Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land

[warspite1]

Jagd I haven’t got the time, energy or patience right now. In fact I am not sure its even worth responding to you – although will in due course because otherwise (as was my rationale for answering you about the Gallipoli rubbish you spouted, if I don’t then some people may take what you say as fact).

You honestly think Australia, Canada and New Zealand are independent republics?

[Jagdtiger14]

You honestly think Australia, Canada and New Zealand are independent republics?

Ok, Ireland and India. Did'nt Australia have something going on in the 80's that severed them from being British subjects? I used republics as a catch all for separation...geez, whats taking those guys so long??? Cut the umbilical cord already. I guess Australia is waiting for the Queen to...

[warspite1]

I have enjoyed robust debates with you in the past about whole manner of things. They’ve been largely fun, you say what you think and do not hide behind mealy mouth weasel words… or at least you used not to. Now I see you have taken to trying to profess your “innocence” when it comes to stupid comments designed to inflame. You’ve tried it here, but rather forgot and let slip your real motivation half way through your post – whoops.

1. You are curious with all the “British lingo”? No you are not, you know exactly what I am saying. Balls are balls whether this side of the Atlantic or your side. And you talk one hell of a lot balls.

2. I see you have learnt the words “Straw and man” recently and put the two together. Well done. They have nothing to do with my posts, but you seem to think by using this new found couple of words you can appear the voice of reason.

3.

I will admit that when it comes to WWII history I have a lot to learn

– correct, and then some.

There is a lot for everyone to learn

- also correct, it is the biggest event in World history, massive, it is so interesting, there are so many facets, its an incredible subject.

For anyone to think they know it all is just crazy

– yep, steady on that’s three sensible things in a row you’ve said. This won’t last.

4.

I admit one of my weakest points in WWII is anything about the CW.

Yes, I think that is quite evident.

So when I make a 12 word one sentence comment at post #2410, its because I notice again a pattern, a personal observation

... Okay, but would it not help to have made a point? A 12 word sentence about the use of Commonwealth troops – then mentioning defeats and tough assignments - when added to the “ass wiping” comment that you so unintelligently put up about Gallipoli makes for one likely conclusion. But as I said above, you see what you are doing? Denying that you meant any offence so that you sound all reasonable like. Now let’s see what’s coming…

perhaps out of ignorance.

No, not really, its more trollish than ignorant as we shall see.

5. More straw man ^&*$.

6. Well you don’t know about Mel Gibson. Allow me to enlighten you. Mel Gibson – a half decent actor but sadly now better known for being a rabid anti-semite and allegedly a woman beater who likes to make crappy “historical” haha films that put the English/British in a bad light. A bit like many of your posts.

7.

don't tell me you thought I was referring to the Canadians as ANZAC. Good grief.

Given your comment about republican Australia pray tell why I would be wrong for thinking that?

8. More pathetic straw man references follow then…..

the British seem to use their CW allies in a reckless way

Now we are getting there. Why waffle on with all that “straw man” rubbish when you later confirm that is exactly what you are meaning? Please see my earlier answer, you seem to have not bothered to read it. a) The British were not free to use Dominion troops in any way they saw fit b) how many divisions do you think the Commonwealth had? You think the British used the Dominion troops recklessly while what? The British troops were sat drinking tea on the beach at Suvla? As Jeffk pointed out – but again you probably didn’t bother reading, the British provided a lot of the armour and motorised units, most of the navy, most of the airforce – and for some operations most/many of the troops. As things panned out historically long before the end of the war the Royal Navy were laying off ships, the Army was amalgamating units because there were not enough replacements. WWII was a life and death struggle. The country was on a total war footing and, unlike the Germans they didn’t have a massive pool of slave labour to use in their factories and down the mines.

