Page 4 of 5

RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns

Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2019 12:57 pm
by Courtenay
Two interesting things about this entry:

1) There were more CV losses in this entry than in the whole war up to now.
2) The US and Japanese losses are identical in both number of heavy units (6) and total light units (18).

The US and Japanese naval losses were remarkably equal for the first year of the war. In the whole Guadalcanal campaign, both sides lost 24 combat vessels DD and SS and larger, with tonnage lost being within 10% of each other.

P.S. Kikutsuki is more commonly called Kikuzuki, but this may just be transliteration differences.

RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns

Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2019 2:53 pm
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: Courtenay

Two interesting things about this entry:

1) There were more CV losses in this entry than in the whole war up to now.
2) The US and Japanese losses are identical in both number of heavy units (6) and total light units (18).

The US and Japanese naval losses were remarkably equal for the first year of the war. In the whole Guadalcanal campaign, both sides lost 24 combat vessels DD and SS and larger, with tonnage lost being within 10% of each other.

P.S. Kikutsuki is more commonly called Kikuzuki, but this may just be transliteration differences.
warspite1

The importance of the carrier reflects the theatre - or I suppose more accurately the expanse of the Pacific reflects the development path of the carrier by the two navies.

The two may have been equal but of course the Japanese were fighting the Commonwealth and Dutch too - which puts them ahead - although not by the amount they needed to be (or which they could ever have achieved even if Midway happened in reverse and the Indian Ocean raid more successful).

But, the fact Japan couldn't win the Pacific War, doesn't alter things from a war gaming perspective, and the Pacific War - up to January 1943 - and the Guadalcanal campaign in particular, is (along with the War in the Mediterranean June 1940 - July 1943) probably the most interesting period of the war. Finely balanced forces, low density count, all naval, air and land war types - tanks, infantry, para drops, special forces, partisans, amphibious operations, submarines, carriers, battleships, cruiser warfare, destroyers, monitors - everything a war gamer could want can be found in one or both theatres, supply, logistics, just so much scope.... The fact these haven't been war gamed properly is criminal. Theses periods could be absolute classics if done properly - land, sea and air. Either side could 'win' without need for loads of artificial balancing rules. Ho hum......one day perhaps....[:(] [an unapologetic rant at war game designers for their unforgivable oversight [:D]]


The spelling of Japanese and Soviet names is never going to please everyone I'm afraid [;)].

RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns

Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2019 5:58 pm
by rkr1958
ORIGINAL: warspite1
But, the fact Japan couldn't win the Pacific War, doesn't alter things from a war gaming perspective, and the Pacific War - up to January 1943 - and the Guadalcanal campaign in particular, is (along with the War in the Mediterranean June 1940 - July 1943) probably the most interesting period of the war. Finely balanced forces, low density count, all naval, air and land war types - tanks, infantry, para drops, special forces, partisans, amphibious operations, submarines, carriers, battleships, cruiser warfare, destroyers, monitors - everything a war gamer could want can be found in one or both theatres, supply, logistics, just so much scope.... The fact these haven't been war gamed properly is criminal. Theses periods could be absolute classics if done properly - land, sea and air. Either side could 'win' without need for loads of artificial balancing rules. Ho hum......one day perhaps....[:(] [an unapologetic rant at war game designers for their unforgivable oversight [:D]]
Check out https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/2529/flat-top

Not a computer game, but one of those monster board games from Avalon Hill in the 80's. Never played it but I've heard it does a good in-depth treatment of this exact time.

RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns

Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2019 7:30 pm
by paulderynck
Umm, Flat Top might make a good computer game but it was a loser as a boardgame. All logistics and no action.

RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns

Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2019 2:37 am
by Courtenay
I have to confess that I bought the second edition of War in the Pacific. I have never played it, and never expect to play it, but I couldn't resist a game that had individual maps for every single island in the Pacific.

RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns

Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2019 11:23 am
by brian brian
Best sinking location so far: “off Stromboli”

RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns

Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 4:56 pm
by brian brian
HMS Urge found recently near Malta:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-malt ... =applenews

RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns

Posted: Sat Nov 30, 2019 12:52 pm
by warspite1
.

RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns

Posted: Sat Nov 30, 2019 2:50 pm
by Orm
Soviet cruiser Komintern is listed with the wrong nationality in the table. Colour is right but the text say that it is a CW ship.

RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns

Posted: Sat Nov 30, 2019 3:09 pm
by Orm
Is it correct to list Gneisenau as 'lost' when Germany, at first, decided to repair her? And only later decided to abandon the repairs due to a shift in focus?

I do understand the difficulty on how to classify this, and I appreciate your effort. [&o] [:)]

RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns

Posted: Sat Nov 30, 2019 4:13 pm
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: Orm

Is it correct to list Gneisenau as 'lost' when Germany, at first, decided to repair her? And only later decided to abandon the repairs due to a shift in focus?

I do understand the difficulty on how to classify this, and I appreciate your effort. [&o] [:)]
warspite1

Thanks I will amend.

Re Gneisenau, yes I think the treatment is okay, and I've done this with others. The problem with doing it the other way is that I then need to keep track of those ships that have been taken to be repaired and have to note the date that stops. In the case of Conte di Cavour that would mean her never showing as lost, despite the fact she wasn't capable of combat from the time of Taranto.

RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns

Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:09 am
by warspite1
The intention is to continue to the end of the war but there is unlikely to be much further work until the autumn due to a) weather and b) work commitments.

I will ask VP to remove Orm's post from the actual thread so that this purely contains the bi-monthly tables.

RE: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns

Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2020 4:13 pm
by Orm
Thank you, warspite1, for your continued effort. I appreciate it. [&o] [:)]


Any chance that the Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns can be pinned to the top?

Re: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns

Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2023 9:07 am
by warspite1
Project restarted

Re: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns

Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2023 11:12 am
by Orm
Awesome news. Thank you. :)

Re: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns

Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2023 4:25 pm
by Courtenay
Tremendous! :D

Re: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns

Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2023 6:17 pm
by rkr1958
Fantastic! Are you back to playing MWIF too or just this project?

Re: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns

Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2023 8:04 am
by warspite1
rkr1958 wrote: Sat Jan 07, 2023 6:17 pm Fantastic! Are you back to playing MWIF too or just this project?
warspite1

I have not played any wargames for just over a year now. A few weeks back I put MWIF back on my computer - that is the only wargame now - but haven't played with it. Got a couple of projects re-started - this one and the Naval War Day to Day in the General Discussion forum. So that may generate the interest to return to MWIF during 2023.

Re: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns

Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2023 12:39 pm
by rkr1958
Busy, burnt out on or lost interest in wargaming this past year?

Re: Comments on Historical Naval Losses in MWIF Turns

Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2023 4:19 am
by warspite1
rkr1958 wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 12:39 pm Busy, burnt out on or lost interest in wargaming this past year?
warspite1

Certainly I’ve been busier at work, but it started with computer problems prematurely ending yet another game. Then I found I haven’t missed wargaming enough to need to get back into it. I must say it feels comforting having MWIF reinstalled though!