Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns

World in Flames is the computer version of Australian Design Group classic board game. World In Flames is a highly detailed game covering the both Europe and Pacific Theaters of Operations during World War II. If you want grand strategy this game is for you.

Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets

User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

Please try and keep comments on warspite's posts here, not in the Historical Naval Losses thread.
warspite1

I've asked one of the mods to move the comment to this thread and will look at it at that time.
warspite1

Apparently the post can't be moved and has been deleted instead.

To Centuur. I think you said the second country from the bottom but that would be Holland. I assume you mean Norway? I don't want to change this as - as far as possible - I want the colours to reflect the MWIF counters. However, I've annotated Norway with an 'No' (white on red) to the left which hopefully meets your requirements? Please let me know.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
Centuur
Posts: 9013
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:03 pm
Location: Hoorn (NED).

RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns

Post by Centuur »

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

Please try and keep comments on warspite's posts here, not in the Historical Naval Losses thread.
warspite1

I've asked one of the mods to move the comment to this thread and will look at it at that time.
warspite1

Apparently the post can't be moved and has been deleted instead.

To Centuur. I think you said the second country from the bottom but that would be Holland. I assume you mean Norway? I don't want to change this as - as far as possible - I want the colours to reflect the MWIF counters. However, I've annotated Norway with an 'No' (white on red) to the left which hopefully meets your requirements? Please let me know.

That's good. Thanks. Keep up the good work...
Peter
User avatar
Courtenay
Posts: 4371
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:34 pm

RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns

Post by Courtenay »

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

I'm currently in the second book, "Day of Battle", of Rick Atkinson's, "The Liberation Trilogy" and ran across this bit about the HMS Warspite -

"Fritz-X attacks in the coming day would also cripple the battleship H.M.S. Warspite and the cruiser H.M.S. Uganda, among eighty-five Allied vessels hit by German bombs at Salerno."

The Fritz-X was a bomb guided by a German bomber pilot using a joystick from his cockpit. It nearly sunk the U.S.S. Savannah and did sink the Italian battleship Roma as she was sorting to join the British fleet at Malta after Italy's surrender.

All of this was during Operation Avalanche in September 1943.

The first known attack by the Fritz-X was in late August 1943 in the Bay of Biscay in which a British sloop was sunk.

I know all this is way ahead of where you are now ... but I wasn't aware that Germany made use of guide bombs during WW2.
The Fritz-X and Hs 293 were initially effective, but the Allies rapidly figured out how to spoof the radio guide beams, more or less neutralizing it, at least against larger vessels that were equipped with the spoofers.

By the end of the war, the Germans were working on wire guided air-launched missiles, but while they had trials, I don't think they were ever used operationally.
I thought I knew how to play this game....
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 27449
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns

Post by rkr1958 »

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

I'm currently in the second book, "Day of Battle", of Rick Atkinson's, "The Liberation Trilogy" and ran across this bit about the HMS Warspite -

"Fritz-X attacks in the coming day would also cripple the battleship H.M.S. Warspite and the cruiser H.M.S. Uganda, among eighty-five Allied vessels hit by German bombs at Salerno."

The Fritz-X was a bomb guided by a German bomber pilot using a joystick from his cockpit. It nearly sunk the U.S.S. Savannah and did sink the Italian battleship Roma as she was sorting to join the British fleet at Malta after Italy's surrender.

All of this was during Operation Avalanche in September 1943.

The first known attack by the Fritz-X was in late August 1943 in the Bay of Biscay in which a British sloop was sunk.

I know all this is way ahead of where you are now ... but I wasn't aware that Germany made use of guide bombs during WW2.
The Fritz-X and Hs 293 were initially effective, but the Allies rapidly figured out how to spoof the radio guide beams, more or less neutralizing it, at least against larger vessels that were equipped with the spoofers.

By the end of the war, the Germans were working on wire guided air-launched missiles, but while they had trials, I don't think they were ever used operationally.
However, during the Salerno landings that allies hadn't yet developed any effective countermeasures. According to Vice Admiral Hewitt, commander of the invasion fleet, their "best" countermeasure was to hope that the bomb would miss. Their next best was to have the men who owned electric razors turn them on during an attack. While this had no impact on the bomb's accuracy it did make the men feel a bit better.

Honestly, you can't make this stuff up.
Ronnie
User avatar
Courtenay
Posts: 4371
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:34 pm

RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns

Post by Courtenay »

HMS Kelly had a rather famous commander.
I thought I knew how to play this game....
User avatar
Courtenay
Posts: 4371
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:34 pm

RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns

Post by Courtenay »

Ignore. Had not realized that all CW destroyer losses were lumped together, not broken out by country.
I thought I knew how to play this game....
User avatar
Courtenay
Posts: 4371
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:34 pm

RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns

Post by Courtenay »

Reading the histories of the CW destroyers sunk the last couple of months, I am amazed at how good the CW destroyers were at running into things. A good number of those ships were involved in collisions, sometimes sidelining them for months.
I thought I knew how to play this game....
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

