Matrix Games Forums

Pandora: Eclipse of Nashira Announced! Deal of the Week: Command Ops goes half price!New Fronts are opening up for Commander: The Great WarCharacters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer Corps
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land Page: <<   < prev  73 74 [75] 76 77   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 8/30/2012 6:53:46 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 17176
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: christo


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Here's the final draft for the write-up for HMS Iron Duke.

[4585 Iron Duke]
.B Engine(s) output: 29,000 hp
.B Top Speed: 21.25 knots
.B Main armament: 10 x 13.5-inch (343mm), 12 x 6-inch (152mm) guns
.B Displacement (full load): 30,380 tons
.B Thickest armour: 12-inches (belt), 2.5-inch (deck)
.P Four battleships of the Iron Duke-class were built for the Royal Navy (RN)
between 1912 and 1914. The ships - Iron Duke, Marlborough, Benbow and Emperor of
India - were essentially improved versions of the preceding King George V-class
(KGV).





.
Sorry if I am displaying my ignorance here but was HMS KGV not part of the Centurion class ?
The KGV class was not commissioned til 1939.
warspite1

According to Burt's British battleships, it was the KGV-class, not the Centurion-class. This is supported by Conways warships 1906-1921 which also state the name ship of the class was KGV and not Centurion. Out of interest what source do you have that cites Centurion as being the class name?


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty - Horatio Nelson 1805.




(in reply to christo)
Post #: 2221
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 8/30/2012 6:55:50 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 17176
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: christo


quote:

ORIGINAL: christo


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Here's the final draft for the write-up for HMS Iron Duke.

[4585 Iron Duke]
.B Engine(s) output: 29,000 hp
.B Top Speed: 21.25 knots
.B Main armament: 10 x 13.5-inch (343mm), 12 x 6-inch (152mm) guns
.B Displacement (full load): 30,380 tons
.B Thickest armour: 12-inches (belt), 2.5-inch (deck)
.P Four battleships of the Iron Duke-class were built for the Royal Navy (RN)
between 1912 and 1914. The ships - Iron Duke, Marlborough, Benbow and Emperor of
India - were essentially improved versions of the preceding King George V-class
(KGV).





.
Sorry if I am displaying my ignorance here but was HMS KGV not part of the Centurion class ?
The KGV class was not commissioned til 1939.


Having done more reading am I right that there are 2 classes of KGV battleships ?
Those commissioned in 1911 (KGV, Centurion, Audacious, Ajax) and the second world war (KGV, Prince of Wales, Duke of York, Howe, Anson).
Warspite1

Yes, that is correct, although of course the two KGV's were not around at the same time. HMS Centurion was the only ship of the earlier KGV-class to remain in existence (albeit de-militarised) by the outbreak of WWII.

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 8/30/2012 7:02:51 AM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty - Horatio Nelson 1805.




(in reply to christo)
Post #: 2222
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 9/16/2012 6:54:03 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 17176
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: online
As part of a project to give the Norwegian Campaign a facelift, I have finalised the Courageous-class intro.

