Matrix Games Forums

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  79 80 81 82 [83]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/10/2016 9:12:00 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 42856
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Finarfïn

You can call me captain obvious, but i trust reality stand somewhere between luck and skill.

warspite1

If you mean that a degree of luck - good and bad - is always with us in every walk of life then yes. That is what I said in my earlier post. The more skill you have, the more experienced and better trained you are at something, the more bad luck you need to suffer to get beaten.

Conversely, if you don't prepare (as they say) you prepare to fail, and in such circumstances there's no point bleating about bad luck.


_____________________________

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



(in reply to Finarfïn)
Post #: 2461
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/10/2016 9:54:40 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 42856
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
Just one final point on this, because I realise that all the talk has been about Midway (although this battle is a great example of two completely contrasting approaches to battles from each admiral).

Another point made was the Bismarck engagement.

So by Centuur’s reckoning, Admiral Lutjens was simply unlucky. Was he? Certainly the hit on his rudder was pretty unlucky in that if you are going to be hit anywhere, that was the one place that was bad news. But how did the Swordfish attack come about in the first place? Lutjens – who had broken clear of his shadowers at one point – decided to break radio silence. That was not bad luck, that was a stupid decision (no one knows why he thought contact was being maintained and the message was not important in any case) that led to the destruction of his ship.

Prior to that, in the Denmark Strait, was Admiral Holland unlucky and Admiral Lutjens lucky? Personally I am not sure why Holland put his battlecruiser at the front – and not allowed the newer, more heavily armoured Prince of Wales the honour but as far as I am aware Holland has not been criticised for his tactics (some time since I read up on this episode). However with shooting as accurate as the German’s was, hits were likely and one of them happened to have been decisive, and as said previously, if you are going to meet a modern battleship with a ship built for naval warfare 30 years previously, without her being updated, then you run the risk of defeat. So yes, the hit could be argued to be lucky, but the decisions made in the run up, contributed.

So you could always argue that any shell or torpedo that hits a ship in a vulnerable place is lucky. But surely it is clear that there are plenty of decisions made before and during a battle that help decide whether a battle even takes place – and if it does – on whose terms and who has the better position.

Have there been lucky and unlucky Admirals in history? Of course. Admiral Tom Philips on board HMS Prince of Wales is about as unlucky as they come.

- He was given an impossible, totally ridiculous, no win assignment
- He was close to getting at the Japanese transports but never realised it
- He was dead unlucky to have had the false report of a landing at Kuantan that diverted his ships
- He was dead unlucky to have been found
- He was dead unlucky to have been found in the sheer numbers of aircraft he was found by (many with torpedoes)
- He was dead unlucky to have taken a hit where he did that effectively crippled the ship early on
- Basically, there is nothing he could have done about that whole tragic episode. Now Centuur, THAT is one unlucky Admiral


_____________________________

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



(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 2462
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/10/2016 12:56:13 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 19919
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline
I can't even remember the name of the exact magazine, something to the effect of Military History, that I use to subscribe to back in the late '80s. One issue had an article on the sinking of the Hood. The upshot of the article was that the lack of armor above one of the magazines was a known vulnerability, which was exposed during the Battle of Jutland. This vulnerability was greater for shells incoming at higher angles. So the strategy that had developed was to close range on the enemy and thereby decreasing the angle of the incoming shells. In fact, as I remember, the HMS Hood was inside that range but made a turn that cause the ship to bank a bit and expose that weak area to a higher attack angle. It was at that time that a salvo from the Bismarck hit the HMS Hood, penetrating the weak armor to the magazine and causing her to explode with loss of all life except for three crewmen as I recall.

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 2463
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/11/2016 10:00:05 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 42856
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

I can't even remember the name of the exact magazine, something to the effect of Military History, that I use to subscribe to back in the late '80s. One issue had an article on the sinking of the Hood. The upshot of the article was that the lack of armor above one of the magazines was a known vulnerability, which was exposed during the Battle of Jutland. This vulnerability was greater for shells incoming at higher angles. So the strategy that had developed was to close range on the enemy and thereby decreasing the angle of the incoming shells. In fact, as I remember, the HMS Hood was inside that range but made a turn that cause the ship to bank a bit and expose that weak area to a higher attack angle. It was at that time that a salvo from the Bismarck hit the HMS Hood, penetrating the weak armor to the magazine and causing her to explode with loss of all life except for three crewmen as I recall.
warspite1

The plain and simple fact is that in the case of both HMS Hood and the three battlecruisers at Jutland, the exact reason for their demise - and the deaths of over 4,000 officers and men - will almost certainly never be known. Wrecks of at least three of the four have been dived on.

Having reviewed some of the evidence put forward I am convinced that the reason for the Jutland losses was poor handling of cordite and magazine operation. I do not have enough knowledge of the subject to know whether the DNC was lying or simply mistaken about whether or not a shell could have penetrated the magazine (but as such will give him the benefit of the doubt). However, the most compelling evidence I have heard in support of his stance is this:

The level of protection over the much larger area of boiler and machinery space in each ship was no greater than that of the magazines. No damage to any battlecruiser in these areas was recorded at all. Is it really possible that the Germans only hit the magazine area on three ships and never once hit the boiler and machinery space? Really?

