Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Red Prince

Hey, Rob. I don't give you nearly as much credit as I should. You're such a workhorse that I guess I take you a little for granted. I'm sorry about that. [:)]

So, I want you to do me another favor, please [:D] and pick out a handful of your favorite naval units and/or naval unit write-ups. Maybe 5 or 6 will do. Since you are so good about posting your write-ups here, I want to make screenshots of your favorites so that people can see what they actually look like once they are in the game. Is that okay with you?

You can either post here or send me the list, and I'll get them done that day (assuming you've already sent me the copy).

-Aaron

One of these (not too long) might make a good addition to the World in Flames screenshots for Sean.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Please see (hopefully!) the fnal draft for the Audacious-class carriers.

[5098 Canada]
.B Engine(s) output: 152,000hp
.B Top Speed: 32 knots
.B Main armament: 16 x 4.5-inch (114mm) guns and 64 x 2-pdr pompoms
.B Aircraft: 78
.B Displacement (full load): 46,000 tons
.B Thickest armour: 4.5-inch (belt)
.P For the purposes of this write-up, it is assumed that this carrier is from
the Audacious-class, as the factors given to this counter most closely match those
of the three historical carriers from that class.
.P The Audacious-class was originally planned as a four-ship class of aircraft
carrier, with the first ship authorised in 1940. However, it was only in late
1942 that the first vessel was laid down, with the second ship following in May
1943. The third carrier was laid down in April 1944 but she was to be
cancelled in January 1946. The fourth ship was cancelled before being laid down
and was re-ordered as a Malta-class carrier. HMCS Canada is a "what if" counter
that gives the Commonwealth player the option of building the fourth planned
Audacious-class carrier.
.P The original design called for a logical development of the Implacable-class
although construction was hampered by other priorities and, more importantly, the
need to revise the design to allow the ships to take newer, bigger aircraft; this
would ultimately include the need to operate jet aircraft.
.P As a result, the two ships that were completed - Eagle and Ark Royal - were
only became ready for service during the 1950's and they would look very
different not only to their original design, but also to each other.
.P Marrying the Audacious-class World In Flames counters to their historical
counterparts is not straightforward, but can be summarised as follows.
.B Ships of the class:
.B Eagle II - Eagle II was the ship cancelled in 1946.
.B Ark Royal II - originally to have been named Irresistable, Ark Royal was
renamed in honour of the most famous British aircraft carrier of World War II.
She was one of the two ships completed during the fifties. HMS Ark Royal served
with the RN until the late seventies. She was scrapped in 1980.
.B Audacious - the name ship of the class also underwent a change of name while
under construction. She was renamed HMS Eagle, to commemorate the carrier of that
name sunk during Operation Pedestal in 1942 (see HMS Sirius). She too served with
the RN until the seventies, although her latter years saw her canabalised in
order to keep Ark Royal afloat. HMS Eagle was scrapped in 1978.
.B Canada - this was the ship cancelled prior to being laid down. For World In
Flames purposes she replaces HMS Africa - which was the ship re-ordered as a
Malta-class carrier. In World In Flames she is a Canadian ship. Towards the end
of the war the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) provided the manpower for a couple of
escort carriers, and after the war two light fleet carriers were purchased from
Britain. This "what if" counter explores the possibility that the RCN expanded
their fleet further.
.P The technical detail above reflects the original design and how these carriers
would have appeared in World War II had their construction been quicker. The
design was a logical development of the Implacable-class, and featured a number
of improvements over their predecessors.
.P At almost a third bigger, the Audacious-class were projected to be able to
operate up to 78 aircraft; still well below the number available to the US Navy's
Essex-class but an increase on the Implacables.
.P The reason that the size of the air group was still less than their smaller US
counterparts was because of the fact that the Audacious-class continued the Royal
Navy's preference for armoured carriers. The protection afforded to these ships
was not greater in every area when compared to their predecessors, but was
increased or decreased as considered optimal. For example, while the armoured
flight deck was an extra inch thicker at 4-inches, the hangar sides were 0.5-
inches thinner. The belt armour, at 4.5-inches, remained the same.
.P The extra weight of this new class allowed a longer, wider vessel with two
full height hangars, thus ensuring that there was no repeat of the problem with
the Implacable-class whereby the latter ships could not operate Corsair aircraft.
These two hangars were served by two lifts.
.P The class were to have been fitted with two, powerful catapults, capable of
launching up to 30,000lbs at 75 knots. The Aviation fuel capacity remained on the
limited side at 103,000 gallons; only a modest increase over the Implacables
despite a larger air group.
.P The Audacious-class ships were to have been fitted with more powerful
machinery than the Implacables in order to maintain a top speed of 32 knots.
.P For defensive armament, the ships were to rely upon sixteen of the 4.5-inch
guns used on the previous three classes, and sixty-four 2-pounder pompoms for
close-range anti-aircraft defence.
.P The Audacious-class ships, had they been completed to their original design
and been completed in time to serve during World War II, would have been an
excellent addition to the Pacific Fleet. As the Commonwealth player, you have the
ability to make that happen.

