Matrix Games Forums

Micro Update 5.41

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhZAU7bdtWbbscE_oLg

This update is confined to scenario files. Mainly class, (air) group and ship files.

The focus was on completing the review of CVEs and related ships, in particular
the late war merchant aircraft carriers of Japan converted from Type 1-TL and Type 2-TL
tankers.

It turns out 1-TL, a designation from the 1942 standardized ship design program, is virtually
identical to its pre-war antecedent. It is a rare case where a Japanese non-warship design
was superior to its Allied counterpart - being 3 knots faster and with more capacity. Stock
used this for pre-war tankers, but it turns out that is the right choice: they WERE so close
no data exists on any changes.

It also turns out that 2-TL has the same hull as 1-TL. They cut the horsepower of the engines
and also reduced the own ship's fuel/range requirement (by 10%), resulting in slightly more fuel
cargo capacity.

The size of the ships was wrong - stock and I both had used commercial tonnage ratings instead of
full load tonnage (which is the only acceptable model for damage control and naval combat).
The increased size also increased durability of the hulls.

Late in the war, these two types were converted to merchant aircraft carriers. These were extremely
limited conversions that would take about 120 days in normal conditions. In my view the hulls are too
slow, but they were a way to insure ASW or fighter protection to vital convoys. [The CVE forms only
carry one small squadron - either of ASW or of fighter aircraft - which seems odd because both
conversions were undertaken at the same time. It appears the Navy was more worried about submarines
while the Army was more worried about enemy air attacks.] Since these ships convert so late, in most
cases there is no actual air group in RHS. Typically the lead ship gets one squadron. But some
other squadrons might embark. For example, two land based Army rotary wing ASW units are rated so they
can fly anywhere - because they could.

Except in (unfinished test bed) Scenario 126 (a full map Downfall scenario set in 1945) - where the CVE's
appear as such - all these ships appear as tankers and must convert to get a CVE. Since the decision to
convert was taken only very late in 1944, and since identical hulls could have converted, it is better modeling
(and causes more uncertainty) if players take control of which ships convert?

The tanker versions have the option to convert to replenishment oilers (AO). The CVE versions may also
'reconfigure' as AKVs - permitting transport of any type of aircraft on the flight deck - or other
cargo for that matter. As is now standard in RHS, AKVs may reconfigure back to carrier form.

There are probably some eratta to USN and RN CVE's - which were the main focus of the last update.

One ship changed names (representing a new transliteration of the Japanese name). Many dates were revised
in view of better information, and more careful assumptions about when they could appear in the various scenarios.

ORIGINAL: inqistor

How did you defined ship starting in conversion mode? I couldn't do it in editor, so I just start them really damaged.

I copy the ship to be converted to a new slot. Then I change it as appropriate. There are two mechanisms:
you may upgrade or you may convert (using the ship bind list code which either is assigned in stock or you
may assign it).

Note that RHS documentation includes a sheet trying to define every ship bind code (slowly growing over time).
RHS does not change stock values, so the bind numbers do not step on each other.

When I want a ship to be able to reconfigure - a CVE to AKV or vice versa for example - I try to let the
two classes "upgrade" to each other. When one converts, the art can change (so a tanker won't look like a
carrier). When they upgrade, the art remains the same. Thus the AKV looks like a carrier but is really
a cargo ship that carries any one air unit - even large bombers - and permits them to unload "undamaged" -
or a great deal of cargo and troops. But it still has its flight deck. Similarly, an AO and a tanker
of the same basic class look the same, but are treated differently by code.

RHS is indeed an attempt to render things more realistic.

