Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land Page: <<   < prev  41 42 [43] 44 45   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 8/3/2009 8:04:25 AM   
grisouille_slith

 

Posts: 614
Joined: 6/7/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

HELP REQUIRED PLEASE

I am trying to write-up the events of the 3rd July 1940 from the French perspective. Whilst I have a good order of battle for ships at:

All ports in the UK
Oran
Mers-el-Kebir
Algiers
Dakar

What I am missing is the names of the French ships at:

Alexandria
Casablanca
Toulon
Any other - e.g. Indo-China and the West Indies

Any help would be appreciated - thank-you.


For Indochina :
in July 1940 The french fleet is composed of :
- 1 Light cruser : Lamotte Picquet
- 3 Avisos : Amiral Charner, Marne, Tahure, +1 in october 1940 Dumont d'Urville
- 6 Canonnieres (gun boats)

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 1261
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 8/3/2009 8:22:14 AM   
grisouille_slith

 

Posts: 614
Joined: 6/7/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

HELP REQUIRED PLEASE

I am trying to write-up the events of the 3rd July 1940 from the French perspective. Whilst I have a good order of battle for ships at:

All ports in the UK
Oran
Mers-el-Kebir
Algiers
Dakar

What I am missing is the names of the French ships at:

Alexandria
Casablanca
Toulon
Any other - e.g. Indo-China and the West Indies

Any help would be appreciated - thank-you.


For Alexandria : force X of Admiral Godfroy.
- 1 CU Lorraine
- Heavy cruisers : Duquesne, Suffren, Tourville
- ligth cruiser : Duguay Trouin
- Destroyers (Contre Torpilleurs and Torpilleurs) : Tigre, Lynx, Forturne, Forbin
- Submarine : Protée

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 1262
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 8/3/2009 7:06:56 PM   
micheljq


Posts: 791
Joined: 3/31/2008
From: Quebec
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Dubost

Ticonderoga was one of those places that saw figting in many wars, due to its position on a choke point in a natural line of advance / supply. Prior to the development of the American railway network in the mid-19th Century, the easiest routes of travel and most secure supply routes were by water. The fort now known as Ticonderoga was built by the French to defend a narrow point in Lake Champlain which was a major link in the water route between Canada and New York City. As such, this route served as a focal point of attack and counterattack in the French and Indian Wars, the Revolutionary War, and the War of 1812. Fort Carillon was attacked twice during the French and Indian Wars by British forces. The failed attack was led by Abercromby, in 1758. The successful attack was led by Sir Jeffrey Amherst. If you take the Fort Ti ferry (at least as of 2001 when I went), there is a marker on the boat indicating that the ferry crossing was first set up by Amherst. Later renamed Fort Ticonderoga by the British, it was allowed to fall into decay after the defeat of the French. In 1775, the fort was lightly held and on May 10, Ethan Allen with his Green Mountain Boys and Benedict Arnold with a commission from the Massachusetts Committe of Safety (and one manservant), took the fort by surprise. Allen later claimed to have demanded the fort's surrender "In the name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress", but others claimed that he said "Come out of there, you damned old rat". The guns from the fort were removed by Henry Knox in January 1776, and in one of the remarkable feats of endurance and of engineering skill of the Revolutionary War, were transported by sledges and gondolas to the main patriot forces near Boston where George Washington used them to force the British to evacuate the city.


My ancestor fought Ticonderoga and Fort Carillon 1758, in the british forces.

_____________________________

Michel Desjardins,
"Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious" - Oscar Wilde
"History is a set of lies agreed upon" - Napoleon Bonaparte after the battle of Waterloo, june 18th, 1815

(in reply to Mike Dubost)
Post #: 1263
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 8/3/2009 7:09:32 PM   
micheljq


Posts: 791
Joined: 3/31/2008
From: Quebec
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Dubost

Ticonderoga was one of those places that saw figting in many wars, due to its position on a choke point in a natural line of advance / supply. Prior to the development of the American railway network in the mid-19th Century, the easiest routes of travel and most secure supply routes were by water. The fort now known as Ticonderoga was built by the French to defend a narrow point in Lake Champlain which was a major link in the water route between Canada and New York City. As such, this route served as a focal point of attack and counterattack in the French and Indian Wars, the Revolutionary War, and the War of 1812. Fort Carillon was attacked twice during the French and Indian Wars by British forces. The failed attack was led by Abercromby, in 1758. The successful attack was led by Sir Jeffrey Amherst. If you take the Fort Ti ferry (at least as of 2001 when I went), there is a marker on the boat indicating that the ferry crossing was first set up by Amherst. Later renamed Fort Ticonderoga by the British, it was allowed to fall into decay after the defeat of the French. In 1775, the fort was lightly held and on May 10, Ethan Allen with his Green Mountain Boys and Benedict Arnold with a commission from the Massachusetts Committe of Safety (and one manservant), took the fort by surprise. Allen later claimed to have demanded the fort's surrender "In the name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress", but others claimed that he said "Come out of there, you damned old rat". The guns from the fort were removed by Henry Knox in January 1776, and in one of the remarkable feats of endurance and of engineering skill of the Revolutionary War, were transported by sledges and gondolas to the main patriot forces near Boston where George Washington used them to force the British to evacuate the city.


My ancestor fought Ticonderoga and Fort Carillon 1758, in the british forces. The french-Indian war as the americans say, also known as the Seven Years War. It was a war with theaters mainly in Europe, but in North-America and India also.