were only to become
or
only became

[Red Prince]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Red Prince

Hey, Rob. I don't give you nearly as much credit as I should. You're such a workhorse that I guess I take you a little for granted. I'm sorry about that. [:)]

So, I want you to do me another favor, please [:D] and pick out a handful of your favorite naval units and/or naval unit write-ups. Maybe 5 or 6 will do. Since you are so good about posting your write-ups here, I want to make screenshots of your favorites so that people can see what they actually look like once they are in the game. Is that okay with you?

You can either post here or send me the list, and I'll get them done that day (assuming you've already sent me the copy).

-Aaron

One of these (not too long) might make a good addition to the World in Flames screenshots for Sean.

Excellent idea. I've been holding on to most of the ones I've posted. Frankly, I don't know if any of Rob's qualify as "not too long", but I'm sure I can find a few unit descriptions that he can use. Maybe one each of Land, Air, and Naval. And maybe a SynthOil or something.

Thanks, Steve.

[Red Prince]

Now I remember why I haven't posted the Naval Units before: the jpg file ends up being so huge that I have to reduce the quality a lot. I'm going to try to post Rob's first selection (Submarine 4829) as a single image. If it looks really bad, I'll see what I can do to correct that problem.

-Aaron
-----
Edit: It's okay, but I'm looking into getting a better quality image posted here.


Edit: See post 2107 for the improved image.

[Extraneous]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Red Prince, thank-you - I will send some over in the next few days.

In the meantime, does anyone know who crewed the US "auxiliary" ships such as the seaplane tender USS Tangier, the oiler USS Neosho etc. I assume they were crewed by USN personnel, but would like to make sure.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY -- NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER

USS Tangier (AV-8), 1941-1961

USS Neosho (AO-23), 1939-1942

[Extraneous]

ORIGINAL: Red Prince

Now I remember why I haven't posted the Naval Units before: the jpg file ends up being so huge that I have to reduce the quality a lot. I'm going to try to post Rob's first selection (Submarine 4829) as a single image. If it looks really bad, I'll see what I can do to correct that problem.

-Aaron
-----
Edit: It's okay, but I'm looking into getting a better quality image posted here.

Use the records in the file for the descriptions instead of the jpg like warspite1 does.

Ask the people in the Beta for the file name.


I cannot edit a jpg and am to lazy to key in the entire text of a jpg.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Now I remember why I haven't posted the Naval Units before: the jpg file ends up being so huge that I have to reduce the quality a lot. I'm going to try to post Rob's first selection (Submarine 4829) as a single image. If it looks really bad, I'll see what I can do to correct that problem.

-Aaron

===
This is a slightly improved image that I have uploaded at the request of Aaron.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Now I remember why I haven't posted the Naval Units before: the jpg file ends up being so huge that I have to reduce the quality a lot. I'm going to try to post Rob's first selection (Submarine 4829) as a single image. If it looks really bad, I'll see what I can do to correct that problem.

-Aaron

===
This is a slightly improved image that I have uploaded at the request of Aaron.

I think there is a missing 'not' in the next to last paragraph about offering succour.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I think there is a missing 'not' in the next to last paragraph about offering succour.
[/quote] Warspite1

Thanks Steve - change made [:)] together with a couple of other tweeks to the intro. It's amazing how much more you "see" once the test is in the counter [:@]

Please see revised Introduction for the U-boats:

.P These write-ups give a brief history of one or more vessels from each of the
main classes of submarine used by the Kriegsmarine during World War II. World In
Flames submarine counters represent a number of submarines rather than any
specific individual boat. 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 German
submarine, and therefore the counter date in most cases should be ignored.
.P During the First World War the submarines of the Kaiser's navy came close to
starving the United Kingdom into surrender. Following Germany's defeat, their
entire submarine fleet was handed over to the Allies and the German navy was
forbidden to use submarines in future.
.P Secretly however, the Germans continued to work on new designs - and indeed in
the late twenties, German designed submarines were sold to Turkey and Finland via
a "Dutch" company operating in Holland.
.P Development of designs and ideas continued until, in March 1935, Adolf Hitler
formally repudiated the Treaty of Versailles. Germany then openly set about
re-arming her armed forces, including the Kriegsmarine.
.P Shortly after this announcement, the German and British Governments signed the
Anglo-German Naval Agreement. Under the terms of this treaty, the German navy was
allowed to build a fleet no greater than 35% of the Royal Navy's total tonnage.
Subject to this limitation, the Kriegsmarine's submarine service was allowed to
equal that of the Royal Navy.
.P Despite this, at the outbreak of World War II in September 1939, the
Kriegsmarine's submarines (in German Unterseeboot or simply U-boat) numbered a
mere fifty-seven boats - the same as the Royal Navy. Of these, only twenty-six
were suitable for Atlantic operations. However, the Germans soon embarked upon a
huge expansion program and during the war, well over 1,000 boats were
constructed.
.P There were some spectacular early successes; the sinking of the battleship
Royal Oak and the aircraft carrier Courageous ranking high amongst them. Later,
when U-boats were deployed in the Mediterranean, further success was achieved
against the Royal Navy; the carrier Ark Royal and the battleship Barham were high
profile victims to the power of the U-boat.
.P But it was the outcome of the Battle of the Atlantic upon which the U-boat arm
would be ultimately judged, and early in the war, successful attacks on Allied
merchant shipping proved a severe problem for the British. With the conquest of
Norway, and in particular, France by June 1940, the U-boats were able to operate
from ports that gave much easier access to the Atlantic and extended the time
they could be operational against enemy shipping. Dönitz was gradually able to
field more and more U-boats, and these were grouped into "wolfpacks" to ensure
that convoys, when spotted, could be attacked by many boats at the same time.
.P Winston Churchill said that the Battle of the Atlantic - and in particular the
U-boat menace - was the only thing that scared him during World War II; with the
serious merchant ship losses incurred from mid 1940 until early 1941 (known by
the U-boat crews as the first "Happy Time") it is easy to see why. There was to
be a second, albeit brief, "Happy Time" after the United States entered the war
in December 1941. But by then, many of the seeds that would ultimately break the
U-boats had been sown. From 1943 the Allied ability to build merchant shipping
easily outstripped losses.
.P Ultimately the Allies were able to beat the U-boats for a number of reasons:
there was the convoy system and the sheer number of escorts that the Allies were
able to field; the Allies were able to maintain the pace of technological
advances to improve their ability to conduct anti-submarine warfare; conventional
escort ships, such as destroyers and corvettes, were later supplemented by escort
aircraft carriers that could provide a measure of air protection to a convoy; and
last but not least, aircraft - which were the U-boats greatest enemy - were able
to fly from the United Kingdom, Iceland and later Canada, meaning that the entire
convoy route across the North Atlantic could be covered by aircraft.
.P By late 1942, although the U-boats were still sinking plenty of Allied
shipping, the cost to the Kriegsmarine in terms of men and boats, was growing.
The battle between three wolfpacks and the convoys SC122 and HX229 in March 1943
is seen by many as the point beyond which the tide really turned against Dönitz
and his U-boats. It was following the U-boat success against these two convoys
that Liberator aircraft were operated out of Canada, escort carriers began to
become available, and more escort groups were formed.
.P Germany was simply not geared up to fight a long war, the resources available
to counter the Allies were just not available, and the Kriegsmarine's response to
the ever growing Allied threat proved too little, too late.
.P The U-boat service suffered more losses per head than any branch of any
service of any country in World War II. Of the 40,000 men that served in U-boats
during the conflict, no less than 28,000 were killed and a further 8,000 were
taken prisoner.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Red Prince

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Red Prince

Hey, Rob. I don't give you nearly as much credit as I should. You're such a workhorse that I guess I take you a little for granted. I'm sorry about that. [:)]

So, I want you to do me another favor, please [:D] and pick out a handful of your favorite naval units and/or naval unit write-ups. Maybe 5 or 6 will do. Since you are so good about posting your write-ups here, I want to make screenshots of your favorites so that people can see what they actually look like once they are in the game. Is that okay with you?

You can either post here or send me the list, and I'll get them done that day (assuming you've already sent me the copy).

-Aaron

One of these (not too long) might make a good addition to the World in Flames screenshots for Sean.

Excellent idea. I've been holding on to most of the ones I've posted. Frankly, I don't know if any of Rob's qualify as "not too long", but I'm sure I can find a few unit descriptions that he can use. Maybe one each of Land, Air, and Naval. And maybe a SynthOil or something.