Notably it is designed to SIMULATE whenever possible, rather than compromise for playability.
It began as a variation of a first generation WITP mod named CHS. The later AE chief programmer
agreed to re-do Japanese aircraft in an effort to get more consistent air combat performance.
He asked me - an aviation engineer and simulation engineer - to help. The "moderator" for CHS
was Andrew Brown (designer of the stock map systems in both generations of WITP, and also of
Andrew Brown's Extended Map System). He accepted our work, but the internal politics of CHS
resulted in it not being used after all. So he suggested we issue it as a different mod. We
extended it to include Allied planes. Then submarines. Then we began order of battle reforms -
particularly in China. It was RHS that introduced many WITP features - such as Russian Navy ships,
a map edge movement track, blimps, etc. Many of these were incorporated into AE. One team
member was the economic tester for AE, and lately we have been focused on a more realistic economic
model.

RHS DOES REQUIRE MORE PLAYER MANAGEMENT. Simplified RHS (scenarios with even numbers) is an attempt
to mitigate this for those who prefer less work to more options. In RHS, even the Allies get considerable
control over economics, within the limits of what can be done with data only changes (we don't modify the
code which would violate the license rules).

I do NOT recommend playing vs AI. But since we do NOT modify stock AI, it is identical to what stock uses
and shares all its virtues and flaws. FYI.

ORIGINAL: JamesHunt

I´ve downloaded the RHS files and skimmed the docs folder and the threads here but still have a hard time to figure out what RHS actually intends. I guess it is a realism overhaul of the game mechanics?

For the moment being I am only looking for AI compatible scenarios and mods that focus on realism. I found this information:
"Scenario 102 is AI Oriented (AIO) - and in common with all even numbered scenarios - is Simplified
RHS. This means it lacks features that confuse AI. For example, land locked rivers and lakes
have no naval units or naval bases. No railroad units (restricted to movement on rail lines). Etc.
AIO is the ONLY RHS scenario that works with AI. Period. If AI is dumb, it is still the most common
form for games. Also - it is still needed for testing purposes - AI vs AI is the practical way to do
long term testing. So we have the scenario for players who insist on playing vs computer, and so we
can run tests."

So I understand that scen 102 AIO is AI compatible, a couple of questions:

- how does this compare to the other AI compatible big mods Reluctant Admiral and Babes mods I´ve found? I know this question may have an provocative nature but I am not interested in whats better or worse but in finding out the significant differences. I know that for example the RA mod depicts a different historical base but what about the under the hood mechanics?
- is this mod also suited for less experienced players or absolutely geared towards WITP vets?
- does it involve more workload/micromanagement?
- 102 AIO description mentions that it was built for AI testing. Is it still good enough to present a challeging "into late war" experience for a less-experienced player?

To get a sense of RHS in 1945, one must look at more than monthly production rates.
In RHS, after the fall of Germany, many ETO assets are transferred to PTO (which
indeed was also true to a considerable degree in stock). But there is a much more
important practical dimension to RHS: we insured that 1945 levels of logistic support
(at the map edge) permit supporting the vastly larger forces with fuel and supplies.
We also give the Allies a much more reasonable number of political points so units
can be reassigned. Historical campaigns are impossible in stock because you would
need years to get the PP needed to reassign the units actually reassigned.

Different RHS scenarios permit exploring different options for Allied production
choices. Also different construction options (since RHS permits the building of
roads and railroads). Strictly Historical Scenarios (121-124 and the future 126
Downfall scenario) assume actual construction - and don't have to compromise as
stock does (giving you some roads that are fictional in 1941, and not getting
many built by 1945). Japan Enhanced Scenarios assume different choices by both
sides, all of them 100% historical in terms of planning. Generally, the Allies make
larger investments, and often faster investments. Pre-war trans-Australian narrow
gage RR lines (surveyed just before the game begins) are built instead of the
highways actually built. [You get neither the RR lines nor the roads in non-RHS
scenarios. RHS lets you try out the historical roads or the planned railroads.]

ORIGINAL: Gridley380

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Now the F-4 and F-5 recon versions of the P-38 are a bit more complicated. I can
improve these - by making the RP-38 upgrade to the F-4. But the F-5 end of production
WITHOUT a replacement is correct. By the late war era MANY factories will be ending
production. It is not "wrong" to have this. The US was both running out of money
and also didn't need nearly as many aircraft late in the war. Production peaks in 1944,
not 1945, and probably had to in any circumstances.

