Naval sharing

Gavris Narcis · Post by **Gavris Narcis** » Sun Jul 15, 2001 5:07 pm

Would you be so kind to tell me what range of weapons enters in Light Naval Guns ? And in Medium or Heavy ? Because I already doing some researches about romanian naval force and I must to introduce them somewhere.
Thank you.

Leo.

sven · Post by **sven** » Sun Jul 15, 2001 5:50 pm

Originally posted by Gavris Narcis:
Would you be so kind to tell me what range of weapons enters in Light Naval Guns ? And in Medium or Heavy ? Because I already doing some researches about romanian naval force and I must to introduce them somewhere.
Thank you.

Leo.

Gavris do Romanian rowboats have 16" guns?

Mark Ezra · Post by **Mark Ezra** » Sun Jul 15, 2001 6:12 pm

Light Naval Guns: 227 hexes
Med Naval Guns: 228 Hexes
Heavy Naval Guns: 230 Hexes

For future reference: The OOB editor list all units and weapons as well as their characteristics in SPWAW.

Gavris Narcis · Post by **Gavris Narcis** » Sun Jul 15, 2001 6:57 pm

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark Ezra:
[QB]Light Naval Guns: 227 hexes
Med Naval Guns: 228 Hexes
Heavy Naval Guns: 230 Hexes

I ask for calibers, not ranges !

Leo.

sven · Post by **sven** » Sun Jul 15, 2001 7:02 pm

Originally posted by Gavris Narcis:

Originally posted by Mark Ezra:
[QB]Light Naval Guns: 227 hexes
Med Naval Guns: 228 Hexes
Heavy Naval Guns: 230 Hexes

I ask for calibers, not ranges !

Leo.
Gavris the light guns represent 'light' guns-think 5 inch or so. The medium guns oddly enough represent 'medium' guns think up to 10 inches. Here comes the kicker: the heavy catergory represents 'Heavy' guns up to and including the IJN 18in guns.

I'll ask again did Romanian river boats have 16inch guns?

Sven

New York Jets · Post by **New York Jets** » Sun Jul 15, 2001 7:38 pm

Originally posted by Gavris Narcis:
Would you be so kind to tell me what range of weapons enters in Light Naval Guns ? And in Medium or Heavy ? Because I already doing some researches about romanian naval force and I must to introduce them somewhere.
Thank you.

Leo.

Both "Coway's" and "Janes" offer excellent resources for research on naval units of all countries. I have Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1860-1905. It's an excellent resource with line drawings and photographs where available along with full armor and weapons listings. They also publish books on the navies since 1905. I purchased mine in 1984 through the Naval Institute Press (or something like that). I'm sure Conway's publications are probably still available and at a much lower rate than Janes.

Grumble · Post by **Grumble** » Mon Jul 16, 2001 5:20 am

I'll ask again did Romanian river boats have 16inch guns?

Yes, very amusing.
However, Gavris' question is entirely legimate and deserves a non-smart-ass answer IMHO.

sven · Post by **sven** » Mon Jul 16, 2001 5:44 am

Originally posted by Grumble:

Yes, very amusing.
However, Gavris' question is entirely legimate and deserves a non-smart-ass answer IMHO.

Gavris seems to feel that he should be mounting these indirect fire off the board weapons on river boats. I do not think that any river boat to the best of my knowledge mounted ANY HEAVY GUN. You might think I am mocking him, and possibly to a degree there is some mirth involved.

The thing is I do not think he is quite grasping that the off the board weapons are representing a class of weapon no longer represented in direct fire models. How do I get this across to him? I tried a flip question, but I guess you failed to notice I had answered his question huh?

Help me out here Grumble. A little knowledge is a deadly thing. The river boats were not carrying cruiser level weaponry were they, and if they were then why were all guns over 8" removed from the game while being allowed to be thought of as okay on a river boat?

I can show that the US had 980mm mortars with the same degree of clarity and citation that Gavris is using. Does that mean that I should expect Paul Vebber, Mike Wood, and the crew to completely change the game to allow the inclusion of it? Gavris needs to learn that we have an OOB thread that specializes with these issues.