Thanks, Steve.

Warspite1

Aaron, if you can let me know the sort of length you are looking for (say in comparison with the German U-boat just posted), I will get one over for the ship counter; I have one or two in mind depending upon the length you require, and one of these should fit the bill.

[Red Prince]

Thanks Steve - change made [:)] together with a couple of other tweeks to the intro. It's amazing how much more you "see" once the test is in the counter [:@]

Not that I've gotten around to a lot of them, but I'm trying to do all of my proofreading of the Land Unit files using the counter form, for this very reason. I actually also fixed the formatting of the bullet points, so if you are including this in the next FINAL document, change the first entry after " . . . and in particular the U-156" from a .B to a .P entry.

Aaron, if you can let me know the sort of length you are looking for (say in comparison with the German U-boat just posted), I will get one over for the ship counter; I have one or two in mind depending upon the length you require, and one of these should fit the bill.

I'm trying to make sure all of the images I send to Sean are roughly 1280 x 800 (or a similar ratio), give or take 100 or so pixels in one dimension or the other. That means that I could use something that is at most about the length of this one through the 6th paragraph, say 25-30 lines, as seen on the counter. With that, I could take a shot of the full Units in Game form and have it be about the right size. Shorter is better, since that would allow just the counter to be taken.

It looks like I have a busy morning ahead of me, but I'll try to send you an example of the size I'm going to need today. I'll pick out the Air & Land units I'm going to send, and show you what size they are.

-Aaron

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Red Prince

Thanks Steve - change made [:)] together with a couple of other tweeks to the intro. It's amazing how much more you "see" once the test is in the counter [:@]

Not that I've gotten around to a lot of them, but I'm trying to do all of my proofreading of the Land Unit files using the counter form, for this very reason. I actually also fixed the formatting of the bullet points, so if you are including this in the next FINAL document, change the first entry after " . . . and in particular the U-156" from a .B to a .P entry.

Aaron, if you can let me know the sort of length you are looking for (say in comparison with the German U-boat just posted), I will get one over for the ship counter; I have one or two in mind depending upon the length you require, and one of these should fit the bill.

I'm trying to make sure all of the images I send to Sean are roughly 1280 x 800 (or a similar ratio), give or take 100 or so pixels in one dimension or the other. That means that I could use something that is at most about the length of this one through the 6th paragraph, say 25-30 lines, as seen on the counter. With that, I could take a shot of the full Units in Game form and have it be about the right size. Shorter is better, since that would allow just the counter to be taken.

It looks like I have a busy morning ahead of me, but I'll try to send you an example of the size I'm going to need today. I'll pick out the Air & Land units I'm going to send, and show you what size they are.

-Aaron

When displaying a unit that is longer than will fit on the screen (i.e., the vertical scroll bar has to be used), I have found it useful to make 2 or 3 columns rather than a single long column. Just as in a newspaper, a single long column is difficult to read.

[Red Prince]

When displaying a unit that is longer than will fit on the screen (i.e., the vertical scroll bar has to be used), I have found it useful to make 2 or 3 columns rather than a single long column. Just as in a newspaper, a single long column is difficult to read.

Partly, I just hadn't thought of that. But partly I'm trying to keep the screenshots I prepare for Sean as true to the game as possible.

For this forum, though, that should help some, I think. Thanks, again.

[Extraneous]