You are quite correct that total production peaked in 1944 - but up until mid-1945 the PTO wasn't getting all US production.

To note one example, the AAF Statistical Digest shows 9,607 AAF aircraft arrived between the various PTO sub-theaters in 1944. In 1945 there were 9,408 - which looks like less until you realize that's only for January through August; the *monthly* rate actually went up almost 50%.

Specific to F-4's and F-5's, the digest shows that in August 1945 there were 323 on hand in the Pacific.

Overlooked it is not. Neither is it deliberate. I cannot duplicate your report at source. Nor can
I change how code behaves except by manipulating data (under the terms or our license agreements).
But I am a test engineer and I can confirm that these vessels consume properly. I am not sure
why you think otherwise? Where in software do you see your consumption data?

ORIGINAL: demol

I set up latest (i hope) RHS 5.24 and immideately found issue that i remember from many years ago: ships "axis motor junk class" had 4 fuel with 1200end (very bad but "normal" fuel effectiveness for such type of vessels) but after refuel they eat 40! fuel for the same 1200end (1/10 from very bad, it takes more fuel than their tonnage).

Is this intended feature or longest overlooked glitch?

//
Also. AI version of RHS is mostly historical? Is there any AI-capable but heavily allied-buffed version to play Japan vs AI?

Thank you.

ORIGINAL: demol

So i should take Andy's ai scripts from "scenario 100" and apply them any modded scenario with the same map layout?

Your RHS-stock scenarios have some script included. Is ai overrighting needed for them?

RHS should have rewritten AI in several respects. Start with AI written for use with Andrew Brown's Extended
Map system (because some of the hexes are different). But this needs to be rewritten for RHS because some hexes
are different from the ABEMS. Mainly RHS has added more map edge locations AI will entirely ignore if you
don't teach it about them.

Thanks for the info, looks like this mod has a long tradition.

Are Andrew Brown´s Extended Map AI scripts already included in the RHS Level 2 Installer or do I have to get them from somewhere else?

Comprehensive Update 5.42

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhZAU7bdtWbbscE_oLg

This update includes pwhexe.dat files, documentation files and scenario files.

Only a bit of location eratta was included. There was extensive work on class,
ship and air group files. This almost entirely was related to Japanese Seaplane
Carriers. These may well be modeled properly for the first time in WITP or AE.
It has been astonishingly difficult to achieve this.

These four ships are remarkable in naval history, without foreign peers,
and not well understood or modeled in AE. They were built as seaplane
carriers in the mid to late 1930s, to provide aviation platforms which were
not aircraft carriers as defined by treaty law. They were designed to permit
rapid conversion to replenishment oilers or aircraft carriers. In addition,
they were in fact all designated for conversion to mid-ocean delivery vessels
for midget submarines. Three of them were converted to this configuration in
1941, and start the Pacific War that way. Not that you can tell by looking
at stock or mods of AE (or its ancestors).

Midget submarines were a super secret. They were not even called submarines,
but instead had various code names, including several kinds of "fittings" and
also "aircraft bombing targets." The concept was evolved and tested of attacking
the United States Fleet mid-ocean. Had all four carriers been converted, they
would have carried 48 midgets, each with two torpedoes, for a total of 96 torpedoes.
Although the concept was considered feasible and enough were built to justify three
of the four proposed conversions in 1941, in the end the decision was made to use
just five of these midget subs delivered by submarine carriers - 1 each. This and
similar attacks were the proper, offensive use of these vessels - the most sophisticated
midgets in the World War II era. Later defensive use was not what they were designed for,
and they were not effective. Long dismissed as technical failures, it turns out that
they actually did score a hit at Pearl Harbor - an act caught on film discovered many
decades after the attack. Any strictly historical scenario of AE should begin with
Chitose, Chiyoda and Mizuho as hybrid-seaplane and midget sub carriers - 12 seaplanes
and 12 midgets.

