Page 2 of 4
RE: unlucky navy
Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:21 pm
by Centuur
ORIGINAL: Terminus
Er, "superior" Italian ships? In some cases newer, certainly, but superior?
Yes, technically superior. Also faster and with heavier guns, if you compare them with the CW naval forces in the Med.
Personally I think the Italian High Command made a mess of the use of the Italian forces (including the navy). Also: there was a serious problem with... oil!
RE: unlucky navy
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 5:23 am
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: Centuur
ORIGINAL: Terminus
Er, "superior" Italian ships? In some cases newer, certainly, but superior?
Yes, technically superior. Also faster and with heavier guns, if you compare them with the CW naval forces in the Med.
Personally I think the Italian High Command made a mess of the use of the Italian forces (including the navy). Also: there was a serious problem with... oil!
Warspite1
Had the Regia Marina been used properly the Royal Navy could have been forced to abandon the Mediterranean before the oil shortage became a problem.
RE: unlucky navy
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 5:50 pm
by HansHafen
I think I remember seeing in a Strategy & Tactics magazine the casualties list for the two navies during the war in the Med. and it was comparable. I can't locate it now, but will keep looking. Interesting issue.
RE: unlucky navy
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:45 pm
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: HansHafen
I think I remember seeing in a Strategy & Tactics magazine the casualties list for the two navies during the war in the Med. and it was comparable. I can't locate it now, but will keep looking. Interesting issue.
Warspite1
Yes, and as has been said above, the bulk of the larger RN casualties would be down to the Germans (u-boats and air strike): Ark Royal, Eagle, Barham, Galatea, Gloucester, Southampton, Fiji, Calcutta, Coventry, Naiad and Hermione from memory. The largest Italian success was the heavy cruiser York.
Not sure why its interesting, but would be keen to see the article to understand what point is trying to be made here....
RE: unlucky navy
Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 4:42 am
by Gertrude73
I thought I was rubbish at the game, but you really suck!
RE: unlucky navy
Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 1:13 pm
by micheljq
ORIGINAL: Centuur
Yes, technically superior. Also faster and with heavier guns, if you compare them with the CW naval forces in the Med.
Personally I think the Italian High Command made a mess of the use of the Italian forces (including the navy). Also: there was a serious problem with... oil!
Technically superior, more modern, but without radars and without aircraft carriers, finally not so modern and superior than that..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cape_Matapan
RE: unlucky navy
Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 3:26 pm
by Centuur
ORIGINAL: micheljq
ORIGINAL: Centuur
Yes, technically superior. Also faster and with heavier guns, if you compare them with the CW naval forces in the Med.
Personally I think the Italian High Command made a mess of the use of the Italian forces (including the navy). Also: there was a serious problem with... oil!
Technically superior, more modern, but without radars and without aircraft carriers, finally not so modern and superior than that..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cape_Matapan
Who needs aircraft carriers if one is fighting in the Med and able to get land based air cover almost everywhere? The main Italian problem was the Italian High Command. They didn't use their navy and airforce the way they should have done, from a military point of view. The use of radar came during the war itself and was in 1940 and 1941 not used extensively on Allied ships. Especially in late 1940, after the fall of France, the Italian navy was superior to the British in the Med. Fact was however that the Italians didn't realise this. If they had...
It is the same in WiF. An Italian player should use his navy wisely with air cover over it. If he does, than the CW might get a nasty surprise, even with CW carrier planes covering the British fleet. The British carrier planes can't cope with the Italians, IMHO. No, if the Euroaxis play it right, the British fleet will be hovering in the Cape St. Vincent after France is conquered/Vichyfied and won't venture a lot into the Med, until they have enough LBA in the Western Med.
RE: unlucky navy
Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 10:37 pm
by brian brian
Because World in Flames doesn't force the Italian player to play stupidly as Peter notes, the Italians can be quite dangerous. For equal opponents, the Med becomes a bloody place. The British can get a higher box with their land-based fighters ... but a lot of them are twin-engine. If the British make their priority to maximize the long-range fighters they can deploy there, control of the Med will depend in turn on the Italian build priorities of either bombers for Russia, or their own twin-engine fighters with the range for the 2 box to defend the Axis southern flank. A delicate balance. If the Axis choose to tip it in their favor using Fw 190s, it can get challenging for the Allies to be able to use their lift safely in the Med. But to do that in turn costs the Axis air missions in Russia....
