ORIGINAL: christo
warspite1ORIGINAL: warspite1
Here's the final draft for the write-up for HMS Iron Duke.
[4585 Iron Duke]
.B Engine(s) output: 29,000 hp
.B Top Speed: 21.25 knots
.B Main armament: 10 x 13.5-inch (343mm), 12 x 6-inch (152mm) guns
.B Displacement (full load): 30,380 tons
.B Thickest armour: 12-inches (belt), 2.5-inch (deck)
.P Four battleships of the Iron Duke-class were built for the Royal Navy (RN)
between 1912 and 1914. The ships - Iron Duke, Marlborough, Benbow and Emperor of
India - were essentially improved versions of the preceding King George V-class
(KGV).
.
Sorry if I am displaying my ignorance here but was HMS KGV not part of the Centurion class ?
The KGV class was not commissioned til 1939.
According to Burt's British battleships, it was the KGV-class, not the Centurion-class. This is supported by Conways warships 1906-1921 which also state the name ship of the class was KGV and not Centurion. Out of interest what source do you have that cites Centurion as being the class name?
Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land
Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land
Now Maitland, now's your time!
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land
ORIGINAL: christo
Warspite1ORIGINAL: christo
ORIGINAL: warspite1
Here's the final draft for the write-up for HMS Iron Duke.
[4585 Iron Duke]
.B Engine(s) output: 29,000 hp
.B Top Speed: 21.25 knots
.B Main armament: 10 x 13.5-inch (343mm), 12 x 6-inch (152mm) guns
.B Displacement (full load): 30,380 tons
.B Thickest armour: 12-inches (belt), 2.5-inch (deck)
.P Four battleships of the Iron Duke-class were built for the Royal Navy (RN)
between 1912 and 1914. The ships - Iron Duke, Marlborough, Benbow and Emperor of
India - were essentially improved versions of the preceding King George V-class
(KGV).
.
Sorry if I am displaying my ignorance here but was HMS KGV not part of the Centurion class ?
The KGV class was not commissioned til 1939.
Having done more reading am I right that there are 2 classes of KGV battleships ?
Those commissioned in 1911 (KGV, Centurion, Audacious, Ajax) and the second world war (KGV, Prince of Wales, Duke of York, Howe, Anson).
Yes, that is correct, although of course the two KGV's were not around at the same time. HMS Centurion was the only ship of the earlier KGV-class to remain in existence (albeit de-militarised) by the outbreak of WWII.
Now Maitland, now's your time!
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land
As part of a project to give the Norwegian Campaign a facelift, I have finalised the Courageous-class intro.
[4543 Glorious]
.B Engine(s) output: 90,000 hp
.B Top Speed: 30 knots
.B Main armament: 16 x 4.7-inch (119mm) guns and 3 x 8-barrelled 2-pdr pompoms
.B Aircraft: 48
.B Displacement (full load): 27,400 tons
.B Thickest armour: 3-inch (belt)
.P The two ships of the Courageous-class - Courageous and Glorious - were,
along with their half-sister Furious, the only capital ships ever built for a
specific operation. They were designed just after the outbreak of World War I
with a view to undertaking Admiral John Fisher's Baltic Project; a plan - never
carried out - to sail an invasion fleet into the Baltic Sea and land an army on
the German coast, from where they would march on Berlin.
.P The Courageous-class ships, built between 1915 and 1917, were classed as large
light cruisers - effectively light battlecruisers. They were fast ships, armed
with four 15-inch guns, but were given very little in the way of armour
protection. At the end of the war they were surplus to requirements and placed in
reserve.
.P However, a reprieve was at hand. Under the terms of the 1922 Washington Naval
Treaty, the Royal Navy (RN) was allowed to convert the two sisters into aircraft
carriers. Courageous' conversion was completed in May 1928, with Glorious following in
February 1930.
.P Initially the ships had two flight decks, including a flying off deck at the
bow. The latter, suitable for the small aircraft of the time, was removed
during a refit in the mid-thirties and the space used to house additional anti-
aircraft (AA) weaponry.