As for what killed the Hood. With the advances in range and the problem of plunging fire, a direct hit on the magazine I believe was possible from what I have read, but whether it was such a hit - or a chain of events following the fire that broke out on the boat deck - who knows?

Whatever the reasons - the outcome was tragic

_____________________________

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



(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2464
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/11/2016 12:42:00 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 19919
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline
Note the article I was looking for, no sure it's even been put online, but I found this one which I briefly scanned, which looking interesting.

-History of H.M.S. Hood-
The Battle of the Denmark Strait, May 24th 1941
Written by Antonio Bonomi & translated by Phil Isaacs

http://www.hmshood.com/history/denmarkstrait/bonomi_denstrait1.htm

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 2465
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/11/2016 9:00:38 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 42856
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

What I want to know is why are the Independence class CVLs speed 5? They routinely sailed with the fast carrier forces without slowing them down. The had a speed of over 31 knots.
warspite1

Speed, as such, I don't think is a factor in the game. The two factors are movement allowance and range. I think there was an explanation of these and how they interact in one of the annuals but I cannot recall for sure.

Looking at the range of the Essex-class and their fast battleship escorts, the Iowas, they both had a range of 15,000 miles at 15 knots. The Independence-class came in at 13,000. Maybe that is the reason for the one-notch reduction?

I am sure one of the Grognards can explain how ADG looked at these two factors. Anyone?

warspite1

No one have any explanation on speed and how incorporated into the various factors by ADG?


_____________________________

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



(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 2466
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/12/2016 12:38:07 AM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3149
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
It's important to remember that the sea boxes represent time - time on station. I don't know how the range and movement were calculated though.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 2467
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/12/2016 6:09:47 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 42856
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

What I want to know is why are the Independence class CVLs speed 5? They routinely sailed with the fast carrier forces without slowing them down. The had a speed of over 31 knots.
warspite1

Speed, as such, I don't think is a factor in the game. The two factors are movement allowance and range. I think there was an explanation of these and how they interact in one of the annuals but I cannot recall for sure.

Looking at the range of the Essex-class and their fast battleship escorts, the Iowas, they both had a range of 15,000 miles at 15 knots. The Independence-class came in at 13,000. Maybe that is the reason for the one-notch reduction?

I am sure one of the Grognards can explain how ADG looked at these two factors. Anyone?

warspite1

No one have any explanation on speed and how incorporated into the various factors by ADG?

warspite1

I found something in the old 1995/95 annual. ADG state that speed is factored into the attack and defence nos. i.e. the ability to choose when to fight and when to run is more easily gained/lost with high/low speed.

If we take range as well, range, this would seemingly leave movement allowance and that probably equates to speed (the effects of which are then limited by its range) to give "time on station" as mentioned above.

On that basis I think the treatment of the Independence-class (certainly in relation to the fast carriers) seems reasonable.


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 3/12/2016 9:55:29 AM >


_____________________________

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



(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 2468
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/12/2016 3:13:44 PM   
Courtenay


Posts: 3790
Joined: 11/12/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

What I want to know is why are the Independence class CVLs speed 5? They routinely sailed with the fast carrier forces without slowing them down. The had a speed of over 31 knots.
warspite1

Speed, as such, I don't think is a factor in the game. The two factors are movement allowance and range. I think there was an explanation of these and how they interact in one of the annuals but I cannot recall for sure.

Looking at the range of the Essex-class and their fast battleship escorts, the Iowas, they both had a range of 15,000 miles at 15 knots. The Independence-class came in at 13,000. Maybe that is the reason for the one-notch reduction?

I am sure one of the Grognards can explain how ADG looked at these two factors. Anyone?

warspite1

No one have any explanation on speed and how incorporated into the various factors by ADG?

warspite1

I found something in the old 1995/95 annual. ADG state that speed is factored into the attack and defence nos. i.e. the ability to choose when to fight and when to run is more easily gained/lost with high/low speed.

If we take range as well, range, this would seemingly leave movement allowance and that probably equates to speed (the effects of which are then limited by its range) to give "time on station" as mentioned above.

On that basis I think the treatment of the Independence-class (certainly in relation to the fast carriers) seems reasonable.


The speed of the Independence was 31 knots
The speed of the Enterprise was 32.5 knots.
The speed of the Essex was 33 knots.
The speed of the Iowa was 32 knots.
The speed of the North Carolina was 28. This to me is a speed 5 ship.

_____________________________

I thought I knew how to play this game....

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 2469
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/12/2016 4:01:07 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 42856
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Courtenay


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

What I want to know is why are the Independence class CVLs speed 5? They routinely sailed with the fast carrier forces without slowing them down. The had a speed of over 31 knots.
warspite1

Speed, as such, I don't think is a factor in the game. The two factors are movement allowance and range. I think there was an explanation of these and how they interact in one of the annuals but I cannot recall for sure.

Looking at the range of the Essex-class and their fast battleship escorts, the Iowas, they both had a range of 15,000 miles at 15 knots. The Independence-class came in at 13,000. Maybe that is the reason for the one-notch reduction?

I am sure one of the Grognards can explain how ADG looked at these two factors. Anyone?

warspite1

No one have any explanation on speed and how incorporated into the various factors by ADG?

warspite1

I found something in the old 1995/95 annual. ADG state that speed is factored into the attack and defence nos. i.e. the ability to choose when to fight and when to run is more easily gained/lost with high/low speed.