[4543 Glorious]
.B Engine(s) output: 90,000 hp
.B Top Speed: 30 knots
.B Main armament: 16 x 4.7-inch (119mm) guns and 3 x 8-barrelled 2-pdr pompoms
.B Aircraft: 48
.B Displacement (full load): 27,400 tons
.B Thickest armour: 3-inch (belt)
.P The two ships of the Courageous-class - Courageous and Glorious - were,
along with their half-sister Furious, the only capital ships ever built for a
specific operation. They were designed just after the outbreak of World War I
with a view to undertaking Admiral John Fisher's Baltic Project; a plan - never
carried out - to sail an invasion fleet into the Baltic Sea and land an army on
the German coast, from where they would march on Berlin.
.P The Courageous-class ships, built between 1915 and 1917, were classed as large
light cruisers - effectively light battlecruisers. They were fast ships, armed
with four 15-inch guns, but were given very little in the way of armour
protection. At the end of the war they were surplus to requirements and placed in
reserve.
.P However, a reprieve was at hand. Under the terms of the 1922 Washington Naval
Treaty, the Royal Navy (RN) was allowed to convert the two sisters into aircraft
carriers. Courageous' conversion was completed in May 1928, with Glorious following in
February 1930.
.P Initially the ships had two flight decks, including a flying off deck at the
bow. The latter, suitable for the small aircraft of the time, was removed
during a refit in the mid-thirties and the space used to house additional anti-
aircraft (AA) weaponry.
.P The two ships were very similar visually, with an island structure and large
funnel fitted on the starboard side. Their appearance was perhaps spoiled by the
abrupt ending of the flight deck well short of the bow. Differentiation between
the two became easier when, in the mid-thirties, Glorious received an extension
to her flight deck aft which took the flight deck level with her stern. Despite the
benefits this extension gave the pilots, Courageous was not given the same
treatment.
.P The ships were able to carry 48 aircraft, which was significantly more than
the capacity of the RN's existing carrier fleet. The aircraft were housed in two
hangers that were served by two lifts. Plans were drawn up to convert the ships
to a single hanger arrangement in the late thirties, but these changes, which
would have increased capacity and allowed for new armour plating, were never
implemented.
.P As was the case with all RN carriers at the start of World War II, they were
hampered in their effectiveness by the poor quality aircraft that they were able
to employ. This was a result of a lack of money for defence spending between the
wars and this deficiency was then made worse because of the decision to have the
Royal Air Force (RAF) responsible for naval aircraft.
.P To assist take-off two catapults were fitted - each capable of launching
8,000lb at 56 knots. Four arrester wires were installed to help safely land the
aircraft. 35,700 imperial gallons of aviation fuel was carried.
.P Defensive armament was limited to AA weaponry only, with sixteen single
4.7-inch guns. These weapons were augmented with twenty-four 2-pdr pompoms and
multiple 0.5-inch machine guns.
.P Betraying their light battlecruiser heritage, armour protection was very thin.
A belt of just 3-inches provided vertical protection and 0.75-inches for the
flight deck. Bulges were fitted, but this was largely to aid stability than for
anti-torpedo purposes.
.P The ships were fitted with Parsons geared turbines that produced 90,000hp and
a top speed of 32 knots. By the time of their conversion, this top speed had
reduced to around 30 knots.
.P The names Courageous and Glorious were typical of the inspiring and grand
names used for RN capital ships.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty - Horatio Nelson 1805.




(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 2223
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 9/20/2012 5:14:37 AM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1602
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline
[4543 Glorious]
.B Engine(s) output: 90,000 hp
.B Top Speed: 30 knots
.B Main armament: 16 x 4.7-inch (119mm) guns and 3 x 8-barrelled 2-pdr pompoms
.B Aircraft: 48
.B Displacement (full load): 27,400 tons
.B Thickest armour: 3-inch (belt)
.P The two ships of the Courageous-class - Courageous and Glorious - were,
along with their half-sister Furious, the only capital ships ever built for a
specific operation. They were designed just after the outbreak of World War I
with a view to undertaking Admiral John Fisher's Baltic Project; a plan - never
carried out - to sail an invasion fleet into the Baltic Sea and land an army on
the German coast, from where they would march on Berlin.
.P The Courageous-class ships, built between 1915 and 1917, were classed as large
light cruisers - effectively light battlecruisers. They were fast ships, armed
with four 15-inch guns, but were given very little in the way of armour
protection. At the end of the war they were surplus to requirements and placed in
reserve.
.P However, a reprieve was at hand. Under the terms of the 1922 Washington Naval
Treaty, the Royal Navy (RN) was allowed to convert the two sisters into aircraft
carriers. Courageous' conversion was completed in May 1928, with Glorious following in
February 1930.
.P Initially the ships had two flight decks, a proper flight deck and a flight deck at the bow.
The latter, was suitable for the small aircraft of the time, and removed
during a refit in the mid-thirties. The reclaimed space was used for additional
anti- aircraft (AA) weaponry.

.P The two ships were very similar visually, with an island structure and large
funnel fitted on the starboard side. The abrupt ending of the flight deck well short of the
bow perhaps spoiled their appearance.
Differentiation between
the two became easier when, in the mid-thirties, Glorious received an extension
to her flight deck aft, which took the flight deck level with her stern. Despite the
benefits this extension gave the pilots, Courageous was not given the same
treatment.
.P The ships were able to carry 48 aircraft, which was significantly more than
the capacity of the RN's existing carrier fleet. The aircraft were housed in two
hangers that were served by two lifts. Plans were drawn up to convert the ships
to a single hanger arrangement in the late thirties, but these changes, which
would have increased capacity and allowed for new armour plating, were never
implemented.
.P As was the case with all RN carriers at the start of World War II, they were
hampered in their effectiveness by the poor quality aircraft that they were able
to employ. This was a result of a lack of money for defence spending between the
wars and this deficiency was then made worse because of the decision to have the
Royal Air Force (RAF) responsible for naval aircraft.
.P To assist take-off two catapults were fitted - each capable of launching
8,000lb at 56 knots. Four arrester wires were installed to help safely land the
aircraft. 35,700 imperial gallons of aviation fuel was carried.
.P Defensive armament was limited to AA weaponry only, with sixteen single
4.7-inch guns. These weapons were augmented with twenty-four 2-pdr pompoms and
multiple 0.5-inch machine guns.
.P Betraying their light battlecruiser heritage, armour protection was very thin.
A belt of just 3-inches provided vertical protection and 0.75-inches for the
flight deck. Bulges were fitted, but this was largely to aid stability than for
anti-torpedo purposes.
.P The ships were fitted with Parsons geared turbines that produced 90,000hp and
a top speed of 32 knots. By the time of their conversion, this top speed had
reduced to around 30 knots.
.P The names Courageous and Glorious were typical of the inspiring and grand
names used for RN capital ships.



