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: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns

 
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: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns - 6/18/2019 4:14:17 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 40178
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958


quote:

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.


_____________________________

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



(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 31
RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns - 6/19/2019 1:28:30 AM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3014
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline

quote:

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).

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 32
RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns - 6/19/2019 5:39:25 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 40178
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

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.


quote:

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.

quote:

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.


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 6/19/2019 6:19:23 AM >


_____________________________

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



(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 33
RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns - 6/19/2019 1:50:55 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3014
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 34
RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns - 6/19/2019 8:24:16 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 40178
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

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

Nov/Dec 1941 is proving pretty challenging too Almost there....


_____________________________

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



(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 35
RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns - 6/19/2019 10:07:46 PM   
Courtenay


Posts: 3438
Joined: 11/12/2008
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

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

Nov/Dec 1941 is proving pretty challenging too 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....

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 36
RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns - 6/20/2019 4:06:53 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 40178
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Courtenay


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

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

Nov/Dec 1941 is proving pretty challenging too 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.


_____________________________

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



(in reply to Courtenay)
Post #: 37
RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns - 6/20/2019 4:21:35 AM   
Courtenay


Posts: 3438
Joined: 11/12/2008
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Courtenay


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

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

Nov/Dec 1941 is proving pretty challenging too 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....

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 38
RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns - 6/21/2019 6:35:07 PM   
Orm


Posts: 17736
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline
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.

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.

< Message edited by Orm -- 6/21/2019 7:19:07 PM >


_____________________________

Intend attacking at dawn high water.

(in reply to Courtenay)
Post #: 39
RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns - 6/22/2019 4:09:25 AM   
Neilster


Posts: 2916
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline
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

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 40
RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns - 6/22/2019 11:15:54 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 40178
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 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.

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.
warspite1

Well there is the debate some people love to have about sunk or scuttled so both are covered.


_____________________________

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



(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 41
RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns - 6/22/2019 9:35:07 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8244
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline
There's a typo with the Dutch Destroyers. The name of the Destroyer is Kortenaer (and not Kortaener)...

Keep up the good work.

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 42
RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns - 6/24/2019 4:38:02 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 40178
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

There's a typo with the Dutch Destroyers. The name of the Destroyer is Kortenaer (and not Kortaener)...

Keep up the good work.
warspite1

Thanks - I will amend.

_____________________________

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



(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 43
RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns - 6/25/2019 5:40:27 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 40178
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
Does anyone know how I can get a sharper picture for my excel spreadsheet page? The picture is fine (using Paint 3-D) but when I reduce the size (using Irfanview) so that it fits on the forum page to 1024, the quality suffers and the letters are harder to read. Anyone know what (if anything) can be done please?

_____________________________

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



(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 44
RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns - 6/25/2019 6:53:54 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 7809
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
Irfanview allows you to experiment with the settings below the resize, like not preserving the aspect ratio, applying a sharpen filter, or changing the DPI setting.

Another idea is can you reduce the size using Paint and just "save as" a jpg.

Another idea is to save from Excel direct to PDF, take a screen shot saved as a PNG or JPG and play with that in Irfanview. You might only have to crop it. (Or even just take a screen shot of the Excel.) PNG may be a better format for what you are doing but of course has to be converted to a JPG for posting.

What is your monitor width? My monitor is 1920 x 1080 and so the picture is only about two thirds of the width of a post when I view it. So a wider and taller picture would help with reading the text. (Of course that may mean others would have to scroll left and right.)

< Message edited by paulderynck -- 6/26/2019 2:45:33 AM >


_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 45
RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns - 6/26/2019 6:18:49 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 40178
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Irfanview allows you to experiment with the settings below the resize, like not preserving the aspect ratio, applying a sharpen filter, or changing the DPI setting.

Another idea is can you reduce the size using Paint and just "save as" a jpg.

Another idea is to save from Excel direct to PDF, take a screen shot saved as a PNG or JPG and play with that in Irfanview. You might only have to crop it. (Or even just take a screen shot of the Excel.) PNG may be a better format for what you are doing but of course has to be converted to a JPG for posting.

What is your monitor width? My monitor is 1920 x 1080 and so the picture is only about two thirds of the width of a post when I view it. So a wider and taller picture would help with reading the text. (Of course that may mean others would have to scroll left and right.)
warspite1

Thanks - I'll have a play around. I tried saving as a PDF but although the picture quality was excellent, the table wouldn't fit and so is spread across 3 pages. Boring. I hate computers





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 6/26/2019 6:40:25 PM >


_____________________________

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



(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 46
RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns - 6/27/2019 2:50:17 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 7809
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
I find it a little easier to read the print in the above than in the thread we are discussing. (Please don't tell me it's the same picture!)

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 47
RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns - 6/28/2019 4:36:06 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 40178
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

I find it a little easier to read the print in the above than in the thread we are discussing. (Please don't tell me it's the same picture!)
warspite1

No they are different pictures. I thought the one above was clearer but the more I look at it the more I think the effect is pretty much the same. Oh well I tried.


_____________________________

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



(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 48
RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns - 6/28/2019 5:30:11 AM   
Courtenay


Posts: 3438
Joined: 11/12/2008
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

I find it a little easier to read the print in the above than in the thread we are discussing. (Please don't tell me it's the same picture!)
warspite1

No they are different pictures. I thought the one above was clearer but the more I look at it the more I think the effect is pretty much the same. Oh well I tried.


I think this picture is clearer. Somehow the type seems fuzzier on the ones you have been doing. If this one is not much more work, please do this one.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 49
RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns - 10/19/2019 7:11:39 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 40178
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
I am trying to work out the fates of the Dutch submarines in WWII (particularly (but not limited to) those that served in the Far East).