If we take range as well, range, this would seemingly leave movement allowance and that probably equates to speed (the effects of which are then limited by its range) to give "time on station" as mentioned above.

On that basis I think the treatment of the Independence-class (certainly in relation to the fast carriers) seems reasonable.


The speed of the Independence was 31 knots
The speed of the Enterprise was 32.5 knots.
The speed of the Essex was 33 knots.
The speed of the Iowa was 32 knots.
The speed of the North Carolina was 28. This to me is a speed 5 ship.
warspite1

Yes, North Carolina has a movement allowance of 5. So not sure what you are suggesting exactly. Remember the movement allowance on its own cannot be taken into account but range needs to be factored. If not then many destroyers could be 6's - but that would be rubbish because, despite their speed, they had low fuel capacity and thus range - and they are mostly 3's and 4's.

Independence is faster than the North Carolina but her range is much less than the battleship.

So they could be the same in terms of movement allowance/range because although the carrier is faster, she is not able to stay at sea (time on station) for as long.

So looking at the ships you mentioned:

------------------- SIF factors---------------Real life
---------------Movement Range ---------Speed Range
Independence --- 5 ---- 5 ------------- 31.6 - 13000
Enterprise ------- 6 ---- 4 ------------- 32.5 - 12000
Essex ------------ 6 ---- 6 ------------- 32.7 - 15000
Iowa ------------- 6 ---- 6 ------------- 32.5 - 15000
North Carolina -- 5 ---- 5 ------------- 28.0 - 17450

Enterprise has only 12,000 range and so is a 4. Independence is not as fast but has a slightly better range and so is a 5. Essex and Iowa speak for themselves and so the anomaly is North Carolina, but she is given the same factors as Independence because although her top speed is the least of all of them, she has the highest ability to remain on station.

I cannot see an issue - but am only guessing based on what seems likely. Maybe an e-mail to Harry would help?

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 3/12/2016 9:23:39 PM >


_____________________________

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



(in reply to Courtenay)
Post #: 2470
RE: Oooh! Ooooooh! Mr. Kotter, er... - 6/1/2018 3:36:57 AM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3149
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

2nd and last in the series. The Perth and Sydney were sister ships.





I just watched an episode of "Drain the Ocean: WW2" on the National Geographic Channel, it was quite interesting. Deep diving ROVs were used to survey the wrecks of the Kormoran and the Sydney. All of the battle damage to the Sydney was sorted out, as was the suite of armament onboard the Kormoran.

The show speculated that the Kormoran first opened fire with an Anti-Tank Gun directly at the Sydney's bridge, which was largely shot away. Now there is an interesting naval combat tactic. Further ops by the Kormoran included raking the Sydney with AA Guns (all of this at point-blank range), taking out several of the Sydney's turrets with conventional larger caliber guns (4.5"), and also a successful hit with a torpedo. But overall the show was a little thin on the details of the battle; German survivors speculated that in total, 500+ shells were fired at the Sydney. (Much more detail can be found on Wikipedia)

I had definitely never heard of the Kriegsmarine placing Anti-Tank Guns on their raiders before.



The next ship covered was the Graf Zeppelin - which was discovered laying in the Baltic several years ago now. The Soviets had used it for training to determine how to sink an aircraft carrier.



But the most interesting segment was the last one - about U-480. I had never heard of this particular U-Boat and it's unique Wonder Weapon - considered the first "Stealth Submarine" due to it's rubber coated hull. It had a successful war cruise in the heavily defended English Channel but when it tried again, the British were ready for it, having laid a minefield in deep water yet under their usual navigation buoys and then re-routing all their shipping around it. The show didn't cover why the Germans didn't build more of these sonar avoiding U-Boats; one would have to speculate that it was due more to a shortage of rubber more than anything else. (I do know the Germans attempted to import all the rubber they could via Blockade Runners coming in from the Far East, to Bordeaux.)

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 2471
RE: Oooh! Ooooooh! Mr. Kotter, er... - 1/23/2020 6:48:59 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 2577
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Sydney
Status: offline
Is this thread still going?

If so, I was looking up some Red Banner cruisers with incomplete entries 'under construction', see below.

If this stuff is useful, I can do some more.

---------------------------------

Soviet CA/CL notes

Added notes for histories 'under construction' - sources - Conways & Janes.
---------------------------
Krasnyi Krym

[*Edit point* - the installation of the 3" and 12.7mm AAA took place in the mid thirties, not in 39-41.]

The ships underwent major overhaul 1939-41. The AAA was modernised with 6 x 100mm/L56 (Italian 3.9") guns, 10 x 37mm, and 7 x 0.5" (Vickers) HMG, and also new fire controls. The seaplanes were landed.

Krasnyi Krym ("Red Crimea") served in the Black Sea Fleet throughout the war. She was active during the early battles of Odessa and Sevastopol, and then continued the fight fom a new base at Poti on the Caucasus coast. More AAA guns and a Lend-lease Type 291 air warning radar were added in later years. After the war she served on as a training cruiser until decommissioning in 1958.

---------------------------

Chervona Ukraina

[*Edit point* - the installation of the 3" and 12.7mm AAA took place in the mid thirties, not in 39-41.]