I misunderstood "rapid conversion" (this means rapid compared to building a new ship) and
only provided the hybrid versions as an alternate configuration of the classes. From now
on, all strictly historical RHS scenarios which start in December, 1941, will feature the
three ships in this form. The midgets are modeled as a peculiar statistical variation of
Type 87 18 inch torpedo. The torpedo has a range which models both its carrier and itself,
and the model includes a very small chance the second torpedo might be fired in some
circumstances. IF it hits, it is the same as a normal Type 87 torpedo would be. These
special "torpedo mounts" launch attacks from the stern, two at a time, with a total of
six shots.

A different dimension of these ships is that they can be converted to other ship types. The most
famous was conversion of the Chitose and Chiyoda to CVL form. There were plans to convert the other
two as well. The conversion of Chitose and Chiyoda exists in stock, implemented with special code
related to the slots involved. RHS has elected NOT to use this code or those slots, and instead
to treat conversions normally. Strictly historical scenarios 121-124 have them start in CVS form -
three of them hybrid midget carriers - with just one of two 12 plane squadrons of seaplanes.

Scenario 125 - which I designed - Japan only modifies things in the run-up to the war. These ships
start in carrier form on the original hulls. Most are CVL's - but Mizuho is rated as a CVE because
of its slower speed. The two squadrons of aircraft are presented in carrier aircraft form.

Scenario 129 - which Mifune designed and which was inspired by the AltWars site - Japan standardizes
ship engine production in 1931 - and begins standardized ship construction without regard for the treaties
from about 1935. All four ships are presented as Chitose class CVLs.

In common with almost all aircraft carriers on both sides, RHS also presents an AKV "configuration" of
these carriers. This is because aircraft carriers are superb transports for troops, cargo and non-carrier
aircraft. Code permits them to carry one squadron of any size, even of very large aircraft. They are
defined with significant troop and dry cargo capacity as well. There is a bit of conversion involved.
The aircrew are removed from the ship, and some of the hanger space is converted for messing and birthing
troops. The hanger and deck also can be used for cargo and/or aircraft (which cannot fly). AKV transported
air units land their aircraft READY FOR OPERAIIONS - not damaged as is normal for aircraft transported by
ship. The AKV "configuration" may also convert back to its parent carrier type. Significant numbers of USN
and RN CVEs enter RHS games in AKV form - because they had no air groups. Japanese seaplane tenders have AKV
configurations after they convert, or at game start in Scenarios 125 and 129.

A still different conversion is presented in strictly historical scenarios 121-124. This is an LSD configuration.
Similar to an AKV, it is a superb transport. Similar to a midget sub carrier, it also carries a few seaplanes.
But it has the bonus in an amphibious landing an LSD provides. This is because the rail system used for the midget
sub carrier configuration is IDENTICAL to those on Navy operated Army amphibious assault ships. If they were not
used in the amphib role, they could have been. These configurations are similar to AKVs in that they can be reversed,
and it only takes a matter of days to do that. Since none of these ships are present in seaplane carrier form
in Japan Enhanced (JES) Scenarios, neither Scenario 125 nor 129 have the LSD variation as an option.

A final conversion option exists (only) in strictly historical scenarios 121-125. This is for Nisshin. Because
she was fitted to lay mines rapidly and in numbers, a CM version is available. As with the LSD and AKV options,
they may cross convert rapidly back to their CVS form.

I am not aware of AB scripts at all. IF he contributed to stock scripts, than yes. RHS uses
entirely unaltered stock scripts from Scenario 1. This is because I have not studied how to
write them and there is no apparent manual on the subject. And there has been so much data
and map work I have not had time to even think about it. Also because I don't believe a
script is a good substitute for actual AI. It is virtually impossible to predict events
very far into the game. The longer a game lasts, the less germane a script is.

Comprehensive Update 5.43

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhZAU7bdtWbbscE_oLg

This update includes ship art (Japanese), documentation (the ship
bind list and Japanese Carrier documentation), and scenario files.