9. You want to know percentages? For what purpose? Troops were used as availability and requirements dictated. You think the British were purposely reckless with Commonwealth lives because there was some ulterior motive? And you prove this by quoting episodes that were largely fool-hardy and/or dangerous?? Newsflash - in the first years of the war with the British still trying to get to grips with the war (and stop treating it like bloody amateur hour) practically ALL operations were fool-hardy AND dangerous. We lost men with every sorry retreat. An exception was the defeat of the Italians during Compass (and that didn’t last). But otherwise, Norway, France, Greece, The Western Desert generally, Singapore, Burma – it was one calamity after another. You think the British were reckless with the Greek campaign? Damn right, it was folly – but then so was Norway. The ANZACS were at one and not the other – you see, no pattern. THERE WAS NO ULTERIOR MOTIVE. There is no smoking gun.

10. Then we come to your view of how the Empire worked, where the Monarchy fitted in and, best of all, the fact that the Dominions are now independent republics. I wouldn’t even know where to start with this er… view….so I will move on to save your embarrassment.

11. Now it all gets really silly – you admit once again what you were at such pains to profess your innocence about earlier with

And yes, it is my perception that the British like to "wipe their upper-class bottoms with filthy little colonials".

So you learned a lot from the Gallipoli thread then? Then we come to 1781 and 1814 – oh boy you are really warming to your subject now aren’t you? Shame you don't actually understand the point - much less what those were about. More rubbish follows on the fact you did not see a need for the Dominions to get involved with a war against Hitler. Blah, blah, blah Oh I say, a bit of FDR bashing for good measure. Well done again.

12. Ah and now its WWII Word Search!!!! You brought up Monty! Well done!! 100 points for that one. And wait for it – more straw men. This nonsense is absolutely priceless. Actually its not – its really rather sad.

[Orm]

Perhaps we disabused the British of that back in 1781?...no, we had to teach it all over again in 1814.

I must confess that I do not get this. Did you teach the British a lesson by burning down the White House? [;)] (poor attempt at a joke)

I always thought that this war should, and could, have been avoided and that it was inconclusive. Ended in a draw. And if I would have to pick a winner I would select the British.

So on a serious note. Since you claim that this war was a success for US could you, please, enlighten me which of the US war objectives were a success?

[Orm]

6. Well you don’t know about Mel Gibson. Allow me to enlighten you. Mel Gibson – a half decent actor but sadly now better known for being a rabid anti-semite and allegedly a woman beater who likes to make crappy “historical” haha films that put the English/British in a bad light. A bit like many of your posts.

I am so envious. At least they make movies about the British. I would love it if a major studio would make a movie where Sweden, or Swedes, would play a major role. Even if it was a fairy tale or if we were the bad guys. Then, at least, there would be a discussion about what was the true history behind the movie.

Edit: With that said I do understand your point.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

JeffK: Now "Poms"...cobbler, total balls...what the...? I was called an "old geezer" by some Brit kids here on Spring Break the other day...that cant be good with the word old in it?

Yes, 9 more divisions might have done it for Monty at Caen.

warspite1

Hahahahahaha - he gets in another Monty jibe - he's on a real roll tonight! Let's see if you can go for the hat-trick. Go on Mr Meister, you can do it, we are all rooting for you.

[warspite1]

I made a mistake about Gallipoli? Could you link me the exact mistake(s???) (not the whole thread)?...I love to be reminded of such rare events

Yes you made a crass statement - that sadly you have forgotten and that is the reason no doubt that you continue to talk balls even now. Your childlike comment was made in post 9. You may recall the subsequent post featured an Australian website and notice too that at least two of the subsequent posters are Australian.

tm.asp?m=3848610&mpage=1&key=gallipoli�

[paulderynck]

https://vimeo.com/25921512

I think that's Warspite in Room #1.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

6. Well you don’t know about Mel Gibson. Allow me to enlighten you. Mel Gibson – a half decent actor but sadly now better known for being a rabid anti-semite and allegedly a woman beater who likes to make crappy “historical” haha films that put the English/British in a bad light. A bit like many of your posts.

