Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: terje439

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Wow, their wrecks wre found 2 weeks ago ? [X(]
Where is there information about that ?

Some info on the Sydney can be found here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_for ... r_Kormoran says that the Kormoran was found on 15 March, and the Sydney on 17 March.
http://presspass.findingsydney.com/blog ... fault.aspx say that Sydney was found on 16 March (17 March seems to be the announcement) and Kormoran on 12 March.

[marcuswatney]

I would recommend using 12 and 16 March, since these dates are the ones given by the actual finders. I would also replace 'rediscovered' with 'finally discovered' ... at the moment it reads as if the wrecks were discovered some time ago and then carelessly lost again!

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

I would recommend using 12 and 16 March, since these dates are the ones given by the actual finders. I would also replace 'rediscovered' with 'finally discovered' ... at the moment it reads as if the wrecks were discovered some time ago and then carelessly lost again!

I agree.

[Grell]

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

wrecks were discovered some time ago and then carelessly lost again!

How very true.

Regards,

Grell

[Kaletsch2007]

captian,
I sent you a PM.

Looking forward to join the team.


Rene´

[jesperpehrson]

PMs recieved from several people and I will get back to you soon, just a bit too busy at the moment but during the week I will sort it all out! [:)]

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Andy is working on the air unit writeups. I assume he will read this. The first thing he did was to sort the 1300+ writeups by numeric order so he could identify which writeups were missing (about 30). He is working his way through the file for spelling and other typos.

Here is the list of changes I recommend Andy does :

Generic changes (but see detail below) :
- All inconsistent German planes corrected (for example "Bf-109" replaced by "Bf 109", but all German planes need review, there are tons of them). German planes models are letter and number separated by a blank space (or nothing, but blank space is more frequent).
- All inconsistent German planes submodels corrected (for example "F1" replaced by "F-1", all model & submodels reviewed, there are lots of them).
German planes models and submodel are letter and number separated by a dash.
- All inconsistent French planes (for example "D520" replaced by "D.520", "MB-152" replaced by "MB.152", but all French planes need review, there are
lots of them). French planes models are lettre and number separated by a dot.
- All inconsistent Italian planes (for example "CR-42" replaced by "CR.42", "P 108" replaced by "P.108", but all Italian planes need review, there are
lots of them). French planes models are lettre and number separated by a dot.


Specific changes :
- "Focke-Wolf" and "Focke Wulf" replaced by "Focke-Wulf".
- "F4u" replaced by "F4U".
- "A20" and "A22" replaced by "A-20" & "A-22".
- "Mk " replaced by "Mk. " (dot added after the Mk -- some had it some did not, normaly it should be there all the time or not there all the time).
- "P.108-B" or "P108-B" or "P-108-B" replaced by "P.108B" (no dash before the letter of Italian models).
- "SB2C1" replaced by "SB2C-1" (there is a dash between the model and the type -- F4F-3 -- in the US Navy naming).
- Kikka wrongly named "J8N1" in their description, corrected to "J9N1".
- Text from Kikka and J8M1 wrongly cite "JM81" in the engine's text that I replaced by "J9N1" & "J8M1" respectively.
- "FW190" and "FW 190" or "FW-190" replaced by "Fw 190" (the W should not be in capitals).
- "FW200" and "FW 200" or "FW-200" replaced by "Fw 200" (the W should not be in capitals).
- "BV222" and "BV 222" or "BV-222" replaced by "Bv 222" (the V should not be in capitals).
- Swedish "J22" replaced by "J.22".
- Czech "Avia 534" replaced by "Avia B.534".
- Czech "S328" replaced by "S.328".
- Czech "S528" replaced by "S.528".
- Polish "PZL P-24" replaced by "PZL P.24".
- Rumanian "IAR 80" replaced by "IAR-80".
- Rumanian "IAR 37" or "IAR.37" replaced by "IAR-37".
- "BI-210" replaced by "Bl.210" (I as in Italian replaced by low case L as in Lethonian).
- "20-mm" replaced by "20mm".
- "'-C' variant" replaced by "'C' variant" (no dash before letter for main German versions).