_____________________________

Michel Desjardins,
"Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious" - Oscar Wilde
"History is a set of lies agreed upon" - Napoleon Bonaparte after the battle of Waterloo, june 18th, 1815

(in reply to micheljq)
Post #: 1264
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 8/3/2009 7:31:12 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
Please see attached the write-up of the encounter at Mers-el-Kebir. I would welcome comments on this episode (on reflection I may amend the British version, but will await any comment on this draft version first).

[4884 Bretagne - by Robert Jenkins]
.B Engine(s) output: 29,000 hp.
.B Top Speed: 20 knots.
.B Main armament: 10 x 13.4-inch (340mm), 22 x 5.4-inch (139mm) guns.
.B Displacement (full load): 25,000 tons
.B Thickest armour: 10.6-inch (belt)
.P The Bretagne`s were three battleships built between 1912 and 1915 and all
three ships of the class saw service in World War I. Their design was based upon
the earlier Courbet-class but with a heavier weapons package.
.P The class were extensively modernised between the wars. The range of their
main armament was improved by increasing the elevation, and a
basic anti-aircraft defence was also added. Internally, improvements were made to
the propulsion system, with an oil fired system added to the existing coal fired
arrangement. The internal protection also received treatment.
.P However, even with these improvements made, the Bretagne`s could not be
considered front-line warships at the start of World War II. Their limited
service records reflect this.
.P Bretagne was completed in September 1915. She began the Second World War
based at Toulon in the Mediterranean.
.P In December 1939, she sailed from Dakar as the French undertook two large
patrols to track down German blockade-runners (see Provence). During March and
April, Bretagne and the cruiser Algerie, escorted by three destroyers, were used
to transfer French Gold reserves from Toulon to Canada.
.P Then, at the end of April, Bretagne was transferred to Alexandria, Egypt and
shared this home with the British Mediterranean Fleet. However her stay was brief
and she was ordered to Mers-el-Kebir, Algeria a month later. At the time of the
Italian declaration of war on the 10th June 1940, in addition to Bretagne, the
French Fleet at Mers-el-Kebir consisted of the fast battleships Dunkerque and
Strasbourg; the elderly battleship Provence, the heavy cruisers Algerie, Foch,
Colbert and Dupleix; the light cruisers La Galissonniere, Jean de Vienne, Gloire,
Marseillaise, Montcalm and Georges Leygues; thirty-seven destroyers, six torpedo
boats and thirty-six submarines.
.P Over the course of the next couple of weeks the composition of the force at
this naval base stayed roughly the same, although, by the start of July, the
light cruisers named above were stationed at Algiers and the heavy cruisers were
at Toulon. Also at Mers-el-Kebir were seven destroyers.
.P At the beginning of July, just over a week after the signing of the armistice,
the French Navy were based at a number of ports, not only in France and her
overseas territories, but also in the United Kingdom and the British
Mediterranean Fleet base at Alexandria (see Paris).
.P Following the signing of the armistice between France and Germany, the British
feared that the French fleet would be seized by the Germans. Indeed, when the
French Government had originally asked their British counterparts for permission
to begin unilateral negotiations for surrender, the British Prime Minister
Winston Churchill had agreed only subject to the French Fleet sailing for British
ports immediately.
.P This did not happen and the armistice was signed. However, Admiral Darlan,
the Commander-in-Chief of the French Fleet (who was also the Minister of Marine
in the new Vichy Government) had given a promise to Churchill that French ships
would never be allowed to fall into German hands. Importantly too, a German
stipulation that the fleet was to be dis-armed under German and Italian control,
was removed from the armistice terms at the insistence of the French. Darlan had
twice issued orders to his captains to ensure that all ships were ready to be
scuttled should the Germans seek to break the agreement.
.P From their point of view, the French Navy had fought well in the few actions
that it had been a part of; Norway and France were examples of this. Also, unlike
the French Army, the navy had not collapsed before the enemy. In July 1940, this
was still a proud service.
.P It is unlikely that Churchill, a true Francophile, doubted Darlan, but he was
not convinced that the Germans would necessarily keep to their agreement, and
would seize the French ships by force at a later date. After all, the Germans had
"form" in this regard.... With Britain standing alone against the Axis, Churchill
decided that he must remove even the slightest possibility of the Axis getting
hold of the French warships one way or another; even if that meant fighting with
their former allies.
.P The British operation to deal with the French Navy was called Catapult. The
most important component of Catapult was the encounter at Mers-el-Kebir, due to
the presence there of Dunkerque and Strasbourg. The British ordered their newly
formed troubleshooting force, Force H, to sail to Algeria and on the 3rd July, an
ultimatum was delivered to Admiral Gensoul. Gensoul was given four choices; the
French could a) sail with the British and continue the war, b) sail with reduced
crews under British control to a British port, c) sail with reduced crews to a
French port in the West Indies where they would be demilitarised, or d) sail to
the (then neutral) United States. If none of these options were chosen, the
British would open fire.
.P The commander of Force H was Vice-Admiral Somerville. Things got off to a bad
start when Somerville did not present the ultimatum personally. This was left to
a French speaking junior officer. Gensoul therefore sent one of his subordinates
to meet the British in response to what he saw as an affront, before seeking
orders from Darlan. Strangely, in relaying the message to Darlan, some of the
options appear not to have been relayed. Whether this would have made any
difference will never be known.
.P With no affirmative response coming, and aware that the French may send
reinforcements from Toulon, Churchill reluctantly gave Somerville the order to
begin the operation. Just before 1800hrs, shells from the 15-inch guns began to
rain down on the French, who had little freedom of manoeuvre in the harbour. A
magazine was penetrated aboard Bretagne resulting in a huge explosion. She soon
sank, taking 977 of her crew with her. This loss was followed by hits against the
Provence, Dunkerque and the destroyer Mogador; all being severely damaged. The
Strasbourg managed to escape from the harbour with a four-strong destroyer escort
however. Although they were attacked by Swordfish from the Ark Royal, they were
able to get out to open sea and then back to Toulon. Two British cruisers engaged
one of the French destroyers, but the pursuit of the French ships was ended at
2020hrs.
.P Two days later, Swordfish from Ark Royal again attacked Mers-el-Kebir in
order to finish off the Dunkerque. A torpedo struck a patrol boat moored
alongside the battlecruiser, and when a number of depth charges were ignited,
the patrol boat blew up and the Dunkerque was further damaged. In retaliation,
the French attacked Gibraltar using aircraft from North Africa, but no real
damage was inflicted. In this tragic episode, a total of 1,297 French sailors
were killed and about 350 were wounded.
.P History records that when the Germans occupied Vichy in November 1942, the
French ships were scuttled by their crews just as Darlan had previously ordered.
The history books also show that the war in the Mediterranean was a close run
thing for the Royal Navy. What if the French ships had been captured and the
British expelled from the Mediterranean?
.P Whatever the rights and wrongs, the fact is that the death of so many sailors
at the hands of their former allies was one of the tragic moments of the Second
World War.