Gavris gets treated with respect and deference by me when I think he is attempting to make a valid point. He is terse, and very often unappreciative to posters that try to decipher his queries. I have not yet said to him one single time: Gavris that is a dumb question, nor will I.

This whole line of thought on his part is getting close. We do not model the type of warfare he is attempting to include in this game do we? If we did we would have the far more extensive US and UK close to shore naval forces more accurately modeled would we not?

Grumble I respect your humble opinion, but must in this case however disagree with it. If you feel that my actions with the SP Jedi Master are that reprehensible by all means begin an e-mail correspondence with me on the issue. I do look forward to your eloquence and clarity.

regards,
sven

Gavris Narcis · Post by **Gavris Narcis** » Mon Jul 16, 2001 7:06 pm

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sven:
[QB]

Gavris seems to feel that he should be mounting these indirect fire off the board weapons on river boats. I do not think that any river boat to the best of my knowledge mounted ANY HEAVY GUN. You might think I am mocking him, and possibly to a degree there is some mirth involved.

The thing is I do not think he is quite grasping that the off the board weapons are representing a class of weapon no longer represented in direct fire models. How do I get this across to him? I tried a flip question, but I guess you failed to notice I had answered his question huh?

Help me out here Grumble. A little knowledge is a deadly thing. The river boats were not carrying cruiser level weaponry were they, and if they were then why were all guns over 8" removed from the game while being allowed to be thought of as okay on a river boat?

I can show that the US had 980mm mortars with the same degree of clarity and citation that Gavris is using. Does that mean that I should expect Paul Vebber, Mike Wood, and the crew to completely change the game to allow the inclusion of it? Gavris needs to learn that we have an OOB thread that specializes with these issues.

Gavris gets treated with respect and deference by me when I think he is attempting to make a valid point. He is terse, and very often unappreciative to posters that try to decipher his queries. I have not yet said to him one single time: Gavris that is a dumb question, nor will I.

This whole line of thought on his part is getting close. We do not model the type of warfare he is attempting to include in this game do we? If we did we would have the far more extensive US and UK close to shore naval forces more accurately modeled would we not?

Grumble I respect your humble opinion, but must in this case however disagree with it. If you feel that my actions with the SP Jedi Master are that reprehensible by all means begin an e-mail correspondence with me on the issue. I do look forward to your eloquence and clarity.

No, you write ''I think'', but you think wrong (like many times). I asked this because I have the information about calibers on fluvial monitors and I didn't know where to include them (in light naval guns, or medium or heavy). And you don't knoe a lot of other things. For example you read in books about soviet Amur fleet but that's all for you. In the meantime I search in old documents of WWII directly in which says: ''until the constitution of Amur fleet, the romanian fluvial fleet was the most powerfull in the world....'' And this means 3 or more years of WWII war. And you don't know another thing: the romanian major river is Danube, a river who could receive even big ships, not only monitors. Was the only way for many years in WWII for germans to send theirs U-boots (not only) onto Black Sea. And so on.....You read in books which present many times incomplete or wrong informations. That's clear ? And please be more serious and if you don't like my questions don't answer them ! Grumble give you an excellent response only in a few words. That's efficiency ! Take a model.
Thank you.

Leo.

Gavris Narcis · Post by **Gavris Narcis** » Mon Jul 16, 2001 7:06 pm

Originally posted by Chris Trog:

Both "Coway's" and "Janes" offer excellent resources for research on naval units of all countries. I have Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1860-1905. It's an excellent resource with line drawings and photographs where available along with full armor and weapons listings. They also publish books on the navies since 1905. I purchased mine in 1984 through the Naval Institute Press (or something like that). I'm sure Conway's publications are probably still available and at a much lower rate than Janes.

Please tell me if it is on WEB this Conway's (or Janes) to study them online. Because I haven't any possibility to purchased them on book form.
Thank you.

Leo.

SAMWolf · Post by **SAMWolf** » Mon Jul 16, 2001 7:14 pm

Originally posted by Gavris Narcis:
Would you be so kind to tell me what range of weapons enters in Light Naval Guns ? And in Medium or Heavy ? Because I already doing some researches about romanian naval force and I must to introduce them somewhere.
Thank you.

