Matrix Games Forums

British warship mods.

Here are the proposed changes to the British cruisers for CHS. Would like some feedback. Some additional things observed that needs addressing. First, with a couple of exceptions, the British cruisers had no conning tower armor. Second, by mid war most had lost their aircraft catapults, thus no aircraft. Endurance values for some classes seem really out of tune with reality. I can do a followup post on these subjects.

1583-Arethusa- 06/44
2x2 (4) 6" F
2x1 (2) 6" R
2x2 (4) 4" RS
2x2 (4) 4" LS
4x1 (4) 40mm RS
4x1 (4) 40mm LS
2x2 (4) 20mm RS
2x2 (4) 20mm LS
1x1 (1) 20mm RS
1x1 (1) 20mm LS
1x1 (1) 20mm F
3x1 (1) 21"TT RS
3x1 (1) 21"TT LS
1x1 (1) Type 279


1581-Australia class- 12/44 upgrade
2x2 (4) 8" F
2x2 (4) 8" R
2x2 (4) 4" RS
2x2 (4) 4" LS
8x1 (8) 2pdr RS
8x1 (8) 2pdr LS
1x4 (4) 40mm RS
1x4 (4) 40mm LS
2x1 (2) 20mm F
2x2 (4) 20mm RS
2x2 (4) 20mm LS
2x2 (4) 20mm R
1x1 (1) Type 271
1x1 (1) Type 279
1582-Australia Class- 6/45 upgrade
2x2 (4) 8" F
2x1 (2) 8" R
2x2 (4) 4" RS
2x2 (4) 4" LS
8x2 (16) 2pdr RS
8x2 (16) 2pdr LS
4x1 (4) 40mm RS
4x1 (4) 40mm LS
2x1 (2) 40mm R
2x2 (2) 20mm RS
2x2 (2) 20mm LS
2x2 (2) 20mm R
1x1 (1) Type 271
1x1 (1) Type 272

232-Bellona- 9/43 As Built
2x2 (4) 5.25" F
2x2 (4) 5.25" R
4x1 (4) 2pdr F
4x1 (4) 2pdr RS
4x1 (4) 2pdr LS
2x3 (6) 20mm RS
2x3 (6) 20mm LS
3x1 (3) 21"TT RS
3x1 (3) 21"TT LS
1x1 (1) Type 271
1585-Bellona- 6/44 Upgrade
2x2 (4) 5.25" F
2x2 (4) 5.25" R
4x1 (4) 2pdr (f)
4x1 (4) 2pdr RS
4x1 (4) 2pdr LS
2x4 (8) 20mm RS
2x4 (8) 20mm LS
1x1 (1) 20mm RS
1x1 (1) 20mm LS
1x1 (1) 20mm R
3x1 (3) 21"TT RS
3x1 (3) 21"TT LS
1x1 (1) Type 271
1586-Bellona- 4/45
2x2 (4) 5.25" F
2x2 (4) 5.25" R
4x1 (4) 2pdr (f)
4x1 (4) 2pdr RS
4x1 (4) 2pdr LS
2x4 (8) 20mm RS
2x4 (8) 20mm LS
1x5 (5) 20mm RS
1x5 (5) 20mm LS
1x1 (1) 20mm R
3x1 (3) 21"TT RS
3x1 (3) 21"TT LS
1x1 (1) Type 271


1587-Claedon- 6/44
2x2 (4) 4" F
2x1 (4) 4" R
2x1 (2) 40mm RS
2x1 (2) 40mm LS
1x3 (3) 40mm RS
1x3 (3) 40mm LS
2x2 (4) 20mm RS
2x2 (4) 20mm LS
1x1 (1) 20mm F
1x2 (2) 20mm RS
1x2 (2) 20mm LS
1x1 (1) Type 279

235-Capetown- 12/41
1x2 (2) 6" F
1x1 (1) 6" C
1x2 (2) 6" R
1x1 (1) 3"/20cwt RS
1x1 (1) 3"/20cwt LS
1x2 (1) 2pdr C
1x2 (2) 20mm RS
1x2 (2) 20mm LS
4x1 (4) 21"TT RS
4x1 (4) 21"TT LS
1x1 (1) Type 271
1584-Capetown- 6/44 upgrade
1x2 (2) 6" F
1x1 (1) 6" C
1x2 (2) 6" R
1x1 (1) 3"/20cwt RS
1x1 (1) 3"/20cwt LS
1x2 (1) 2pdr C
1x3 (3) 20mm RS
1x3 (3) 20mm LS
4x1 (4) 21"TT RS
4x1 (4) 21"TT LS
1x1 (1) Type 271

Ceres
1588 - Ceres (4/44)
1x2 (2) 6" F
1x1 (1) 6" C
1x2 (2) 6" R
1x1 (1) 3"/20cwt RS
1x1 (1) 3"/20cwt LS
1x2 (1) 2pdr C
1x4 (4) 20mm RS
1x4 (4) 20mm LS
1x4 (4) 20mm C
1x2 (2) 20mm R
4x1 (4) 21"TT RS
4x1 (4) 21"TT LS
1x1 (1) Type 271