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 8/3/2009 8:06:50 PM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to micheljq)
Post #: 1265
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 8/3/2009 9:31:47 PM   
Beryl


Posts: 44
Joined: 6/1/2008
From: France
Status: offline
I would put some comments as to allow a counter-view about operation Catapult, by reproducing some text found on a french site about http://www.ledrame-merselkebir.fr/modules/drame.php?lang=en, even if it is not relevant to counter description
"The true reasons It is only after the British archives were made public that one could perceive how much the responsability of Churchill, the true perpetrator of this tragedy, had been engaged. The man’s genius is to have been able to have his fears shared and to convince his public opinion –and that of the United States- that by signing the armistice France had joined the enemy, with the necessary consequence that her fleet ran the risk of being either delivered to, or seized by, the ennemy. It was unthinkable that a defaulting ally should build up the armies of the Axis without incurring an automatic and immediate sanction. Although the hypothesis of a surrender of the French navy to the Germans had not been proved, had even been contradicted by facts, by the documents and informations which the Admiralty possessed, it served as a pretext for a pre-emptive action to which as much publicity as possible was given. Through a manipulation of the War Cabinet, Churchill took upon himself the right to pass a verdict. He did not do it by accident and the action was carefully planned within operation “Catapult” aimed not only at Mers-el-Kebir, but at all the naval or civilian ships that after the debacle had sought shelter in British ports or at Alexandria, Dakar, Casablanca, or the West Indies. Only very recently appointed Prime Minister, Churchill had to strengthen a still fragile position. To do so, he had to make his mark at home first, with the War Cabinet to begin with where Lord Halifax, the Foreigh Secretary, seemed attracted by the idea of a separate peace with Germany, then abroad in order to convince the United States which shared his misgivings in naval matters. Prior to drawing them into the war he needed their material support and he had to prove to them his determination to resist. Those are the true reasons behind operation “Catapult”. They are to be found in Churchill’s desire to assert his authority by imposing a final silence to the “appeasers” while giving the Americans and the entire world a final proof of his iron will to carry on the struggle, even if the price to pay was treachery and the sheddind of the blood of yesterday’s ally. The awakening of consciences In spite of the undeniable success of this media manipulation carried out by Churchill, a master in the genre, there is today a majority of commentators who say that Mers-el-Kebir was a serious mistake that greatly prejudiced the allied cause. A proof lies in those great voices that have been heard on the British side trying to stop this dishonourable action, to begin with admiral Somerville himself. In Gibraltar, admiral North who knew that the French sailors would never surrender to the Germans and showed his disapproval was dismissed by Churchill. Lord Mountbatten had the courage to express regrets when he came to pay homage to the war graves at Mers-el-Kebir a short time before he was tragically murdered. And above all, admiral Sir Andrew Cunningham, who until he died in 1968 kept a firm opinion on what he called an inept and dangerous operation from a strategic point of view. More recently, access to war archives has made it possible for commentators and historians - of whom a significant number is British – to bring out the necessary material for an awakening of consciences. Thus those courageous lines from Richard Lamb, an government-appointed British historian: “ The verdict of history is undoubtedly that by ignoring the opinion of the Admiralty and provoking an undeclared war with France, Churchill prejudiced the allied cause. His refusal to believe the French when they asserted that they would never allow the Germans to seize the fleet was perhaps the most serious error he made in the entire war”. It is fit to remember the words of admiral Gensoul in the cemetery of Mers-el-Kebir in front of the coffins of his sailors : “ If there is a stain on a flag, it is not on ours”. The 1297 dead or missing, the 350 wounded, the hundreds of widows and thousands of orphans are an infinitely small number when compared to the the tens of millions of victims of Nazism during WW II, among whom those killed in the bombing of British towns. But contrary to those, the deaths at Mers-el-Kebir were not caused by the enemy, but by comrades-at-arm. It is an open wound that still haunts the grieving memories."

