Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

The comment for the Bismarck sinking seems a little wrong to me. "sunk/scuttled after engagement with by Rodney and KGV". Shouldn't it be either with or rephrased?

But what do I know. [:D]

BTW. I think that "sunk" works just fine even if the crew did scuttle her (him?) when remaining afloat would just prolong the pounding, and increase the suffering and casualties among the crew. Edit: For clarification, I think scuttled should be removed.

warspite1

Well there is the debate some people love to have about sunk or scuttled so both are covered.

[Centuur]

There's a typo with the Dutch Destroyers. The name of the Destroyer is Kortenaer (and not Kortaener)...

Keep up the good work.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

There's a typo with the Dutch Destroyers. The name of the Destroyer is Kortenaer (and not Kortaener)...

Keep up the good work.

warspite1

Thanks - I will amend.

[warspite1]

Does anyone know how I can get a sharper picture for my excel spreadsheet page? The picture is fine (using Paint 3-D) but when I reduce the size (using Irfanview) so that it fits on the forum page to 1024, the quality suffers and the letters are harder to read. Anyone know what (if anything) can be done please?

[paulderynck]

Irfanview allows you to experiment with the settings below the resize, like not preserving the aspect ratio, applying a sharpen filter, or changing the DPI setting.

Another idea is can you reduce the size using Paint and just "save as" a jpg.

Another idea is to save from Excel direct to PDF, take a screen shot saved as a PNG or JPG and play with that in Irfanview. You might only have to crop it. (Or even just take a screen shot of the Excel.) PNG may be a better format for what you are doing but of course has to be converted to a JPG for posting.

What is your monitor width? My monitor is 1920 x 1080 and so the picture is only about two thirds of the width of a post when I view it. So a wider and taller picture would help with reading the text. (Of course that may mean others would have to scroll left and right.)

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Irfanview allows you to experiment with the settings below the resize, like not preserving the aspect ratio, applying a sharpen filter, or changing the DPI setting.

Another idea is can you reduce the size using Paint and just "save as" a jpg.

Another idea is to save from Excel direct to PDF, take a screen shot saved as a PNG or JPG and play with that in Irfanview. You might only have to crop it. (Or even just take a screen shot of the Excel.) PNG may be a better format for what you are doing but of course has to be converted to a JPG for posting.

What is your monitor width? My monitor is 1920 x 1080 and so the picture is only about two thirds of the width of a post when I view it. So a wider and taller picture would help with reading the text. (Of course that may mean others would have to scroll left and right.)

warspite1

Thanks - I'll have a play around. I tried saving as a PDF but although the picture quality was excellent, the table wouldn't fit and so is spread across 3 pages. Boring. I hate computers [;)]

[paulderynck]

I find it a little easier to read the print in the above than in the thread we are discussing. (Please don't tell me it's the same picture!)

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

I find it a little easier to read the print in the above than in the thread we are discussing. (Please don't tell me it's the same picture!)

warspite1

No they are different pictures. I thought the one above was clearer but the more I look at it the more I think the effect is pretty much the same. Oh well I tried.

[Courtenay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

I find it a little easier to read the print in the above than in the thread we are discussing. (Please don't tell me it's the same picture!)

warspite1

No they are different pictures. I thought the one above was clearer but the more I look at it the more I think the effect is pretty much the same. Oh well I tried.

I think this picture is clearer. Somehow the type seems fuzzier on the ones you have been doing. If this one is not much more work, please do this one.

[warspite1]

I am trying to work out the fates of the Dutch submarines in WWII (particularly (but not limited to) those that served in the Far East).

My usual trusty sources have thrown up something of a mis-match in their recording, namely:

Conways All The Worlds Fighting Ships 1922 - 1946
Rohwer's Chronology of the War at Sea
U-boat.net

I hate to think that Conway's could be wrong but it is looking that way at present.....

Does anyone know a truly trusted source for Dutch submarines of WWII please?