I am so envious. At least they make movies about the British. I would love it if a major studio would make a movie where Sweden, or Swedes, would play a major role. Even if it was a fairy tale or if we were the bad guys. Then, at least, there would be a discussion about what was the true history behind the movie.

Edit: With that said I do understand your point.

warspite1

When I was younger I remember watching Abba: The Movie. That was about a bunch of Swedes who had something of a major role in popular music of the 1970's. There were two in particular - Agnetha and Frida - I found interesting [:)]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJ90ZqH0PWI

We can have a discussion about that.... [;)]

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Orm

6. Well you don’t know about Mel Gibson. Allow me to enlighten you. Mel Gibson – a half decent actor but sadly now better known for being a rabid anti-semite and allegedly a woman beater who likes to make crappy “historical” haha films that put the English/British in a bad light. A bit like many of your posts.

I am so envious. At least they make movies about the British. I would love it if a major studio would make a movie where Sweden, or Swedes, would play a major role. Even if it was a fairy tale or if we were the bad guys. Then, at least, there would be a discussion about what was the true history behind the movie.

Edit: With that said I do understand your point.

warspite1

When I was younger I remember watching Abba: The Movie. That was about a bunch of Swedes who had something of a major role in popular music of the 1970's. There were two in particular I found interesting [:)]

We can have a discussion about that.... [;)]

[:D]

Indeed we can. [:)] Although I beg to question that you consider it a "major studio" movie. [;)]

Although. This is such an important and interesting topic that it deserves a thread of its own. [:)]

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

The aircraft carriers available are:

• Lenin - a small aircraft carrier named after the Vladimir Lenin, the founder of the Russian
Communist Party and revolutionary.
• Engine(s) output: 126,500hp
• Top Speed: 33.75 knots
• Main armament: 16 x 3.9-inch (100mm), 8 x 1.4-inch (37mm)
• Aircraft: 30
• Displacement (standard): 10,600 tons
• Armour: Unknown

• Stalin - a larger fleet carrier type vessel, named after Josef Stalin, the leader of the Soviet
Union during the Second World War.
• Engine(s) output: 154,000hp
• Top Speed: 32.3 knots
• Main armament: 16 x 5.1-inch (130mm), 32 x 1.4-inch (37mm)
• Aircraft: 70
• Displacement (standard): 24,000 tons
• Armour: unknown

To me it seems they will carry a lot of aircraft compared to their displacement. Especially since they were both ships that would have been converted to carriers. But what do I know. So therefore I ask if these figures were likely or just something they thought would look nice on paper...

And the top speeds. 32+ knots seems a bit high. Especially for a converted training ship. But as I said. I have no clue. Just guessing. [:D]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: warspite1

The aircraft carriers available are:

• Lenin - a small aircraft carrier named after the Vladimir Lenin, the founder of the Russian
Communist Party and revolutionary.
• Engine(s) output: 126,500hp
• Top Speed: 33.75 knots
• Main armament: 16 x 3.9-inch (100mm), 8 x 1.4-inch (37mm)
• Aircraft: 30
• Displacement (standard): 10,600 tons
• Armour: Unknown

• Stalin - a larger fleet carrier type vessel, named after Josef Stalin, the leader of the Soviet
Union during the Second World War.
• Engine(s) output: 154,000hp
• Top Speed: 32.3 knots
• Main armament: 16 x 5.1-inch (130mm), 32 x 1.4-inch (37mm)
• Aircraft: 70
• Displacement (standard): 24,000 tons
• Armour: unknown

To me it seems they will carry a lot of aircraft compared to their displacement. Especially since they were both ships that would have been converted to carriers. But what do I know. So therefore I ask if these figures were likely or just something they thought would look nice on paper...