My personnal view is that even after Tarent harbor attack in nov 40 and till the Bismark sinking in mai 41, the british fleet and Churchill (and most of the world) were still thinking of the BB as the ruler of the sea. Thus the fair of a seizing of the french fleet by the axis and its consequences was real. But as facts demonstrated later, naval supremacy was achieved by surprise air strike, air or aeronaval supremacy and intelligence, not by BB.
I think there is also truth in the exposed motives to strengthen Churchill political position. Moreover the British Empire could not risk its security on their former ally promise when Churchill had himself broken his promise to Paul Reynaud to send all RAF fighters in help during Battle of France.
One could just conclude that Mers-El-Kebir attack did had major political consequences in Vichy by strengthening Laval influence, while having little influence on the naval war in the medditeranean theater. One could also suppose that the whole fleet based in Algeria could have turn on allied side with Darlan after operation Torch in 42, when it was evident that an american invasion and liberation of europe was on the way.

Beryl


_____________________________

"Nicht kleckern, klotzen!" - Guderian

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 1266
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 8/3/2009 10:02:37 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Beryl

I would put some comments as to allow a counter-view about operation Catapult, by reproducing some text found on a french site about http://www.ledrame-merselkebir.fr/modules/drame.php?lang=en, even if it is not relevant to counter description
"The true reasons It is only after the British archives were made public that one could perceive how much the responsability of Churchill, the true perpetrator of this tragedy, had been engaged. The man’s genius is to have been able to have his fears shared and to convince his public opinion –and that of the United States- that by signing the armistice France had joined the enemy, with the necessary consequence that her fleet ran the risk of being either delivered to, or seized by, the ennemy. It was unthinkable that a defaulting ally should build up the armies of the Axis without incurring an automatic and immediate sanction. Although the hypothesis of a surrender of the French navy to the Germans had not been proved, had even been contradicted by facts, by the documents and informations which the Admiralty possessed, it served as a pretext for a pre-emptive action to which as much publicity as possible was given. Through a manipulation of the War Cabinet, Churchill took upon himself the right to pass a verdict. He did not do it by accident and the action was carefully planned within operation “Catapult” aimed not only at Mers-el-Kebir, but at all the naval or civilian ships that after the debacle had sought shelter in British ports or at Alexandria, Dakar, Casablanca, or the West Indies. Only very recently appointed Prime Minister, Churchill had to strengthen a still fragile position. To do so, he had to make his mark at home first, with the War Cabinet to begin with where Lord Halifax, the Foreigh Secretary, seemed attracted by the idea of a separate peace with Germany, then abroad in order to convince the United States which shared his misgivings in naval matters. Prior to drawing them into the war he needed their material support and he had to prove to them his determination to resist. Those are the true reasons behind operation “Catapult”. They are to be found in Churchill’s desire to assert his authority by imposing a final silence to the “appeasers” while giving the Americans and the entire world a final proof of his iron will to carry on the struggle, even if the price to pay was treachery and the sheddind of the blood of yesterday’s ally. The awakening of consciences In spite of the undeniable success of this media manipulation carried out by Churchill, a master in the genre, there is today a majority of commentators who say that Mers-el-Kebir was a serious mistake that greatly prejudiced the allied cause. A proof lies in those great voices that have been heard on the British side trying to stop this dishonourable action, to begin with admiral Somerville himself. In Gibraltar, admiral North who knew that the French sailors would never surrender to the Germans and showed his disapproval was dismissed by Churchill. Lord Mountbatten had the courage to express regrets when he came to pay homage to the war graves at Mers-el-Kebir a short time before he was tragically murdered. And above all, admiral Sir Andrew Cunningham, who until he died in 1968 kept a firm opinion on what he called an inept and dangerous operation from a strategic point of view. More recently, access to war archives has made it possible for commentators and historians - of whom a significant number is British – to bring out the necessary material for an awakening of consciences. Thus those courageous lines from Richard Lamb, an government-appointed British historian: “ The verdict of history is undoubtedly that by ignoring the opinion of the Admiralty and provoking an undeclared war with France, Churchill prejudiced the allied cause. His refusal to believe the French when they asserted that they would never allow the Germans to seize the fleet was perhaps the most serious error he made in the entire war”. It is fit to remember the words of admiral Gensoul in the cemetery of Mers-el-Kebir in front of the coffins of his sailors : “ If there is a stain on a flag, it is not on ours”. The 1297 dead or missing, the 350 wounded, the hundreds of widows and thousands of orphans are an infinitely small number when compared to the the tens of millions of victims of Nazism during WW II, among whom those killed in the bombing of British towns. But contrary to those, the deaths at Mers-el-Kebir were not caused by the enemy, but by comrades-at-arm. It is an open wound that still haunts the grieving memories."

My personnal view is that even after Tarent harbor attack in nov 40 and till the Bismark sinking in mai 41, the british fleet and Churchill (and most of the world) were still thinking of the BB as the ruler of the sea. Thus the fair of a seizing of the french fleet by the axis and its consequences was real. But as facts demonstrated later, naval supremacy was achieved by surprise air strike, air or aeronaval supremacy and intelligence, not by BB.
I think there is also truth in the exposed motives to strengthen Churchill political position. Moreover the British Empire could not risk its security on their former ally promise when Churchill had himself broken his promise to Paul Reynaud to send all RAF fighters in help during Battle of France.
One could just conclude that Mers-El-Kebir attack did had major political consequences in Vichy by strengthening Laval influence, while having little influence on the naval war in the medditeranean theater. One could also suppose that the whole fleet based in Algeria could have turn on allied side with Darlan after operation Torch in 42, when it was evident that an american invasion and liberation of europe was on the way.