231- Dido 12/41
2x3 (6) 5.25" F
2x2 (6) 5.25" R
4x1 (4) 2pdr RS
4x1 (4) 2pdr LS
1x1 (1) 20mm R
1x2 (2) 20mm RS
1x2 (2) 20mm LS
3x1 (3) 21"TT RS
3x1 (3) 21"TT LS
1x1 (1) Type 279

1424- Dido
2x3 (6) 5.25" F
2x2 (6) 5.25" R
4x1 (4) 2pdr RS
4x1 (4) 2pdr LS
2x2 (4) 20mm RS
4x2 (4) 20mm LS
1x1 (1) 20mm RS
1x1 (1) 20mm LS
3x1 (3) 21"TT RS
3x1 (3) 21"TT LS
1x1 (1) Type 279

218- Edinburgh 10/42
1420- Edinburgh 6/43
3x2 (6) 6" F
3x2 (6) 6" R
2x3 (6) 4" RS
2x3 (6) 4" LS
8x1 (8) 2pdr RS
8x1 (8) 2pdr LS
1x2 (2) 20mm F
1x2 (2) 20mm RS
1x2 (2) 20mm LS
2x2 (4) 20mm R
1x4 (4) 20mm RS
1x4 (4) 20mm LS
3x1 (3) 21"TT RS
3x1 (3) 21"TT LS
1x1 (1) 271 Radar
1590- Edinburgh 8/44
3x2 (6) 6" F
3x2 (6) 6" R
2x2 (4) 4" RS
2x2 (4) 4" LS
8x1 (8) 2pdr RS
8x1 (8) 2pdr LS
4x2 (8) 2pdr RS
4x2 (8) 2pdr LS
1x2 (2) 20mm F
1x2 (2) 20mm RS
1x2 (2) 20mm LS
2x2 (4) 20mm R
1x4 (4) 20mm RS
1x4 (4) 20mm LS
3x1 (3) 21"TT RS
3x1 (3) 21"TT LS
1x1 (1) 271 Radar
1591- Edinburgh 8/45
3x2 (6) 6" F
3x2 (6) 6" R
2x3 (6) 4" RS
2x3 (6) 4" LS
8x1 (8) 2pdr RS
8x1 (8) 2pdr LS
4x2 (8) 2pdr RS
4x2 (8) 2pdr LS
1x1 (1) 40mm F
3x1 (3) 40mm RS
3x1 (3) 40mm LS
1x2 (2) 20mm RS
1x2 (2) 20mm LS
2x2 (4) 20mm R
4x1 (4) 20mm RS
1x4 (4) 20mm LS
3x1 (3) 21"TT RS
3x1 (3) 21"TT LS
1x1 (1) 271 Radar

1589- Exeter(1/45)
2x2 (4) 8" F
2x1 (2) 8" R
2x2 (4) 4" RS
2x2 (4) 4" LS
8x1 (8) 2pdr RS
8x1 (8) 2pdr LS
1x3 (3) 40mm RS
1x3 (3) 40mm LS
2x1 (2) 20mm F
2x1 (2) 20mm R
3x1 (3) 21"TT RS
3x1 (3) 21"TT LS
1x1 (1) Type 279

221- Fiji (12/41)
6x2 (6) 6" F
6x2 (6) 6" R
2x3 (6) 4" RS
2x3 (6) 4" LS
4x1 (8) 2pdr RS
4x1 (8) 2pdr LS
4x2 (8) 12.7mm
4x2 (8) 12.7mm
1x2 (2) 20mm RS
1x2 (2) 20mm LS
3x1 (3) 21"TT RS
3x1 (3) 21"TT LS
1x1 (1) 271 Radar
1422- Fiji (8/42)
6x2 (6) 6" F
6x2 (6) 6" R
2x3 (6) 4" RS
2x3 (6) 4" LS
4x1 (8) 2pdr RS
4x1 (8) 2pdr LS
2x3 (6) 20mm RS
2x3 (6) 20mm LS
3x1 (3) 21"TT RS
3x1 (3) 21"TT LS
1x1 (1) 271 Radar
1592- Fiji (10/43) 0-Seaplanes
6x2 (6) 6" F
3x1 (3) 6" R
2x3 (6) 4" RS
2x3 (6) 4" LS
4x1 (8) 2pdr RS
4x1 (8) 2pdr LS
2x2 (4) 40mm R
2x3 (6) 20mm RS
2x3 (6) 20mm LS
3x1 (3) 21"TT RS
3x1 (3) 21"TT LS
1x1 (1) 279 Radar
1593- Fiji (12/44) 0-seaplanes
6x2 (6) 6" F
3x1 (3) 6" R
2x3 (6) 4" RS
2x3 (6) 4" LS
2x1 (2) 40mm RS
2x1 (2) 40mm LS
2x2 (4) 40mm R
1x3 (3) 20mm RS
1x3 (3) 20mm LS
3x1 (3) 21"TT RS
3x1 (3) 21"TT LS
1x1 (1) 279 Radar

220- Gloucester Big question here. Goucester was sunk by dive bombers in the Med on 5/22/1941. This one should not even be in the game.