.P The two ships were very similar visually, with an island structure and large
funnel fitted on the starboard side. Their appearance was perhaps spoiled by the
abrupt ending of the flight deck well short of the bow. Differentiation between
the two became easier when, in the mid-thirties, Glorious received an extension
to her flight deck aft which took the flight deck level with her stern. Despite the
benefits this extension gave the pilots, Courageous was not given the same
treatment.
.P The ships were able to carry 48 aircraft, which was significantly more than
the capacity of the RN's existing carrier fleet. The aircraft were housed in two
hangers that were served by two lifts. Plans were drawn up to convert the ships
to a single hanger arrangement in the late thirties, but these changes, which
would have increased capacity and allowed for new armour plating, were never
implemented.
.P As was the case with all RN carriers at the start of World War II, they were
hampered in their effectiveness by the poor quality aircraft that they were able
to employ. This was a result of a lack of money for defence spending between the
wars and this deficiency was then made worse because of the decision to have the
Royal Air Force (RAF) responsible for naval aircraft.
.P To assist take-off two catapults were fitted - each capable of launching
8,000lb at 56 knots. Four arrester wires were installed to help safely land the
aircraft. 35,700 imperial gallons of aviation fuel was carried.
.P Defensive armament was limited to AA weaponry only, with sixteen single
4.7-inch guns. These weapons were augmented with twenty-four 2-pdr pompoms and
multiple 0.5-inch machine guns.
.P Betraying their light battlecruiser heritage, armour protection was very thin.
A belt of just 3-inches provided vertical protection and 0.75-inches for the
flight deck. Bulges were fitted, but this was largely to aid stability than for
anti-torpedo purposes.
.P The ships were fitted with Parsons geared turbines that produced 90,000hp and
a top speed of 32 knots. By the time of their conversion, this top speed had
reduced to around 30 knots.
.P The names Courageous and Glorious were typical of the inspiring and grand
names used for RN capital ships.
[4543 Glorious]
.B Engine(s) output: 90,000 hp
.B Top Speed: 30 knots
.B Main armament: 16 x 4.7-inch (119mm) guns and 3 x 8-barrelled 2-pdr pompoms
.B Aircraft: 48
.B Displacement (full load): 27,400 tons
.B Thickest armour: 3-inch (belt)
.P The two ships of the Courageous-class - Courageous and Glorious - were,
along with their half-sister Furious, the only capital ships ever built for a
specific operation. They were designed just after the outbreak of World War I
with a view to undertaking Admiral John Fisher's Baltic Project; a plan - never
carried out - to sail an invasion fleet into the Baltic Sea and land an army on
the German coast, from where they would march on Berlin.
.P The Courageous-class ships, built between 1915 and 1917, were classed as large
light cruisers - effectively light battlecruisers. They were fast ships, armed
with four 15-inch guns, but were given very little in the way of armour
protection. At the end of the war they were surplus to requirements and placed in
reserve.
.P However, a reprieve was at hand. Under the terms of the 1922 Washington Naval
Treaty, the Royal Navy (RN) was allowed to convert the two sisters into aircraft
carriers. Courageous' conversion was completed in May 1928, with Glorious following in
February 1930.
.P Initially the ships had two flight decks, including a flying off deck at the
bow. The latter, suitable for the small aircraft of the time, was removed
during a refit in the mid-thirties and the space used to house additional anti-
aircraft (AA) weaponry.
.P The two ships were very similar visually, with an island structure and large
funnel fitted on the starboard side. Their appearance was perhaps spoiled by the
abrupt ending of the flight deck well short of the bow. Differentiation between
the two became easier when, in the mid-thirties, Glorious received an extension
to her flight deck aft which took the flight deck level with her stern. Despite the
benefits this extension gave the pilots, Courageous was not given the same
treatment.