Beryl

Warspite1

Yep - its and emotional one. Personally I cannot agree with a lot of the arguments put forward in the text above, but that`s just personal opinion and I have previously aired my views.

The purpose of putting this write-upon the forum is that, as this forum has proved, the appeal of this game is worldwide and this is an emotive subject. What I hope I have done is to give a balanced view. I had intended originally to have the British counter giving the British view and the French, a French view. However, this does not work as reading one in isolation makes for uncomfortable reading for one side or the other. I hope the Bretagne write-up is considered balanced -which is the only goal here - not to make political points.




< Message edited by warspite1 -- 8/3/2009 10:06:37 PM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Beryl)
Post #: 1267
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 8/4/2009 2:25:49 AM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
I think even just reading Churchill's own words on the subject just a few years after the war illustrate that he was responsible for the idea and getting the decision made the way he wanted it; further archive releases and other's writings do shed more light on the subject, but I have always thought of the events as 100% Winston without even reading much else on the topic.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 1268
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 8/4/2009 2:58:19 AM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1810
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL:  warspite1
HELP REQUIRED PLEASE
I am trying to write-up the events of the 3rd July 1940 from the French perspective. Whilst I have a good order of battle for ships at:
All ports in the UK
Oran
Mers-el-Kebir
Algiers
Dakar
What I am missing is the names of the French ships at:
Alexandria
Casablanca
Toulon
Any other - e.g. Indo-China and the West Indies
Any help would be appreciated - thank-you.



Does this help?

How about this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: grisouille


For Alexandria : force X of Admiral Godfroy.
- 1 CU Lorraine
- Heavy cruisers : Duquesne, Suffren, Tourville
- ligth cruiser : Duguay Trouin
- Destroyers (Contre Torpilleurs and Torpilleurs) : Tigre, Lynx, Forturne, Forbin
- Submarine : Protée



This confirms the post by grisouille but it says 3 destroyers (Basque, Forbin and Fortuné) not 4


< Message edited by Extraneous -- 8/4/2009 4:14:39 AM >


_____________________________

University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 1269
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 8/5/2009 9:58:21 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
With all this talk of Denmark in the AAR thread, I thought I would take a break from the French and complete the Danish Navy. Here is one of the two surface ships.

[4948 Peder Skram - by Robert Jenkins]
.B Engine(s) output : 5,400 hp
.B Top speed: 16 knots
.B Main armament: 2 x 9.4-inch (240mm), 4 x 5.9-inch (150mm) guns
.B Displacement (full load): 3,785 tons
.B Thickest Armour: 7.5-inch (belt)
.P The Danish Navy in 1939 consisted of two coastal battleships backed up by
torpedo-boats and a handful of submarines and minelayers.
.P Peder Skram was one of three ships of the Herluf Trolle-class. Unusually, the
three were built over a period of ten years; the name ship of the class being
launched in 1899 and Peder Skram being completed, to a modified design, almost
ten years later. Neither of her two sisters, Herluf Trolle or Olfert Fischer,
were part of the fleet by 1939, as they had been respectively scrapped and sold
in the thirties.
.P Modestly armed and armoured for a ship of this type, modifications to Peder
Skram`s anti-aircraft (AA) armament pre-war gave her a sensible close-range AA
defence. However, she remained a slow ship, and totally unsuitable as a front-line
vessel.
.P The Danish position at the start of World War II was no different to many
small nations; there was little they could do to stop a determined invader from
conquering their country. What made Denmark`s position more precarious than most
was that she held the key to the entrance to the Baltic Sea. Like Norway, Denmark
had managed to remain neutral during World War I, but both were to be on the
receiving end of German aggression in World War II, as a result of their
geographic position.
.P The Danish armed forces did not put up any resistance to the German invasion
in April 1940, on the orders of the King. After conquest, the Danish fleet
remained under Danish control, with the exception of their six latest torpedo-
boats, which were taken over by the Kriegsmarine. The Danes were otherwise very
much left to govern themselves, while accepting German occupation. However, in
August 1943 the German Army moved into the country and declared martial law in
response to Denmark`s increasing hostility to their occupiers.
.P At that time, the ships of the fleet were largely scuttled by their own crews
rather than let the Germans claim them, and Peder Skram was one of those
scuttled; albeit partially. The Germans managed to raise her and she was used by
them as an AA and training vessel until she was sunk by Allied aircraft in April
1945.

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 8/5/2009 9:59:00 PM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 1270
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 8/6/2009 1:03:24 AM   
doctormm


Posts: 124
Joined: 5/28/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SewerStarFish

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
It is hard to know if the CL Vicksburg was named after the city or the battle though? Especially considering it was more of a siege than a battle.
Warspite1
As a cruiser I assume it would be named after the city and not the battle in line with naming convention. The revised question - to the extent that anyone is still interested - is why was Antietam acceptable as a name and none of the other civil war battles?


This, I think,is the issue with the Gettysburg. Whereas the Antietam was named after a battle, Gettysburg is an actual incorporated town. I suspect that the naming of US vessels had a "strict" application to actual place names at that time. Vicksburg as a city could clearly command a CL, but Gettysburg as a somewhat small town was probably not premitted any other class of ship to be named after.