The ships underwent major overhaul 1939-41. The AAA was modernised with 6 x 100mm guns, 10 x 37mm, and 7 x 0.5" (Vickers) HMG, and also new fire controls. The seaplanes were landed.

Chervona Ukraina ("Red Ukraine", in the Ukrainian language) served in the Black Sea Fleet, and was active during the battles of Odessa and Sevastopol. She was heavily damaged by german Stukas from I StG 77 on 12 November 1941, and sank in shallow water the next day. Her armament was salvaged, and used ashore, and to strengthen the AAA suite of her half sister Krasnyi Kavkaz.

--------------------------------

Krasnyi Kavkaz

... served in the Black Sea Fleet. By 1941 her AAA had been increased to 6 x 100mm/L47, 4 x 45mm, 8 x 37mm, and 6 x 0.5" (Vickers) HMG. She fought in the early defensive battles on the Black Sea coast, and was damaged in a duel with German artillery ashore at Feodosyia


During the course of the war it was augmented with weapons stripped from the sunken Chernova Ukraina, and by 1944 she carried her 4 x 180mm main guns, 12 x 100mm, 2 x 3", 4 x 45mm, 10 x 37mm, and 6 x 0.5". Her propellers, damaged by near misses from Stukas of I StG 77, were also replaced by those salvaged from Chernova Ukraina.

She was decomissioned for major overhaul in late 1944, and later served as a training ship until the early 1950s. Used as a target, she had the dubious honour of being sunk by an SSN-1 Styx missile during its trials in the late '50s.

--------------------------------

Kirov

Kirov was commissioned in late 1938, and assigned to the Baltic Fleet. She was employed in shore bombardment duties during the Winter War. In 1941 she fought offshore during the Soviet defence of Talinn, and was later employed as a floating battery supporting the defenders of Leningrad. She survived trpeated air and artillery attacks, and the war, and served on into the Cold War era.


< Message edited by Ian R -- 1/23/2020 6:49:35 AM >


_____________________________

"You may find that having is not so nearly pleasing a thing as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
- Cdr Spock


Ian R

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 2472
RE: Oooh! Ooooooh! Mr. Kotter, er... - 1/23/2020 4:52:48 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 7980
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
Unit descriptions are part of the save game file so the designer would have to add these.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 2473
RE: Oooh! Ooooooh! Mr. Kotter, er... - 1/23/2020 6:15:26 PM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 2577
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Sydney
Status: offline
Yes I noticed that they appear in the save files.

I was thinking of adding them to the unit data file "MWIF Naval.rtf" that appears to marry up with the Standard Units NAV file when the save loads, to see if it updates in the same way the standard terrain files (as edited) amend your save game.

Anyway, if they help, there they are.

_____________________________

"You may find that having is not so nearly pleasing a thing as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
- Cdr Spock


Ian R

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 2474
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 1/24/2020 7:04:45 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 42856
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

Is this thread still going?

If so, I was looking up some Red Banner cruisers with incomplete entries 'under construction', see below.

If this stuff is useful, I can do some more.

---------------------------------

Soviet CA/CL notes

Added notes for histories 'under construction' - sources - Conways & Janes.
---------------------------
Krasnyi Krym

[*Edit point* - the installation of the 3" and 12.7mm AAA took place in the mid thirties, not in 39-41.]

The ships underwent major overhaul 1939-41. The AAA was modernised with 6 x 100mm/L56 (Italian 3.9") guns, 10 x 37mm, and 7 x 0.5" (Vickers) HMG, and also new fire controls. The seaplanes were landed.

Krasnyi Krym ("Red Crimea") served in the Black Sea Fleet throughout the war. She was active during the early battles of Odessa and Sevastopol, and then continued the fight fom a new base at Poti on the Caucasus coast. More AAA guns and a Lend-lease Type 291 air warning radar were added in later years. After the war she served on as a training cruiser until decommissioning in 1958.

---------------------------

Chervona Ukraina

[*Edit point* - the installation of the 3" and 12.7mm AAA took place in the mid thirties, not in 39-41.]

The ships underwent major overhaul 1939-41. The AAA was modernised with 6 x 100mm guns, 10 x 37mm, and 7 x 0.5" (Vickers) HMG, and also new fire controls. The seaplanes were landed.

Chervona Ukraina ("Red Ukraine", in the Ukrainian language) served in the Black Sea Fleet, and was active during the battles of Odessa and Sevastopol. She was heavily damaged by german Stukas from I StG 77 on 12 November 1941, and sank in shallow water the next day. Her armament was salvaged, and used ashore, and to strengthen the AAA suite of her half sister Krasnyi Kavkaz.

--------------------------------

Krasnyi Kavkaz

... served in the Black Sea Fleet. By 1941 her AAA had been increased to 6 x 100mm/L47, 4 x 45mm, 8 x 37mm, and 6 x 0.5" (Vickers) HMG. She fought in the early defensive battles on the Black Sea coast, and was damaged in a duel with German artillery ashore at Feodosyia


During the course of the war it was augmented with weapons stripped from the sunken Chernova Ukraina, and by 1944 she carried her 4 x 180mm main guns, 12 x 100mm, 2 x 3", 4 x 45mm, 10 x 37mm, and 6 x 0.5". Her propellers, damaged by near misses from Stukas of I StG 77, were also replaced by those salvaged from Chernova Ukraina.