Ports have been reworked in view of the conversion to use of full
load displacements. This is in particular a problem for large ships.
In some cases, ships could not dock in ports they could use. So
port builds were reviewed. Some eratta was also detected and fixed
(e.g. a port was too large). This is in the location file. Some
eratta for land units was also fixed.

I found that many Allied ship classes had their durability reworked
before I defined the new maneuverability scale. So they got new
maneuverability values. Also Nisshin, the last of the seaplane carriers
to be reworked, got eratta corrected.

There may be out year pwhexe.dat file updates. These were copied for
safety to insure we included all revisions. The same for aircraft, group,
and device files. There were many changes to class and ship files.

Micro Update 5.44

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhZAU7bdtWbbscE_oLg

This update is ONLY scenario files. Almost purely class and ship files.
Location files have a few port updates. Only Allied ships are updated
in re maneuverability data - to make them consistent with the RHS
maneuverability formula. This is defined by ship size and speed,
except for submarines. Submarines add surface and submerged speeds,
and divide by ship size.

Micro Update 5.46

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhZAU7bdtWbbscE_oLg

This microupdate only contains revised scenario and documentation files.

Only aircraft, class, location and ship scenario files were updated.

Only the Sorted IJN Aircraft documentation file was updated.

Almost all the work was one on class files, although these update ship files
via active links. All of it was on Allied ship maneuverability fields. I
had forgotten the way to calculate submarine durability. Because the values
seemed too low, I reverse engineered the formula.

Add surface speed, submerged speed and depth (exactly as it is in the field -
ten foot incriments). Divide by submerged displacement (the actual mass to
be maneuvered in the worst case and directly proportional to size) in
thousands of tons, rounded up (so displacement is never less than 1). This
produces values that are extremely good at showing off the relative differences
between classes, and also well suited to surface combat, ASW combat, and air
vs submarine combat. There are different ways a submarine gains maneuverability,
so any of them go in the top of the formula (high surface speed, high submerged
speed or great depth capability). But the bigger the submarine, the worse its
maneuverability. So smaller is better, here done in direct proportion to size.
Since combat is semi-abstract we cannot know if the sub is surface, submerged
or changes status in different impulses of combat. For this reason a composite
rating is best.

The only change to aircraft or documentation was a designation change. I had
used the normal system, but much of the time, particularly for pre-war foreign
designs, the designation used by the IJN had the initials of the foreign company.
So the G4H (for Hitachi) becomes the G4Fw (for Focke-Wol). This is for the
FW-200 which was both exported as a transport and re-designed as a bomber.
["The Scourge of the Atlantic" would not have been designed if IJN had not paid
for its initial modification. This is a lousy patrol plane because all stores
are external, badly reducing its otherwise superb range (which still exists if
used as a recon plane). Only one prototype was built, but it is always present
in all scenarios, and the design could have been built at Hitachi - it just was
not funded. Some other transports are simulated by the transport - these being
up in Manchukuo as part of a planned airline to connect to Europe, but the war
prevented it being feasible to fly the route. Still, the planes exist. One
also flew to Tokyo, setting world distance records, in an attempt to sell the
design. I let it stay there. In Japan Enhanced Scenarios, the German redesigned
bomber is available for Japan to build as well - but not in Strictly Historical
Scenarios.

I am systematically working up the class list to insure no case is omitted or
incorrectly calculated re maneuverability. The idea is that relative data ought
to be using the same standard to get the best results in combat. This process is
not yet completed.

Micro Update 5.47

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhZAU7bdtWbbscE_oLg

This update includes changes to ship art files and scenario files only.

Two more cases were found where Japanese ship art required a horizontal
flip so the ships face the right direction when displayed. [There is
a convention in AE that has Allied ships face left and Axis ships face
right so they face each other when lined up in naval combat].