197- Hawkins (4/42)
1x2 (2) 7.5" F
1x1 (1) 7.5" C
1x1 (1) 7.5" RS
1x1 (1) 7.5" LS
1x2 (2) 7.5" R
1x2 (2) 4" RS
1x2 (2) 4" LS
4x1 (4) 2pdr RS
4x1 (4) 2pdr LS
1x2 (2) 2pdr R
1x1 (1) 20mm F
1x3 (3) 20mm RS
1x3 (3) 20mm LS
1x1 (1) Type 271
1594- Hawkins (8/44)
1x2 (2) 7.5" F
1x1 (1) 7.5" C
1x1 (1) 7.5" RS
1x1 (1) 7.5" LS
1x2 (2) 7.5" R
1x2 (2) 4" RS
1x2 (2) 4" LS
8x1 (8) 2pdr RS
8x1 (8) 2pdr LS
1x2 (2) 2pdr R
1x1 (1) 20mm F
1x4 (4) 20mm RS
1x4 (4) 20mm LS
1x1 (1) Type 271

198- kent (12/41)
2x2 (4) 8" F
2x2 (4) 8" R
2x2 (4) 4" RS
2x2 (4) 4" LS
8x1 (8) 2pdr RS
8x1 (8) 2pdr LS
4x1 (4) 12.7mm RS
4x1 (4) 12.7mm LS
1x1 (1) 20mm F
1x2 (2) 20mm RS
1x2 (2) 20mm LS
1x1 (1) 20mm R
4x1 (4) 21"TT RS
4x1 (4) 21"TT LS
1x1 (1) Type 271
1410- Kent (6/42)
2x2 (4) 8" F
2x2 (4) 8" R
2x2 (4) 4" RS
2x2 (4) 4" LS
8x1 (8) 2pdr RS
8x1 (8) 2pdr LS
2x1 (2) 20mm F
1x2 (2) 20mm RS
1x2 (2) 20mm LS
2x1 (2) 20mm R
4x1 (4) 21"TT RS
4x1 (4) 21"TT LS
1x1 (10 Type 271
1595- Kent (9/43)
2x2 (4) 8" F
2x2 (4) 8" R
2x2 (4) 4" RS
2x2 (4) 4" LS
8x1 (8) 2pdr RS
8x1 (8) 2pdr LS
2x1 (2) 20mm F
1x2 (2) 20mm RS
1x2 (2) 20mm LS
2x1 (2) 20mm R
4x1 (4) 21"TT RS
4x1 (4) 21"TT LS
1x1 (10 Type 279

216- Leander (12/41) No float planes past early 42

201- London (12/41)
2x2 (4) 8" F
2x2 (4) 8" R
1x2 (2) 4" RS
1x2 (2) 4" LS
8x1 (8) 2pdr RS
8x1 (8) 2pdr LS
4x1 (4) 12.7mm RS
4x1 (4) 12.7mm LS
1x1 (1) 20mm F
1x1 (1) 20mm R
4x1 (4) 21"TT RS
4x1 (4) 21"TT LS
1x1 (1) Type 271
1413- London (3/42)
2x2 (4) 8" F
2x2 (4) 8" R
2x2 (4) 4" RS
2x2 (4) 4" LS
8x1 (8) 2pdr RS
8x1 (8) 2pdr LS
1x1 (1) 20mm F
1x3 (3) 20mm RS
1x3 (3) 20mm LS
1x1 (1) 20mm R
4x1 (4) 21"TT RS
4x1 (4) 21"TT LS
1x1 (1) Type 271
1596- london (8/43) no seaplanes
2x2 (4) 8" F
2x2 (4) 8" R
2x2 (4) 4" RS
2x2 (4) 4" LS
8x1 (8) 2pdr RS
8x1 (8) 2pdr LS
1x2 (2) 20mm F
1x8 (8) 20mm RS
1x8 (8) 20mm LS
1x2 (2) 20mm R
4x1 (4) 21"TT RS
4x1 (4) 21"TT LS
1x1 (1) Type 279
1597- London (12/44) no seaplanes
2x2 (4) 8" F
2x1 (2) 8" R
2x2 (4) 4" RS
2x2 (4) 4" LS
8x1 (8) 2pdr RS
8x1 (8) 2pdr LS
4x2 (8) 40mm RS
4x2 (8) 40mm LS
2x2 (2) 20mm F
2x3 (6) 20mm RS
2x3 (6) 20mm LS
2x1 (2) 20mm R
4x1 (4) 21"TT RS
4x1 (4) 21"TT LS
1x1 (1) Type 279

