The Evil Empire Option: Standard Merchant Ships

[m10bob]

Japanese equipment from an old SPWAW friend and author on the subject, in Japan.:

http://www3.plala.or.jp/takihome/


http://www3.plala.or.jp/takihome/ho-ni1.htm(long 75)


http://www3.plala.or.jp/takihome/ho-i.htm(short 75)

These are of course 2 totally different units.


Japanese 15cm aa guns:

http://www3.plala.or.jp/takihome/5aa.htm


Japanese aa guns are at the bottom of this page:

http://www3.plala.or.jp/takihome/artillery.htm

[DuckofTindalos]

Eh, sorry but I can't find more than the short-barrel one. The Ho-Ni seems to be some sort of tank destroyer rather than a gun tank like the Ho-I.

[m10bob]

Somebody was asking about AA rockets in WW2?...Mention is made of the AA rocket mounts used on these Japanese cariers:

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/ijn_cv.htm

[DuckofTindalos]

Too bad that those don't currently function as a device type in the game...

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Eh, sorry but I can't find more than the short-barrel one. The Ho-Ni seems to be some sort of tank destroyer rather than a gun tank like the Ho-I.

..and if I read Taki's info correct on his discussion thread, that long-barreled model was not set up to be used for direct fire, and was therefore literally a SP arty unit...


"Q:
I understand that the Ho-Ni (I) was used as a tank destroyer because the gun could not be elevated high enough to provide indirect fire.

A:
Ho-Ni I is not a tank destroyer, but a SP artillery. The sight of Ho-Ni I is the same as that of Type 90 75mm Field Gun and it was not fit for the direct fire. It is true that the elevation of Ho-Ni I is not enough. So, the range is shorter than that of the original field gun, but it does not mean that the indirect fire is unable. On the Philippines, Ho-Ni I were deployed in the artillery unit and used for indirect fires"

[DuckofTindalos]

Ho-Ni I and II were indeed SPH's, but Ho-Ni III was a TD.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Japanese equipment from an old SPWAW friend and author on the subject, in Japan.:

http://www3.plala.or.jp/takihome/


http://www3.plala.or.jp/takihome/ho-ni1.htm(long 75)


http://www3.plala.or.jp/takihome/ho-i.htm(short 75)

These are of course 2 totally different units.


Japanese 15cm aa guns:

http://www3.plala.or.jp/takihome/5aa.htm


Japanese aa guns are at the bottom of this page:

http://www3.plala.or.jp/takihome/artillery.htm

Note that the B-29s avoided the six inch battery after learning the hard way they were effective. This was my understanding as well. Every raid sortee that would have been mounted, but was not, is a technical victory the way we count in air defense.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Ho-Ni I and II were indeed SPH's, but Ho-Ni III was a TD.

Correct. They are usually called "gun tanks" - a peculiar category. The Ho Ni is in RHS - and there is a company of them in every tank regiment. They are just about the only weapon able to hurt what we would consider a proper tank in an early Japanese tank organization (although, at that time, most of the tanks in the world, and probably all in Asia, were not what we think of as proper tanks). I don't like the gun tank concept - but the Japanese did - so much so that I keep it even in EEO.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Too bad that those don't currently function as a device type in the game...

Sure they do. We have them in RHS too - only one kind - and not very effective - but nevertheless they work.
The technical trick to doing this is two fold:

1) Define the "rocket" as an AA gun
2) Define the range, ceiling, accuracy and effect in a way that is reasonable for the actual weapon performance (easy to say, harder to do).

[el cid again]

In the interests of time, I am not posting the changes, but I am reworking Allied aircraft production (INCLUDING that at factories) for all scenarios. Anson goes to 1 per day for example. And I cannot resist this statistical conclusion: If we split B-29 production between Renton (shown as Tacoma) and Wichita exactly in half, you get 60 per month at the Renton factory on the map and 60 per month from off map as abstract "production" - that is, the B-29 arrives at a rate of 60 plus 60. Since B-29 was not split between theaters, all the aircraft should go to PTO that are not involved in training, conversion to other roles, or attrition.