RE: unlucky navy
Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 10:56 am
by Extraneous
ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur
it have really been a unlucky couple of impulses for the CW navy.
all of its big ships sunk. it have 1 carrier and 1 CA left.
and som CL and cvl .. but all battleships sunk
Did you loose them all at once or piecemeal?
All at once would be bad luck.
Piecemeal would be your error.
Remember: "There is no kill like overkill" ~ Schlock Mercenary, "The Seventy Maxims of Maximally Effective Mercenaries"
RE: unlucky navy
Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:19 pm
by micheljq
ORIGINAL: Centuur
Who needs aircraft carriers if one is fighting in the Med and able to get land based air cover almost everywhere? The main Italian problem was the Italian High Command. They didn't use their navy and airforce the way they should have done, from a military point of view. The use of radar came during the war itself and was in 1940 and 1941 not used extensively on Allied ships. Especially in late 1940, after the fall of France, the Italian navy was superior to the British in the Med. Fact was however that the Italians didn't realise this. If they had...
It is the same in WiF. An Italian player should use his navy wisely with air cover over it. If he does, than the CW might get a nasty surprise, even with CW carrier planes covering the British fleet. The British carrier planes can't cope with the Italians, IMHO. No, if the Euroaxis play it right, the British fleet will be hovering in the Cape St. Vincent after France is conquered/Vichyfied and won't venture a lot into the Med, until they have enough LBA in the Western Med.
Hi Centuur, I am not convinced about the fact that the ritals were able to cover all the Med. My understanding is that they had a good cover in the vicinity of Italy, Malta, Tunisia, Lybia coastlines.
The british were already aware of the threat to their carriers from land based airplanes, they already had experienced it near Narvik where they lost a carrier to the Luftwaffe. They were already cautious about not approaching too much from certain bases where they knew italian airplanes could come.
Another thing the italian navy did not have was the experience many crews of the Royal Navy had, it was one of the old british battleships, the Warspite who scored a record 26000 yards hit on the Guilio Cesare, not the contrary, despite the italian navy having "better guns" theorically.
Maybe the italian fleet was not very eager to engage the older british battleships, who knows if they had done it in 1940, what could have had happened you maybe right, we will never know.
RE: unlucky navy
Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:31 pm
by michaelbaldur
ORIGINAL: Extraneous
ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur
it have really been a unlucky couple of impulses for the CW navy.
all of its big ships sunk. it have 1 carrier and 1 CA left.
and som CL and cvl .. but all battleships sunk
Did you loose them all at once or piecemeal?
All at once would be bad luck.
Piecemeal would be your error.
Remember: "There is no kill like overkill" ~ Schlock Mercenary, "The Seventy Maxims of Maximally Effective Mercenaries"
it was one big naval battle ..
to be fair I cheated a little. I did it to test a large scale naval battle.
I like to have a little fun while testing.
RE: unlucky navy
Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 5:30 pm
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: micheljq
ORIGINAL: Centuur
Who needs aircraft carriers if one is fighting in the Med and able to get land based air cover almost everywhere? The main Italian problem was the Italian High Command. They didn't use their navy and airforce the way they should have done, from a military point of view. The use of radar came during the war itself and was in 1940 and 1941 not used extensively on Allied ships. Especially in late 1940, after the fall of France, the Italian navy was superior to the British in the Med. Fact was however that the Italians didn't realise this. If they had...
It is the same in WiF. An Italian player should use his navy wisely with air cover over it. If he does, than the CW might get a nasty surprise, even with CW carrier planes covering the British fleet. The British carrier planes can't cope with the Italians, IMHO. No, if the Euroaxis play it right, the British fleet will be hovering in the Cape St. Vincent after France is conquered/Vichyfied and won't venture a lot into the Med, until they have enough LBA in the Western Med.
Hi Centuur, I am not convinced about the fact that the ritals were able to cover all the Med. My understanding is that they had a good cover in the vicinity of Italy, Malta, Tunisia, Lybia coastlines.
The british were already aware of the threat to their carriers from land based airplanes, they already had experienced it near Narvik where they lost a carrier to the Luftwaffe. They were already cautious about not approaching too much from certain bases where they knew italian airplanes could come.
Another thing the italian navy did not have was the experience many crews of the Royal Navy had, it was one of the old british battleships, the Warspite who scored a record 26000 yards hit on the Guilio Cesare, not the contrary, despite the italian navy having "better guns" theorically.
Maybe the italian fleet was not very eager to engage the older british battleships, who knows if they had done it in 1940, what could have had happened you maybe right, we will never know.