She was decomissioned for major overhaul in late 1944, and later served as a training ship until the early 1950s. Used as a target, she had the dubious honour of being sunk by an SSN-1 Styx missile during its trials in the late '50s.

--------------------------------

Kirov

Kirov was commissioned in late 1938, and assigned to the Baltic Fleet. She was employed in shore bombardment duties during the Winter War. In 1941 she fought offshore during the Soviet defence of Talinn, and was later employed as a floating battery supporting the defenders of Leningrad. She survived trpeated air and artillery attacks, and the war, and served on into the Cold War era.

warspite1

Iirc there are over a thousand naval counters in total. The important thing was to get the introduction done for every named ship and all the unnamed ships too.

I think it's fair to say my knowledge of WWII naval history has grown massively from what it was when I started out on the naval counters back in 2008?.

If Steve could commit to adding my updates with each patch, I would be more than happy to continue with the naval write-ups (both with a view to completing those 'under construction' and amending any errors).

I will drop him an e-mail.


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 1/24/2020 7:11:28 PM >


_____________________________

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



(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 2475
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 1/24/2020 7:25:25 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 42856
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
Test post to get rid of the weird thread title change - and it seemed to work - hussah! .

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 1/24/2020 7:26:40 PM >


_____________________________

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



(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 2476
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 1/24/2020 10:53:34 PM   
markb50k

 

Posts: 1224
Joined: 7/1/2004
From: Spring, TX
Status: offline
You could just attach the updated description file here or in the Modding forum and people could just drop it in the Unit Data directory to see the new descriptions

Unfortunately it would only help new games as once the game starts the descriptions are baked into the save game file

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 2477
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 1/25/2020 12:11:51 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 2577
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Sydney
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


I think it's fair to say my knowledge of WWII naval history has grown massively from what it was when I started out on the naval counters back in 2008?.





A side effect of immersion in WITP:AE?


_____________________________

"You may find that having is not so nearly pleasing a thing as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
- Cdr Spock


Ian R

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 2478
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 1/25/2020 6:11:10 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 42856
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: markb50k

You could just attach the updated description file here or in the Modding forum and people could just drop it in the Unit Data directory to see the new descriptions

Unfortunately it would only help new games as once the game starts the descriptions are baked into the save game file
warspite1

Thing is, this is a labour of love - it's a massive time commitment. Whilst I don't mind that, I would only want to do it as part of official updates to the game - not as a mod.


_____________________________

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



(in reply to markb50k)
Post #: 2479
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 1/25/2020 6:25:28 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 42856
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


I think it's fair to say my knowledge of WWII naval history has grown massively from what it was when I started out on the naval counters back in 2008?.



A side effect of immersion in WITP:AE?

warspite1

No, despite a number of tries, culminating in trying to do an AAR with AllenK this time last year, I could never get into WITPAE. I have now permanently shelved this game. Such a shame as my love of naval warfare means it should have been the game for me.

The knowledge explosion was the result of getting involved in the write-ups. As a kid growing up I had access to my dad and brothers WWII books and I thought I knew something about the subject matter. I then started out on the project and realised I knew jack.

So I began reading.... and reading and then I was given permission to standardise the naval write ups - all 1,000+ so that by the launch of the game, each counter would have at least a description of each vessel.... and so I continued reading.... and more reading and (well you get the point by now ).

Probably 90% of my books are military and of the military 'stuff' I would say 85%-90% of those are concerned with naval warfare.

I used to hate reading as a kid - I'd look at the wonderful pictures in Purnell's History of the Second World War and other books, but actual reading? Ugh, give me a break I was a boy and I wanted to be outside playing football . But now, I love reading. I love that feeling of buying a book and within a few pages realising that this is a quality, serious tome!

Re-starting the naval war thread has now re-kindled my desire to get more of the write ups completed. So I'll see what Steve thinks on this.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3859338

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 1/25/2020 6:26:32 AM >


_____________________________

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



(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 2480
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 1/25/2020 9:20:38 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 2577
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Sydney
Status: offline
My experience of the game is somewhat opposite; as a result of making an in depth mod of AE I now know more than I need to about, particularly, USN building programs from 1938 - through to the cancellations of 1944- 45.

They were a quite calculated investment in long lead components (I.E - large hulls) which could be accelerated as the need arose, and put aside if found to be redundant. The Essex class CVs are the prime example. The first 3 were ordered (Essex was legislated in 1938, but contracted later) in early 1940, and 8 more were ordered in September 1940. 2 more were ordered on 15 December 1941. 10 more orders were placed in mid 1942. Another 3 in 1943. 6 ordered in the 1944 program. 24 were eventually completed, 7 post war. 2 hulls were scrapped on the slips.

Only in America could the cost of such profligacy be absorbed.

_____________________________

"You may find that having is not so nearly pleasing a thing as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
- Cdr Spock


Ian R

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 2481
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 1/25/2020 10:10:12 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 42856
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

My experience of the game is somewhat opposite; as a result of making an in depth mod of AE I now know more than I need to about, particularly, USN building programs from 1938 - through to the cancellations of 1944- 45.