_____________________________

University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 2224
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 9/20/2012 6:17:10 PM   
Neilster


Posts: 2246
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

Initially the ships had two flight decks, a proper flight deck and a flight deck at the bow.


...should probably have a semicolon instead of a comma.

Cheers, Neilster

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 2225
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 9/21/2012 11:26:53 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18175
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

quote:

Initially the ships had two flight decks, a proper flight deck and a flight deck at the bow.


...should probably have a semicolon instead of a comma.

Cheers, Neilster


Colon, not semi-colon.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Neilster)
Post #: 2226
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 9/22/2012 8:26:05 AM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1602
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline
How to use a semicolon

Using Colns

Initially the ships had two flight decks (a complete idea): (colon used to separate a title and a subtitle) a proper flight deck and a flight deck at the bow.


So...

Initially the ships had two flight decks: a proper flight deck and a flight deck at the bow.




_____________________________

University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 2227
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 9/22/2012 11:43:30 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 4088
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
A lot of the posts replying to the unit descriptions certainly do put me in mind of what a colon is used for.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 2228
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 12/11/2012 9:55:24 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18175
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
Here are 4 new write ups by Jimm.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 2229
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 12/12/2012 3:04:37 PM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1602
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline
The write up should read:
2a Divisione Celere not 2nd Celere division;
Corpo d’Armata Celere (Swift Army Corps) not Celere Corps;
Comando Difesa Territoriale di Torino (Torino) (Territorial Defense Command in Turin) not 1st Territorial Corps;
It should be Turin not Torino.
 
 
Guardia alla Frontiera is abbreviated G.a.F. (note the lower case "a").
 
You mention the G.a.F. but not the Comandi di Difesa Territoriale (Territorial Defense Command).
 
All this after I posted my links
 
 
Squadroni Sommergibili --> ‘Squadriglia Sommergibili’.

Squadron/Fleet --> ‘Divisione/Squadra’ (i.e. ‘2a Divisione/ I Squadra’).
Comando Navale Libica --> Comando Navale Libico.

Corps/Army --> Corpo/Armata (i.e. II Corpo/1a Armata) (in this case, ‘Corpo d’Armata’ can be ‘Corpo’ only).
Alpini Corps --> ‘Corpo d’Armata Alpino’.
Infantry Division in Africa --> Divisione di Fanteria 'Africa'.
Mountain Divisions: 'Divisione Alpina'.
Cavalry Divisions: 'Divisione Celere'.
Motorized Divisions 'Divisione Motorizzata'.
Armored Divisions: 'Divisione Corazzata'.

 
Free Italian to English online translation
 
These are just the glaring errors I spotted because I don't like to edit screenshots.
 
 
 

_____________________________

University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 2230
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 12/16/2012 10:30:24 AM   
Jimm


Posts: 580
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: York, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

The write up should read:
2a Divisione Celere not 2nd Celere division;
Corpo d’Armata Celere (Swift Army Corps) not Celere Corps;
Comando Difesa Territoriale di Torino (Torino) (Territorial Defense Command in Turin) not 1st Territorial Corps;
It should be Turin not Torino.
 
 
Guardia alla Frontiera is abbreviated G.a.F. (note the lower case "a").
 
You mention the G.a.F. but not the Comandi di Difesa Territoriale (Territorial Defense Command).
 
All this after I posted my links
 
 
Squadroni Sommergibili --> ‘Squadriglia Sommergibili’.

Squadron/Fleet --> ‘Divisione/Squadra’ (i.e. ‘2a Divisione/ I Squadra’).
Comando Navale Libica --> Comando Navale Libico.