During WWII other nearby and much larger places had: USS Reading PF-66 (Frigate), USS Lancaster AK-193 (Cargo), USS Lebanon AK-191, York and Harrisburg had no WWII ships.


I don't think the name of the battle also being the name of a town/city would be enough to prevent its use - after all there are a number of CV/CVL named after relatively small places. Lexington and Princeton spring to mind.

(in reply to Sewerlobster)
Post #: 1271
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 8/6/2009 5:47:28 PM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1810
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline

In recognition of the "brilliant courage, vigor, spirit, and tenacity of the Marines," the French government awarded Marine units at Belleau Wood the Croix de guerre with Palm and renamed Belleau  Wood "Bois de la Brigade de Marine."

Floyd Gibbons' account of the Marines in Belleau Woods

The 5th Marine Regiment and the 6th Marine Regiment of the United States Marine Corps were awarded the fourragère. for having earned the Croix de Guerre with palm leaf three times during World War I.

Members of the 5th Marine Regiment and the 6th Marine Regiment of the United States Marine Corps are authorized to wear the fourragère (AKA “pogie rope” by the Marines) while serving with the regiment.



_____________________________

University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)

(in reply to Mike Dubost)
Post #: 1272
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 8/6/2009 6:32:38 PM   
sajbalk


Posts: 264
Joined: 7/11/2005
From: Davenport, Iowa
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: doctormm


quote:

ORIGINAL: SewerStarFish

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
It is hard to know if the CL Vicksburg was named after the city or the battle though? Especially considering it was more of a siege than a battle.
Warspite1
As a cruiser I assume it would be named after the city and not the battle in line with naming convention. The revised question - to the extent that anyone is still interested - is why was Antietam acceptable as a name and none of the other civil war battles?


This, I think,is the issue with the Gettysburg. Whereas the Antietam was named after a battle, Gettysburg is an actual incorporated town. I suspect that the naming of US vessels had a "strict" application to actual place names at that time. Vicksburg as a city could clearly command a CL, but Gettysburg as a somewhat small town was probably not premitted any other class of ship to be named after.

During WWII other nearby and much larger places had: USS Reading PF-66 (Frigate), USS Lancaster AK-193 (Cargo), USS Lebanon AK-191, York and Harrisburg had no WWII ships.


I don't think the name of the battle also being the name of a town/city would be enough to prevent its use - after all there are a number of CV/CVL named after relatively small places. Lexington and Princeton spring to mind.


CV/CVL named after places were named for the battles, not the places themselves.




_____________________________

Steve Balk
Iowa, USA

(in reply to doctormm)
Post #: 1273
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 8/6/2009 8:05:11 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous


In recognition of the "brilliant courage, vigor, spirit, and tenacity of the Marines," the French government awarded Marine units at Belleau Wood the Croix de guerre with Palm and renamed Belleau  Wood "Bois de la Brigade de Marine."

Floyd Gibbons' account of the Marines in Belleau Woods

The 5th Marine Regiment and the 6th Marine Regiment of the United States Marine Corps were awarded the fourragère. for having earned the Croix de Guerre with palm leaf three times during World War I.

Members of the 5th Marine Regiment and the 6th Marine Regiment of the United States Marine Corps are authorized to wear the fourragère (AKA “pogie rope” by the Marines) while serving with the regiment.


Warspite1

Thank you - I shall use this in abbreviated form for the Belleau Wood write-up


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 1274
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 8/8/2009 8:32:34 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
While continuing the French navy I came across something I never knew...there was a Franco-Siamese war in 1941!

Please see one of the two Siamese counters (the other has the same write-up).

[4531 Sri Ayuthia - by Robert Jenkins]
.B Engine output: 5,200 hp.
.B Top Speed: 15.5 knots.
.B Main armament: 4 x 8-inch (203mm), 4 x 3-inch (76.2mm) guns.
.B Displacement (standard): 2,265 tons.
.B Thickest armour: 2.5-inch (belt).
.P The Sri Ayuthia`s were a class of two coastal defence ships that were
built for the Siamese Navy by the Japanese between 1936 and 1938. The two ships
were named Sri Ayuthia and Dhonburi.
.P They were not especially powerful or well armoured ships, certainly when
compared to coastal defence vessels in vogue with the Scandanavian countries.
.P Both ships were badly damaged during the Battle of Koh Chang, the main naval
engagement of the French-Thai war of 1941. The Siamese tried to take advantage of
the recent French defeat at the hands of Germany and so seize disputed border
areas on the Indo-China-Siam border. The battle took place on the 17th January,
when the French cruiser Lamotte-Picquet and and her sloop escorts, decisively
defeated ships of the Siamese Navy. The Siamese lost three torpedo boats, and
both coastal defence ships had to be beached to ensure they did not sink, after
being badly damaged. Unfortunately for Dhonburi, she sank later anyway when under
tow. Her sister was luckier and after being repaired, was to survive the war.
.P Sri Ayuthia was scrapped in 1951.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 1275
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 8/8/2009 9:35:25 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
Lamotte-Picquet and and her sloop escorts

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 1276
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 8/8/2009 9:43:21 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

While continuing the French navy I came across something I never knew...there was a Franco-Siamese war in 1941!

Please see one of the two Siamese counters (the other has the same write-up).