203- london (rebuilt) (12/41)
2x2 (4) 8" F
2x2 (4) 8" R
2x2 (4) 4" RS
2x2 (4) 4" LS
8x1 (8) 2pdr RS
8x1 (8) 2pdr LS
1x1 (1) 20mm F
1x3 (3) 20mm RS
1x3 (3) 20mm LS
1x1 (1) 20mm R
4x1 (4) 21"TT RS
4x1 (4) 21"TT LS
1x1 (1) Type 271
1620- London (rebuilt) (12/42) no seaplanes
2x2 (4) 8" F
2x2 (4) 8" R
2x2 (4) 4" RS
2x2 (4) 4" LS
8x1 (8) 2pdr RS
8x1 (8) 2pdr LS
1x2 (2) 20mm F
1x5 (5) 20mm RS
1x5 (5) 20mm LS
1x3 (3) 20mm R
4x1 (4) 21"TT RS
4x1 (4) 21"TT LS
1x1 (1) Type 271
1621- London (rebuilt) (3/44) no seaplanes
2x2 (4) 8" F
2x2 (4) 8" R
2x2 (4) 4" RS
2x2 (4) 4" LS
8x1 (8) 2pdr RS
8x1 (8) 2pdr LS
2x2 (4) 20mm F
1x8 (8) 20mm RS
1x8 (8) 20mm LS
2x2 (4) 20mm R
4x1 (4) 21"TT RS
4x1 (4) 21"TT LS
1x1 (1) Type 279
1622- London (rebuilt) (3/45) no seaplanes
2x2 (4) 8" F
2x2 (4) 8" R
2x2 (4) 4" RS
2x2 (4) 4" LS
8x1 (8) 2pdr RS
8x1 (8) 2pdr LS
1x2 (2) 40mm RS
1x2 (2) 40mm LS
2x2 (4) 20mm F
2x2 (4) 20mm RS
2x2 (4) 20mm LS
1x4 (4) 20mm RS
1x4 (4) 20mm LS
2x2 (4) 20mm R
4x1 (4) 21"TT RS
4x1 (4) 21"TT LS
1x1 (1) Type 279


202- Norfolk 12/41
2x2 (4) 8" F
2x2 (4) 8" R
2x2 (4) 4" RS
2x2 (4) 4" LS
8x1 (8) 2pdr RS
8x1 (8) 2pdr LS
1x2 (2) 20mm F
1x3 (2) 20mm RS
1x3 (2) 20mm LS
1x1 (1) 20mm R
4x1 (4) 21"TT RS
4x1 (4) 21"TT LS
1x1 (1) Type 271
1414- Norfolf 3/43
2x2 (4) 8" F
2x2 (4) 8" R
2x2 (4) 4" RS
2x2 (4) 4" LS
8x1 (8) 2pdr RS
8x1 (8) 2pdr LS
1x2 (2) 20mm F
1x4 (4) 20mm RS
1x4 (4) 20mm LS
1x2 (1) 20mm R
4x1 (4) 21"TT RS
4x1 (4) 21"TT LS
1x1 (1) Type 279
1623- Norfolk 1/44
2x2 (4) 8" F
2x1 (2) 8" R
2x2 (4) 4" RS
2x2 (4) 4" LS
4x3 (12) 2pdr RS
4x3 (12) 2pdr LS
2x1 (2) 20mm F
4x2 (8) 20mm RS
4x2 (8) 20mm LS
1x4 (5) 20mm RS
1x4 (5) 20mm LS
2x2 (4) 20mm R
4x1 (4) 21"TT RS
4x1 (4) 21"TT LS
1x1 (1) Type 279
1624- Norfolk 9/45
2x2 (4) 8" F
2x1 (2) 8" R
2x2 (4) 4" RS
2x2 (4) 4" LS
4x3 (12) 2pdr RS
4x3 (12) 2pdr LS
1x5 (5) 40mm RS
1x5 (5) 40mm LS
2x1 (2) 20mm F
4x2 (8) 20mm RS
4x2 (8) 20mm LS
2x2 (4) 20mm R
4x1 (4) 21"TT RS
4x1 (4) 21"TT LS
1x1 (1) Type 27