.P These write-ups give a brief history of one or more vessels from each of the
main classes of submarine used by the Kriegsmarine during World War II. World In
Flames submarine counters represent a number of submarines rather than any
specific individual boat. 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 German
submarine, and therefore the counter date in most cases should be ignored.
.P During the First World War the submarines of the Kaiser's navy came close to
starving the United Kingdom into surrender. Following Germany's defeat, their
entire submarine fleet was handed over to the Allies and the German navy was
forbidden to use submarines in future.
.P Secretly however, the Germans continued to work on new designs - and indeed in
the late twenties, German designed submarines were sold to Turkey and Finland via
a "Dutch" company operating in Holland.
.P Development of designs and ideas continued until, in March 1935, Adolf Hitler
formally repudiated the Treaty of Versailles. Germany then openly set about
re-arming her armed forces, including the Kriegsmarine.
.P Shortly after this announcement, the German and British Governments signed the
Anglo-German Naval Agreement. Under the terms of this treaty, the German navy was
allowed to build a fleet no greater than 35% of the Royal Navy's total tonnage.
Subject to this limitation, the Kriegsmarine's submarine service was allowed to
equal that of the Royal Navy.
.P Despite this, at the outbreak of World War II in September 1939, the
Kriegsmarine's submarines (in German Unterseeboot or simply U-boat) numbered a
mere fifty-seven boats - the same as the Royal Navy. Of these, only twenty-six
were suitable for Atlantic operations. However, the Germans soon embarked upon a
huge expansion program and during the war, well over 1,000 boats were
constructed.
.P There were some spectacular early successes; the sinking of the battleship
Royal Oak and the aircraft carrier Courageous ranking high amongst them. Later,
when U-boats were deployed in the Mediterranean, further success was achieved
against the Royal Navy; the Fleet carrier Ark Royal and the battleship Barham were high
profile victims to the power of the U-boat.
.P But it was the outcome of the Battle of the Atlantic upon which the U-boat arm
would be ultimately judged, and early in the war, successful attacks on Allied
merchant shipping proved a severe problem for the British. With the conquest of
Norway, and in particular, France by June 1940, the U-boats were able to operate
from ports that gave much easier access to the Atlantic and extended the time
they could be operational against enemy shipping. Dönitz was gradually able to
field more and more U-boats, and these were grouped into "wolf packs" to ensure
that convoys, when spotted, could be attacked by many boats at the same time.
.P Winston Churchill said that the Battle of the Atlantic - and in particular the
U-boat menace - was the only thing that scared him during World War II; with the
serious merchant ship losses incurred from mid 1940 until early 1941 (known by
the U-boat crews as the first "Happy Time") it is easy to see why. There was to
be a second, albeit brief, "Happy Time" after the United States entered the war
in December 1941. But by then, many of the seeds that would ultimately break the
U-boats had been sown. From 1943 the Allied ability to build merchant shipping
easily outstripped losses.
.P Ultimately the Allies were able to beat the U-boats for a number of reasons:
there was the convoy system and the sheer number of escorts that the Allies were
able to field; the Allies were able to maintain the pace of technological
advances to improve their ability to conduct anti-submarine warfare; conventional
escort ships, such as destroyers and corvettes, were later supplemented by escort
aircraft carriers that could provide a measure of air protection to a convoy; and
last but not least, aircraft - which were the U-boats greatest enemy - were able
to fly from the United Kingdom, Iceland and later Canada, meaning that the entire
convoy route across the North Atlantic could be covered by aircraft.
.P By late 1942, although the U-boats were still sinking plenty of Allied
shipping, the cost to the Kriegsmarine in terms of men and boats, was growing.
Many believe that the turning point of Dönitz and his U-boats versus the convoys followed the attacks in March 1943 by three Kriegsmarine wolf packs against convoys SC122 and HX229. It was after the U-boat success against these two convoys that Liberator aircraft were operated out of Canada, escort carriers began to become available, and more escort groups were formed.
.P Germany was simply not geared up to fight a long war, the resources available
to counter the Allies were just not available, and the Kriegsmarine's response to
the ever growing Allied threat proved too little, too late.
.P The U-boat service suffered more losses per head than any branch of any
service of any country in World War II. Of the 40,000 men that served in U-boats
during the conflict, no less than 28,000 were killed and a further 8,000 were
taken prisoner.


Types of aircraft carriers

[warspite1]

Thanks Extraneous, although I do not think a capital F is needed for fleet.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Red Prince

Thanks Steve - change made [:)] together with a couple of other tweeks to the intro. It's amazing how much more you "see" once the test is in the counter [:@]

Not that I've gotten around to a lot of them, but I'm trying to do all of my proofreading of the Land Unit files using the counter form, for this very reason. I actually also fixed the formatting of the bullet points, so if you are including this in the next FINAL document, change the first entry after " . . . and in particular the U-156" from a .B to a .P entry.

-Aaron

Warspite1

Bummer [:@] - Aaron I will do a global search and get this changed.

[Red Prince]

Why a global search? Is this a problem in other entries, too? I just caught it in the one I posted as a jpg.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Red Prince

Why a global search? Is this a problem in other entries, too? I just caught it in the one I posted as a jpg.

Warspite1

Yes, but its no big deal, I will get on to it this week and send a revised master list incorporating this and other updates on Sunday evening.

[michaelbaldur]

is it just me or is this a hurried work.

isn´t this the perfect place to write about the million (more or less) Russian 76,2 mm infantry guns

[Red Prince]

Well, yes, it does look kind of slim. But it isn't a 76.2mm gun, so I don't see that there's any real reason to write about it here.