Corps/Army --> Corpo/Armata (i.e. II Corpo/1a Armata) (in this case, ‘Corpo d’Armata’ can be ‘Corpo’ only).
Alpini Corps --> ‘Corpo d’Armata Alpino’.
Infantry Division in Africa --> Divisione di Fanteria 'Africa'.
Mountain Divisions: 'Divisione Alpina'.
Cavalry Divisions: 'Divisione Celere'.
Motorized Divisions 'Divisione Motorizzata'.
Armored Divisions: 'Divisione Corazzata'.

 
Free Italian to English online translation
 
These are just the glaring errors I spotted because I don't like to edit screenshots.
 
 
 

Thanks for your comments on my "glaring" errors. Diplomatic and constructive as always, Extraneous.

Your main issue seems to be whether I provide Italian or English nomenclature. I see no issue in referring to Corpo d’Armata Celere as the "Celere Corps" in passing. I've used Italian and English translations interchangeably througout the Italian writeups; generally as this project is in English I have utilised the English by default but incorporated the full Italian where I feel appropriate, mostly for flavour. "Celere" means something different to "cavalry" so a straight translation is misleading, so I have used the word Celere freely in the English prose, as do many of the references I have utilised, the same way you might say "2nd Panzer division" for instance.

If I am not consistent in this, sue me.

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 2231
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 12/16/2012 1:40:50 PM   
tigercub


Posts: 1534
Joined: 2/3/2003
From: chiang mai ,thailand
Status: offline
"glaring" errors. Diplomatic and constructive as always, Extraneous.

+2

_____________________________


You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life

(in reply to Jimm)
Post #: 2232
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 12/16/2012 1:43:00 PM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1602
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline
It would not seem so bad except for my previous posts.

But why mention the G.a.F. (border guards) and not the Comandi di Difesa Territoriale (Territorial Defense Command).

"This unit represents 2a Divisione Celere "Testa di Ferro" (2nd Celere division nicknamed: Iron Head),"

We could go on about this but it is your unit write up.

Consider yourself sued.

_____________________________

University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)

(in reply to Jimm)
Post #: 2233
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 12/16/2012 2:00:46 PM   
Jimm


Posts: 580
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: York, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

But why mention the G.a.F. (border guards) and not the Comandi di Difesa Territoriale (Territorial Defense Command).



Why, since I clearly can't do it to your exacting standards, did I bother wasting my free time doing it at all?

:-(

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 2234
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 12/16/2012 3:21:45 PM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1602
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline
Don't like criticism or suggestions do you.

Very well, just tell me which are yours and I won't bother with them at all.



_____________________________

University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)

(in reply to Jimm)
Post #: 2235
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 12/16/2012 4:11:34 PM   
Jimm


Posts: 580
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: York, UK
Status: offline

I am quite as happy to accept constructive feedback or criticism as the next man. When you understand what that means, let me have your comments.

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 2236
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 12/16/2012 10:06:06 PM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1602
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline
Obviously you have no experience with the concept of proofreading.

Proofreading - to read and mark corrections.

Who proofreads your write ups? Answer: I just did.

I consider my responses to your remarks quite reserved for now while you continue to be abusive. Did I hurt your fealings?


quote:


From Comando Supremo

Pre !939 the Frontier Guard had the task of defending the forntier using fortress artillery.

In 1939 its task was still frontier defence but it added supporting arms such as infantry to add the task of being a covering force.

Frontier Guards HQ were attached to XI Army Corps

the Frontier Guard had:
11 Frontier Guard commands each commanded by a Brigadier General assigned to the HQ of the corps area touching the frontier
1 Frontier Guard infantry regiment: to provide training and replacements
9 Frontier Guard artillery regiments
1 independant Frontier Guard group
a varying number of covering sectors, these had subsectors and minor specialist units of infantry artillery and engineers. The sector had a depot and its strength depended on local circumstances.

Some of the infantry came from the Frontier Guard Infantry regiment and other personnel generally from the army corps.


Under the Turin milita you use both Turin and Torino. Choose one TURIN or TORINO.

1st Territorial Corps is from Orbat. You and I had this discussion before don't trust Orbat without confirmation.


