Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land

[warspite1]

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.

[warspite1]

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 [:(]

[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]

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 [:(]

[rkr1958]

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/denmarks ... trait1.htm

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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?

[brian brian]

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.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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.

[Courtenay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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]

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: warspite1


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?

[brian brian]

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.)

[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.

[paulderynck]

Unit descriptions are part of the save game file so the designer would have to add these.

[Ian R]

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.

[warspite1]

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.

[warspite1]

Test post to get rid of the weird thread title change - and it seemed to work - hussah! [:)].

[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

[Ian R]

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]

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.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

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 [:D]).

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! [&o]

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