one thing - when we give a plane a production rate - that rate can continue until the end of the war. Often that means far more planes are built than should be built - than were really built. It is a less than ideal way to represent production - and it would be easier to get things right if we could issue a stop production date as well as a start production date. But bye and large, the Allies get fantastic rates - rates the Japanese cannot hope to deal with - although not early on.

A great difficulty is the "invisible planes." Many would say "we give xy% to ETO, 100 - xy % to PTO" - but that isn't right. A major fraction of planes never show up either place. They are used in lots of ways. Training is a big one. Some types of planes are abstracted (SAR planes is a good case pointed out by Mike Wood). NO SAR versions of any plane are in the game - or can be. Some planes are produced on the map - in factories - while others are produced off the map - as replacements - and you must add both together to know the total which will appear? Looking at just one set of numbers - say just at production - will not give you a full sense of what is going to appear. Yet determining what the "missing plane" proportion ought to be is very hard indeed. I have very good data for B-17s and B-24s - every last one by SN - so I did a study - and based the general case on that. But it may be the % is different for different types of planes.
IF data were available AND IF a good analysis were done on it, we might find we could use a different ratio for transports, fighters, seaplanes, or some other category. Nevertheless, what Churchill said remains true: "In the first year, you get (virtually) nothing, in the second year a trickle, in the third year, a flood".

Bear in mind that plane replacement efficiency is absolutely perfect - and wholly misrepresents the front line situation. You cannot get a fighter from factory to front line unit instantly - but in our game you can! To the extent we have problems with low production, they may actually better simulate the low rate of arrival at the front than would be apparent if we had high production. I don't think this is a big problem - it forces players to manage well their valuable assets - and that is more or less right. But we will watch it during human play - and we will consider any good data that is found and studied indicating changes might be appropriate - for the next round of revisions. You will find specific cases where we increased inherited CHS rates - for cause - particularly for non-US aircraft types that are used by many units. Still - you will find the aircraft production rates of the most valuable types is usually less than you would wish for (there are exceptions - see later fighter planes). That feels more right than wrong compared to IRL.