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I am trying to work out the fates of the Dutch submarines in WWII (particularly (but not limited to) those that served in the Far East).

My usual trusty sources have thrown up something of a mis-match in their recording, namely:

Conways All The Worlds Fighting Ships 1922 - 1946
Rohwer's Chronology of the War at Sea
U-boat.net

I hate to think that Conway's could be wrong but it is looking that way at present.....

Does anyone know a truly trusted source for Dutch submarines of WWII please?

Of course there is one. One problem for you: it's in Dutch...

https://www.tracesofwar.nl/search.asp?q=Onderzeeboten

This is a joint website of several Dutch official historical research institutions.

In English there is this website, which according to the website of the official historical research instutions is correct for information on Dutch SUB's.

http://www.dutchsubmarines.com/

[warspite1]

I used the Dutch Submarines site and now am left with 4 anomalies

KXI - On balance I believe decommissioned in 1945
KXII - Three different outcomes - sunk in Feb 42, Scuttled in Mar 42 or decommissioned 1944
KXIII - Either broken up in 1945 or scuttled in Mar 42
KXVIII - On balance I believe scuttled in Mar 42

If you can get any in from that Dutch site it could be useful. Otherwise I'll just take a view on each.

[Centuur]

K XI was used as a training boat from 1943 onward and decommissioned in 1945.
K XII was taken over by the NEFIS (Netherlands Forces Intelligence Service) from 1942 onward and transferred to the Royal Australian Navy in 1944. The Australians decommissioned the boat in 1945.
K XIII after an accident in the port of Surabaya, the ship was under repairs when the Japanese took the port. The ship got scuttled there (in 1942). After the war, the hull was considered to be an obstacle and was lifted and scrapped in 1945.

K XVIII was scuttled in 1942, however lifted and repaired by the Japanese in 1943-1944. In 1945 the boat was sunk by HMS Tacitum (a submarine).

[Orm]

Thank you, Centuur, for the interesting explanation to the anomalies. [&o] [:)]

[Orm]

BTW. In my current game the Italian player really would like the Dutch submarines to be scuttled. They are a real pain. [:D]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

K XI was used as a training boat from 1943 onward and decommissioned in 1945.
K XII was taken over by the NEFIS (Netherlands Forces Intelligence Service) from 1942 onward and transferred to the Royal Australian Navy in 1944. The Australians decommissioned the boat in 1945.
K XIII after an accident in the port of Surabaya, the ship was under repairs when the Japanese took the port. The ship got scuttled there (in 1942). After the war, the hull was considered to be an obstacle and was lifted and scrapped in 1945.

K XVIII was scuttled in 1942, however lifted and repaired by the Japanese in 1943-1944. In 1945 the boat was sunk by HMS Tacitum (a submarine).

warspite1

This confirms my thinking following an earlier post in the WITP-AE thread. Thanks for taking the time to check this out.

[Courtenay]

HMS Trinidad is misspelled in the entry, and was not sunk by its own torpedo. It was damaged by its own torpedo, but made Murmansk, where it was repaired. On the return journey to Britain in May she was damaged by Ju88s and subsequently scuttled.

All this according to Wikipedia.

[brian brian]

I did not know that the Japanese carrier port strikes in the Indian Ocean (Tricomalee?) occurred on Easter. Did that factor in to the readyness of the RN, as it may have at Pearl Harbor (Sunday morning)?

[Courtenay]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I did not know that the Japanese carrier port strikes in the Indian Ocean (Tricomalee?) occurred on Easter. Did that factor in to the readyness of the RN, as it may have at Pearl Harbor (Sunday morning)?

No. The British knew the Japanese were coming; they just badly underestimated the Japanese strength.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

HMS Trinidad is misspelled in the entry, and was not sunk by its own torpedo. It was damaged by its own torpedo, but made Murmansk, where it was repaired. On the return journey to Britain in May she was damaged by Ju88s and subsequently scuttled.

All this according to Wikipedia.

warspite1

All now amended thanks.