Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkestHour

CM Kung Wo uses Mk XVII mines as of 7Dec41 but they aren't produced till 42/12 so there are no replacements for more than a year, then you get 45 a month. Should this CM be using a different mine or should the production of 45 a month be as of 41/12?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkestHour

CM Kung Wo uses Mk XVII mines as of 7Dec41 but they aren't produced till 42/12 so there are no replacements for more than a year, then you get 45 a month. Should this CM be using a different mine or should the production of 45 a month be as of 41/12?

Considering this was the most common mine, I would agree with you that the date should be 12/41; however, if you read the information from here http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Ops-Minelaying.htm the minefields around Singapore were already laid and no further mining ops were done. From this source, it seems that very little mining was done in the Far East until 1945 and then delivered by sub and aircraft. I think that is why the devs have started mine accuring for laying at 12/42 instead of 12/41.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkestHour

As the Brits were kicked out of Malaya and DEI it would have been hard to do much mining in the area before they returned. Then they didn't need to so why bother. This a bit like the disappearing ABDA and Burma HQs. If you successfully defend Java and/or Burma, you still lose the HQs. Perhaps the mine manufacturing should reflect their presence but have a value far short of 45 to reflect their lack of use. I have read that most minelayers, particularly jap ones, did not lay mines throughout the war so I am not against the mine limitations. Primary use was probably defensive fields around major bases, not vast atoll minefields. Using them is an early war allied strategy for me, with small numbers here and there sucking up jap minesweeping assets as opposed to sinking vast numbers of ships. I still don't know if 42/12 was a mistake.