Comandi di Corpo d'Armata
I Corpo d'Armata di Torino (I Corps)
II Corpo d'Armata di Alessandria (II Corps)
III Corpo d'Armata di Milano (III Corps)
IV Corpo d’Armata Alpino (IV Corps)
V Corpo d'Armata di Trieste (V Corps)
VI Corpo d'Armata di Bologna (VI Corps)
VII Corpo d'Armata di Ancona (VII Corps)
VIII Corpo d'Armata di Roma (VIII Corps)
IX Corpo d'Armata di Bari (IX Corps)
X Corpo d'Armata di Napoli (X Corps)
XI Corpo d'Armata di Lubiana (XI Corps)
XII Corpo d'Armata di Palermo (XII Corps)
XIII Corpo d'Armata di Cagliari (XIII Corps)
XIV Corpo d'Armata di Treviso (XIV Corps)
XV Corpo d'Armata di Genova (XV Corps)
XX Corpo D'Armata di Manovra (XX Corps)
XXIV Corpo d'Armata di Udine (XXIV Corps)
XXXV Corpo d'Armata di Bolzano (XXXV Corps)



_____________________________

University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)

(in reply to Jimm)
Post #: 2237
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 12/17/2012 12:03:39 AM   
Jimm


Posts: 580
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: York, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

Obviously you have no experience with the concept of proofreading.

Proofreading - to read and mark corrections.

Who proofreads your write ups? Answer: I just did.

I consider my responses to your remarks quite reserved for now while you continue to be abusive. Did I hurt your fealings?



My issue, Extraneous, is not with your knowledge, but with your manners.

If anyone else on this public forum states that they believe that it is I, not you, who have been "abusive" in our interactions on this thread then you will have my public apology. Anyone?

I think we are at a level of detail that I'm sure bores anyone else reading this thread, but ok. Yes, I accept "Torino" should be "Turin" for consistency. You are correct that I corps was based in Turin. In the scheme of a militia unit description is this relevant? maybe, maybe not.
You contest the existence of 1st Territorial Corps but provide no alternate data or source, you simply assert the info to be incorrect.
Your extensive quote from Comando Supremo on GaF I fail to see the relevance of. Which writeup is this pertinent to?

Simply sneering and asserting your opinion from the sidelines is not proof reading. Neither is pasting mass text from other websites- yes I know them too. Your point?

I will continue to complete the remaining Italian land writeups. Feel free to issue your indictments on them from on high. If I think there is anything worth responding to I will do so, but frankly for now I'm done with you- I'd hate to "abuse" you any further.









< Message edited by Jimm -- 12/17/2012 12:04:48 AM >

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 2238
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 12/17/2012 2:08:26 AM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1602
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline
quote:

Original: Jimm
1) "Glaring" errors. Diplomatic and constructive as always, Extraneous.

2) Why, since I clearly can't do it to your exacting standards, did I bother wasting my free time doing it at all?

3) When you understand what that means, let me have your comments.

4) My issue, Extraneous, is not with your knowledge, but with your manners.

5) Simply sneering and asserting your opinion from the sidelines is not proof reading. Neither is pasting mass text from other websites- yes I know them too. Your point?

6) Feel free to issue your indictments on them from on high. If I think there is anything worth responding to I will do so, but frankly for now I'm done with you- I'd hate to "abuse" you any further.



Read your own statements above in the quotes and they don't sound abusive to you?


As for my manners they could be a lot worse considering the responses I get here at these forums.


I explained my reasons

I offered to quit this discussion

You continue so I continue.

You quote Orbat to me and then complain when I post a link and information. Did you read the title of the thread?

Guardia alla Frontiera
What was the organization of the Guardia alla Frontiera in WWII. I see they appeared in the oob for the invasion of France in 1940. Was a frontier guard sector a company or battalion or just what was it.?


I see you changed GAF to GaF I bet that was humblling.


_____________________________

University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)

(in reply to Jimm)
Post #: 2239
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 12/17/2012 8:16:05 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 4088
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
Jimm... the green button at the bottom of his posts - use it. Hover over it to see what it does.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 2240
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 2/20/2013 7:22:44 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18175
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
There are a total of 149 land units left that need write-ups. I am looking for authors to fill in these gaps. If you have any interest in doing so, please send me an email: SHokanson@HawaiianTel.net. The task requires doing some original research, finding multiple sources and writing your own synthesis of what you have learned. Simply cutting and pasting from other sources is NOT what we are looking for here.

---

The remaining units are presented by nationality, alphabetically.