228- Perth 12/41
2x2 (4) 6" F
2x2 (4) 6" R
2x2 (4) 4" RS
2x2 (4) 4" LS
4x1 (4) 12.7mm MG RS
4x1 (4) 12.7mm MG LS
1x2 (2) 20mm F
1x2 (2) 20mm R
4x1 (4) 21"TT RS
4x1 (4) 21"TT LS
1x1 (1) Type 271
1418- Perth 7/42
2x2 (4) 6" F
2x2 (4) 6" R
2x2 (4) 4" RS
2x2 (4) 4" LS
4x1 (4) 2pdrs RS
4x1 (4) 2pdrs LS
1x2 (2) 20mm F
2x2 (4) 20mm RS
2x2 (4) 20mm LS
1x3 (3) 20mm R
4x1 (4) 21"TT RS
4x1 (4) 21"TT LS
1x1 (1) Type 271
Perth 1/44 no aircraft
2x2 (4) 6" F
2x2 (4) 6" R
2x2 (4) 4" RS
2x2 (4) 4" LS
4x1 (4) 2pdrs RS
4x1 (4) 2pdrs LS
2x1 (2) 40mm RS
2x1 (2) 40mm LS
2x1 (2) 40mm C
1x1 (1) 40mm F
1x2 (2) 40mm RS
1x2 (2) 40mm LS
1x1 (1) 20mm R
4x1 (4) 21"TT RS
4x1 (4) 21"TT LS
1x1 (1) Type 271




230- Scylla - OK

1446- Shropshire
2x2 (4) 8" F
2x2 (4) 8" R
2x2 (4) 4" RS
2x2 (4) 4" LS
8x1 (8) 2pdr RS
8x1 (8) 2pdr LS
2x1 (2) 20mm F
2x2 (4) 20mm RS
2x2 (4) 20mm LS
2x2 (4) 20mm R
1x2 (2) 20mm RS
1x2 (2) 20mm LS
4x1 (4) 21"TT RS
4x1 (4) 21"TT LS
1x1 (1) Type 271
1447- Shropshire
2x2 (4) 8" F
2x2 (4) 8" R
2x2 (4) 4" RS
2x2 (4) 4" LS
8x1 (8) 2pdr RS
8x1 (8) 2pdr LS
1x1 (1) 40mm F
1x5 (5) 40mm RS
1x5 (5) 40mm LS
1x2 (2) 40mm R
2x1 (2) 20mm F
2x1 (4) 20mm R
1x1 (1) Type 271

219- Sheffield 2/41
3x2 (6) 6" F
3x2 (6) 6" R
2x2 (4) 4" RS
2x2 (4) 4" LS
4x1 (4) 2pdr RS
4x1 (4) 2pdr LS
1x1 (1) 20mm F
1x2 (2) 20mm RS
1x2 (2) 20mm LS
1x1 (1) 20mm R
3x1 (3) 21"TT RS
3x1 (3) 21"TT LS
1x1 (1) Type 271
1421- Sheffield 12/42 no aircraft
3x2 (6) 6" F
3x2 (6) 6" R
2x2 (4) 4" RS
2x2 (4) 4" LS
4x1 (4) 2pdr RS
4x1 (4) 2pdr LS
2x1 (2) 20mm F
2x2 (4) 20mm RS
2x2 (4) 20mm LS
2x3 (6) 20mm R
1x2 (2) 20mm RS
1x2 (2) 20mm LS
3x2 (3) 21"TT RS
3x2 (3) 21"TT LS
1x1 (1) Type 271
1599- Sheffield 7/44
3x2 (6) 6" F
3x1 (3) 6" R
2x2 (4) 4" RS
2x2 (4) 4" LS
4x3 (12) 2pdr RS
4x3 (12) 2pdr LS
1x3 (3) 2pdr RS
1x3 (3) 2pdr LS
2x1 (2) 20mm F
2x1 (2) 20mm RS
2x1 (2) 20mm LS
2x3 (6) 20mm R
1x1 (1) 20mm RS
1x1 (1) 20mm LS
3x2 (3) 21"TT RS
3x2 (3) 21"TT LS
1x1 (1) Type 279



Sources:

1 Raven, Alan, and John Roberts. British Cruisers of World War Two. Annapolis, Md: Naval Institute Press, 1980.

2 Whitley, M. J. Cruisers of World War Two: An Intrnational Encyclopedia. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1995.

3 Lenton, H. T., and J. J. Colledge. (British) Warships of World War II. London, UK: Ian Allen, 1964.

4 Campbell, John. Naval Weapons of World War Two. 1985. Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press, 2002.

5 Raven, Alan. British Destroyer Appearence in World War Two, Part 2, Fleet Destroyers 1943-1945. In Preston, Anthoney, ed. Warship I. 1977. Third Impression ed. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institue Press, 1984 (p21-26).

6. http://www.hmasshropshire.com/contents.htm

I do not believe the CHS protocol allows corrections at this point in time.
It would need to be "reviewed" - and there is no one to review it. Further, if it is not in the plan for this revision, it is not usually accepted.
I wish to do a comprehensive review of armor, range, cruising speed, weapons for all ships - and have not been permitted to do so. Another issue is availability and sinking dates - the database is spotty - often in error. I have pretty well cleaned up the IJN in these respects. St Lo Tanker is reviewing Allied ships. I wish to review them all - but have major time constraints.