.P The ships were able to carry 48 aircraft, which was significantly more than
the capacity of the RN's existing carrier fleet. The aircraft were housed in two
hangers that were served by two lifts. Plans were drawn up to convert the ships
to a single hanger arrangement in the late thirties, but these changes, which
would have increased capacity and allowed for new armour plating, were never
implemented.
.P As was the case with all RN carriers at the start of World War II, they were
hampered in their effectiveness by the poor quality aircraft that they were able
to employ. This was a result of a lack of money for defence spending between the
wars and this deficiency was then made worse because of the decision to have the
Royal Air Force (RAF) responsible for naval aircraft.
.P To assist take-off two catapults were fitted - each capable of launching
8,000lb at 56 knots. Four arrester wires were installed to help safely land the
aircraft. 35,700 imperial gallons of aviation fuel was carried.
.P Defensive armament was limited to AA weaponry only, with sixteen single
4.7-inch guns. These weapons were augmented with twenty-four 2-pdr pompoms and
multiple 0.5-inch machine guns.
.P Betraying their light battlecruiser heritage, armour protection was very thin.
A belt of just 3-inches provided vertical protection and 0.75-inches for the
flight deck. Bulges were fitted, but this was largely to aid stability than for
anti-torpedo purposes.
.P The ships were fitted with Parsons geared turbines that produced 90,000hp and
a top speed of 32 knots. By the time of their conversion, this top speed had
reduced to around 30 knots.
.P The names Courageous and Glorious were typical of the inspiring and grand
names used for RN capital ships.
Now Maitland, now's your time!
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
-
Extraneous
- Posts: 1810
- Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 1:58 am
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land
[4543 Glorious]
.B Engine(s) output: 90,000 hp
.B Top Speed: 30 knots
.B Main armament: 16 x 4.7-inch (119mm) guns and 3 x 8-barrelled 2-pdr pompoms
.B Aircraft: 48
.B Displacement (full load): 27,400 tons
.B Thickest armour: 3-inch (belt)
.P The two ships of the Courageous-class - Courageous and Glorious - were,
along with their half-sister Furious, the only capital ships ever built for a
specific operation. They were designed just after the outbreak of World War I
with a view to undertaking Admiral John Fisher's Baltic Project; a plan - never
carried out - to sail an invasion fleet into the Baltic Sea and land an army on
the German coast, from where they would march on Berlin.
.P The Courageous-class ships, built between 1915 and 1917, were classed as large
light cruisers - effectively light battlecruisers. They were fast ships, armed
with four 15-inch guns, but were given very little in the way of armour
protection. At the end of the war they were surplus to requirements and placed in
reserve.
.P However, a reprieve was at hand. Under the terms of the 1922 Washington Naval
Treaty, the Royal Navy (RN) was allowed to convert the two sisters into aircraft
carriers. Courageous' conversion was completed in May 1928, with Glorious following in
February 1930.
.P Initially the ships had two flight decks, a proper flight deck and a flight deck at the bow.
The latter, was suitable for the small aircraft of the time, and removed
during a refit in the mid-thirties. The reclaimed space was used for additional
anti- aircraft (AA) weaponry.
.P The two ships were very similar visually, with an island structure and large
funnel fitted on the starboard side. The abrupt ending of the flight deck well short of the
bow perhaps spoiled their appearance. Differentiation between
the two became easier when, in the mid-thirties, Glorious received an extension
to her flight deck aft, which took the flight deck level with her stern. Despite the
benefits this extension gave the pilots, Courageous was not given the same
treatment.
.P The ships were able to carry 48 aircraft, which was significantly more than
the capacity of the RN's existing carrier fleet. The aircraft were housed in two
hangers that were served by two lifts. Plans were drawn up to convert the ships
to a single hanger arrangement in the late thirties, but these changes, which
would have increased capacity and allowed for new armour plating, were never
implemented.
.P As was the case with all RN carriers at the start of World War II, they were
hampered in their effectiveness by the poor quality aircraft that they were able
to employ. This was a result of a lack of money for defence spending between the
wars and this deficiency was then made worse because of the decision to have the
Royal Air Force (RAF) responsible for naval aircraft.
