RHS 4.14 [Eratta; Chinese Army planning]

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

MLEES: My FAA book - a very expensive and comprehensive one - British Naval Aircraft Since 1912 - shows 801 Squadron operating Seafires with three assignments - but never in PTO and only once on a carrier not in PTO. Now FAA is a nightmare - units shifted around a great deal. But I have removed the unit from play altogether because my best scholarly source indicates it should never have been in the game at all. IF FAA was easy I would just say that is the end of that: but it is so confusing I believe even a British naval academic might make a mistake. But I certainly need some idea why he made a mistake? I am NOT changing this - nor inclined to change ANY air groups at this point - because it is time to freeze and issue 2.60. However, I will look at what you think you have if you can find it specifically.

So what Seafire Squadron have you allocated to Implacable?

[mlees]

Ok. At home now. My memory served well enough, in regards to what I thought I read, at this point.

My book, Birtish and Empire Warships of the Second World War, is not an operational history of the RN, but more of a design history/study.

For example, it does not mention when HMS Implacable deployed to the Far East. But it does mention, which squadrons were assigned to it, from page 127:

Implacable
10/44 801 Sqdn 10 Seafire FIII/828 Sqdn 12 Barracuda II/841 Sqdn 12 Barracuda II    (amalgamated with 828 Sqdn 11/44)/880 Sqdn 12 Seafire LIII/887 Sqdn 12 Seafire FIII/894 Sqdn 10 Seafire FIII/1771 Sqdn 12 Firefly I

6/45 801 Sqdn 24 Seafire LIII/828 Sqdn 21 Avenger II/880 Sqdn 24 Seafire LIII & FRIII/1771 Sqdn 11 Firefly I

7/45 1771 Sqdn 12 Firefly I

For 801 Sqdn, page 130:

801 Sqn
9/39 9 Skua; 4/40 9 Skua + 3 Roc; 6/40 6 Skua; 9/40 9 Skua; 3/42 12 Sea Hurricane; 8/42 12 Sea Hurricane + 4 spare; 8/42 disbanded; 9/42 reformed; 11/42 ? Seafire; 2/43 9 Seafire; 4/44 6 Seafire Ib; 8/44 12 Seafire FIII; 6/45 24 Seafire LIII (38 Naval Fighter Wing); 6/46 disbanded

I noted that the 801 Sqdn also appears to have served on the Furious from 9/39 to sometime after 7/40, and from 11/42 to 8/44. It served on the Eagle from 2/42 to 8/42. (Eagle was sunk by Uboat on 8/11/42, and thats why the sqdn was disbanded and reformed...)

To get that last info, I have to eyeball the ship entries (like the one given for the Implacable, above), and hope I pick out the name of the sqdn from the cluttered manner the info is presented.

[el cid again]

The matter of 801 squadron is academic: we cannot change units once a ship enters PTO - and Implaccable has a full suite of squadrons. Should have though of that before. I don't know if 801 squadron made it a few days before the end of the war or not - but it does not count if it only made it by getting on a ship in leiu of another unit already there. We often have to make this sort of compromise in this model. In this case 887 squadron is operating Seafires and the ship has them from May when it enters the theater.
 
This said, I believe there are MANY errors in FAA data - mine and everyone elses - and I don't think there is any chance of getting it all right.  I focused on the big carriers - and a unit that left them in favor of a CVE or just shows up on the big ship - and I put some other unit on the CVEs.  Frankly the CVEs are a big problem too, and not just in RN.  I found more than a few US CVEs with air groups that never had any - enough to fill the "missing" Essex ships more than three times!  I found CVEs in the CHS list which were not PTO.  I found ships which are missing from the list.  All these things I corrected - but I am certain that I got wrong squadrons on CVEs - and lack the time to fix it now.  I figure it does not matter much WHICH squadron was there - but if it gets brought to my attention I will gladly use the data. 

In the case of FAA, I followed partially a lot of work submitted by someone this board.  Otherwise, I followed the RN book I have, and also two books on carriers - one of them exclusively British Carriers.  What is clear is that FAA moved units, reformed units, and otherwise made a very confusing to untangle record.