They were a quite calculated investment in long lead components (I.E - large hulls) which could be accelerated as the need arose, and put aside if found to be redundant. The Essex class CVs are the prime example. The first 3 were ordered (Essex was legislated in 1938, but contracted later) in early 1940, and 8 more were ordered in September 1940. 2 more were ordered on 15 December 1941. 10 more orders were placed in mid 1942. Another 3 in 1943. 6 ordered in the 1944 program. 24 were eventually completed, 7 post war. 2 hulls were scrapped on the slips.

Only in America could the cost of such profligacy be absorbed.
warspite1

The US and the British/French/ even the German industrial positions; the US were on another planet.

_____________________________

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



(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 2482
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 1/30/2020 12:06:35 AM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3149
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
Did someone say U-Boats in here somewhere? I thought so. As good a thread as any to drop this link to a pretty cool story about wargaming helping to win the war. See, there IS a purpose to wargaming after all:


https://time.com/5772665/uboat-wargames/

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 2483
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 2/9/2020 1:07:12 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 42856
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
Steve has said he's happy to include these in future releases so I will make a start on the Norwegian navy - 2 counters require completion, Eidsvold and Harald Haarfagre.

Norwegian Counters in MWIF

Tordenskjold - The German attack on Oslo by Marinegruppe V
Norge - overview of the Norwegian navy in 1939 and the contribution of the Norwegian navy to the Allies post the conquest of Norway
Harald Haarfagre - An outline of the fighting that took place on the 8th/9th April at Trondheim (MGII), Bergen (MGIII), Egersund (MGVI), Kristiansand and Arendal (MGIV) by the other Marinegruppen.
Eidsvold - The German attack on Narvik by Marinegruppe I
4 x Naval Transport Counters - General overview of the Norwegian merchant navy.
13 x Convoy Points - No write-ups for convoy points as is the case for all counters.

1st Mountain Corps - overview of the Norwegian army in 1939
Ski Division - outline of this 'what if' counter.
Oslo Militia - outline of this 'what if' counter.

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 2/9/2020 1:25:58 PM >


_____________________________

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



(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 2484
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/21/2020 1:04:22 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 42856
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
So here is the write-up for Eidsvold (Harald Haarfagre still to come):

[4949 Eidsvold]
.B Engine(s) output: 4,500 hp
.B Top Speed: 16.5 knots
.B Main armament: 2 x 8.2-inch (210mm), 6 x 5.9-inch (150mm) guns
.B Displacement (standard): 3,645 tons
.B Thickest armour: 6-inch (belt)

.P The Norge-class coastal battleships (Panserships), consisted of two ships;
Norge and Eidsvold. They were built by the British for the Royal Norwegian Navy
(RNN) at the turn of the century.

.P Although, relatively powerful at the time of their launch, their main armament
was no more than a standard heavy cruiser; 8-inches. Two such guns were mounted
in two single turrets. Their secondary armament featured six, single 5.9-inch
guns that were mounted in casemates. Eight 3-inch guns were fitted in four twin
turrets and for anti-aircraft (AA) defence, two 3-pdr guns were mounted. Their
weapons package was rounded off by with 18-inch torpedo tubes.

.P 6-inch belt armour was modest for this vessel type, and like their main
armament, this did not compare even to Swedish coastal defence ships of similar
vintage. Horizontal defence was provided by an armoured deck, 2-inches thick.

.P Speed was of secondary importance for coastal battleships, and the Norge-class
ships were no exception. Their 4,500 horsepower producing a top speed of just
16.5 knots.

.P The two ships were named as follows: Norge was named after the country she
served, while Eidsvold was named after the town, north of Oslo, where the
Norwegian Constitution was signed in May 1814.

.P This write up will look at the events of the 9th April 1940 at Narvik.

.P The northern port of Narvik, important as a port from which iron ore was
embarked for trasnfer to Germany, was the northern most objective of the German
armed forces during Operation Weserubung on the 9th April 1940.

.P Ten German destroyers, packed full of troops, had made the journey to Narvik,
escorted by the battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. The latter departed from
the destroyers at entrance to Vestfjorden and the destroyers continued on to the
target alone.

.P The Norwegian forces of the Ofoten Divison were deployed as follows:

.P The panserships Norge and Eidsvold were moored at Narvik. The submarines B1
and B3 were also in the harbour with their depot ship Lyngen. Of the three
patrol vessels that completed the Ofoten Division, Senja was in the harbour,
while Michael Sars and Kelt were on patrol in the fjord. In command of the
division was Captain Per Askim whose flag was in Norge.

.P Also in the harbour that morning were twenty-six merchant vessels – ten of
which were German.

.P On the 8th April, upon hearing news that British destroyers were laying mines
in Norwegian territorial waters, Captain Askim, in charge of the Ofoten Division,
ordered steam be raised in the elderly panserships and also sent his two
submarines and their depot ship to Liland as a precaution.

.P In the evening with gathering evidence of a possible German attack, Askim held
a conference with Captain Odd Willoch of Eidsvold, and it was agreed that any
defence of Narvik would be best carried out outside of the harbour. At 2200hrs
Eidsvold left to take up position to the north of the harbour. Norge stayed to aid
communications, but would follow later. The patrol vessels Michael Sars and Kelt
were ordered to the mouth of Ofotfjorden to report any vessels seeking to venture
into the fjord.