IF you wish these values in RHS - I will accept them - if you can take my ship class file and mod it only with respect to them in a very short period - say a day. If you want to do that, please advise and I will decide what day I am doing the location file instead of ships - and let you do this. While I also require review, I do the review myself, so it gets done fast.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I do not believe the CHS protocol allows corrections at this point in time.
It would need to be "reviewed" - and there is no one to review it. Further, if it is not in the plan for this revision, it is not usually accepted.
I wish to do a comprehensive review of armor, range, cruising speed, weapons for all ships - and have not been permitted to do so. Another issue is availability and sinking dates - the database is spotty - often in error. I have pretty well cleaned up the IJN in these respects. St Lo Tanker is reviewing Allied ships. I wish to review them all - but have major time constraints.

IF you wish these values in RHS - I will accept them - if you can take my ship class file and mod it only with respect to them in a very short period - say a day. If you want to do that, please advise and I will decide what day I am doing the location file instead of ships - and let you do this. While I also require review, I do the review myself, so it gets done fast.

Actually I was in error. These are not proposed but are changes already put into CHS. I am posting them here because Andrew asked me to. I will also be posting the changes to the US LCU's TO&E by this weekend.

Actually I was in error. These are not proposed but are changes already put into CHS. I am posting them here because Andrew asked me to. I will also be posting the changes to the US LCU's TO&E by this weekend.

In that case, they may be lifted directly into RHS - since the class line numbers should be the same - I can lift them as a group using Excel.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I do not believe the CHS protocol allows corrections at this point in time.
It would need to be "reviewed" - and there is no one to review it. Further, if it is not in the plan for this revision, it is not usually accepted.

This is not a comprehensive review of ships, just some updates to late war British cruiser AA armament that AlaskanWarrior proposed to research. So it quite limited in scope. As he says I asked him to post his data here for comment, since I have not yet found anyone who can review it in detail.

As always, any and all comments are appreciated.

Andrew

This is an ancient issue, but actually Andrew, your excellent research to get the "perfect maps" was a catalyst for several other modders to attempt historical correctness, (to match your geographical correctness.)
YOU created a monster.[;)]

I have found much discrepancy with the vanilla ranges of many of the ships, (especially the Japanese who have sometimes been doubled and even near tripled from the referance material I have.)
Not content to believe such disparate numbers, I have shared these findings with others, and again, it was the true vastness of your geographically-correct maps which made the difference.
(Larger distances from A to B made commitment of ships and planes to far off places a real challenge when ships and planes are corrected to their true capabilities, range-wise).
While my particular area of military expertise is certainly not Navy-related, I do have the ability to read, and in your spirit of open-mindedness, have been willing to share my findings with others, (when I felt it important enough.)
A ships range being off by a few hundred miles, and being off by the entire contents of its' onboard tanks is serious enough to look at, IMHO, and to the best of my knowledge, CHS has been respected by the gamers generally because unlike Matrixgames, (who must make a living with games in general), the original CHS crew had no incentive for a "rush to judgement" before making changes to their excellent work.
A spirit of open-mindedness has served this game well in the past, for the modders and the gaming community in general, and I hope this is still the case, as we have no room for "cliques" to develop, regardless of motive.
What greater gaming sacrifice can be made, than for the crew (or individual) who has volunteered to add to the game, with little expectation of even being recognized, nor thanked, for said contribution?
I thank you.............

I have found much discrepancy with the vanilla ranges of many of the ships, (especially the Japanese who have sometimes been doubled and even near tripled from the referance material I have.)

This is correct - but too limited in scope. Almost all the databases are full of amazing errors. Just when one concludes that it must have been done by some JFB - one finds an equally outrageous error on the other side. I think what happened is a combination of things:

1) Originally Matrix decided, in leiu of looking up every value, to just approximate. Thus they give you ships over a period of entry dates - not the real ones - but somewhat similar. And when they made a new CL, they copied another one - just changing the main guns and the name - and said "range ? close enough".

2) There were many factors undefined. So modders and volunteers working on data had no way to know what a field should have in it. When it is a special case (fields change meaning with the type of unit, and with the slot sometimes) - they had to guess - or copy a similar one from a different unit - not having any way to know what was intended.

3) Sometimes a JFB or AFB may have felt "No one will notice this one field" - and snuck it in.

4) There are differences in sources. Thus, one person complained I changed the range of the "long range Pete" by reducing it! But the Pete was not a long range plane - although I am sure he believes it was - probably based on something it says on some web site somewhere.

I am pretty intimate with Japanese data - so I have pretty much reviewed it - except that a ship by ship review of commissioning and sinking is too detailed to do in a sane amount of time. But the class data should be right. I have asked for help on Allied ships - there are even more of them! But I always will accept corrections.

Note that I always am available to review for CHS too - Andrew must have forgotten I wrote this long ago - so if someone submits something and he needs a reviewer - I can do it. I have most of the references.

In this case, AKWarrior did well. Differences are quibbles.

