Matrix Games Forums

V3.37 RHS update posted on download link page includes v3.37 PWHEX file

Cobra Aus

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Also tiny points the M4 close support tank has a armour value of 300+ putting it higher than the soviet JS III

This is grossly incorrect, the thickest armor is the gun shield at 178mm.

According to the US Army, there is a lot of sloped armor to defeat mines - both at the front and the bottom of the forward part of the tank. Since this is not standard in reporting nomenclature - it may be it is not listed at all by references which must put something in the standard fields (front, side, turret, Etc)? It appears that frontal armor is the WITP standard - although I think possibly turret armor should be? But I am not at all sure this vehicle was used in PTO - and if we get only one - it should be the most common. I really didn't do land units for the Allies - and only reviewed vehicles to a degree. What vehicle is most representative? And for this vehicle, do you like the 100 mm of CHS better than 330? Does it matter if it had special armor to defeat mines? Perhaps that should NOT count - since shells won't be hitting there?

Mines.. don't they sink ships? The upper hull front of all standard models of M4's was only 64mm (there are a lot of miniature gamers out there who have fought countless battles with Shermans, they would of loved to have had 100mm upper front armor, but in reality it was only 64mm). The lower hull front was around 108mm. The upper hull of the M4A3E2 Jumbo was 100mm and the lower hull was 140mm. Gunshields vary with most less than 90mm. Thus if you use the rule of max armor then from my previous posting the gunshield on the Jumbo being 178mm would be its armor value for the game. For standard Shermans the 108mm lower hull is geberally the thickest. 300mm belly armor sounds abit excessive and VERY heavy. The belly armor was 25mm front and 13mm rear. 254 were received and I beleive all went to Europe, where they were designed for and needed.

I find it hard to believe that the Sherman had 13 Inches of Armour anywhere, certainly no on the belly.
 
Also, should the Armour value be at the thickest point, or a value calculated from front, side & mantle to arrive at an average.
 
100mm seems to be more accurate than 330.

Also what is represented by the M4 Sherman CS-Tank? I think it is simply M4(105), not the Jumbo...

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

There are a lot of miniature gamers out there who have fought countless battles with Shermans, they would of loved to have had 100mm upper front armor, but in reality it was only 64mm.

Not to mention the guys who had to fight for their lives in these things [:'(]

Hi Cid I think you want to have a look at the stockpiled Planes avaiable to the allies at the game start

592 Beaufighter X's seem a little much in 1941! also lots of small numbers of spitfires mustangs Lancasters etc available prior to availability dates

Cheers Hipper

If ALL the engineer tanks in the M4 series of interest went to ETO - WHY is it in our PTO game at all? Is it used in any organization? Should we replace it with a different vehicle? If so, what vehicle?

ORIGINAL: Hipper

Hi Cid I think you want to have a look at the stockpiled Planes avaiable to the allies at the game start

592 Beaufighter X's seem a little much in 1941! also lots of small numbers of spitfires mustangs Lancasters etc available prior to availability dates

Cheers Hipper

Note this is the TOTAL count - there will NEVER be another one!!!
The build rate is zero. It is my tricky way of not allowing the game to build too many. You get all the planes not in units in the pool - and when you run out - you run out. That is, the total number PTO - I do not include those that are ETO - and it is sometimes hard to tell for planes in the mideast - but normally my rule was "if they made it to Aden you get them - if not you don't".

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

Also what is represented by the M4 Sherman CS-Tank? I think it is simply M4(105), not the Jumbo...

I like this concept - although I can demonstrate on technical grounds it is not the vehicle in the statistics. The 105 would have different weapon values - this is apparently a 76mm high velocity - a slight variation on the original weapon. However - maybe we SHOULD go for the 105 tank - and use its weapon and armor values? Were any PTO?

Ah fair enough ..... however there are a few fighters in there available in small numbers before their theoretical availibility date but its not a big issue 
 
Ok Im off to start a game !
 
cheers Hipper  
 
 

Oops one more thing I noticed there is a RAF  base unit in the desert West of aden which I expect is a hangover from CHS   its base force 114 I think
 
 
& one last thing,  There never was A Royal Indian Army or Royal Australian Army   RIA & RAA or even a Royal British Army I believe at the time they just used Indian Army &  Australian Army (or AEF & Militia  till 1943)  
 
(Regiments can be royal,  but the army & Cromwell cut Poor Charles's  head off in 1648 so the army never became royal )  
 
Hipper

ORIGINAL: Hipper

Oops one more thing I noticed there is a RAF  base unit in the desert West of aden which I expect is a hangover from CHS   its base force 114 I think

This is a techincal thing - there was no command assigned - and should have been. Fixed.