.P At around midnight an order came through that any attack on Narvik (including
by the British) should be met with force – and this was passed to all ships of the
command. The patrol vessel Senja was ordered to sail at 01:35hrs and head for the
minefield laid in Vestfjorden.

.P In the early hours of the 9th developments started to move quickly. Reports
came in that various points along the coast were under fire and the intruders were
German.

.P Meanwhile, at 0310hrs, nine of Bonte’s ten destroyers (Giese was around three
hours behind due to the storm encountered en route), with fuel tanks almost dry,
were entering Ofotfjorden. The German ships were spotted by Kelt and Michael Sars
and their presence was reported to Askim. The patrol vessels continued to patrol
to be ready to report any further incursions while Bonte continued on. Askim
passed the news to HQ in Tromso and this message – sent in clear text – was picked
up by Bonte. The Germans now knew that their presence was known and so could
expect a likely unwelcome reception.

.P At 03:40 the German destroyers reached Ramnes-Hamnes, in the narrows at the
entrance to Ofotfjorden and the three ships of the 3rd Flotilla – Ludemann,
Schmitt and Roeder – were ordered to detach. Their role was to land men to capture
the forts at Ramnes and Hamnes that the Germans were led to believe were in place.

.P The three ships of the 4th Flotilla – Zenker, Koellner and Kunne – were also
ordered to detach and head for Herjangsfjorden, northwest of Narvik. Their task
was to off load troops to take the barracks at Elvegardsmoen. This would leave the
remaining three destroyers to continue on to Narvik.

.P Senja, which had been ordered to Vestfjorden had by now reached Ramnes/Hamnes
and spotted a destroyer near Ramnes. The confusion and errors that abound in time
of war now started to move into overtime. In the poor weather, with snow falling
and visibility limited, Senja reported a British destroyer was at Ramnes. This
message was picked up onboard Norge… but was read as British cruiser at Ramnes.
One can only imagine the relief felt by Askim in hearing the news that the Royal
Navy were close at hand…. The inquisitive crew of the Senja moved toward the
destroyer and quickly realised their mistake. There were actually two of them and
they were German. A revised message was sent to Norge but for some reason was
never received.

.P Norge slipped anchor and sailed to a position off Malmkaia, just outside the
harbour. I am unclear as to why the two ships didn’t operate together for mutual
support. The two ships were about a mile apart but could not see each other for the
snow. At 04:20hrs the order was passed to Askim that British vessels were not to be
fired upon. For some reason this message was not relayed to Willoch on Eidsvold.
However Eidsvold did receive a message sent a little earlier to order her to
prepare for war.

.P At 04:15, with Eidsvold in the process of weighing anchor, Heidkamp came into
view, just 400 metres away. Eidsvold ordered a warning shot to be fired and Bonte
brought Heidkamp to a stop. Meanwhile Arnim and Thiele continued on into Narvik,
presumably unseen from Eidsvold. Bonte ordered a party to take to a boat and head
over to Eidsvold. Heidkamp’s guns remained fixed fore and aft, although her torpedo
tubes were manned, armed and swung into position.

.P The Germans, led by Captain Gerlach, boarded Eidsvold and gave Willoch the
prepared story that the Germans were there to help Norway defend herself against
the British and that Willoch should surrender his ship. Willoch advised that he
would need to seek higher authority and Gerlach refused to wait for an answer and
left. Willoch’s brief conversation with Askim was clear; “Open Fire!” And Willoch
confirmed “I will attack!”.

.P But at this point, Willoch hailed Gerlach, who was by this time heading back to
Heidkamp. Back on board the pansership, Willoch gave Gerlach the news that he would
not surrender, upon which, Gerlach departed once more. While heading back, a red
flare was launched from the whaler to warn Bonte that the Norwegians would fight.

.P What is strange at this point – and something we will never know the answer to
– is why Eidsvold didn’t fire. Apparently Willoch gave the order and Eidsvold
started to move toward Heidkamp. Why Willoch felt he needed to even do this is also
not clear. In addition, during Gerlach’s conference, Heidkamp was not at anchor but
instead was allowed to circle Eidsvold – although Eidsvold kept her guns trained on
the German ship. After the flare went up, Heidkamp was about 700 metres away from
Eidsvold and in a perfect position to fire her torpedoes, but Bonte was under
orders not to fire first. He hesitated but both General Dietl (concerned for his
troops aboard the destroyer) and Heidkamp’s captain (alarmed that his ship had two
8-inch guns and three 6-inch guns trained on his ship at point blank range, had no
such concerns.

.P Reluctantly Bonte gave the order to fire the torpedoes and four were launched.
Two minutes after the warning flare had been launched, and with still no shot being
fired by Eidsvold, the torpedoes started slamming into the hapless Eidsvold. It is
unclear whether two or three of the four torpedoes hit, but what is clear is that
Eidsvold exploded – presumably one of her magazines was penetrated through her thin
armour. It was 04:37hrs. One hundred and seventy seven men died and only eight men
survived the carnage.

.P While Heidkamp and Eidsvold were facing off, the destroyers Arnim and Thiele had
continued their journey toward Narvik harbour. Askim had positioned Norge at the
entrance and spotted the two German destroyers. Askim ordered them to halt and
flashed a “what ship” signal. The two destroyers ignored the pansership and
disappeared, without changing course, into the snow.