By the nature of the beast, wargamers for the most part are either pseudo-historians, or professionally connected to the topic, past or present.
For this reason, it is good that any modders maintain a sem
blance of communication with each other and not be too hasty to "close the door" on a self-inflicted "release date", nor jump too quickly to arrive at conclusions at the expense of historical accuracy, (if that is indeed the goal.)
If this were not the goal of modders, there is always "Axis and Allies", or even "Chutes and Ladders", for that matter..[:D]

By the nature of the beast, wargamers for the most part are either pseudo-historians, or professionally connected to the topic, past or present.
For this reason, it is good that any modders maintain a sem
blance of communication with each other and not be too hasty to "close the door" on a self-inflicted "release date", nor jump too quickly to arrive at conclusions at the expense of historical accuracy, (if that is indeed the goal.)

One of the differences between CHS and RHS is that CHS is structured to change rarely - whereas RHS will change continuously. If you download later in time, you will get a slightly updated version of the file set. ANY correction pointed out by ANYONE will be adopted more or less within 24 hours, provided it can be verified. This is a philosophical difference: CHS has on principle a concept that "players want consistency and stability in the scenario" where as RHS has on principle a concept that "players want the most accurate scenario - including every possible correction ASAP." There are pros and cons for both policies, and thus these two sets of scenarios (more or less due to release Mid April) are intended to allow players options - and neither is "right" or "best" for everyone.

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior
197- Hawkins (4/42)
1x2 (2) 7.5" F
1x1 (1) 7.5" C
1x1 (1) 7.5" RS
1x1 (1) 7.5" LS
1x2 (2) 7.5" R
1x2 (2) 4" RS
1x2 (2) 4" LS
4x1 (4) 2pdr RS
4x1 (4) 2pdr LS
1x2 (2) 2pdr R
1x1 (1) 20mm F
1x3 (3) 20mm RS
1x3 (3) 20mm LS
1x1 (1) Type 271
1594- Hawkins (8/44)
1x2 (2) 7.5" F
1x1 (1) 7.5" C
1x1 (1) 7.5" RS
1x1 (1) 7.5" LS
1x2 (2) 7.5" R
1x2 (2) 4" RS
1x2 (2) 4" LS
8x1 (8) 2pdr RS
8x1 (8) 2pdr LS
1x2 (2) 2pdr R
1x1 (1) 20mm F
1x4 (4) 20mm RS
1x4 (4) 20mm LS
1x1 (1) Type 271

First question: Should the Hawkins class have TTs? Sources seem to show 4 x 21" TTs (or 6 x 21" TTs)?

Andrew

Janes' lists 4x21" mounted "above water"..
(This is a reprint of the 1946 edition.)
BTW, Alaskan Warrior seems to have some good ref material. Not sure if this is important or not, Janes sez this ship had "H.T." or nickel armour, whatever that means. (I'm not navy.....)[;)]
A lot of these details give exact torpedo bulges on hulls, etc..

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior
197- Hawkins (4/42)
1x2 (2) 7.5" F
1x1 (1) 7.5" C
1x1 (1) 7.5" RS
1x1 (1) 7.5" LS
1x2 (2) 7.5" R
1x2 (2) 4" RS
1x2 (2) 4" LS
4x1 (4) 2pdr RS
4x1 (4) 2pdr LS
1x2 (2) 2pdr R
1x1 (1) 20mm F
1x3 (3) 20mm RS
1x3 (3) 20mm LS
1x1 (1) Type 271
1594- Hawkins (8/44)
1x2 (2) 7.5" F
1x1 (1) 7.5" C
1x1 (1) 7.5" RS
1x1 (1) 7.5" LS
1x2 (2) 7.5" R
1x2 (2) 4" RS
1x2 (2) 4" LS
8x1 (8) 2pdr RS
8x1 (8) 2pdr LS
1x2 (2) 2pdr R
1x1 (1) 20mm F
1x4 (4) 20mm RS
1x4 (4) 20mm LS
1x1 (1) Type 271

First question: Should the Hawkins class have TTs? Sources seem to show 4 x 21" TTs (or 6 x 21" TTs)?

Andrew

Yes, there should be. I need to correct this. I think what happened was with using multible sources. Although it is often a necessity, sometimes the trees are hiding in the woods, so to say. The Hawkins was rearmed exactly as she was when she was demilitarized. To adequately represent this class there really should be three sub classes. However, somehow the TT got missed, or they are there and I did not list them in the post. I need to check when I get home and will fix if necessary. Thanks every one for the sharp eyes..