.P To assist take-off two catapults were fitted - each capable of launching
8,000lb at 56 knots. Four arrester wires were installed to help safely land the
aircraft. 35,700 imperial gallons of aviation fuel was carried.
.P Defensive armament was limited to AA weaponry only, with sixteen single
4.7-inch guns. These weapons were augmented with twenty-four 2-pdr pompoms and
multiple 0.5-inch machine guns.
.P Betraying their light battlecruiser heritage, armour protection was very thin.
A belt of just 3-inches provided vertical protection and 0.75-inches for the
flight deck. Bulges were fitted, but this was largely to aid stability than for
anti-torpedo purposes.
.P The ships were fitted with Parsons geared turbines that produced 90,000hp and
a top speed of 32 knots. By the time of their conversion, this top speed had
reduced to around 30 knots.
.P The names Courageous and Glorious were typical of the inspiring and grand
names used for RN capital ships.
.B Engine(s) output: 90,000 hp
.B Top Speed: 30 knots
.B Main armament: 16 x 4.7-inch (119mm) guns and 3 x 8-barrelled 2-pdr pompoms
.B Aircraft: 48
.B Displacement (full load): 27,400 tons
.B Thickest armour: 3-inch (belt)
.P The two ships of the Courageous-class - Courageous and Glorious - were,
along with their half-sister Furious, the only capital ships ever built for a
specific operation. They were designed just after the outbreak of World War I
with a view to undertaking Admiral John Fisher's Baltic Project; a plan - never
carried out - to sail an invasion fleet into the Baltic Sea and land an army on
the German coast, from where they would march on Berlin.
.P The Courageous-class ships, built between 1915 and 1917, were classed as large
light cruisers - effectively light battlecruisers. They were fast ships, armed
with four 15-inch guns, but were given very little in the way of armour
protection. At the end of the war they were surplus to requirements and placed in
reserve.
.P However, a reprieve was at hand. Under the terms of the 1922 Washington Naval
Treaty, the Royal Navy (RN) was allowed to convert the two sisters into aircraft
carriers. Courageous' conversion was completed in May 1928, with Glorious following in
February 1930.
.P Initially the ships had two flight decks, a proper flight deck and a flight deck at the bow.
The latter, was suitable for the small aircraft of the time, and removed
during a refit in the mid-thirties. The reclaimed space was used for additional
anti- aircraft (AA) weaponry.
.P The two ships were very similar visually, with an island structure and large
funnel fitted on the starboard side. The abrupt ending of the flight deck well short of the
bow perhaps spoiled their appearance. Differentiation between
the two became easier when, in the mid-thirties, Glorious received an extension
to her flight deck aft, which took the flight deck level with her stern. Despite the
benefits this extension gave the pilots, Courageous was not given the same
treatment.
.P The ships were able to carry 48 aircraft, which was significantly more than
the capacity of the RN's existing carrier fleet. The aircraft were housed in two
hangers that were served by two lifts. Plans were drawn up to convert the ships
to a single hanger arrangement in the late thirties, but these changes, which
would have increased capacity and allowed for new armour plating, were never
implemented.
.P As was the case with all RN carriers at the start of World War II, they were
hampered in their effectiveness by the poor quality aircraft that they were able
to employ. This was a result of a lack of money for defence spending between the
wars and this deficiency was then made worse because of the decision to have the
Royal Air Force (RAF) responsible for naval aircraft.
.P To assist take-off two catapults were fitted - each capable of launching
8,000lb at 56 knots. Four arrester wires were installed to help safely land the
aircraft. 35,700 imperial gallons of aviation fuel was carried.
.P Defensive armament was limited to AA weaponry only, with sixteen single
4.7-inch guns. These weapons were augmented with twenty-four 2-pdr pompoms and
multiple 0.5-inch machine guns.
.P Betraying their light battlecruiser heritage, armour protection was very thin.