Reading the histories of the CW destroyers sunk the last couple of months, I am amazed at how good the CW destroyers were at running into things. A good number of those ships were involved in collisions, sometimes sidelining them for months.
warspite1

Accidents have always been a sad feature of life at sea - and in war time, with the safety net off, these just increased. All navies suffered losses to accident.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
paulderynck
Posts: 8356
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
Location: Canada

RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns

Post by paulderynck »

What I find quite surprising is how many subs were sunk by other subs. I was under the impression that was a rare event.
Paul
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 27449
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns

Post by rkr1958 »

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

What I find quite surprising is how many subs were sunk by other subs. I was under the impression that was a rare event.
Didn't subs in WW2 generally travel on the surface when moving to their patrol areas? Is so, I wonder how many of these sub sinking were when they were travelling on the surface.
Ronnie
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

What I find quite surprising is how many subs were sunk by other subs. I was under the impression that was a rare event.
Didn't subs in WW2 generally travel on the surface when moving to their patrol areas? Is so, I wonder how many of these sub sinking were when they were travelling on the surface.
warspite1

As far as I'm aware there is only one incident of sub vs sub (where both were under water at the time one was sunk). This was HMS Venturer sinking U-864 in 1945. HMS Venturer's story was to be in one of the sub write-ups (counter 4742) but I didn't get the chance to complete by the time the game was released. Only the overview for this U-class (yes U-class) boat is written.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
brian brian
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:39 pm

RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns

Post by brian brian »

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Here is an historical loss + WiF trivia question. What aircraft model sank a Cruiser in history, but it’s WIF counters could not do so, as there is no air-to-sea factor? (The right honorable Sir Warspite is still some turns away from listing the ship involved).

The lost ship from this question has been posted now, and Warspite listed the aircraft taking credit for the sinking: a flight of Me-109s hit the CL HMS Fiji with multiple bombs and illustrates the extent to which the Royal Navy would sail into harm's way - i.e. in range of Axis land-based air - repeatedly during operations in the Med. The CA Gloucester was lost nearly simultaneously to attacks by Stukas.

I think a force multiplier for the Germans there could have been that the RN operated to the north of Crete, putting them in range of Luftwaffe planes in Greece, which were in turn not in very effective range of the ground operations on Crete. Perhaps in a sad irony of the battle for Crete, the stout defenses of the airfields by CW ground troops partially doomed those ships to attack by aircraft with little else to do. But then with the airfields in Axis possession, perhaps Royal Navy losses would have been even higher with areas to the south of Crete then also becoming in range of Axis air.




Reading the Atkinson books with details on Axis air attacks on the task forces delivering troops to the beaches of Italy made me conclude that by 1943, Axis air strength in the Med had been successfully attritioned down sufficiently to make the landings possible, & illustrates the necessity of putting an amphibious invasion ashore within range of the attacking force's own land based Fighters.

But in World in Flames, your NAVs and LNDs have to make a successful "search" roll to attack enemy amphibious forces - even when those same ships are under observation by your infantry officers. The invaded side might also have to be able to take a Combined Impulse to even try one of those search rolls. In the new CE rules, this is partially addressed by the new "Spotting Fleets" optional rule, which can force ships that are shore bombarding or disembarking to be placed in the 0 box afterwards, putting them at a disadvantage in surprise points on the subsequent enemy impulse (but also allowing FTR cover from any FTR that can reach the 0 box - very helpful). However the side being invaded still has to make a "search" roll when they know precisely where they are being invaded.

When I am able to play CE in my own "House" with any House Rules I wish, I am going to experiment with that Spotting Fleets optional by requiring ships to be placed on an adjacent hex dot during the subsequent enemy impulse, where they could then be subject to a Port Strike mission by the invaded side - & your own air cover had best be ready for that. This would still roll search dice to simulate the Fog of War (perhaps literally with fog).
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: brian brian

What aircraft model sank a Cruiser in history, but it’s WIF counters could not do so, as there is no air-to-sea factor?
warspite1

It was a Bf-109 that put HMS Warspite in dock for months too. It is strange that not a single Bf-109 counter is given an air-to-sea rating given what they actually achieved. Sure, not all counters should have one as anti-shipping capability required appropriate training - but one counter would have been a nice touch.

ORIGINAL: brian brian

In the new CE rules, this is partially addressed by the new "Spotting Fleets" optional rule, which can force ships that are shore bombarding or disembarking to be placed in the 0 box afterwards, putting them at a disadvantage in surprise points on the subsequent enemy impulse (but also allowing FTR cover from any FTR that can reach the 0 box - very helpful).
warspite1

A nice idea.
ORIGINAL: brian brian

However the side being invaded still has to make a "search" roll when they know precisely where they are being invaded.
warspite1

Mmmmm not sure about the need to change this. Yes, in the case of an amphibious invasion the position of the invading fleet is known but the need for a search roll surely reflects that aircraft may not necessarily be available. Lack of fuel, rest and refit, aircraft needed elsewhere etc or in other words the uncertainty of war.