Leo.

Try this site:

Romanian Navy

Grumble · Post by **Grumble** » Mon Jul 16, 2001 7:47 pm

Help me out here Grumble. A little knowledge is a deadly thing. The river boats were not carrying cruiser level weaponry were they, and if they were then why were all guns over 8" removed from the game while being allowed to be thought of as okay on a river boat?

I can show that the US had 980mm mortars with the same degree of clarity and citation that Gavris is using. Does that mean that I should expect Paul Vebber, Mike Wood, and the crew to completely change the game to allow the inclusion of it? Gavris needs to learn that we have an OOB thread that specializes with these issues.

Gavris gets treated with respect and deference by me when I think he is attempting to make a valid point. He is terse, and very often unappreciative to posters that try to decipher his queries. I have not yet said to him one single time: Gavris that is a dumb question, nor will I.

This whole line of thought on his part is getting close. We do not model the type of warfare he is attempting to include in this game do we? If we did we would have the far more extensive US and UK close to shore naval forces more accurately modeled would we not?

Re=reading Gavris' posts, nowhere does he say he wants the Matrix bro's to alter the OOB. My read is he's doing this for his own edification. If he wants to mod his own OOB, who's to argue?
Yeah, he's terse, but then AGAIN as I've pointed out, this ain't his primary language. Which also implies that stuff you may intend as harmless, may be insulting.
A simple, Light =xxx, Med=xxx, and Heavy=xxx answers his question, and lets him decide what weapons he wants to put on his riverine flotilla.

sven · Post by **sven** » Mon Jul 16, 2001 7:58 pm

Originally posted by Grumble:

Re=reading Gavris' posts, nowhere does he say he wants the Matrix bro's to alter the OOB. My read is he's doing this for his own edification. If he wants to mod his own OOB, who's to argue?
Yeah, he's terse, but then AGAIN as I've pointed out, this ain't his primary language. Which also implies that stuff you may intend as harmless, may be insulting.
A simple, Light =xxx, Med=xxx, and Heavy=xxx answers his question, and lets him decide what weapons he wants to put on his riverine flotilla.

Hey Grumble have you noticed he has gotten the answers to his questions, but he keeps pressing with non-cited references because they don't always go his way? Should just the Romanian rifles have AP capability because Gavris says so?(see rifle pen by Gavris)

It seems we are heading that way.

How about we give them the Iowa class for a river boat?

Why not it is his oob after all.

He has in the past wanted the staff to make alterations to the OOBs(see romanian air force, rifle pen threads), and I have no reason to see this as anything but part of an ongoing campaign by him to crank up the ratings for Romania.(with no citations by him for the changes by the way)

Oh and don't we have a thread dedicated to this subject?

Why we sure do.

Hey and get this... if he posted it there with citations of his findings the tiger team could make some changes. Pretty Cool huh?

If you feel the need to pursue this conversation please do it by e-mail as this is a waste of Gavris' valuable time.

regards,
sven

[ July 16, 2001: Message edited by: sven ]

Flashfyre · Post by **Flashfyre** » Mon Jul 16, 2001 8:00 pm

Gavris, a little geography lesson here....

The Danube River flows from southwestern Germany, through the Bavarian region, into Austria, then Hungary, the northern part of Yugoslavia, and forms the southern border of Rumania, before emptying into the Black Sea.

Now, from the reasearch I have done, the German U-Boat fleet was deployed from Wilhelmshaven and Kiel, on the North and Baltic Seas. The only major rivers running from these bodies of water are the Elbe, and the Oder. Neither connects with the Danube.

So how were U-Boats to travel to the Black Sea, if they had no direct river to the Danube? Perhaps you misread something while researching the Danube Fleet?

Grumble · Post by **Grumble** » Mon Jul 16, 2001 8:20 pm

Uboats were shipped by rail and made ready for sea at Danube ports on the Eastern side of the "Iron Gates".

Gee, an answer w/out attitude. What a concept...