A belt of just 3-inches provided vertical protection and 0.75-inches for the
flight deck. Bulges were fitted, but this was largely to aid stability than for
anti-torpedo purposes.
.P The ships were fitted with Parsons geared turbines that produced 90,000hp and
a top speed of 32 knots. By the time of their conversion, this top speed had
reduced to around 30 knots.
.P The names Courageous and Glorious were typical of the inspiring and grand
names used for RN capital ships.
University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land
Initially the ships had two flight decks, a proper flight deck and a flight deck at the bow.
...should probably have a semicolon instead of a comma.
Cheers, Neilster
Cheers, Neilster
-
Shannon V. OKeets
- Posts: 22165
- Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
- Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
- Contact:
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land
Colon, not semi-colon.ORIGINAL: Neilster
Initially the ships had two flight decks, a proper flight deck and a flight deck at the bow.
...should probably have a semicolon instead of a comma.
Cheers, Neilster
Steve
Perfection is an elusive goal.
Perfection is an elusive goal.
-
Extraneous
- Posts: 1810
- Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 1:58 am
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land
How to use a semicolon
Using Colns
Initially the ships had two flight decks (a complete idea): (colon used to separate a title and a subtitle) a proper flight deck and a flight deck at the bow.
So...
Initially the ships had two flight decks: a proper flight deck and a flight deck at the bow.
Using Colns
Initially the ships had two flight decks (a complete idea): (colon used to separate a title and a subtitle) a proper flight deck and a flight deck at the bow.
So...
Initially the ships had two flight decks: a proper flight deck and a flight deck at the bow.
University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)
-
paulderynck
- Posts: 8494
- Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
- Location: Canada
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land
A lot of the posts replying to the unit descriptions certainly do put me in mind of what a colon is used for.
Paul
-
Shannon V. OKeets
- Posts: 22165
- Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
- Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
- Contact:
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land
Here are 4 new write ups by Jimm.
- Attachments
-
- ItalianWriteups.jpg (799.19 KiB) Viewed 625 times
Steve
Perfection is an elusive goal.
Perfection is an elusive goal.
-
Extraneous
- Posts: 1810
- Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 1:58 am
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land
[font=arial]The write up should read:[/font]
[font=arial]2a Divisione Celere not 2nd Celere division;[/font]
[font=arial]Corpo d’Armata Celere (Swift Army Corps) not Celere Corps;[/font]
[font=arial]Comando Difesa Territoriale di Torino (Torino) (Territorial Defense Command in Turin) not 1st Territorial Corps;[/font]
[font=arial]It should be Turin not Torino.[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]Guardia alla Frontiera is abbreviated G.a.F. (note the lower case "a").[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]You mention the G.a.F. but not the Comandi di Difesa Territoriale (Territorial Defense Command).[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial] All this after I posted my links [/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]Squadroni Sommergibili --> ‘Squadriglia Sommergibili’.[/font]
[font=arial]Squadron/Fleet --> ‘Divisione/Squadra’ (i.e. ‘2a Divisione/ I Squadra’).[/font]
[font=arial]Comando Navale Libica --> Comando Navale Libico.[/font]
[font=arial]Corps/Army --> Corpo/Armata (i.e. II Corpo/1a Armata) (in this case, ‘Corpo d’Armata’ can be ‘Corpo’ only).
Alpini Corps --> ‘Corpo d’Armata Alpino’.
Infantry Division in Africa --> Divisione di Fanteria 'Africa'.
Mountain Divisions: 'Divisione Alpina'.
Cavalry Divisions: 'Divisione Celere'.
Motorized Divisions 'Divisione Motorizzata'.
