Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

ORIGINAL: warspite1

...despite these monumental efforts in the face of the Luftwaffe, the
Soviets hold on Odessa was weakened...

It should be "the Soviet's hold on Odessa" or "the Soviet hold on Odessa"

Cheers, Neilster

or "the Soviets' hold"[:D]

[Blackhorse]

P During the siege, the Soviet Baltic Fleet were used to provide naval gunfire
support to the defenders and to bring in reinforcements.

Black Sea fleet, perhaps?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

P During the siege, the Soviet Baltic Fleet were used to provide naval gunfire
support to the defenders and to bring in reinforcements.

Black Sea fleet, perhaps?

Welcome to the forum.[:)] And you are correct, of course.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

ORIGINAL: warspite1

...despite these monumental efforts in the face of the Luftwaffe, the
Soviets hold on Odessa was weakened...

It should be "the Soviet's hold on Odessa" or "the Soviet hold on Odessa"

Cheers, Neilster

Warspite1

Thank-you amendment made [:)]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

P During the siege, the Soviet Baltic Fleet were used to provide naval gunfire
support to the defenders and to bring in reinforcements.

Black Sea fleet, perhaps?

Warspite1

No perhaps about it! - I was flitting between Baltic and Black Sea all day and so....

Amendment made thank-you [:)]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: warspite1


As you all know, the write-ups are “chrome” that have been added, to give the counters we push around the board (or more accurately now, drag and drop across the computer screen) added historical flavour and value; for those of us who are interested in that sort of thing.

The write-ups in no way speed up or slow down the MWIF release date, however it would be nice to get these as complete as possible come the game`s release.

To that end I need some serious help! There are some counters that are important in the context of WWII history and so would be nice to have written up. The problem is the time taken for research and planning the counters as much as the actual write ups.

There are two distinct problems:

Submarines

As much as I love the naval aspect, submarine warfare has never been a favourite of mine and as a result, I know next to nothing. This means I have to do a ton of reading to plan out the counters before I can even begin the write-ups. All the German, French, Italian and US subs are yet to be started.

Required

Would anybody be interested in a) doing some research and planning what each counter would be used for (i.e. split by class, variant or whatever), b) what sub(s) would be written about in each counter.

In order of priority I would say Germans followed by US, Italian then French. The Japanese and all other navies except the CW need to be started, or the small number that have been done, needs reviewing.

For example, see CW counter below. There were enough counters to do one or more examples of all the main classes of RN sub. Each write up contains a brief history of the RN subs, the particular class and then the boat itself.