My usual trusty sources have thrown up something of a mis-match in their recording, namely:

Conways All The Worlds Fighting Ships 1922 - 1946
Rohwer's Chronology of the War at Sea
U-boat.net

I hate to think that Conway's could be wrong but it is looking that way at present.....

Does anyone know a truly trusted source for Dutch submarines of WWII please?

_____________________________

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



(in reply to Courtenay)
Post #: 50
RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns - 10/19/2019 6:08:17 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8244
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I am trying to work out the fates of the Dutch submarines in WWII (particularly (but not limited to) those that served in the Far East).

My usual trusty sources have thrown up something of a mis-match in their recording, namely:

Conways All The Worlds Fighting Ships 1922 - 1946
Rohwer's Chronology of the War at Sea
U-boat.net

I hate to think that Conway's could be wrong but it is looking that way at present.....

Does anyone know a truly trusted source for Dutch submarines of WWII please?


Of course there is one. One problem for you: it's in Dutch...

https://www.tracesofwar.nl/search.asp?q=Onderzeeboten

This is a joint website of several Dutch official historical research institutions.

In English there is this website, which according to the website of the official historical research instutions is correct for information on Dutch SUB's.

http://www.dutchsubmarines.com/

< Message edited by Centuur -- 10/19/2019 6:22:33 PM >


_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 51
RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns - 10/19/2019 6:49:49 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 40178
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
I used the Dutch Submarines site and now am left with 4 anomalies

KXI - On balance I believe decommissioned in 1945
KXII - Three different outcomes - sunk in Feb 42, Scuttled in Mar 42 or decommissioned 1944
KXIII - Either broken up in 1945 or scuttled in Mar 42
KXVIII - On balance I believe scuttled in Mar 42

If you can get any in from that Dutch site it could be useful. Otherwise I'll just take a view on each.

_____________________________

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



(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 52
RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns - 10/20/2019 8:46:25 AM   
Centuur


Posts: 8244
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline
K XI was used as a training boat from 1943 onward and decommissioned in 1945.
K XII was taken over by the NEFIS (Netherlands Forces Intelligence Service) from 1942 onward and transferred to the Royal Australian Navy in 1944. The Australians decommissioned the boat in 1945.
K XIII after an accident in the port of Surabaya, the ship was under repairs when the Japanese took the port. The ship got scuttled there (in 1942). After the war, the hull was considered to be an obstacle and was lifted and scrapped in 1945.

K XVIII was scuttled in 1942, however lifted and repaired by the Japanese in 1943-1944. In 1945 the boat was sunk by HMS Tacitum (a submarine).


_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 53
RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns - 10/20/2019 8:56:57 AM   
Orm


Posts: 17736
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Thank you, Centuur, for the interesting explanation to the anomalies.

_____________________________

Intend attacking at dawn high water.

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 54
RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns - 10/20/2019 8:58:25 AM   
Orm


Posts: 17736
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline
BTW. In my current game the Italian player really would like the Dutch submarines to be scuttled. They are a real pain.

_____________________________

Intend attacking at dawn high water.

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 55
RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns - 10/20/2019 9:21:52 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 40178
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

K XI was used as a training boat from 1943 onward and decommissioned in 1945.
K XII was taken over by the NEFIS (Netherlands Forces Intelligence Service) from 1942 onward and transferred to the Royal Australian Navy in 1944. The Australians decommissioned the boat in 1945.
K XIII after an accident in the port of Surabaya, the ship was under repairs when the Japanese took the port. The ship got scuttled there (in 1942). After the war, the hull was considered to be an obstacle and was lifted and scrapped in 1945.

K XVIII was scuttled in 1942, however lifted and repaired by the Japanese in 1943-1944. In 1945 the boat was sunk by HMS Tacitum (a submarine).

warspite1

This confirms my thinking following an earlier post in the WITP-AE thread. Thanks for taking the time to check this out.


_____________________________

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



(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 56
RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns - 10/20/2019 1:58:26 PM   
Courtenay


Posts: 3438
Joined: 11/12/2008
Status: online
HMS Trinidad is misspelled in the entry, and was not sunk by its own torpedo. It was damaged by its own torpedo, but made Murmansk, where it was repaired. On the return journey to Britain in May she was damaged by Ju88s and subsequently scuttled.

All this according to Wikipedia.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 57
RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns - 10/20/2019 2:44:49 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3014
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
I did not know that the Japanese carrier port strikes in the Indian Ocean (Tricomalee?) occurred on Easter. Did that factor in to the readyness of the RN, as it may have at Pearl Harbor (Sunday morning)?

(in reply to Courtenay)
Post #: 58
RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns - 10/20/2019 3:47:32 PM   
Courtenay


Posts: 3438
Joined: 11/12/2008
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I did not know that the Japanese carrier port strikes in the Indian Ocean (Tricomalee?) occurred on Easter. Did that factor in to the readyness of the RN, as it may have at Pearl Harbor (Sunday morning)?

No. The British knew the Japanese were coming; they just badly underestimated the Japanese strength.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 59
RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns - 10/26/2019 11:36:58 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 40178
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

HMS Trinidad is misspelled in the entry, and was not sunk by its own torpedo. It was damaged by its own torpedo, but made Murmansk, where it was repaired. On the return journey to Britain in May she was damaged by Ju88s and subsequently scuttled.

All this according to Wikipedia.
warspite1

All now amended thanks.


_____________________________

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



(in reply to Courtenay)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   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

0.156