Armored Divisions: 'Divisione Corazzata'.[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]Free Italian to English online translation [/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]These are just the glaring errors I spotted because I don't like to edit screenshots.[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]2a Divisione Celere not 2nd Celere division;[/font]
[font=arial]Corpo d’Armata Celere (Swift Army Corps) not Celere Corps;[/font]
[font=arial]Comando Difesa Territoriale di Torino (Torino) (Territorial Defense Command in Turin) not 1st Territorial Corps;[/font]
[font=arial]It should be Turin not Torino.[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]Guardia alla Frontiera is abbreviated G.a.F. (note the lower case "a").[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]You mention the G.a.F. but not the Comandi di Difesa Territoriale (Territorial Defense Command).[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial] All this after I posted my links [/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]Squadroni Sommergibili --> ‘Squadriglia Sommergibili’.[/font]
[font=arial]Squadron/Fleet --> ‘Divisione/Squadra’ (i.e. ‘2a Divisione/ I Squadra’).[/font]
[font=arial]Comando Navale Libica --> Comando Navale Libico.[/font]
[font=arial]Corps/Army --> Corpo/Armata (i.e. II Corpo/1a Armata) (in this case, ‘Corpo d’Armata’ can be ‘Corpo’ only).
Alpini Corps --> ‘Corpo d’Armata Alpino’.
Infantry Division in Africa --> Divisione di Fanteria 'Africa'.
Mountain Divisions: 'Divisione Alpina'.
Cavalry Divisions: 'Divisione Celere'.
Motorized Divisions 'Divisione Motorizzata'.
Armored Divisions: 'Divisione Corazzata'.[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]Free Italian to English online translation [/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]These are just the glaring errors I spotted because I don't like to edit screenshots.[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land
Thanks for your comments on my "glaring" errors. Diplomatic and constructive as always, Extraneous.ORIGINAL: Extraneous
[font=arial]The write up should read:[/font]
[font=arial]2a Divisione Celere not 2nd Celere division;[/font]
[font=arial]Corpo d’Armata Celere (Swift Army Corps) not Celere Corps;[/font]
[font=arial]Comando Difesa Territoriale di Torino (Torino) (Territorial Defense Command in Turin) not 1st Territorial Corps;[/font]
[font=arial]It should be Turin not Torino.[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]Guardia alla Frontiera is abbreviated G.a.F. (note the lower case "a").[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]You mention the G.a.F. but not the Comandi di Difesa Territoriale (Territorial Defense Command).[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial] All this after I posted my links [/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]Squadroni Sommergibili --> ‘Squadriglia Sommergibili’.[/font]
[font=arial]Squadron/Fleet --> ‘Divisione/Squadra’ (i.e. ‘2a Divisione/ I Squadra’).[/font]
[font=arial]Comando Navale Libica --> Comando Navale Libico.[/font]
[font=arial]Corps/Army --> Corpo/Armata (i.e. II Corpo/1a Armata) (in this case, ‘Corpo d’Armata’ can be ‘Corpo’ only).
Alpini Corps --> ‘Corpo d’Armata Alpino’.
Infantry Division in Africa --> Divisione di Fanteria 'Africa'.
Mountain Divisions: 'Divisione Alpina'.
Cavalry Divisions: 'Divisione Celere'.
Motorized Divisions 'Divisione Motorizzata'.
Armored Divisions: 'Divisione Corazzata'.[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]Free Italian to English online translation [/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]These are just the glaring errors I spotted because I don't like to edit screenshots.[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
Your main issue seems to be whether I provide Italian or English nomenclature. I see no issue in referring to Corpo d’Armata Celere as the "Celere Corps" in passing. I've used Italian and English translations interchangeably througout the Italian writeups; generally as this project is in English I have utilised the English by default but incorporated the full Italian where I feel appropriate, mostly for flavour. "Celere" means something different to "cavalry" so a straight translation is misleading, so I have used the word Celere freely in the English prose, as do many of the references I have utilised, the same way you might say "2nd Panzer division" for instance.
If I am not consistent in this, sue me.
Jimm
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land
"glaring" errors. Diplomatic and constructive as always, Extraneous.
+2
+2
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life
-
Extraneous
- Posts: 1810
- Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 1:58 am
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land
It would not seem so bad except for my previous posts.