[4531 Sri Ayuthia - by Robert Jenkins]
.B Engine output: 5,200 hp.
.B Top Speed: 15.5 knots.
.B Main armament: 4 x 8-inch (203mm), 4 x 3-inch (76.2mm) guns.
.B Displacement (standard): 2,265 tons.
.B Thickest armour: 2.5-inch (belt).
.P The Sri Ayuthia`s were a class of two coastal defence ships that were
built for the Siamese Navy by the Japanese between 1936 and 1938. The two ships
were named Sri Ayuthia and Dhonburi.
.P They were not especially powerful or well armoured ships, certainly when
compared to coastal defence vessels in vogue with the Scandanavian countries.
.P Both ships were badly damaged during the Battle of Koh Chang, the main naval
engagement of the French-Thai war of 1941. The Siamese tried to take advantage of
the recent French defeat at the hands of Germany and so seize disputed border
areas on the Indo-China-Siam border. The battle took place on the 17th January,
when the French cruiser Lamotte-Picquet and and her sloop escorts, decisively
defeated ships of the Siamese Navy. The Siamese lost three torpedo boats, and
both coastal defence ships had to be beached to ensure they did not sink, after
being badly damaged. Unfortunately for Dhonburi, she sank later anyway when under
tow. Her sister was luckier and after being repaired, was to survive the war.
.P Sri Ayuthia was scrapped in 1951.

One of the combattants :




Attachment (1)

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 1277
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 8/8/2009 9:44:01 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
One of the combattants :




Its sistership :




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 1278
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 8/8/2009 9:44:52 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
One of the combattants :




Its sistership :




And their adversary (text is overlaped.... ) :




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 1279
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 8/8/2009 9:50:09 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

With all this talk of Denmark in the AAR thread, I thought I would take a break from the French and complete the Danish Navy. Here is one of the two surface ships.

[4948 Peder Skram - by Robert Jenkins]
.B Engine(s) output : 5,400 hp
.B Top speed: 16 knots
.B Main armament: 2 x 9.4-inch (240mm), 4 x 5.9-inch (150mm) guns
.B Displacement (full load): 3,785 tons
.B Thickest Armour: 7.5-inch (belt)
.P The Danish Navy in 1939 consisted of two coastal battleships backed up by
torpedo-boats and a handful of submarines and minelayers.
.P Peder Skram was one of three ships of the Herluf Trolle-class. Unusually, the
three were built over a period of ten years; the name ship of the class being
launched in 1899 and Peder Skram being completed, to a modified design, almost
ten years later. Neither of her two sisters, Herluf Trolle or Olfert Fischer,
were part of the fleet by 1939, as they had been respectively scrapped and sold
in the thirties.
.P Modestly armed and armoured for a ship of this type, modifications to Peder
Skram`s anti-aircraft (AA) armament pre-war gave her a sensible close-range AA
defence. However, she remained a slow ship, and totally unsuitable as a front-line
vessel.
.P The Danish position at the start of World War II was no different to many
small nations; there was little they could do to stop a determined invader from
conquering their country. What made Denmark`s position more precarious than most
was that she held the key to the entrance to the Baltic Sea. Like Norway, Denmark
had managed to remain neutral during World War I, but both were to be on the
receiving end of German aggression in World War II, as a result of their
geographic position.
.P The Danish armed forces did not put up any resistance to the German invasion
in April 1940, on the orders of the King. After conquest, the Danish fleet
remained under Danish control, with the exception of their six latest torpedo-
boats, which were taken over by the Kriegsmarine. The Danes were otherwise very
much left to govern themselves, while accepting German occupation. However, in
August 1943 the German Army moved into the country and declared martial law in
response to Denmark`s increasing hostility to their occupiers.
.P At that time, the ships of the fleet were largely scuttled by their own crews
rather than let the Germans claim them, and Peder Skram was one of those
scuttled; albeit partially. The Germans managed to raise her and she was used by
them as an AA and training vessel until she was sunk by Allied aircraft in April
1945.

Peder Skram :




Attachment (1)

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 1280
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 8/8/2009 9:53:30 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Please see attached the write-up of the encounter at Mers-el-Kebir. I would welcome comments on this episode (on reflection I may amend the British version, but will await any comment on this draft version first).

[4884 Bretagne - by Robert Jenkins]
.B Engine(s) output: 29,000 hp.
.B Top Speed: 20 knots.
.B Main armament: 10 x 13.4-inch (340mm), 22 x 5.4-inch (139mm) guns.
.B Displacement (full load): 25,000 tons
.B Thickest armour: 10.6-inch (belt)

The Bretagne :




Attachment (1)

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 1281
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 8/8/2009 9:56:13 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: micheljq

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Dubost

Ticonderoga was one of those places that saw figting in many wars, due to its position on a choke point in a natural line of advance / supply. Prior to the development of the American railway network in the mid-19th Century, the easiest routes of travel and most secure supply routes were by water. The fort now known as Ticonderoga was built by the French to defend a narrow point in Lake Champlain which was a major link in the water route between Canada and New York City. As such, this route served as a focal point of attack and counterattack in the French and Indian Wars, the Revolutionary War, and the War of 1812. Fort Carillon was attacked twice during the French and Indian Wars by British forces. The failed attack was led by Abercromby, in 1758. The successful attack was led by Sir Jeffrey Amherst. If you take the Fort Ti ferry (at least as of 2001 when I went), there is a marker on the boat indicating that the ferry crossing was first set up by Amherst. Later renamed Fort Ticonderoga by the British, it was allowed to fall into decay after the defeat of the French. In 1775, the fort was lightly held and on May 10, Ethan Allen with his Green Mountain Boys and Benedict Arnold with a commission from the Massachusetts Committe of Safety (and one manservant), took the fort by surprise. Allen later claimed to have demanded the fort's surrender "In the name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress", but others claimed that he said "Come out of there, you damned old rat". The guns from the fort were removed by Henry Knox in January 1776, and in one of the remarkable feats of endurance and of engineering skill of the Revolutionary War, were transported by sledges and gondolas to the main patriot forces near Boston where George Washington used them to force the British to evacuate the city.