.P At this stage Askim knew that German ships were in the fjord because he’d just
had a communication with Willoch, he also thought he knew the Royal Navy was in the
fjord because of Senja’s erroneous report. He now had two German destroyers sailing
past him and, just a few moments later, he heard an explosion from far off.

.P The two German destroyers headed for the pier and moored, one each side – and
the troops began immediately to disembark. Norge followed them into the harbour and
they came into view as they were mooring. Askim ordered the guns to fire and, from
a range of about 800 metres, but in poor visibility, Norge’s shells landed over or
short. The Germans responded but their shooting was not much better. However, Arnim
was able to loose seven torpedoes at the pansership. Five missed despite the range,
but two struck Askim’s flagship with almost as devastating results as befell her
sister ship. Norge rolled over and sank within 60 seconds. 105 men were killed.

.P After despatching Eidsvold to her watery grave, Heidkamp also headed for the
harbour and the pier at Fagernes which she reached at 0500hrs.

.P While these events were taking place, the other two flotillas were busy
discharging their orders. The 4th Flotilla, which had been ordered to Harjangsfjord,
arrived at their objective at 0415hrs and found an almost empty barracks as troops
had been ordered into Narvik and their replacements had not arrived at
Elvegardsmoen. The facilities for disembarking and embarking the four destroyers
were basic and so it would not be before the afternoon that the 4th Flotilla
reached Narvik.

.P We left the 3rd Flotilla sailing to Hamnes/Framnes to capture the non-existent
forts. Roeder acted as picket while Schmitt was sent to Ramnes and Ludemann to
Hamnes. In the north, German troops found, and captured, a naval depot and the
mines within. But that was it. All troops were back on the destroyers by 1100hrs
and they headed for Narvik.

.P Michael Sars and Kelt continued to patrol the narrows and reported the presence
of Roeder and the tardy, and almost fuel-free Giese which had finally caught up
with her fellow destroyers and was heading for Harjangsfjord as economically as
possible. Roeder ordered the two Norwegian patrol vessels to surrender and head
back to Narvik. Any thoughts the little vessels had of resisting were ended by a
couple of warning shots. They proceeded to Narvik. Senja too was intercepted and
ordered back to Narvik by Schmitt.

.P And what of the two submarines? Unable to contact Norge, the commander of B3
acted on his own initiative and took his two submarines into the fjord. But by the
time they had taken up station, the Germans had passed. At around 0600hrs B3 came
across the two auxiliaries that had been ordered to Narvik. Michael Sars reported
to the submarine commander Brekke, that they had been ordered back to Narvik… but
neglected to inform Brekke of why! So B3 headed back to Liland to find out what was
going on.

.P At this point Brekke found out that the panserships were sunk and he was ordered
to head for Vestfjorden. The boat started to spring a leak and so, upon reaching
Vestfjorden, she was camouflaged as best she could be, and repair work began. B1
was ordered to Tromso and she arrived there a few days later.

.P By the early morning of the 9th April, Narvik had been captured.





< Message edited by warspite1 -- 3/21/2020 1:05:28 PM >


_____________________________

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



(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 2485
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/21/2020 1:16:13 PM   
Orm


Posts: 20185
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


Norwegian Counters in MWIF

Ski Division - outline of this 'what if' counter.


Not sure what equipment the Norwegian 6th division had access to but they sure did have some winter equipment, and I would be surprised if not most of the men in the division were skilled skiers. So, perhaps, it could be argued that the ski division is the 6th division?

Picture of Norwegian soldiers on the Narvik front




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 2486
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/21/2020 8:34:01 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8462
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


Norwegian Counters in MWIF

Ski Division - outline of this 'what if' counter.


Not sure what equipment the Norwegian 6th division had access to but they sure did have some winter equipment, and I would be surprised if not most of the men in the division were skilled skiers. So, perhaps, it could be argued that the ski division is the 6th division?

Picture of Norwegian soldiers on the Narvik front





I agree on this, because it goes on the map immediately when Norway goes to war. That doesn't sound like a "what if" unit.

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 2487
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/21/2020 10:03:25 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 42856
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
There is no right or wrong answer because, as we know, the factors employed are not necessarily accurate in the name of game balance. One can put forth a number of possibilities.

I personally like the idea that these troops represent those men that could have been mobilised given the time - and moreover, the political will and energy - to act on the multitude of warnings given. Or they could be among those troops that were already mobilised, but had a greater degree of training.

The fact is the Norwegian army didn't employ divisions as such so this would be no more right - or wrong - than other treatments.

_____________________________

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



(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 2488
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/22/2020 7:47:29 AM   
Orm


Posts: 20185
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline
It is my understanding that none of the Nordic countries had such ski divisions with extra training. Smaller units, yes, but not division sized. On the other hand most men at that time could already ski before they entered the army. And I am pretty sure that skiing and training to fight conditions were standard practice for all, or almost all, units. And that units expected to operate in winter conditions and in a wilderness setting had winter eq, including skiis.

And this, in my humble opinion, makes me wonder if the Norwegian ski division is a 'what if' division, shouldn't all Nordic ski divisions be 'what if' divisions? Including the Finnish ones? But perhaps they already are?

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 2489
Page:   <<   < prev  79 80 81 82 [83]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land Page: <<   < prev  79 80 81 82 [83]
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

0.220