& one last thing,  There never was A Royal Indian Army or Royal Australian Army   RIA & RAA or even a Royal British Army I believe at the time they just used Indian Army &  Australian Army (or AEF & Militia  till 1943)  

It is quite true the Royal Army was abolished - unlike the Royal Navy or Royal Air Force. But I believe the Royal is retained by colonial and commonwealth services. For example, it is RIN and RAN - not IN or AN.
However, India is a very special case, and the Indian Army was not part of the British Army - but a separate - and larger - institution (albiet with British officers). I must admit I don't remember its official designation.


(Regiments can be royal,  but the army & Cromwell cut Poor Charles's  head off in 1648 so the army never became royal )  

Hipper

EDIT: OK - here we go - The Indian Army was - well - the Indian Army!
There was also a separate British Army in India! And both Chinese and US units were assigned to the Indian Army during WWII!!

Now Australia is equally complicated - it had TWO armies. There was the AIF (Australian Imperial Force) for duty OUTSIDE the country and the CMF (Citizens Military Force or something like that) for duty INSIDE the country.

Technically we should use AIF or CMF for Australian units - and do I have to GUESS which is in which? - and IA or BAI for UK units in the neighborhood of India. That is a bit of a chore - and again - do I have to GUESS which unit is in which? Or look up every one? For the moment I am inclined to let it go - but if someone gave me a list...

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Hipper

Oops one more thing I noticed there is a RAF base unit in the desert West of aden which I expect is a hangover from CHS its base force 114 I think

This is a techincal thing - there was no command assigned - and should have been. Fixed.

& one last thing, There never was A Royal Indian Army or Royal Australian Army RIA & RAA or even a Royal British Army I believe at the time they just used Indian Army & Australian Army (or AEF & Militia till 1943)

It is quite true the Royal Army was abolished - unlike the Royal Navy or Royal Air Force. But I believe the Royal is retained by colonial and commonwealth services. For example, it is RIN and RAN - not IN or AN.
However, India is a very special case, and the Indian Army was not part of the British Army - but a separate - and larger - institution (albiet with British officers). I must admit I don't remember its official designation.


(Regiments can be royal, but the army & Cromwell cut Poor Charles's head off in 1648 so the army never became royal )

Hipper

EDIT: OK - here we go - The Indian Army was - well - the Indian Army!
There was also a separate British Army in India! And both Chinese and US units were assigned to the Indian Army during WWII!!

Now Australia is equally complicated - it had TWO armies. There was the AIF (Australian Imperial Force) for duty OUTSIDE the country and the CMF (Citizens Military Force or something like that) for duty INSIDE the country.

Technically we should use AIF or CMF for Australian units - and do I have to GUESS which is in which? - and IA or BAI for UK units in the neighborhood of India. That is a bit of a chore - and again - do I have to GUESS which unit is in which? Or look up every one? For the moment I am inclined to let it go - but if someone gave me a list...

British units always remained part of the British Army - the term "British Army in India" was only used to hold British units apart from formations of the Indian Army (the Indian Army was raised and funded by the Indian Government). Even when serving as part of formations of the Indian Army (as many British artillery, armoured, and infantry regiments did) they remained part of the British Army. IA officially stood for Indian Artillery, not for Indian Army. Indian brigades and divisions used the prefix "Indian" (5th Indian Division, 14th Indian Brigade etc.).

And I think that the designations AIF and CMF were only used up to battalion level in official terminology (eventually many CMF battalions served as part of AIF divisions and many AIF battalions served in "CMF" divisions in the PTO).

That would present a conundrum - and in fact the reason we use abbreviations is so compelling it must not in fact be practice. Just as one does not say "Royal Australian Navy" or write it out - particularly when there is not enough space - there must be SOME way to say it or write it briefly - with the meaning "Army of Australia" - as opposed to some other army. One assumes that AA would do fine for our purposes.