[4742 Submarine - by Robert Jenkins]
.B Engine(s) output: 800 hp (Surfaced) 760 hp (Submerged)
.B Top Speed: 12.75 knots (Surfaced), 9 knots (Submerged)
.B Main armament: 4 x 21-inch torpedo tubes and 1 x 12-pdr gun
.B Displacement (Fully Submerged): 740 tons
.B Diving Depth: 300 ft
.P These World In Flames counters represent a number of submarines rather
than any specific individual submarine. The dates printed on the back of the
counters do not tie up in any meaningful way with build dates for the various
classes of Royal Navy (RN) submarine class and therefore the counter date in
most cases should be ignored. These Commonwealth submarine write-ups contain the
usual technical data, followed by a brief history of one or more submarines from
each of the main classes that saw action during the Second World War.
.P The British initially tried to get the submarine outlawed during the inter-
war years. When this policy failed, Britain tried through treaty to limit the
number of submarines that would be available to any potential enemy. When Hitler
ordered the expansion of the Kriegsmarine in the mid-thirties, U-boat building
was allowed at up to 100% of the RN submarine tonnage (although in theory, this
meant tonnage being taken from surface ship allowances). At the start of the
Second World War, the RN had fifty-nine submarines, of which all but twelve
could be considered modern vessels.
.P This write-up looks at the U-class submarines. This class of submarine was
designed originally as an unarmed training vessel, with the first group of three
boats being ordered in 1936. However, the coming of war changed these plans and
their design was altered to allow six forward mounted torpedo tubes, including
two external tubes. The external tubes were not a success however and they were
removed in later models.
.P The boats were small at 191 feet long, of a single, riveted hull design. They
featured a diesel-electric drive system, which used electric motors to turn the
propellers, relegating the diesel engines to charging of the batteries and
generating electricity for the motors; this was a first for the RN. They proved
manoeuvrable vessels that were quick to dive.
.P Some of the later boats began with the letter V as the RN found difficulty in
finding enough appropriate words beginning with the letter U!
.P The group III boats, also known as the V-class, were built to a slightly
larger design, with a length of 205 feet, and were slightly faster on the
surface. They used a welded hull and could dive an additional 100 feet. The data
above reflects these changes.
.P Although there were numerous problems with the initial design, these were
soon ironed out and this class became one of the most successful submarine
classes of the Second World War. Seventy of these submarines were built, serving
with the Free French, Dutch, Norwegian, Russian, Polish, Danish and Greek
navies.
.P
.P HMS Venturer
.P HMS Venturer was from group III or the V-class. She was completed in August
1943 and after work-up she joined the 9th Submarine Flotilla then based in
Scotland.
.P She had a number of victories to her name; she sank the German merchant ship
Thor in March 1944 off Stadlandet, Norway and the Friedrichshafen the following
month. In September, she disposed of the Norwegian vessel Vang and was then
lucky to escape from an attack by enemy shore batteries two days later whilst
trying to attack a convoy.
.P Then in November, she sank the first of two German submarines. Her first
victim was the U-771 which she engaged on the 11th November, again off the
Norwegian coast. There were no survivors from the German vessel.
.P Her second U-boat success gave Venturer a unique place in World War II
history; she is believed to be the only submarine of any nationality to have
sunk a submerged enemy submarine while submerged herself. The incident took
place in February 1945 west of Bergen, when Venturer, commanded by Lt Jimmy
Landers, took on U-864, commanded by Kapitan Ralf-Reimar Wolfram.
.P The British were aware from intelligence reports that the Germans were going
to attempt to send vital materials and plans to Japan in order that she could
continue the war; Operation Caesar. U-864`s cargo included jet fighter parts
and missile guidance systems. In addition, she carried around seventy tons of
mercury.
.P The operation got off to a bad start in late 1944 as U-864 ran aground in the
Kiel canal. However, she was able to get to Bergen, where she underwent repairs.
It was only at the start of February 1945 that she was able to sail once more.
.P Venturer was ordered to intercept her, but the German vessel had already
passed the patrol area that Venturer had been assigned. However, the bad luck
that U-864 had already encountered on its ill-fated mission continued. She was
struck by mechanical problems and so had no choice but to return for further
repair. This meant her passing back through Venturer`s patrol area. The Germans
sent an escort to meet U-864 and in order to avoid detection, Landers decided to
turn off his sonar system, and use his more basic hydrophone equipment. This
decision would make the search for the German U-boat more difficult but would
also make detection by the German escorts more difficult.
.P On the 9th February, Venturer made contact, and after confirming sight of
the U-boat`s periscope through his own periscope, Landers decided to follow the
U-boat and attack when she surfaced. Unfortunately for Landers, Wolfram soon
realised he was being followed and tried to shake off the pursuing RN vessel.
.P For Landers it was decision time. With each minute, U-864 would get closer to
the safety of Bergen and the escorts waiting to accompany it to the Norwegian
port. He decided to strike, even though U-864 was still submerged. The German
vessel was zig-zagging and so Landers had to decide how best to launch his four
torpedoes. With no computers to assist his calculations, he came up with a
firing solution. He ordered all four torpedoes be fired at precise times and at
various depths and courses.
.P Wolfram and the crew of U-864 heard the torpedoes and took evasive action. He
managed to avoid the first three torpedoes but not the fourth. This hit the
U-boat, causing her sinking with all 73 crew.
.P In March, Venturer sank the German merchant Sirius. After the war ended, she
was transferred to the Royal Norwegian Navy, whereupon her name was changed to
Utstein.
.P HMS Venturer/Utstein was scrapped in 1965.


Transports / Amphibious / ASW

Again few of these have been done (CW excepted) and the US in particular must have a ton of stories – especially in the Pacific. I have posted examples of CW counters for all of these unit types on this thread previously. The only critical country here is the US.

Any assistance would be extremely gratefully received – but be warned – it’s a lot of work!!

Warspite1

....I`ll take that as a no [:D]

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Neilster

ORIGINAL: warspite1

...despite these monumental efforts in the face of the Luftwaffe, the
Soviets hold on Odessa was weakened...

It should be "the Soviet's hold on Odessa" or "the Soviet hold on Odessa"

Cheers, Neilster

or "the Soviets' hold"[:D]

It was considered and rejected; tempting though it was... [;)]

Cheers, Neilster

[Blackhorse]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

P During the siege, the Soviet Baltic Fleet were used to provide naval gunfire
support to the defenders and to bring in reinforcements.

Black Sea fleet, perhaps?

Welcome to the forum.[:)] And you are correct, of course.

Welcome? Bah! How could you have forgotten me already? I did the United States Marine Corps writeups. That's 6 entire units out of only several thousand!
[;)]

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse



Black Sea fleet, perhaps?

Welcome to the forum.[:)] And you are correct, of course.

Welcome? Bah! How could you have forgotten me already? I did the United States Marine Corps writeups. That's 6 entire units out of only several thousand!
[;)]

Sorry about that.[:(] I should have looked up your name - I would have recognized 'Joel'. Did you change your avatar recently? [Says he, striving to find some dignity, while risking losing more.]

[Mike Dubost]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I have begun looking at the US carriers and have started with the famous Essex carriers. Please see attached. As usual I would be greatful for feedback - particularly since I have three books given me three different numbers - 3, 4 and 5-inch -for the belt armour!

[4016 Antietam - by Robert Jenkins]

...

USS Antietam, named after perhaps the bloodiest of the US Civil War battles
was from the Ticonderoga group and was commissioned in January 1945. She was en-
route to the waters off Japan when the armistice was signed and so was not to
see combat during the Second World War.
.P USS Antietam was scrapped in 1974.