[el cid again]

It appears CHS wrongly assigned 6 pounders wholesale in KNIL units.
These I am replacing with a limited issue (it won't make more) 47mm
weapon - in a new slot - its old one now has a US 37mm - in case I find it is used. I am sure I have a picture of Philippine Scouts training on it. But just what units? There is that PP AT battalion - I wonder what they gave it?

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

It appears CHS wrongly assigned 6 pounders wholesale in KNIL units.
These I am replacing with a limited issue (it won't make more) 47mm
weapon - in a new slot - its old one now has a US 37mm - in case I find it is used. I am sure I have a picture of Philippine Scouts training on it. But just what units? There is that PP AT battalion - I wonder what they gave it?

What I do not understand is why you need to create a slot for the 37mm atg? It has been present in the device file since the game published. It is the standard US Army and Marine atg.

[Nomad]

I really hope that all of the RHS and CHS senarios have the dates imbedded in the name for things that upgrade. In the stock things like USA Infantry Squad had the same name for all of the different upgrades. It made it hard to know why certain units would not recombine.

[el cid again]

This unit is now completely revised to include heavy weapons including tanks and amtraks. It arrives at Colon Panama in January 1945 - where it will remain unless a player provides the shipping to move it forward.

[el cid again]

I am not able to create Blackforce at this time.

I need to know to what extent it duplicates other units?

Where it formed up?

When it formed up?

I found Australian documents indicating elements moved in from the Middle East - without heavy equipment! It appears this is an ad hoc unit and it forms on Java itself - but are other things it formed from ALSO in the game? We cannot be duplicating units. So I would subtract the elements already present (or kill the unit). Maybe we just make the 2 battalions appear at Aden and the Allies ship them in - or not? I have a nice article on a US Army firefight apparently part of this units' history. It is a dismal story of too little too late.

[Herrbear]

I have looked at a lot of the US/Allied CVEs and they do not show any organic air unit attached nor a VR type squadron for replacements.

Will this cause a problem? Can these be used operationally or are they only good for transporting air groups?

The Dutch T-IVa is listed as a torpedo plane type. Since this is a float plane, don't you lose the ablility to work off of coastal squares with tenders by labeling it a "torpedo" plane type?

[mlees]

The matter of 801 squadron is academic: we cannot change units once a ship enters PTO - and Implaccable has a full suite of squadrons. Should have though of that before. I don't know if 801 squadron made it a few days before the end of the war or not - but it does not count if it only made it by getting on a ship in leiu of another unit already there.

Judging from the commissioning date of Implacable, and the date (10/44) of 801 Sqdn being on board at the same time, I would say 801 Sqdn are "plankowners". But I concede your points.

(As I understand them:)

1) There are only four (or five?) coded slots allowed per CV. My entry for Implacable 10/44 shows 7 discrete FAA units onboard upon commissioning.

2) Units must remain onboard the CV they start the scenario on.

3) Finite number of slots for discrete ships, air units, and land units.

Therefore, judgement calls will have to be made.

I do not envy the task you set out for yourselves. I get to just sit back and wait for a groomed product. [:'(]

[witpqs]

Sid,

A few notes.

The graphic for the Mohawk IV/P-36 shows what looks to be a B-26 carrying a torpedo externally. Admittedly it would toast any enemy airplane it connected with!

The graphic for the Prince of Wales shows some other, older design BB (Main gun mounts 2 x forward, 1 x center, and 2 x aft instead of 2 x forward and 1 x aft).

The Dutch bomber squadrons are required to upgrade to the British B-25 (Mitchell III/B-25, I think). This has a low production rate. Given the British need for war materials, is it realistic that the UK would have been providing airframes for salvaged Dutch units, or would they really have come from the USA? I suggest allowing the Dutch bomber groups to upgrade to the US line of B-25's.