Warspite1
If you refer to the carrier Glorious then that had nothing to do with air power. Glorious was sunk by the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau.
It was the balls of Admiral Cunningham that won the victory of Matapan. He ran the risk of sailing his ships sufficiently close to the mainland such that they would be attacked from the air once daylight came. However, unlike the Italian Admirals (who were in fairness acting on orders from above) Cunningham saw his job as putting himself in harm's way if it meant securing a naval victory.
That, ultimately, was the difference.
RE: unlucky navy
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 6:29 pm
by Extraneous
To be fair it probably started out as a fairly even fight.
CW = 31 ships 117-attack strength 47-AA strength
Enemy ships 23-29
X 4
D 3
A 2
AA 3/3
World in Flames: Global war (see 24.4.7)
Battleships: Guilio Cesare and Conte di Cavour
Heavy Cruisers: Abruzzi, Bolzano, Duca D'Aosta, E. Di Savoia, Fiume, Garibaldi, Gorizia, Pola, San Giorgio, Trieste, Trento, and Zara
Light Cruisers: Attendolo, Bande Nere, Barbiano, Bari, Cadorna, Colleoni, Diaz, Guissano, Montecuccoli, and Taranto
2x Trs
3x Submarine
7x CP
Italians = 24 ships 60-attack strength 36-AA strength
Enemy ships 30+
X 3
D 2
A 2
AA 2/3
RE: unlucky navy
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 7:01 pm
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: Extraneous
To be fair it probably started out as a fairly even fight.
CW = 31 ships 117-attack strength 47-AA strength
Enemy ships 23-29
X 4
D 3
A 2
AA 3/3
World in Flames: Global war (see 24.4.7)
Battleships: Guilio Cesare and Conte di Cavour
Heavy Cruisers: Abruzzi, Bolzano, Duca D'Aosta, E. Di Savoia, Fiume, Garibaldi, Gorizia, Pola, San Giorgio, Trieste, Trento, and Zara
Light Cruisers: Attendolo, Bande Nere, Barbiano, Bari, Cadorna, Colleoni, Diaz, Guissano, Montecuccoli, and Taranto
2x Trs
3x Submarine
7x CP
Italians = 24 ships 60-attack strength 36-AA strength
Enemy ships 30+
X 3
D 2
A 2
AA 2/3
Warspite1
Que? Are you talking WIF or WWII??
RE: unlucky navy
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 4:40 pm
by Extraneous
I was refering to the MWiF battle michaelbaldur has created and is refering to.
The Italian ship names are from "World in Flames: Global war (see 24.4.7)" from RAW7scenario,pdf
The numbers are from Wifchart.pdf.
RE: unlucky navy
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 5:12 pm
by warspite1
Okay, understood.
RE: unlucky navy
Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2012 5:05 pm
by SLAAKMAN
Extraneous,
To be fair it probably started out as a fairly even fight.
CW = 31 ships 117-attack strength 47-AA strength
Enemy ships 23-29
X 4
D 3
A 2
AA 3/3
World in Flames: Global war (see 24.4.7)
Battleships: Guilio Cesare and Conte di Cavour
Heavy Cruisers: Abruzzi, Bolzano, Duca D'Aosta, E. Di Savoia, Fiume, Garibaldi, Gorizia, Pola, San Giorgio, Trieste, Trento, and Zara
Light Cruisers: Attendolo, Bande Nere, Barbiano, Bari, Cadorna, Colleoni, Diaz, Guissano, Montecuccoli, and Taranto
2x Trs
3x Submarine
7x CP
Italians = 24 ships 60-attack strength 36-AA strength
Enemy ships 30+
X 3
D 2
A 2
AA 2/3
Luv it! Thank you again for your astute contributions Mr Extraneous! [:D]
[Deleted]
Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2012 11:57 pm
by Anonymous
[Deleted by Admins]
RE: unlucky navy
Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2012 2:42 pm
by Extraneous
All I will say is when beta testing all aspects of the game should be explored even bad ones.
We really have insufficient information to judge his actions and why he chose them.
He mentioned Italian LAN but not how many of them, the results of the CW fleet Anti-aircraft fire, or the results of their attacks.
What were the search roll results?
What were the chosen combat types (11.5.8 Surface naval combat, 11.5.9 Naval air combat, 11.5.10 Submarine combat)?
Also the defense factor of the ships has to be considered.
Or he could just dislike the Royal Navy.
RE: unlucky navy
Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2012 3:38 pm
by paulderynck
Migawd, how could you dislike the RN ?? [;)]