I have been offline for a while due to extremely high workload. I was skimming through the old posts, and this one caught my eye. As a Civil War buff, I would point out that Anteitam was the bloodiest single-day battle in any US war (to date). Other Civil War battles had higher casulties, but spread out over several days.

I hope I don't sound too much like a nitpicker. As a QA type, I think details are in my blood.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Mike Dubost

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I have begun looking at the US carriers and have started with the famous Essex carriers. Please see attached. As usual I would be greatful for feedback - particularly since I have three books given me three different numbers - 3, 4 and 5-inch -for the belt armour!

[4016 Antietam - by Robert Jenkins]

...

USS Antietam, named after perhaps the bloodiest of the US Civil War battles
was from the Ticonderoga group and was commissioned in January 1945. She was en-
route to the waters off Japan when the armistice was signed and so was not to
see combat during the Second World War.
.P USS Antietam was scrapped in 1974.

I have been offline for a while due to extremely high workload. I was skimming through the old posts, and this one caught my eye. As a Civil War buff, I would point out that Anteitam was the bloodiest single-day battle in any US war (to date). Other Civil War battles had higher casulties, but spread out over several days.

I hope I don't sound too much like a nitpicker. As a QA type, I think details are in my blood.

Warspite1

Noted - thanks [:)] will amend to ....named after the bloodiest single-day battle of the US Civil War.

[Mike Dubost]

ORIGINAL: warspite1


Noted - thanks [:)] will amend to ....named after the bloodiest single-day battle of the US Civil War.

That will be great. Thanks!

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Mike Dubost

ORIGINAL: warspite1


Noted - thanks [:)] will amend to ....named after the bloodiest single-day battle of the US Civil War.

That will be great. Thanks!

Warspite1

Mike if you have any more one liners re the "civil war" ship names that would be good and save me looking them up. Not all ship counters have an explanation for their name, but I have tried to include this for the more unusual names.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Mike Dubost

ORIGINAL: warspite1


Noted - thanks [:)] will amend to ....named after the bloodiest single-day battle of the US Civil War.

That will be great. Thanks!

Warspite1

Mike if you have any more one liners re the "civil war" ship names that would be good and save me looking them up. Not all ship counters have an explanation for their name, but I have tried to include this for the more unusual names.

Bunker Hill, Boston, Philadelphia, Lexington, Concord, Princeton, Trenton, Saratoga, Ticonderoga (French & Indian wars?), Valley Forge, Yorktown, and Lake Champlain were from the American Revoluntionary War. Possilby Wilkes-Barre too.

Hancock was a signer of the Declaration of Independence.

Vicksburg, Springfield, Savannah, and Mobile ("Damn the Torpedoes", he was referrring to mines) were from the American Civil War.

Belleau Wood was from WW I (I think).

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Mike Dubost





That will be great. Thanks!

Warspite1

Mike if you have any more one liners re the "civil war" ship names that would be good and save me looking them up. Not all ship counters have an explanation for their name, but I have tried to include this for the more unusual names.

Bunker Hill, Boston, Philadelphia, Lexington, Concord, Princeton, Trenton, Saratoga, Ticonderoga (French & Indian wars?), Valley Forge, Yorktown, and Lake Champlain were from the American Revoluntionary War. Possilby Wilkes-Barre too.

Hancock was a signer of the Declaration of Independence.

Vicksburg, Springfield, Savannah, and Mobile ("Damn the Torpedoes", he was referrring to mines) were from the American Civil War.

Belleau Wood was from WW I (I think).

Warspite1

Thanks Steve.

Given that some US Civil War names were used, I wonder why Gettysburg was not. Isn`t that the most famous of the Civil War battles?

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Mike if you have any more one liners re the "civil war" ship names that would be good and save me looking them up. Not all ship counters have an explanation for their name, but I have tried to include this for the more unusual names.

I hope you did, I love knowing where the names come from !

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Given that some US Civil War names were used, I wonder why Gettysburg was not. Isn`t that the most famous of the Civil War battles?

Yes, that's a very good question. What is the answer ?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Given that some US Civil War names were used, I wonder why Gettysburg was not. Isn`t that the most famous of the Civil War battles?

Yes, that's a very good question. What is the answer ?

Warspite1

Patrice that was not a quiz question but a genuine question - I have absolutely no idea. Do we have a US Navy buff in the house??

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Given that some US Civil War names were used, I wonder why Gettysburg was not. Isn`t that the most famous of the Civil War battles?

Yes, that's a very good question. What is the answer ?

Warspite1

Patrice that was not a quiz question but a genuine question - I have absolutely no idea. Do we have a US Navy buff in the house??

Yes, that's what I'm asking too I understood it was not a quiz, it was not in the right thread for a quiz

[Extraneous]

I'm not a naval buff but...
 
There have been several ships named USS Gettysburg.
 
USS Gettysburg (1858)
 
USS Gettysburg durring WW2
 
USS Gettysburg (CG-64)