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior
197- Hawkins (4/42)
1x2 (2) 7.5" F
1x1 (1) 7.5" C
1x1 (1) 7.5" RS
1x1 (1) 7.5" LS
1x2 (2) 7.5" R
1x2 (2) 4" RS
1x2 (2) 4" LS
4x1 (4) 2pdr RS
4x1 (4) 2pdr LS
1x2 (2) 2pdr R
1x1 (1) 20mm F
1x3 (3) 20mm RS
1x3 (3) 20mm LS
1x1 (1) Type 271
1594- Hawkins (8/44)
1x2 (2) 7.5" F
1x1 (1) 7.5" C
1x1 (1) 7.5" RS
1x1 (1) 7.5" LS
1x2 (2) 7.5" R
1x2 (2) 4" RS
1x2 (2) 4" LS
8x1 (8) 2pdr RS
8x1 (8) 2pdr LS
1x2 (2) 2pdr R
1x1 (1) 20mm F
1x4 (4) 20mm RS
1x4 (4) 20mm LS
1x1 (1) Type 271

First question: Should the Hawkins class have TTs? Sources seem to show 4 x 21" TTs (or 6 x 21" TTs)?

Andrew

Yes, there should be. I need to correct this. I think what happened was with using multible sources. Although it is often a necessity, sometimes the trees are hiding in the woods, so to say. The Hawkins was rearmed exactly as she was when she was demilitarized. To adequately represent this class there really should be three sub classes. However, somehow the TT got missed, or they are there and I did not list them in the post. I need to check when I get home and will fix if necessary. Thanks every one for the sharp eyes..

Okay, looks like I need to retract the above. Having finally made it home and rechecked all my sources it appears that the Hawkins or Frobisher did not have the above water tubes restored when they were rearmed early war. There is an excellent plan view of Forbisher in Raven and Roberts as well as a pretty good photo of Hawkins in 1942. Janes, as mentioned by m10bob, does indeed list the above water tubes. However, the scale drawing in Janes shows no TT's. Based on what I consider a Gold standard, Raven and Roberts, and a somewhat weaker Janes, it appears that these two ships Hawkins and Frobisher did not have above water tubes in WWII.

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown



First question: Should the Hawkins class have TTs? Sources seem to show 4 x 21" TTs (or 6 x 21" TTs)?

Andrew

Yes, there should be. I need to correct this. I think what happened was with using multible sources. Although it is often a necessity, sometimes the trees are hiding in the woods, so to say. The Hawkins was rearmed exactly as she was when she was demilitarized. To adequately represent this class there really should be three sub classes. However, somehow the TT got missed, or they are there and I did not list them in the post. I need to check when I get home and will fix if necessary. Thanks every one for the sharp eyes..

Okay, looks like I need to retract the above. Having finally made it home and rechecked all my sources it appears that the Hawkins or Frobisher did not have the above water tubes restored when they were rearmed early war. There is an excellent plan view of Forbisher in Raven and Roberts as well as a pretty good photo of Hawkins in 1942. Janes, as mentioned by m10bob, does indeed list the above water tubes. However, the scale drawing in Janes shows no TT's. Based on what I consider a Gold standard, Raven and Roberts, and a somewhat weaker Janes, it appears that these two ships Hawkins and Frobisher did not have above water tubes in WWII.

I concur with Richard..Janes' is a good book, but his sources are more accurate than mine.
(Just ask me about tanks, though!!)[8D]

I concur with Richard..Janes' is a good book, but his sources are more accurate than mine.
(Just ask me about tanks, though!!)[8D]

I might just do that. I have played many of miniature (1:285) land battles using a variety of rule systems.. Maybe we could trade notes?

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior
Okay, looks like I need to retract the above. Having finally made it home and rechecked all my sources it appears that the Hawkins or Frobisher did not have the above water tubes restored when they were rearmed early war. There is an excellent plan view of Forbisher in Raven and Roberts as well as a pretty good photo of Hawkins in 1942. Janes, as mentioned by m10bob, does indeed list the above water tubes. However, the scale drawing in Janes shows no TT's. Based on what I consider a Gold standard, Raven and Roberts, and a somewhat weaker Janes, it appears that these two ships Hawkins and Frobisher did not have above water tubes in WWII.

I did wonder about that refit. Conways mentions it, but does not give any details, and Conways is the only source I have.

Andrew

Cruisers of World War Two
M.J. Whitley
Naval Institute Press

Indicates the tubes were surpressed before going into reserve and not restored during the subsiquent rearmaments - which were AA oriented.

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

I concur with Richard..Janes' is a good book, but his sources are more accurate than mine.
(Just ask me about tanks, though!!)[8D]

I might just do that. I have played many of miniature (1:285) land battles using a variety of rule systems.. Maybe we could trade notes?

I used "Tanktics"(?) but with all those books it got old quick, so I went to a single booklet set of rules called "Blitzkrieg", (IIRC), which seemed to be the land equivalent of "General Quarters", (my favorite ship miniatures rules.)
Ah...The days of "Wargamers Digest","The General","S&T",and certainly before CPU wargames, (or affordable home PC's for that matter!!!!!!!!)[:D]
**For the youngsters out there, "ATARI 800" got its' name because it cost $800.........BACK THEN!!!!!!!!!!!************