My ancestor fought Ticonderoga and Fort Carillon 1758, in the british forces. The french-Indian war as the americans say, also known as the Seven Years War. It was a war with theaters mainly in Europe, but in North-America and India also.


The Ticonderoga :




Attachment (1)

(in reply to micheljq)
Post #: 1282
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 8/8/2009 9:58:48 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous


In recognition of the "brilliant courage, vigor, spirit, and tenacity of the Marines," the French government awarded Marine units at Belleau Wood the Croix de guerre with Palm and renamed Belleau  Wood "Bois de la Brigade de Marine."

Floyd Gibbons' account of the Marines in Belleau Woods

The 5th Marine Regiment and the 6th Marine Regiment of the United States Marine Corps were awarded the fourragère. for having earned the Croix de Guerre with palm leaf three times during World War I.

Members of the 5th Marine Regiment and the 6th Marine Regiment of the United States Marine Corps are authorized to wear the fourragère (AKA “pogie rope” by the Marines) while serving with the regiment.



The Belleau Wood (looks like 2 lines names can be improved) :




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 1283
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 8/8/2009 12:29:10 PM   
Orm


Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

While continuing the French navy I came across something I never knew...there was a Franco-Siamese war in 1941!

Please see one of the two Siamese counters (the other has the same write-up).

[4531 Sri Ayuthia - by Robert Jenkins]
.B Engine output: 5,200 hp.
.B Top Speed: 15.5 knots.
.B Main armament: 4 x 8-inch (203mm), 4 x 3-inch (76.2mm) guns.
.B Displacement (standard): 2,265 tons.
.B Thickest armour: 2.5-inch (belt).
.P The Sri Ayuthia`s were a class of two coastal defence ships that were
built for the Siamese Navy by the Japanese between 1936 and 1938. The two ships
were named Sri Ayuthia and Dhonburi.
.P They were not especially powerful or well armoured ships, certainly when
compared to coastal defence vessels in vogue with the Scandanavian countries.
.P Both ships were badly damaged during the Battle of Koh Chang, the main naval
engagement of the French-Thai war of 1941. The Siamese tried to take advantage of
the recent French defeat at the hands of Germany and so seize disputed border
areas on the Indo-China-Siam border. The battle took place on the 17th January,
when the French cruiser Lamotte-Picquet and and her sloop escorts, decisively
defeated ships of the Siamese Navy. The Siamese lost three torpedo boats, and
both coastal defence ships had to be beached to ensure they did not sink, after
being badly damaged. Unfortunately for Dhonburi, she sank later anyway when under
tow. Her sister was luckier and after being repaired, was to survive the war.
.P Sri Ayuthia was scrapped in 1951.

One of the combattants :





I notice that the name of the ship is spelled differently on the counter and in the text.

A quick search on internet seem to give Warspite1 the right for there I find "Sri Ayuthia".

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 1284
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 8/8/2009 2:24:13 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm




I notice that the name of the ship is spelled differently on the counter and in the text.

A quick search on internet seem to give Warspite1 the right for there I find "Sri Ayuthia".

Good catch. I had not noticed that.
The WiF FE counter is spellded "Sri Ayuthia" too. I'm correcting the MWiF counter.

< Message edited by Froonp -- 8/8/2009 9:03:45 PM >

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 1285
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 8/8/2009 8:48:04 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Lamotte-Picquet and and her sloop escorts

Warspite1

Pauldernyck - is it Paul?

Thank-you -master file amended


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 1286
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 8/8/2009 8:53:05 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm




I notice that the name of the ship is spelled differently on the counter and in the text.

A quick search on internet seem to give Warspite1 the right for there I find "Sri Ayuthia".

Good catch. I had not noticed that.
The WiF FE counter is spellded "Sri Ayuthia" too. I'm correcting the MWiF counter.

Warspite1

Patrice

I have noticed this a couple of times with the master file - for example Gascoigne is spelt Gascogne in the master file. If I come across any more of these do I need to just change the master file and advise you?


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 1287
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 8/8/2009 9:04:36 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Good catch. I had not noticed that.
The WiF FE counter is spellded "Sri Ayuthia" too. I'm correcting the MWiF counter.

Corrected Ayuthia :




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 1288
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 8/8/2009 9:05:27 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
I have noticed this a couple of times with the master file - for example Gascoigne is spelt Gascogne in the master file. If I come across any more of these do I need to just change the master file and advise you?


The right spelling, the one on the WiF FE counter, is Gascoigne :




Attachment (1)

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 1289
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 8/8/2009 9:08:37 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
I have noticed this a couple of times with the master file - for example Gascoigne is spelt Gascogne in the master file. If I come across any more of these do I need to just change the master file and advise you?


The right spelling, the one on the WiF FE counter, is Gascoigne :




Warspite1

Okay, so we have master file incorrect but counter correct - I take it from this that the link between the counter name and the master file are not linked and therefore presumably there could be some errors the other way around?




_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 1290
Page:   <<   < prev  41 42 [43] 44 45   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land Page: <<   < prev  41 42 [43] 44 45   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.375