[el cid again]

The Sea Ranger is available a year before the B-29, it has the same bomb load, and nearly as much range.
It has a durability of 30, an initial ROC of 935 fpm, a max speed of 219 mph. There are 2 .50s fore and aft.
Renton could make 60 a month.

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Too bad that those don't currently function as a device type in the game...

Sure they do. We have them in RHS too - only one kind - and not very effective - but nevertheless they work.
The technical trick to doing this is two fold:

1) Define the "rocket" as an AA gun
2) Define the range, ceiling, accuracy and effect in a way that is reasonable for the actual weapon performance (easy to say, harder to do).

I said "device type" to signify that the "AA rocket" device type doesn't function properly.

[el cid again]

OK - then you are correct. It may be it is just a hook. It may be a plan that was not fully implemented in code - like some EW hooks and probably other devices. Either it was not written at all, or it was not debugged properly. But we can still get something that works properly in a statistical sense meanwhile.

[el cid again]

EDIT:
B-25C/D production is 23 in CVO/BBO families. B-25J is 17 (plus those 23 because this is factory production).
B-25C/D increased to 29 in EOS/AIO. B-25J increased to 22 (plus those 29 because this is factory production).
B-25C/D increased to 35 in EEO. B-25J increased to 26 (plus those 35 because this is factory production).
These are reallocations to PTO; production capacity and actual production did not change.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

EEO has upgraded USN/USMC units (all two of them) to F4F-3s - taking the planes from the pool. The slot is taken by a special B-25C (Doolittle) with fewer guns/bombs, more range - and it is CARRIER CAPABLE.

The SBC-4 in one USMC unit was replaced bySB2U-2s - taking the planes from the pool. The slot was given over to the PB2M-1 Mars - which is assigned no units - but you can upgrade to it.

The JRM-1 Mars is built on the BBO (that is, original historical plan) scale - so you can get them in some "numbers" - a whopping 2 per month - but starting midwar instead of 1945.

B-17 and B-25 allocations are increased generally (but B-25H reduced to 17 in ALL scenarios, and B-17D unaltered because it accounts for all aircraft, including B17C upgraded to D standard already). The formula is 90% of (half of production minus lend lease) / no of months to Aug 1945 ) to PTO. B-17G is moved forward one month in ALL scenarios. The 10% accounts for training, attrition, and diversions (as Mac's B-17 which was wholly stripped of armament and "fitted with every kind of amenity" - I bet).

Do-24K ROC increased to 1037 fpm (up from 597) and maneuverability recalculated - but it remained at 3.

[el cid again]

The Allies have several categories of air transports:

C-32/36/39/40 + BT32 [Representing DC-2 and all other small 2 engine transport aircraft]
C-46/R5C Commando
C-47/R4D-5 Skytrain
C-54/R5D Skymaster
C-60/R5O Loadstar
C-87/LB-30 Liberator
2xCG-4 Glider plus C-47 tug Combination
Dakota I/C-47
Empire Flying Boat
JRM-1 Mars (flying boat)
Li-2VP/C-47 Cab
TB-3/G2 ("flying boat")

in addition to the Boeing 314 Clipper (represented by the Coronado in unarmed form) and
not counting military flying boats which can act as transports.

Note the case of the TB-3 is peculiar - it is a wholly obsolete four engine bomer which serves both transport and maritime patrol regiments in two different Soviet air forces - and it is classified as a flying boat so it can perform both transport and patrol missions (the transport unit being unarmed). This is wierd because the aircraft is not a flying boat at all - and it should only be operated from bases with developed airfields Level 4 and above.

The C-32 represents all small two engine transport aircraft types - and a number of these units form up forward with pressed aircraft until C-47s become available for them. Only the principle US types change availability rates with scenario:

C-32 gets no production, but a pool of 1000 aircraft.
C-46 gets 22 in CVO and BBO families, 27 in EOS and AIO, and 32 in EEO.
C-47 gets 71 in CVO and BBO families, 89 in EOS and AIO, and 109 in EEO. [Produced on the map @ Long Beach]
C-54 gets 16 in CVO and BBO families, 24 in EOS and AIO, and 32 in EEO.
C-60 gets 4 in CVO and BBO families, 5 in EOS and AIO, and 6 in EEO (pool 74).
C-87 gets 9 in all scenarios. [Represents all B-24/LB-30 transport variants and conversions]