Belisarius · Post by **Belisarius** » Mon Jul 16, 2001 8:26 pm

Actually, most of the rivers in Europe are connected since quite a few years ago (read: 18-19th century) by means of canals. Water was the easiest way to transport things from point A to point B. If you had to dig a canal to do the job, a canal was dug.

(did I hear "suez" or "panama"?

)

I won't bother to see if there really was/is a connection between the Elbe, Oder, Rhine and the Danube, but I don't find it impossible. :rolleyes:

Flashfyre · Post by **Flashfyre** » Mon Jul 16, 2001 8:35 pm

Originally posted by Grumble:
Uboats were shipped by rail and made ready for sea at Danube ports on the Eastern side of the "Iron Gates".

Gee, an answer w/out attitude. What a concept...

I have never seen references to any U-Boat sailing from the North Sea to the Black Sea by way of the Elbe, Oder, Danube, or any other waterway through the center of the European continent. As most, if not all, the U-Boat fleet was engaged in anti-convoy 'wolf pack' operations in the North Atlantic. Could you please cite your sources for this 'Black Sea Fleet' of submarines that the Kriegsmarine sent, and what dates encompassed this?

Grumble · Post by **Grumble** » Mon Jul 16, 2001 8:38 pm

Hi,
I'm at work, but I'll look through my stuff over the next day or two, and let you know.
UBoats operated in the Med, Black Sea, Indian Ocean, and the Baltic as well as the anti-convoy ops in the North Sea/Atlantic/US seaboard.

sven · Post by **sven** » Mon Jul 16, 2001 8:52 pm

Originally posted by Grumble:
Hi,
I'm at work, but I'll look through my stuff over the next day or two, and let you know.
UBoats operated in the Med, Black Sea, Indian Ocean, and the Baltic as well as the anti-convoy ops in the North Sea/Atlantic/US seaboard.

(burying hatchet)

Grumble that is what I respect about you. If someone questions your data you provide Citations. That SHOULD be a key part to discussion in this forum. It once was.

Nothing makes me happier than being led to new knowledge by a fellow poster. The thing is that I am sort of picky. I do not enjoy putting anecdotal testimony in my memory bank as fact.

I ride a few posters that ask for OOB changes without Citations pretty hard. I value the integrity of the oobs enough to demand the citation. There are tons of anecdotal changes to vehicles that are excluded from the oobs due to the lack of verifiable data.

Perhaps I am a bit too harsh with Gavris and his ilk. I am going to impose a moratorium on responding to gavris and possibly refrain from posting responses to anyone. If wanting cites make me an intolerant a**hole then mayhaps I will retire from the forums.

I am looking forward to seeing your reference so as to add to my scholarship of the Second World War. Thank you for your time. I do appreciate it.

Regards,
sven

Flashfyre · Post by **Flashfyre** » Mon Jul 16, 2001 9:31 pm

Originally posted by Grumble:
Hi,
I'm at work, but I'll look through my stuff over the next day or two, and let you know.
UBoats operated in the Med, Black Sea, Indian Ocean, and the Baltic as well as the anti-convoy ops in the North Sea/Atlantic/US seaboard.

I'd like to commend you, Grumble, for bringing this part of the U-Boat Operations to light. I was able to find the following sources to support you statement:
http://uboat.net/flotillas/30flo.htm
http://www.bosun.net/page9a.html

6 TypeIIA U-Boats were transported, by land and canal, to the Rumanian port city of Costanza in support of Operation Barbarossa. They were stationed in the Black Sea from 10/42 until 10/44.

However, six boats out of 1,158 built by Germany does not a fleet make. A small flotilla, yes. But there is still no documented evidence that any of these boats made all or part of the trip down the Danube. I'm sure they did, at least towards the end of their journey. But this is of no consequence, other than to modify the statement of

Was the only way for many years in WWII for germans to send theirs U-boots (not only) onto Black Sea.

This was the point of my response to Gavris. It is an incorrect statement, and I felt compelled to say so. Forgive me if I want to see accurate, historical evidence posted in the forum, not anecdotal or apocryphal musings.

Once again, I say "Well done, Grumble".