The replacement rate for the British and Australian version of the C-47 is about 4 or 5 per month (I forget). Ops losses from just the 8 suaqdrons (4 of each country) deployed by 7/42 exceed this. I want the real deal, so if the replacement rate is correct then that's what it is. But, would it be realistic to allow the Aussie squadrons to upgrade to the US version? Would that have been done, considering the US aid to Australia (P-40's and all)? Just a thought.

Ditto for the Dutch transport squadrons. Would they really have been expected to draw on UK stocks of airframes, or would the USA have supplied them?

And, great job - things are really coming together!

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I am not able to create Blackforce at this time.

I need to know to what extent it duplicates other units?

Where it formed up?

When it formed up?

I found Australian documents indicating elements moved in from the Middle East - without heavy equipment! It appears this is an ad hoc unit and it forms on Java itself - but are other things it formed from ALSO in the game? We cannot be duplicating units. So I would subtract the elements already present (or kill the unit). Maybe we just make the 2 battalions appear at Aden and the Allies ship them in - or not? I have a nice article on a US Army firefight apparently part of this units' history. It is a dismal story of too little too late.

To be able to recreate "BlackForce" you would have to include the Pioneer & MG Bns which while they were Corps troops, basically became organic to the 6,7,8 & 9 Divs. Are they included in the Div TO&E, if so you'll have to deduct them to solve the riddle, if not part of the TO&E, you have a couple more missing units. In addition "BlackForce included some unattached reinforcements, just an ad-hoc unit.

[el cid again]

WITPQS

EDIT: Cobra says the art is right on our end: download and install in the art directory and it should work.

you get faster art service if you tell Cobra - he is de facto art tzar for RHS and he is very good at getting things resolved -

either you have the wrong panels or the panels need revisions - and he can tell 'faster than right now' (almost)

The Dutch DID use British and Aussie support and planes - which is why it is set that way. That is why you see them that way.

CHS had the Dakota rate set at 30. 1900 were supplied under Lend Lease. This corresponds to 45 per month if all were supplied during the Pacific War period (probably not true - which means the real average is smaller). The idea 2/3 of these went to PTO is silly. But what the real rate should be is hard to say? One problem is that our theater touches more than one UK theater - and if we give a Mideast plane to the gamers - it will never fly in (say) Egypt! Yet we do that for fighters and bombers quite a bit (the only way I can justify the CHS OB is to assume "mideast" counts as part of PTO). Still - 4 seems too low. What if we make it 25% = 11?

[el cid again]

MLEES:

would it be more pleasing if we renamed 887 squadron 801 squadron?

The seafires are in play either way. Machts nichts re practical effect.

801 is a unit with a long history. I know it from the Falklands. I am

willing to differ from my published data on this point - in honor of the

fact it seems to have been able to get on board Implaccable from time to

time.

Edit: This proposal is now executed for 2.60 (or 2.597, whichever is next).

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Herrbear


I have looked at a lot of the US/Allied CVEs and they do not show any organic air unit attached nor a VR type squadron for replacements.

Will this cause a problem? Can these be used operationally or are they only good for transporting air groups?

The Dutch T-IVa is listed as a torpedo plane type. Since this is a float plane, don't you lose the ablility to work off of coastal squares with tenders by labeling it a "torpedo" plane type?

To begin at the end, this is the CHS classification. A lot of work was done on the Dutch - and for some reason that judgement was made. We might get someone to tell us why - but I don't know the plane. If she is a float plane, I am willing to so classify it.

To end at the beginning, I don't care if it is a problem or not. My instructions were "get the data right" and there is a second part I should not quote (but you would like it if I did). I think you can put any carrier capable plane on a CVE and get it to work with higher attrition. I think you can get certain types of other planes to ferry on one too - even to fly off - so the manual says. I hope these things work as I am told. I have not tried it. But these ships were ferries - and should not have groups since they didn't have them. I looked up every last one - because I found I could not trust CHS to not assign an air group to such a ship. Turned out they didn't even have all the ships right - and all of them show up early - they sail ready for war on the day they commission! I took out ships never PTO, added in ship not given to us before, and took out air groups not present. Carriers matter - so I spent a lot of effort on them.