American - 11 units
-----
[2040] [American 1st Motorized Engineer Division]
[2041] [American 2nd Motorized Engineer Division]
[2042] [American Marine Engineer Division]
[2109] [American 120mm Antiaircraft Gun]
[3010] [American Saigon Militia]
[3011] [American Naples Garrison]
[3012] [American 5th Motorized Division]
[3013] [American Rome Motorized Corps]
[3014] [American 7th Armor Division]
[3072] [American Supply Unit]
[6001] [American Synthetic Oil]

Australian - 7 units
-----
[2001] [Australian 2nd Infantry]
[2003] [Australian Sydney Militia]
[2004] [Australian Territorials]
[2005] [Australian Territorials]
[2006] [Australian 3rd Garrison]
[2007] [Australian 1st Motorized Corps]
[2008] [Australian 4th Mechanized Corps]

British - 7 units
-----
[2425] [British Motorized Engineer Division]
[2426] [British Marine Engineer Division]
[2450] [British VI Armor Corps]
[3035] [British Oslo Militia]
[3036] [British Athens Garrison]
[6005] [British Synthetic Oil]
[6006] [British Synthetic Oil]

Canadian - 1 unit
-----
[2118] [Canadian 6th Garrison Corps]

Commonwealth - 1 unit
-----
[6014] [Commonwealth Synthetic Oil]

Danish - 1 unit
-----
[2677] [Danish Copenhagen Militia]

Eritrean - 1 unit
-----
[2870] [Eritrean Territorials]

French - 3 units
-----
[3051] [French Algeria Mountain Corps]
[3052] [French Algiers Militia]
[3055] [French Dakar Motorized Corps]

German - 28 units
-----
[2513] [German 5th Mountain Division]
[2514] [German Alpine Mountain Korps]
[2517] [German 1st Engineer Division]
[2518] [German 5th Motorized Pz Engineer Division]
[2548] [German 1st Motorized Division]
[2550] [German LIII Motorized Korps]
[2551] [German LXVI Motorized Korps]
[2560] [German XXXXVI Motorized Korps]
[2561] [German 2nd Mechanized Division]
[2562] [German HG Mechanized Korps]
[2564] [German LII Mechanized Korps]
[2565] [German LVI Mechanized Korps]
[2567] [German XL Mechanized Korps]
[2568] [German XLVI Mechanized Korps]
[2569] [German XVIII Mechanized Korps]
[2570] [German XXXIX Mechanized Korps]
[2571] [German 1st Armor Division]
[2573] [German GD Armor Korps]
[2574] [German HG Armor Division]
[2576] [German LVII Armor Korps]
[2577] [German XLI Armor Korps]
[2578] [German XLIX Armor Korps]
[2579] [German XLVII Armor Korps]
[2580] [German XLVIII Armor Korps]
[2581] [German XLIV Armor Korps]
[3039] [German 4th Motorized Division]
[3040] [German 7th Mechanized Division]
[3049] [German I Slovak Militia]

Italian - 10 units
-----
[2731] [Italian Venice Militia]
[2732] [Italian Lucca Garrison]
[2733] [Italian XIII Garrison]
[2734] [Italian XV Garrison]
[2735] [Italian XX Garrison]
[3045] [Italian Madrid Infantry Corps]
[3046] [Italian Cairo Infantry Corps]
[3047] [Italian Athens Infantry Corps]
[3048] [Italian Supply Unit]
[6011] [Italian Synthetic Oil]

Italian Somaliland - 2 units
-----
[2873] [Italian Somaliland Territorials]
[2874] [Italian Somaliland Territorials]

Japanese - 9 units
-----
[2148] [Japanese 1st Infantry Division]
[2178] [Japanese 1st Engineer Division]
[2179] [Japanese 2nd Engineer Division]
[2193] [Japanese Vladivostok Militia]
[2203] [Japanese 5th Motorized Division]
[3018] [Japanese 7th Motorized Division]
[3020] [Japanese 3rd Mechanized Division]
[6002] [Japanese Synthetic Oil]
[6003] [Japanese Synthetic Oil]

Korean - 2 units
-----
[2225] [Korean Soeul Militia]
[2226] [Korean Territorials]

Libyan - 3 units
-----
[2852] [Libyan Territorials]
[2853] [Libyan Territorials]
[2854] [Libyan Territorials]


Nationalist Chinese - 1 unit
-----
[6012] [Nationalist Chinese Synthetic Oil]

New Zealand - 3 units
-----
[2009] [New Zealand Auckland Militia]
[2010] [New Zealand Territorials]
[2011] [New Zealand 1st Motorized Corps]