Almost all the work was done on class files revising ship maneuverability.
This caused detection of ship weapon and other eratta. All class data
was applied to ship files, but only new game starts will pick up all the
weapon fields. The maneuverability, durability, speed and range data will
correct in ongoing games as well. The work began in the mid range slots,
but skipped ahead to insure we reviewed all submarine slots when it was
found that this was needed. Only a French sub and the never used British
Conqueror (fictionally named in honor of the ship that sank Belgrano in
the Falklands War) were not found and updated. [Conqueror is a 1942 SSN
design - tied for first place in the world for such a design. This class
is present only for comparison sake. There was never any chance UK would
build an atomic power plant for it during the war. It likely would have
been something like the CANDU reactors made in Canada after the war - using
natural uranium fuel and heavy water moderator. It is low priority to
update it because it is not used in any scenario.] The idea is to get
maneuverability data updated across the board (to be "fair") and because
the new formula appears to be (a) easier to use and (b) produces superior
results. Ship maneuverability is used in several ways - for naval combat
and also for air-naval combat - and then for submarine vs submarine combat.
I found the old formulas (both stock and RHS) were not producing ideal
results for small craft, particularly slower ones. I accidentally mis-remembered
the sub formula (it is composite) and it turns out to be better than the
original one - but required I update all Axis subs - which has now been done.

There is likely a bit of eratta, so location, device and aircraft files were
updated for safety.

Comprenhensive Update 5.48

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhZAU7bdtWbbscE_oLg

This update is a wide collection. It mainly concerns eratta
in most types of scenario files. As well, by request from Mifune,
we have added the Ketchikan Coast Guard District cutters, of
which there are nine. These come in three basic classes, but
require six sub-classes to define them because one has one upgrade
and one has two upgrades. This led me to create a new convention
in RHS ship names. I use official USCG prefixes such as WPG,
WPC and WSC. That forced me to look for the other Coast Guard
cutters. Most of them had no commanding officers, so I ended up
adding 18 instead of just six. I also redesignated classes in the
database to correspond with official Coast Guard classification. This
should make no difference in how they work - a SC and a PC are more
or less different names for the same thing. I am not sure what
difference a PG designation may make, but it may now work with some
types of task forces it would not previously have made. I found
one case where the cutter was never in PTO, and sank in a 1944 storm,
but I left it in (except for the 1945 Scenario) - to honor the crew
and the ships name. But I put it in the Atlantic - and it will be
a chore to move it to PTO.

I no longer remember the eratta - but it concerns locations and land units
on both sides. I fix errors as they are discovered or reported.

Comprenhensive Update 5.49

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhZAU7bdtWbbscE_oLg

This update is almost purely scenario files. There is also an update to
the ship bind list (which covers stock as well as RHS bind numbers).
And there are a few art changes to ships (changing facing).

Almost all the revisions concern ship classes (and ships affected by them).
This is focused on high number slots. That means mainly obscure French and
Russian vessels, auxiliary ships and, in particular, minor vessels such as
river craft, landing craft and US, British and Soviet LST's (of which there
are vast numbers eventually). That is, thousands of ships were updated.

The review was mainly to insure ship maneuverability and ship durability values
are consistent with current RHS definitions. However, every such review catches
a lot of eratta. In general, classes never reviewed (and retaining stock data)
or not reviewed for years, often increase in the displacement field. RHS uses
naval damage control standards. In a situation where damage is taken, the only
kind of displacement that matters is full load displacement. Many merchant ships
in particular have "displacements" similar to their cargo capacity (or even less,
particularly if you add in ships own fuel, dry cargo, liquid cargo and troops
together). Such loadings are physically impossible and the ship would sink. So,
while the current RHS durability standard for an unarmored ship is displacement
divided by 450, which normally would reduce durability slightly, in many cases,
durability has increased. For minor craft "combinations" (e.g. tug and barges),
durability is one point per hull. Maneuverability is now defined on a simplified
scale. Larger vessels are less maneuverable - similar to stock. Over 40,000 tons,
maneuverability is 90% of full speed. From 10,001 to 40,000 tons, maneuverability
is full speed. From 4,001 to 10,000 tons, maneuverability is 1.5 times speed.
Under 4,000 tons, maneuverability is twice full speed UNLESS speed is below 15 knots
(or a combination multiple hull case, such as tug and barges) - in which case
maneuverability = full speed. The stock and previous RHS system had gigantic numbers
for minor vessel maneuverability, but this is not realistic, and doubly so for slow
vessels and combinations.