And the top speeds. 32+ knots seems a bit high. Especially for a converted training ship. But as I said. I have no clue. Just guessing. [:D]

warspite1

Well the source is very good - Jurgen Rohwer and Mikhail Monakov. If you look at the latter vessel and compare with say the USS Yorktown, I think it is feasible.

Taken from Wiki as I cannot be bothered to look this up at this late hour: [:D]
USS Yorktown - Standard displacement circa 20,000 tons
Aircraft 90+
HP 120,000 for a top speed of 32.5 knots

As for the re-builds, no doubt they would involve brand new machinery. a comparison is hard to find but if you look at Shoho

Standard displacement circa 11,000 tons
Aircraft 30
HP only 52,000 giving 28 knots. The Soviet carrier was proposed to have much meatier engines

[Orm]

Well. I do not doubt you. It is just that I doubt the Soviets when it comes to shipbuilding. Therefore I doubt that they could equal USS Yorktown on their first, or second, attempt on building a carrier.

Without any fact I would rather compare them with HMS Hermes and USS Langley.

But with that said I find no reason to alter your figures. Probably the best source available on these planned carriers.

[paulderynck]

The speed of the Yorktown came from the fact it was a converted Battlecruiser. As it turned out, they made better CVs than Battlecruisers, as the British proved at Jutland.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

Well. I do not doubt you. It is just that I doubt the Soviets when it comes to shipbuilding. Therefore I doubt that they could equal USS Yorktown on their first, or second, attempt on building a carrier.

Without any fact I would rather compare them with HMS Hermes and USS Langley.

warspite1

Interesting thought. You may be right in terms of build quality of vessel, but I have absolutely no doubt that, without the war, the Soviets would have been capable of building such ships. The two-year WIF construction timetable would definitely have been a challenge [;)]

Remember at the time of the invasion the Soviets had laid down two (some sources say all three) of the 60,000 ton Sovyetskiy Soyuz-class battleships.

The Soviets would have needed to design new carrier-borne aircraft - or as the British did - convert land-based designs (not ideal) at least as a stop-gap.

One only has to look at some of the tank and aircraft designs that followed to see that the Soviets were quick learners and getting "stuff" done in the Soviet Union was usually not an issue!

Like a lot of the WIF "what-if" ships (the Japanese carriers or Plan Z in particular!) the real life capability was either not there or at least not in the timeframe required by the game, but hey, the ability to mix things up a bit and explore new avenues is one of the great things about WIF [:)].

[Finarfïn]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

The speed of the Yorktown came from the fact it was a converted Battlecruiser. As it turned out, they made better CVs than Battlecruisers, as the British proved at Jutland.

I could be wrong but i think Yorktown class was regular CV, i think you want to talk about Lexington and Saratoga?

Fin

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Finarfïn

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

The speed of the Yorktown came from the fact it was a converted Battlecruiser. As it turned out, they made better CVs than Battlecruisers, as the British proved at Jutland.

I could be wrong but i think Yorktown class was regular CV, i think you want to talk about Lexington and Saratoga?

Fin

warspite1

You are not wrong. The Yorktowns were carriers designed and built.

Furthermore the 'problem' with the battlecruisers at Jutland was a) in their use and b) the cordite storage and magazine regulations being ignored.

The Battlecruiser concept may be criticised, or not, depending on your point of view and that is another debate, but all that was proved at Jutland was that the ships were lost because of poor decisions made by their operators, and something for which Jellicoe and Beatty can be rightly blamed.

[Extraneous]

USS Yorktown (CV-5)

Battlecrusiers and Large Cruisers: Lexington (CC-1 then CV-2) and Saratoga (CC-3 then CV-3)

[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.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Finarfïn

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

The speed of the Yorktown came from the fact it was a converted Battlecruiser. As it turned out, they made better CVs than Battlecruisers, as the British proved at Jutland.

I could be wrong but i think Yorktown class was regular CV, i think you want to talk about Lexington and Saratoga?

Fin

Ah yes - I always confuse those two. Thanks.