I understood that British Army in India did not mean the army was no longer British! [Further, I note with some glee, being really British in ancestry, that it isn't the English Army! We Britons were conquered twice - first by the Anglo-Saxons, then by the Norman-French - and in my case not even the language survived - but some terms did. Cornwall was conquered in 917 and is not even a "principality" like Wales is. The last fluant Cornish speaker died in 1848 - the language having been officially repressed - along with just about everything else.] Anyway, we have a bigger problem - we have a need for an abbreviation for British Army units that are NOT in India - nor attached to the Indian Army. I have been using UK for units not in RAF or RN. I suppose I would use RM for Royal Marines - but I don't remember seeing any. Possibly BA would do for British Army? But what of the Indian Army? IF IA means Indian Artillery, and if RIA is incorrect usage, what might we use? Indian is just too long for an abbreviation. INA might serve.

OK - This cost me a day folks - 2.5 hours of data entry time - but I only had 2 hours before work - so I lost 9 more hours to work - and STILL have 2 hours work to do on other things! Might as well look for other feedback and test results - and fold it all in by morning. But having looked at the ENTIRE land unit data set, I came up with the following RHS names/abbreviations:

AA = Australian Army - occasionally Australian is used instead
BA = British Army - but UK used for civil organizations and sometimes
special abbreviations are used where appropriate
CA = Canadian Army - occasionally Canadian is used instead
IA = Indian Army - but you can read it Indian Artillery when appropriate
NZA = New Zealand Army - but NZ for a civil organization

Similar codes already in use include
PpA = Philippine Army
INA = Indian National Army
IJA = Imperial Japanese Army
IMA = Imperial Manchukuo Army
RTA = Royal Thai Army
IVA = Imperial Vietnamese Army
PLA = Peoples Liberation Army

It would be great if you could add the US B-25 to the upgrade list for the Dutch bomber squadrons (no huge loss if you don't).

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

Also what is represented by the M4 Sherman CS-Tank? I think it is simply M4(105), not the Jumbo...

I like this concept - although I can demonstrate on technical grounds it is not the vehicle in the statistics. The 105 would have different weapon values - this is apparently a 76mm high velocity - a slight variation on the original weapon. However - maybe we SHOULD go for the 105 tank - and use its weapon and armor values? Were any PTO?

They were stndard issue for a medium tank bn from early 43 and were found in BN Hq Co (3) and 1 in each Med Tank Co for a total of 6 in each BN. And yes, they were used in the Pacific. I think if you check the TOE of the Tank BN's you will see them already included. They were armed with the 105mm How M2, basically the same gun as equipped the canon companies of the Inf Regiments.

ORIGINAL: witpqs

It would be great if you could add the US B-25 to the upgrade list for the Dutch bomber squadrons (no huge loss if you don't).

Look carefully: Dutch B-10 groups upgrade to type 198 = Mitchell!!
Always have in RHS.

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

Also what is represented by the M4 Sherman CS-Tank? I think it is simply M4(105), not the Jumbo...

I like this concept - although I can demonstrate on technical grounds it is not the vehicle in the statistics. The 105 would have different weapon values - this is apparently a 76mm high velocity - a slight variation on the original weapon. However - maybe we SHOULD go for the 105 tank - and use its weapon and armor values? Were any PTO?

They were stndard issue for a medium tank bn from early 43 and were found in BN Hq Co (3) and 1 in each Med Tank Co for a total of 6 in each BN. And yes, they were used in the Pacific. I think if you check the TOE of the Tank BN's you will see them already included. They were armed with the 105mm How M2, basically the same gun as equipped the canon companies of the Inf Regiments.

Nope. I see light tanks and medium tanks in the tank battalion. However, 18 are shown in a US armored division - which has a strange name! [only armored is in the field, but armored division shows up - in spite of no suffex being designated!] I think this SHOULD BE the tank intended - but it isn't - the gun values in all scenarios are wrong. I will go that way now. I will plug in standard armor and 105mm guns (of the howitzer variety).

oops Cid I feel guilty now   but well done for making the changes
 
Hipper

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: witpqs

It would be great if you could add the US B-25 to the upgrade list for the Dutch bomber squadrons (no huge loss if you don't).

Look carefully: Dutch B-10 groups upgrade to type 198 = Mitchell!!
Always have in RHS.

We conversed about this - the number of British Mitchells is very low. Makes more sense that in real life the more numerous US version would have been made available.