About four Allied devices were added - twin AAMG all. There may be aircraft and air
group and certainly were location/land combat unit eratta worked in.

I am considering adding the following unit. I don't think it is worth adding a flag
to the start of game screen. If it is added, it will only appear in new game starts.
It is not yet clear what version of P-40 to use: Adding units takes research and
time.

Mexico decided to send an "expeditionary air group" (a formal name for the
several elements of a single US squadron) to PTO in 1945. Only in action
briefly (stationed at the Clark AAB complex), it was remarkably successful.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_E ... _Air_Force

Update:
I decided to start it with P-47D25 (just out of production in Feb 45)
and upgrade to P-47E. It starts at San Francisco, its port of embarkation,
in a unit called FAEM/Escuadron 201 on 27 March 1945. It is under the
command of Col. Antonio Cárdenas Rodríguez (1905–1969). It is assigned to
5th Air Force Command. It would be under V Fighter Command if there was
one, but there isn't. It actually formed part of the U.S. 58th Fighter Group.

The unit is assigned to slot 4162 using leader slot 24126 and pilot slot 6775.

DBB has it, with P-47D.

The Wikipedia link shows a photo of a P-47D with the caption "Mexican P-47D Thunderbolt over the Philippines (1945)".

Comprenhensive Update 5.50

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhZAU7bdtWbbscE_oLg

This update includes the peculiar Mexican Expeditionary Air Force,
of a single squadron late in the war. No other military assets were
sent to fight in WW2.

Otherwise, this update is mainly concerned with reviewing high slot
ship classes, and sending that data to the ship files. All the classes
reviewed were Allied. These are mainly merchant ships and auxiliaries.
They include pre war Maritime commission standard designs such as C1
and C2, and two of the sub-classes of Liberty ships (available early in
the war). More minor vessels were also included, including numbers of
ferries. These are more or less generic ferries, but they do differ
by nation. Each type gets appropriate machine guns. As well, the number
of passengers varies - the Chinese cram 250 on to a 201 ton hull while
other nations may have as few as 100. The amount of cargo increases
slightly as the number of passengers declines. Most of the review
concerns making maneuverability and durability consistent with new definitions.
Otherwise it concerns weapons, sensors, and causing sub-classes of the same
basic hull to be consistent with each other. This work affected literally
thousands of ships, probably.

The Documentation file on Ship Bind codes was expanded and occasionally
corrected. Although this is an RHS resource, it INCLUDES stock data on
ship binds. RHS does NOT step on those bind numbers.

Comprenhensive Update 5.51

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhZAU7bdtWbbscE_oLg

This update, apart from eratta, continues to work on Allied auxiliary and
transport types. Two somewhat important changes are that the NEI Castor
(an AR) is much larger) and, similarly, so is the RN Ranpura. More important,
Ranpura starts the game as an AMC and may become an AR in 1943. The C1 and
C2 type standard merchant ships are redefined. [These vessels were designed to
be viable commercial ships post war and served into the 1970s. They were not
as fast to build as the Liberty ships built at the same time. As with most
ships not modified since stock, they tend to be larger, and so have more
durability, even though we have modified the durability scale so it nominally
reduces the value for any given tonnage. That was done so very large ships did
not all have the same value.] One location in the Maluccas still had early RHS
values and it was corrected. One LCU was misdefined at the formation level and
was corrected. A number of classes changed speed and maneuverability ratings.
A number of corrections were made to weapons and sensors. The Ship Bind List
was expanded to include more types, and occasionally corrected. The Ship Bind
List is consistent with stock values where they existed, but the number of binds
is much higher in RHS. This permits players to have more conversion options.

Leader Slot 212

This name is spelled wrong in stock (Honma) and all scenarios
using the stock leader database. It will be corrected in RHS.