Moreover, if you change this rule for this aspect then I'm sure there are dozens more situations where cases can be made for not having to roll this dice or that. For example rolling for defensive HQ support makes sense. A forthcoming attack - in terms of timing, where and when - was not always known to the defender, and so having counter fire, reserves etc in place could be something of a lottery. But that is not the case with an offensive. The attacker knows exactly what he is doing and where. I guess the counter argument is that no plan survives contact with the enemy and the best laid plans can, and did, sometimes go wrong. Arguments for and against can be made for most things I guess.

But interesting as a house rule.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
brian brian
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:39 pm

RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns

Post by brian brian »

Yes, military units are not always instantly, perfectly capable of doing something that later appears to have been the perfect idea.

I just thought when reading about Sicily, Salerno, Anzio, and also Torch, which featured some vicious point-blank naval combat (Nov/Dec 42 will be an eye opening turn in your list), that landings are the one naval operation where the immense size of an Ocean is shrunk to a single point. So I thought it could be a good spot in the game system to remove naval units from the area based sea boxes and make them use the fixed point hexagons, as they must with ports. Plenty of Port Strike missions fail in the WiF system and operational difficulties would still be included. But using the hex dots occasionally would remove the playability abstraction of allowing something like the Americans being able to invade Iwo Jima under land based FTR cover based in the Marshalls - they had better bring the Essexes and the Jeeps.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: brian brian

.....(Nov/Dec 42 will be an eye opening turn in your list).....
warspite1

Nov/Dec 1941 is proving pretty challenging too [X(] Almost there....
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
Courtenay
Posts: 4371
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:34 pm

RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns

Post by Courtenay »

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: brian brian

.....(Nov/Dec 42 will be an eye opening turn in your list).....
warspite1

Nov/Dec 1941 is proving pretty challenging too [X(] Almost there....
Hmm. Casablanca, Pearl Harbor, Battle of Malaya, Wake Island...

Plus minor actions. (A minor action is one I don't remember. [:)])

And Pearl harbor presents some cases where it is not obvious whether to count ships or not. You have to decide whether to tabulate the bottomed ships, California and West Virginia. I suspect you won't but will mention them. You also have to decide about Cassin and Downes. I would rate them destroyed; the fact that parts were used in new ships (with the same names and hull numbers) does not change the fact that the hulls were completely replaced, which qualifies as "destroyed" for me.
I thought I knew how to play this game....
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: brian brian

.....(Nov/Dec 42 will be an eye opening turn in your list).....
warspite1

Nov/Dec 1941 is proving pretty challenging too [X(] Almost there....
Hmm. Casablanca, Pearl Harbor, Battle of Malaya, Wake Island...

Plus minor actions. (A minor action is one I don't remember. [:)])

And Pearl harbor presents some cases where it is not obvious whether to count ships or not. You have to decide whether to tabulate the bottomed ships, California and West Virginia. I suspect you won't but will mention them. You also have to decide about Cassin and Downes. I would rate them destroyed; the fact that parts were used in new ships (with the same names and hull numbers) does not change the fact that the hulls were completely replaced, which qualifies as "destroyed" for me.
warspite1

Casablanca?

The battleships are easy - only two were lost. The treatment of the two destroyers is annoying but yes, despite re-entering service with the same hull nos. there is no way these should be treated as anything other than lost.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
Courtenay
Posts: 4371
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:34 pm

RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns

Post by Courtenay »

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

Nov/Dec 1941 is proving pretty challenging too [X(] Almost there....
Hmm. Casablanca, Pearl Harbor, Battle of Malaya, Wake Island...

Plus minor actions. (A minor action is one I don't remember. [:)])

And Pearl harbor presents some cases where it is not obvious whether to count ships or not. You have to decide whether to tabulate the bottomed ships, California and West Virginia. I suspect you won't but will mention them. You also have to decide about Cassin and Downes. I would rate them destroyed; the fact that parts were used in new ships (with the same names and hull numbers) does not change the fact that the hulls were completely replaced, which qualifies as "destroyed" for me.
warspite1

Casablanca?

The battleships are easy - only two were lost. The treatment of the two destroyers is annoying but yes, despite re-entering service with the same hull nos. there is no way these should be treated as anything other than lost.
Oops. Ignore Casablanca.
I thought I knew how to play this game....
User avatar
Orm
Posts: 27755
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 7:53 pm
Location: Sweden

RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns

Post by Orm »

The comment for the Bismarck sinking seems a little wrong to me. "sunk/scuttled after engagement with by Rodney and KGV". Shouldn't it be either with or rephrased?

But what do I know. [:D]

BTW. I think that "sunk" works just fine even if the crew did scuttle her (him?) when remaining afloat would just prolong the pounding, and increase the suffering and casualties among the crew. Edit: For clarification, I think scuttled should be removed.
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett
User avatar
Neilster
Posts: 2879
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:52 pm
Location: Devonport, Tasmania, Australia

RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns

Post by Neilster »

Did somebody say "Bismark"?

Warning! Swedish historical power metal [:'(] Quite melodic though, and the film clip is cool with excellent computer graphics and battle reenactment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVWEb-At8yc

Cheers, Neilster
Cheers, Neilster
Post Reply

Return to “World in Flames”