Polish - 13 units
-----
[2788] [Polish 1st Infantry Division]
[2789] [Polish Karpaty Infantry Army]
[2790] [Polish Krakow Infantry Army]
[2791] [Polish Modlin Infantry Army]
[2792] [Polish Pomorze Infantry Army]
[2793] [Polish Poznan Infantry Army]
[2794] [Polish Prusy Infantry Army]
[2795] [Polish Tarnow Cavalry Corps]
[2797] [Polish Lodz Militia]
[2798] [Polish Warsaw Militia]
[2799] [Polish Narew Motorized Army]
[2800] [Polish Kutno Mechanized Army]
[2801] [Polish Gd Armor Army]

Senegali - 1 unit
-----
[2895] [Senegali Dakar Militia]

South Afriacan - 5 units
-----
[2881] [South African 1st Infantry Corps]
[2882] [South African Cape Town Militia]
[2883] [South African Territorial]
[2884] [South African Territorial]
[2885] [South African 4th Motorized Corps]

Soviet - 8 unit
-----
[2347] [Soviet 2nd Armor]
[3023] [Soviet 4th Guards Banner Infantry Division]
[3030] [Soviet 3rd Motorized Division]
[3031] [Soviet 3rd Guards Banner Motorized Division]
[3032] [Soviet 13th Mechanized Division]
[3033] [Soviet 2nd Guards Banner Mechanized Division]
[3034] [Soviet 1st Guards Banner Armor Division]
[6004] [Soviet Synthetic Oil]

Spanish - 12 units
-----
[2991] [Spanish Gd Infantry Corps]
[2992] [Spanish IV Infantry Corps]
[2993] [Spanish V Infantry Corps]
[2994] [Spanish VIII Infantry Corps]
[2995] [Spanish Cavalry Corps]
[2997] [Spanish Cartegena Militia]
[2998] [Spanish Seville Militia]
[2999] [Spanish VI Garrison]
[3000] [Spanish VII Garrison]
[3001] [Spanish III Motorized Corps]
[3002] [Spanish II Mechanized Corps]
[3003] [Spanish I Armor Corps]

Spanish Republican - 13 units
-----
[2897] [Spanish Republican Gd Infantry Corps]
[2898] [Spanish Republican IV Infantry Corps]
[2899] [Spanish Republican Red Infantry Division]
[2900] [Spanish Republican V Infantry Corps]
[2901] [Spanish Republican Cavalry Corps]
[2903] [Spanish Republican Barcelona Militia]
[2904] [Spanish Republican Bilbao Militia]
[2905] [Spanish Republican Madrid Militia]
[2906] [Spanish Republican VI Garrison]
[2907] [Spanish Republican VII Garrison]
[2908] [Spanish Republican III Motorized Corps]
[2909] [Spanish Republican II Mechanized Corps]
[2910] [Spanish Republican I Armor Corps]

Ukrainian - 7 units
-----
[2379] [Ukrainian I Infantry Corps]
[2380] [Ukrainian II Infantry Corps]
[2381] [Ukrainian Cavalry Corps]
[2383] [Ukrainian Kiev Militia]
[2384] [Ukrainian IV Garrison Corps]
[2385] [Ukrainian III Motorized Corps]
[2386] [Ukrainian Guards Mechanized Corps]


_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 2241
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 2/21/2013 7:51:29 AM   
HansHafen

 

Posts: 256
Joined: 2/3/2008
Status: offline
I guess Extraneous would also prefer the writeups to be all in Italian too?

This is a volunteer project with people giving their free time to make a better game for all of us. Please give them the benefit of the doubt. Be polite when pointing out errors or ommissions. (or misspellings!)

Here is what you could have said,

Hey Jimm, great writeups buddy! I have read alot about the Italians in WWII and have a couple suggestions if you don't mind.

1.
2.
3.

Hope this helps and keep up the good work friend!

Extraneous

Here is basically what you said,

Damn, you screwed alot of that up. I could do better with my eyes closed noob!

You should have said this

1.
2.
3.

Get it right for gods sake, jesus...

(I provide translation services from smartass to english and from english to smartass on a contract basis, please inquire within.)

Oh, Extraneous said he'll do the rest of the unit writeups because he wants them done "write" the first time. He will have them to you tomorrow evening...

< Message edited by HansHafen -- 2/21/2013 7:57:08 AM >

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 2242
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 2/21/2013 12:11:58 PM   
michaelbaldur


Posts: 3676
Joined: 4/6/2007
From: denmark
Status: offline

no offence, I have already done most of those write ups.

who decided they were no good

I have done the Australians, south Africa, Denmark, Poland, NZ


_____________________________

Peyton manning is a God and the wif rulebook is my bible

I work hard, not smart.

beta tester and Mwif expert

(in reply to HansHafen)
Post #: 2243
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 2/21/2013 1:05:50 PM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1602
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline
Someone should have searched the WiF forums for unit descriptions.