C-47 pool = 105.
C-87 pool = 68. Note the C-87 is not in production when the war starts. These are aircraft taken back from Lend Lease orders to the UK (75 - our 10%) and then converted to transports (or some to recon ships and later to transports IRL). There are no heavy transports in service anywhere, but the US can put some into service: it just better not lose too many before production of C-87s as transports begins in 9/42.
The working assumptions are that 10% of all production is lost to conversion, diversion, attrition and miscelaneous uses;
that short range (C-32) are impressed aircraft from civil operators; that medium and long range transports are allocated to PTO on a 33% priority basis for CVO/BBO families, and you get 125% of that (42% of total) in EOS family an 150% of that in EEO. The capacity and production of larger transports does not change, but the portion allocated to PTO varies.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Far as I know, the Type 2 Ho-I mated a short barrel Type 99 75mm gun to a Type 97-Kai turret. It was a fire support vehicle rather than an anti-tank vehicle, and since the Type 99 refers to 1939, and the Germans had no 75mm anti-tank guns in 1939, I'd say it's somewhat unlikely that this was a German weapon. Could have been the German short-barrel 75mm gun as mounted on the Pz IV, but I doubt it...

31 Ho-I were built in real life starting in 1944, thanks to very low priority, but what-if's are always nice...[:)]

OK - where did 1939 come from? The gun in question was a PAK 40, 7.5 cm, 2600 fps with standard shot or 3250 fps with tungsten shot, 8.4 km range, 6.8 kg shell weigh, 132 mm penetration at 500 m with standard shot (154 mm with tungsten shot), weight in action (wheeled form) 1.425 metric tons (just the rifle itself would of course weigh less).

[m10bob]

Somewhat off topic, but related.
The Japanese captured scads of actual German equipment in China, including the 37mm AT gun.
When the Phillipines fell, they also acquired some early models of the U.S. 75mm GMC, (an M3 HT with an 1897/75mm used in the AT role).
Something like 10 of them as I recall, I have their details here, if needed, believe they were actually called something like T 10's(?).
Like the Germans, the Japanese were proficient at using captured equipment.

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Far as I know, the Type 2 Ho-I mated a short barrel Type 99 75mm gun to a Type 97-Kai turret. It was a fire support vehicle rather than an anti-tank vehicle, and since the Type 99 refers to 1939, and the Germans had no 75mm anti-tank guns in 1939, I'd say it's somewhat unlikely that this was a German weapon. Could have been the German short-barrel 75mm gun as mounted on the Pz IV, but I doubt it...

31 Ho-I were built in real life starting in 1944, thanks to very low priority, but what-if's are always nice...[:)]

OK - where did 1939 come from? The gun in question was a PAK 40, 7.5 cm, 2600 fps with standard shot or 3250 fps with tungsten shot, 8.4 km range, 6.8 kg shell weigh, 132 mm penetration at 500 m with standard shot (154 mm with tungsten shot), weight in action (wheeled form) 1.425 metric tons (just the rifle itself would of course weigh less).

Sorry, Sid, but you'll have to prove that one. I simply don't believe it; I've seen pictures of both Ho-I and Ho-Ni tanks, and none feature the highly distinctive traits of the PaK 40, i.e. its long barrel length and muzzle brake arrangement.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Somewhat off topic, but related.
The Japanese captured scads of actual German equipment in China, including the 37mm AT gun.
When the Phillipines fell, they also acquired some early models of the U.S. 75mm GMC, (an M3 HT with an 1897/75mm used in the AT role).
Something like 10 of them as I recall, I have their details here, if needed, believe they were actually called something like T 10's(?).
Like the Germans, the Japanese were proficient at using captured equipment.

Reviewing Allied aircraft, I came across a whole squadron of Japanese Allied fighter planes - in Burma! I ignored it, on logistical grounds I don't think it could have lasted very long with that equipment.

[DuckofTindalos]

Hmmm, I know the Japs used both Hurricanes and P-40's operationally in Burma. The primary reason was probably the distance from supplies of replacement Jap aircraft and spare parts for them.