Planes that should receive correction in the "generic" section above should be written as follow (I mean for example that all possible variations of "Bf
109E-1" have to be corrected to "Bf 109E-1") :
- Bf 109
- Bf 109E-1
- Bf 109E-2
- Bf 109E-3
- Bf 109E-4
- Bf 109E-7
- Bf 109F-1
- Bf 109F-2
- Bf 109F-4
- Bf 109G-1
- Bf 109G-2
- Bf 109G-6
- Bf 109G-10
- Bf 109K-2
- Bf 109K-4
- Bf 109K-6 (I had forgotten this one)
- Bf 110
- Me 262
- Me 410
- Me 321
- Me 323
- Fw 190
- Fw 190A-1
- Fw 190A-2
- Fw 190A-3
- Fw 190A-5
- Fw 190A-6
- Fw 190A-7
- Fw 190A-8
- Fw 190A-9
- Fw 190D-2
- Fw 190D-9
- Fw 190F-2
- Fw 190F-3
- Fw 190F-8
- Fw 190G-3
- Fw 200
- Ta 152
- Ju 52
- Ju 352
- Ju 87
- Ju 88
- Ju 88A-1
- Ju 88A-4
- Ju 188
- Ju 388
- Ju 290
- Do 17
- Do 217
- Do 217N-2 (only N-2 is mentionned)
- Do 335
- He 51
- He 100
- He 111
- He 111H-3
- He 111H-6
- He 112
- He 115
- He 162
- He 177
- He 277
- He 178
- He 219
- Hs 123
- Hs 129
- Hs 132
- Ba 349
- Ar 234
- Bv 222

- D.510
- D.520
- D.3800
- MS.406
- MS.410
- MB.150
- MB.152
- MB.155
- MB.157
- MB.174
- VG.33
- VG.39
- F.221
- F.223
- LeO.451
- Bl.210
- Potez 25 (this one is not abbreviated)

- CR.32
- CR.42
- BR.20
- SM.79
- SM.81
- SM.82
- SM.84
- P.108
- P.133
- Re.2000
- Re.2001
- Re.2005
- G.50
- G.55
- G.57
- G.59
- Ro.57
- Z.501
- Z.506
- Ca.133
- Ca.135
- Ca.313
- Ca.314
- Ba.65
- SAI.207

[Froonp]

See also here :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RLM_aircra ... ion_system
(that show that Blohm & Voss is abbreviated BV not Bv as I wrote).

and
http://www.hazegray.org/faq/designat.htm
(that show that Blohm & Voss is abbreviated BV as I wrote [:D]).

[SemperAugustus]

You should run a spell checker on the text above

I can help out if you need help. I PM'ed...

Just out of curiousity, is such a good idea to have long texts, copyright-wise? I would suggest keeping a standardized format for each type and then make sure all text complies to it. It would also avoid creating an impression of different writers for each text.

[warspite1]

[quote]ORIGINAL: SemperAugustus

Just out of curiousity, is such a good idea to have long texts, copyright-wise? I would suggest keeping a standardized format for each type and then make sure all text complies to it. It would also avoid creating an impression of different writers for each text.

[quote]Warspite1

I mentioned standardisation of write ups a while back. The consensus is to leave to each individual writer, the decision on how much to input into each write up. Only where the writer agrees to changes, will amendments be made - other than to amend for spelling, factual inaccuracy or copying.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: SemperAugustus

You should run a spell checker on the text above

I can help out if you need help. I PM'ed...

Just out of curiousity, is such a good idea to have long texts, copyright-wise? I would suggest keeping a standardized format for each type and then make sure all text complies to it. It would also avoid creating an impression of different writers for each text.

But there are different writers for each text. I do not see any need to hide that fact.

A standardized format is good, but I would not be traumatized by some variations. I save being fanatical about every detail for the code; for the writeups, I encourage some creativity. They aren't op-ed (editorial) pieces, but closer to that than, say, Jane's is.