[el cid again]

OL Dog:

The B-29 was not intended to carry 20,000 pounds of bombs to normal range - that was its maximum load. However, it could carry that much internally - and as far as I know it never carried any externally. The B-24 may also not have carried external bombs. I know as a transport its max load was also 8800 pounds - which seems odd if it could carry more.
I have a book on the B-24 - from a production point of view (in fact listing every build number and serial number - and their fate). It may be quite true that I am using only internal data for these planes - and so far as I know there is no other data to include. Some planes ONLY have eternal weapons, some only internal, some both, and some sort of half-half (semirecessed torpedos on Nells come to mind). Max load remains max load. Now - if you want to say that we should NOT count external loads for heavy bombers - that might make some sense - and make the data a bit more consistent. It would not change the range or the normal (or extended) loads either. Its only present impact would be to allow the plane to operate from a smaller airfield. Eventually I hope max load is an optional mission - at short range of course - then it would hurth the planes so defined.

I found some data supporting reducing the loads of earlier B-17s. I think the last of these - and the later B-24 - should still have their maximum loads - because many references support that as being possible.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

WITPQS

you get faster art service if you tell Cobra - he is de facto art tzar for RHS and he is very good at getting things resolved -

either you have the wrong panels or the panels need revisions - and he can tell 'faster than right now' (almost)

The Dutch DID use British and Aussie support and planes - which is why it is set that way. That is why you see them that way.

CHS had the Dakota rate set at 30. 1900 were supplied under Lend Lease. This corresponds to 45 per month if all were supplied during the Pacific War period (probably not true - which means the real average is smaller). The idea 2/3 of these went to PTO is silly. But what the real rate should be is hard to say? One problem is that our theater touches more than one UK theater - and if we give a Mideast plane to the gamers - it will never fly in (say) Egypt! Yet we do that for fighters and bombers quite a bit (the only way I can justify the CHS OB is to assume "mideast" counts as part of PTO). Still - 4 seems too low. What if we make it 25% = 11?

Am in contact with Cobra re the art - thanks.

What you propose - taking some percentage of the mideast allocation of Dakotas - makes sense. 11 sounds fine to me. But, maybe someone else (who knows more about the theater) could give you a better-qualified second opinion than I can.

Regarding the Dutch bomber squadrons, I think what they used IRL must be looked at in the context of how many squadrons were actually salvaged? For example, if in real life most were salvaged and they were stuck waiting for UK allocations to build up (looks like maybe a 1944 proposition!), then so be it.

On the other hand, if only a couple of Dutch squadrons were salvaged, the way that was handled in real life may be more representative of 'history' than of 'historical capability'. The point being if more squadrons were salvaged they might have swung over to using USA equipment due to its availability.

If my proposal on Dutch bomber squadrons makes sense, it all depends on how many Dutch bomber squadrons were salvaged in real life:

a) If many were salvaged, then real life is an accurate guide to their handling and things should stay as they are.

b) If only a couple were salvaged, then things might well have been handled differently and we should consider allowing USA equipment.

Anybody have any idea how many Dutch bomber squdrons were salvaged in real life?

[witpqs]

The USN AO Kankakee arrives at San Francisco (in late July '42 I think) with Endurance of '-11072'. When formed into a TF and replenished it increases to '100'. Don't know the slot number (how do you see the slot number on ships anyway?).

[Jo van der Pluym]

Comments about NEI Korps Insulade.

1. It must be Korps Insulinde. And it was not a NEI unit. Because 80 to 85% arrives from Europe.

2. There first Commander is Maj. Mollinger F.

3. They where all from medio march in training in Camp D by Colombo Ceylon. The unit is formed and battleready from 1 augustus 1942.

4. They had never mortars.

5. And the HQ must be UK South East Asia. ABDA had all surrend

[el cid again]

It appears about 4 Dutch squadrons served in RAF and RAAF after something like a "salvage" operation. We have about 3 of them - only one a bomber unit - one a transport unit - and presumably the other one is a fighter unit.

I can do this both ways - and in PPO I am inclined to swing it the way you propose - and then players can choose "exact history" or "possible history" - in keeping with the RHS philosophy.