[&:] But why mention the G.a.F. (border guards) and not the Comandi di Difesa Territoriale (Territorial Defense Command). [&:]
"This unit represents 2a Divisione Celere "Testa di Ferro" (2nd Celere division nicknamed: Iron Head),"
We could go on about this but it is your unit write up.
[:D] Consider yourself sued. [:D]
[&:] But why mention the G.a.F. (border guards) and not the Comandi di Difesa Territoriale (Territorial Defense Command). [&:]
"This unit represents 2a Divisione Celere "Testa di Ferro" (2nd Celere division nicknamed: Iron Head),"
We could go on about this but it is your unit write up.
[:D] Consider yourself sued. [:D]
University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land
ORIGINAL: Extraneous
[&:] But why mention the G.a.F. (border guards) and not the Comandi di Difesa Territoriale (Territorial Defense Command). [&:]
Why, since I clearly can't do it to your exacting standards, did I bother wasting my free time doing it at all?
Jimm
-
Extraneous
- Posts: 1810
- Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 1:58 am
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land
Don't like criticism or suggestions do you.
Very well, just tell me which are yours and I won't bother with them at all.
Very well, just tell me which are yours and I won't bother with them at all.
University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land
I am quite as happy to accept constructive feedback or criticism as the next man. When you understand what that means, let me have your comments.
Jimm
-
Extraneous
- Posts: 1810
- Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 1:58 am
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land
Obviously you have no experience with the concept of proofreading.
Proofreading - to read and mark corrections.
Who proofreads your write ups? Answer: I just did.
I consider my responses to your remarks quite reserved for now while you continue to be abusive. Did I hurt your fealings? [X(]
Under the Turin milita you use both Turin and Torino. Choose one TURIN or TORINO.
1st Territorial Corps is from Orbat. You and I had this discussion before don't trust Orbat without confirmation.
Comandi di Corpo d'Armata
I Corpo d'Armata di Torino (I Corps)
II Corpo d'Armata di Alessandria (II Corps)
III Corpo d'Armata di Milano (III Corps)
IV Corpo d’Armata Alpino (IV Corps)
V Corpo d'Armata di Trieste (V Corps)
VI Corpo d'Armata di Bologna (VI Corps)
VII Corpo d'Armata di Ancona (VII Corps)
VIII Corpo d'Armata di Roma (VIII Corps)
IX Corpo d'Armata di Bari (IX Corps)
X Corpo d'Armata di Napoli (X Corps)
XI Corpo d'Armata di Lubiana (XI Corps)
XII Corpo d'Armata di Palermo (XII Corps)
XIII Corpo d'Armata di Cagliari (XIII Corps)
XIV Corpo d'Armata di Treviso (XIV Corps)
XV Corpo d'Armata di Genova (XV Corps)
XX Corpo D'Armata di Manovra (XX Corps)
XXIV Corpo d'Armata di Udine (XXIV Corps)
XXXV Corpo d'Armata di Bolzano (XXXV Corps)
Proofreading - to read and mark corrections.
Who proofreads your write ups? Answer: I just did.
I consider my responses to your remarks quite reserved for now while you continue to be abusive. Did I hurt your fealings? [X(]
From Comando Supremo
Pre !939 the Frontier Guard had the task of defending the forntier using fortress artillery.
In 1939 its task was still frontier defence but it added supporting arms such as infantry to add the task of being a covering force.
Frontier Guards HQ were attached to XI Army Corps
the Frontier Guard had:
11 Frontier Guard commands each commanded by a Brigadier General assigned to the HQ of the corps area touching the frontier
1 Frontier Guard infantry regiment: to provide training and replacements
9 Frontier Guard artillery regiments
1 independant Frontier Guard group
a varying number of covering sectors, these had subsectors and minor specialist units of infantry artillery and engineers. The sector had a depot and its strength depended on local circumstances.
Some of the infantry came from the Frontier Guard Infantry regiment and other personnel generally from the army corps.
Under the Turin milita you use both Turin and Torino. Choose one TURIN or TORINO.