[Sabre21]

Hi guys
 
I am the one now working on the aircraft files. Graham has done a heck of a lot of work and what I am pretty much doing is organizing the file, correcting typos, fixing grammatical errors, standardizing the files, inserting missing and/or incomplete data plus fixing copy/paste errors that I find. I am also adding in the english along with the metric conversions of things.  I plan on sending Steve weekly updates..hopefully this will be done in 3 to 4 weeks.
 
One thing I will point out is that while online sources typically provide a lot of cool and interesting info, many sites contradict one another. Especially the wikipedia, that is the least trustworthy source considering anyone and his brother can get in there and edit things. That same problem exists with lots of other sites too where people just copy/paste from one site and put it on their own. Books can also be a problem too..but that's why I cross reference data to at least 3 sources of info when there's a conflict..sometimes I have had to go to 9 or 10 references before I am confident with the data.
 
I have done this kind of research for quite some time and am confident in the primary sources I use along with the methods I use. I will come to the forum daily although I don't always post.
 
Andy

[warspite1]

Yes - there is a real problem sometimes - even when using a variety of supposedly reliable sources. Example how about these from five different sources:

The British Dido class were:

"The finest design of British light cruiser" OR

"The dual-purpose main armament of 5.25s was a most successful innovation and these ships ...were the finest AA cruisers the Navy ever built" OR

"The concept of the Didos was admirable, nullified by the lack of performance and reliability of the 5.25 inch mount" OR

"They suffered in two ways: the gun mounting and its fire control were not a great success, and the hull was too small to permit any great degree of resistance to battle damage" OR

"..fitted with the twin 5.25in...rather than the 4.5in or 4in which were better in the anti-aircraft role"

Well thats clear then.....

[Sabre21]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Yes - there is a real problem sometimes - even when using a variety of supposedly reliable sources. Example how about these from five different sources:

The British Dido class were:

"The finest design of British light cruiser" OR

"The dual-purpose main armament of 5.25s was a most successful innovation and these ships ...were the finest AA cruisers the Navy ever built" OR

"The concept of the Didos was admirable, nullified by the lack of performance and reliability of the 5.25 inch mount" OR

"They suffered in two ways: the gun mounting and its fire control were not a great success, and the hull was too small to permit any great degree of resistance to battle damage" OR

"..fitted with the twin 5.25in...rather than the 4.5in or 4in which were better in the anti-aircraft role"

Well thats clear then.....

Oh I hear ya on that one...makes ya wanna pull your hair out[:D]

I've seen stuff like that all too many times.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Here are a couple of new writeups from two guys who have been sending me a lot of them.
From Robert:

[Shannon V. OKeets]

2nd and last in series.
From Mark:

[Sabre21]

Shannon
 
I hope you don't mind a couple observations on these ship screens.
 
I noticed in some cases the word inch is capitalized..other cases it isn't. In some cases hypens are used where in other examples in the same data line it isn't there. Also there are cases where inch is plural and other exact cases where it is singular.
 
I know these are minor details..but it's the standardization from one screen to the next I am looking at.
 
Sabre

[brian brian]

Didn't Samuel Eliot Morrison serve on the Brooklyn?

[Stabilo]

Looking at these descibtions I recognized once again the problems with different notations.
 
I'm writing my unit describtions in a (European) metric system so the weight of a gun would be 3.456,78 kg. In contrast these ship desciptions use a different (American) system so it would read 3,456.78 kg. The Armor is described here in inches ("5.5 Inch Belt") a dimension unit inscrutable for hundreds of millions of Europeans.
 
Is there any standard for these data in this game? Do I have to change the descibtions I already wrote?   [&:]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Sabre21

Shannon

I hope you don't mind a couple observations on these ship screens.

I noticed in some cases the word inch is capitalized..other cases it isn't. In some cases hypens are used where in other examples in the same data line it isn't there. Also there are cases where inch is plural and other exact cases where it is singular.

I know these are minor details..but it's the standardization from one screen to the next I am looking at.

Sabre

Warspite1

This comes back to the standardisation [:D] approach I raised previously. As one of the responses, Capitan suggested that once the unit write ups are done, a small group of volunteers will then go through all the write-ups for final checking of spelling, accuracy etc. If that approach is adopted, I think we can iron out these small - but irritating mis-matches.