German 5th Mountain (Gebirgs) Division


_____________________________

University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)

(in reply to michaelbaldur)
Post #: 2244
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 2/21/2013 1:27:41 PM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1602
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HansHafen

I guess Extraneous would also prefer the writeups to be all in Italian too?

This is a volunteer project with people giving their free time to make a better game for all of us. Please give them the benefit of the doubt. Be polite when pointing out errors or ommissions. (or misspellings!)

Here is what you could have said,

Hey Jimm, great writeups buddy! I have read alot about the Italians in WWII and have a couple suggestions if you don't mind.

1.
2.
3.

Hope this helps and keep up the good work friend!

Extraneous

Here is basically what you said,

Damn, you screwed alot of that up. I could do better with my eyes closed noob!

You should have said this

1.
2.
3.

Get it right for gods sake, jesus...

(I provide translation services from smartass to english and from english to smartass on a contract basis, please inquire within.)

Oh, Extraneous said he'll do the rest of the unit writeups because he wants them done "write" the first time. He will have them to you tomorrow evening...


Good flame to bad you are so badly informed.


You forgot to mention ALL THE WRITE-UPS, CONTENT, EDITING, AND LINKS I have provided to Matrix. For which I DEMAND no credit.

Thanks for trying to put words into my mouth.

What I said was with all the links and information I have provided the focus of the write-ups was in meaningless areas and left out more important meaningful areas.

I am glad you can translate for us who are not fluent in smartass as you are.







_____________________________

University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 2245
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 2/21/2013 6:34:39 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 17176
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur


no offence, I have already done most of those write ups.

who decided they were no good

I have done the Australians, south Africa, Denmark, Poland, NZ

warspite1

Well I have volunteered to do the Polish units but if they have been done then obviously won't bother!

I will do nothing further unless I hear otherwise.


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty - Horatio Nelson 1805.




(in reply to michaelbaldur)
Post #: 2246
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 2/22/2013 7:11:38 AM   
JeffK


Posts: 5129
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Back in the Office, Can I get my tin hut back!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur


no offence, I have already done most of those write ups.

who decided they were no good

I have done the Australians, south Africa, Denmark, Poland, NZ


Thats not a bad effort considering 6 of the 7 Australian units are fictional.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to michaelbaldur)
Post #: 2247
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 2/22/2013 11:54:25 AM   
michaelbaldur


Posts: 3676
Joined: 4/6/2007
From: denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur


no offence, I have already done most of those write ups.

who decided they were no good

I have done the Australians, south Africa, Denmark, Poland, NZ


Thats not a bad effort considering 6 of the 7 Australian units are fictional.

as I remember Australia never had any corps size units

they are really not fictional ... Australia had enough divisions for all corps, the just never were formed as corps.

so simply told the history of the different division under the corps that made most sense

_____________________________

Peyton manning is a God and the wif rulebook is my bible

I work hard, not smart.

beta tester and Mwif expert

(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 2248
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 2/22/2013 11:56:24 AM   
michaelbaldur


Posts: 3676
Joined: 4/6/2007
From: denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur


no offence, I have already done most of those write ups.

who decided they were no good

I have done the Australians, south Africa, Denmark, Poland, NZ

warspite1

Well I have volunteered to do the Polish units but if they have been done then obviously won't bother!

I will do nothing further unless I hear otherwise.



the ones in the game right now is not mine .. so delete away


< Message edited by michaelbaldur -- 2/22/2013 12:29:22 PM >


_____________________________

Peyton manning is a God and the wif rulebook is my bible

I work hard, not smart.

beta tester and Mwif expert

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 2249
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 2/22/2013 12:28:35 PM   
michaelbaldur


Posts: 3676
Joined: 4/6/2007
From: denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur


no offence, I have already done most of those write ups.

who decided they were no good

I have done the Australians, south Africa, Denmark, Poland, NZ



just went though those write ups. and none of them are mine.

and looking though the rest of the ones I remembered I did. they are not mine either

so basic.... all my work have been erased.

_____________________________

Peyton manning is a God and the wif rulebook is my bible

I work hard, not smart.

beta tester and Mwif expert

(in reply to michaelbaldur)
Post #: 2250
Page:   <<   < prev  73 74 [75] 76 77   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land Page: <<   < prev  73 74 [75] 76 77   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.141