1st Territorial Corps is from Orbat. You and I had this discussion before don't trust Orbat without confirmation.
Comandi di Corpo d'Armata
I Corpo d'Armata di Torino (I Corps)
II Corpo d'Armata di Alessandria (II Corps)
III Corpo d'Armata di Milano (III Corps)
IV Corpo d’Armata Alpino (IV Corps)
V Corpo d'Armata di Trieste (V Corps)
VI Corpo d'Armata di Bologna (VI Corps)
VII Corpo d'Armata di Ancona (VII Corps)
VIII Corpo d'Armata di Roma (VIII Corps)
IX Corpo d'Armata di Bari (IX Corps)
X Corpo d'Armata di Napoli (X Corps)
XI Corpo d'Armata di Lubiana (XI Corps)
XII Corpo d'Armata di Palermo (XII Corps)
XIII Corpo d'Armata di Cagliari (XIII Corps)
XIV Corpo d'Armata di Treviso (XIV Corps)
XV Corpo d'Armata di Genova (XV Corps)
XX Corpo D'Armata di Manovra (XX Corps)
XXIV Corpo d'Armata di Udine (XXIV Corps)
XXXV Corpo d'Armata di Bolzano (XXXV Corps)
University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land
ORIGINAL: Extraneous
Obviously you have no experience with the concept of proofreading.
Proofreading - to read and mark corrections.
Who proofreads your write ups? Answer: I just did.
I consider my responses to your remarks quite reserved for now while you continue to be abusive. Did I hurt your fealings? [X(]
My issue, Extraneous, is not with your knowledge, but with your manners.
If anyone else on this public forum states that they believe that it is I, not you, who have been "abusive" in our interactions on this thread then you will have my public apology. Anyone?
I think we are at a level of detail that I'm sure bores anyone else reading this thread, but ok. Yes, I accept "Torino" should be "Turin" for consistency. You are correct that I corps was based in Turin. In the scheme of a militia unit description is this relevant? maybe, maybe not.
You contest the existence of 1st Territorial Corps but provide no alternate data or source, you simply assert the info to be incorrect.
Your extensive quote from Comando Supremo on GaF I fail to see the relevance of. Which writeup is this pertinent to?
Simply sneering and asserting your opinion from the sidelines is not proof reading. Neither is pasting mass text from other websites- yes I know them too. Your point?
I will continue to complete the remaining Italian land writeups. Feel free to issue your indictments on them from on high. If I think there is anything worth responding to I will do so, but frankly for now I'm done with you- I'd hate to "abuse" you any further.
Jimm
-
Extraneous
- Posts: 1810
- Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 1:58 am
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land
Original: Jimm
1) "Glaring" errors. Diplomatic and constructive as always, Extraneous.
2) Why, since I clearly can't do it to your exacting standards, did I bother wasting my free time doing it at all?
3) When you understand what that means, let me have your comments.
4) My issue, Extraneous, is not with your knowledge, but with your manners.
5) Simply sneering and asserting your opinion from the sidelines is not proof reading. Neither is pasting mass text from other websites- yes I know them too. Your point?
6) Feel free to issue your indictments on them from on high. If I think there is anything worth responding to I will do so, but frankly for now I'm done with you- I'd hate to "abuse" you any further.
Read your own statements above in the quotes and they don't sound abusive to you?
As for my manners they could be a lot worse considering the responses I get here at these forums.
I explained my reasons
I offered to quit this discussion
You continue so I continue.
You quote Orbat to me and then complain when I post a link and information. Did you read the title of the thread?
Guardia alla Frontiera
What was the organization of the Guardia alla Frontiera in WWII. I see they appeared in the oob for the invasion of France in 1940. Was a frontier guard sector a company or battalion or just what was it.?
I see you changed GAF to GaF I bet that was humblling.
University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)
-
paulderynck
- Posts: 8494
- Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
- Location: Canada
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land
Jimm... the green button at the bottom of his posts - use it. Hover over it to see what it does.
Paul