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  49 50 [51] 52 53   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/15/2009 3:57:44 AM   
mariandavid

 

Posts: 297
Joined: 5/22/2008
Status: offline
Warspite: You have picked the most accepted version of the death of the Hood. Since the account is so detailed maybe add why the magazine blew up. It was added when the AA was improved and placed outside the main protection - it blowing up was not the problem but the pressure wave caused a sympathetic explosion of a nearby 15" magazine. 

(in reply to mariandavid)
Post #: 1501
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/15/2009 11:16:11 AM   
warspite1


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mariandavid

Warspite: You have picked the most accepted version of the death of the Hood. Since the account is so detailed maybe add why the magazine blew up. It was added when the AA was improved and placed outside the main protection - it blowing up was not the problem but the pressure wave caused a sympathetic explosion of a nearby 15" magazine. 

Warspite1

Thanks - happy to expand upon this - the final paragraph could be fleshed out a bit more too and I will work on this later today. One question though, what do you mean by "It was added when the AA was improved and placed outside the main protection"?


_____________________________

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



(in reply to mariandavid)
Post #: 1502
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/15/2009 3:58:26 PM   
mariandavid

 

Posts: 297
Joined: 5/22/2008
Status: offline
The original AA guns (and magazines) were sized for four guns with 150 rounds each; by 1940 this had increased to fourteen with 250 rounds per gun. The earlier increases were taken care of by using part of the aft 5.5" magazine - but in 1940 they added three twin mounts aft and it seems that some of their ammunition was treated as 'ready use' and the rest stored in improvised ammunition spaces. Apart from this British cordite was still fast burning, which may have contributed to the problem.

In passing the RN (rather many of its gunnery specialists) seems to have been dangerously complacent about risk - for example it is now almost certain that the detonations of the battle-cruisers at Jutland were the fault of very, very sloppy procedures rather than poor design.

Perhaps the wording could be: "the ammunition for the 4" guns added in 1940 was dangerously exposed and when hit exploded, in turn detonating the main magazines."

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 1503
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/15/2009 4:00:09 PM   
mariandavid

 

Posts: 297
Joined: 5/22/2008
Status: offline
Territorial versus Militia: I am working on the multiple territorial/militia Indian units. What do people consider to be the distinction/difference between these two classes in WiF terms? Input gratefully received!

(in reply to mariandavid)
Post #: 1504
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/15/2009 5:44:59 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
I have re-written the end of the write-up further to Mariandavid`s comments:

.P It is believed that the first hit on the battlecruiser came from the 8-inch
shells of Prinz Eugen rather than from Bismarck, whose first three salvoes
missed. A hit on Hood started a fire that spread across the boat-deck and reached
the ready-use ammunition lockers. The boat-deck soon became an inferno as 4-inch
shells and 7-inch UP rocket mines began detonating. Holland ordered that the
fire be left until the ammunition had all detonated in order to ensure the safety
of the damage control parties. Although this fire was intense, it is not thought
that the tragic events that followed a few minutes later were caused by this fire.
A shell also passed through Hood`s spotting top and this further reduced her
ability to accurately fire back.
.P Bismarck used her secondary armament against the Prince of Wales, but kept
her main guns ranged against Hood. Prinz Eugen switched fire to Prince of Wales
after her 6th salvo. Prince of Wales meanwhile continued to fire at Bismarck.
As mentioned previously, it cannot be certain which ship Hood was firing at, but
her shells were still missing both enemy vessels and the RN ships were now in
serious trouble. The enemy had found their range and so as soon as he believed it
safe to do so, Holland gave the order to turn his ships to port and allow the
rear guns into action. The moment the turn began, disaster struck. According to
Captain Leach, Bismarck’s 5th salvo had hit around the base of Hood`s mainmast.
Within a second or two, a thin, funnel shaped flame shot out from the boat-deck.
This was followed by Hood being covered in smoke, although witnesses surprisingly
speak of no great noise accompanying the explosion.
.P The pride of the Royal Navy, HMS Hood, for so long the largest warship afloat,
was suddenly no more. Her once elegant hull had been broken apart in a matter of
seconds by the violence of the explosion. In a sad act of defiance, her forward
main guns fired for the last time as her bow section pointed briefly skywards,
then rolled over and disappeared beneath the waves. What remained of her stern
section was contorted and broken beyond recognition, and it too very quickly
disappeared from view. It was less than nine minutes since the battle had
commenced.
.P Meanwhile, the Prince of Wales had completed her turn to port and now found
herself sailing directly for what remained of the Hood. She took immediate
evasive action to avoid the wreckage, ceasing firing momentarily as she did so.
Because the two RN ships were sailing so close, the Bismarck was easily able to
switch fire accurately to Prince of Wales, and the battleship was lucky to
survive a 15-inch hit underneath her armour belt, when the shell failed to
explode. She also took a direct hit against her bridge that killed all men there
with the exception of two, one of whom was Captain Leach.
.P However, Bismarck was not having it all her own way and the Prince of Wales
scored three hits, one of which was against a forward oil tank and this was to
later force Lütjens to cancel his mission and head for France. Prince of Wales
laid a smoke screen and broke off the engagement as she was having problems with
her main armament. Lütjens refused to allow his ships to pursue the battleship,
and at 0609hrs, the German guns ceased firing.
.P The exact cause of the loss of the Hood will probably never be known. The
most likely explanation is that a 15-inch shell from the Bismarck penetrated her
4-inch magazine. As a result, the cordite there ignited. This caused a huge build
-up of gas that firstly, caused the funnel shaped flame that exited the vents
around the mainmast as the gas followed the path of least resistance, but then
secondly, blew the magazine bulkheads leading to the "X" and "Y" 15-inch
magazines. The three aft magazines contained well over one hundred tons of
cordite between them at that time; more than sufficient to destroy the Hood.
Regardless of the exact cause, the fact remains that out of a crew of 1,418 men,
only three survived. A tragic end to a most famous ship.
.P With Hood gone and the Bismarck about to enter the North Atlantic, the task of
destroying the German raider now consumed the men of the Royal Navy; she had to
be sunk. The mighty Bismarck would have just three days left to live...(see HMS
Rodney).

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 11/16/2009 10:08:46 PM >


_____________________________

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



(in reply to mariandavid)
Post #: 1505
RE: Need help!!! - 11/15/2009 6:01:18 PM   
warspite1


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Norman42



I think we are reading too much into a simple term. The main reason they are called Territorials, is that the majority of them appear in *territories* of the Major Powers and need a term to seperate them from the regular forces of said MP, since they have different rules.

Many major powers besides Great Britain have territorials for their colonies, so even though GB had a specific identity of Territorial Forces, the game itself uses the term for a larger picture: Locally Raised Irregular Forces and Militias; ie French Foreign Legion, Kings African Rifles, Afrikaaners Defence Guard, Philipene Army, Manchukuo Army, Rhodesian Scouts, Libyan Blackshirts, etc etc.

Territorials is just a catch all term. Just like "Militia" covers British Homeguard, US National Guard, German Volksturm, Soviet Worker Corps, Chinese Warlords (depending on game version), etc

Warspite1

Mariandavid - this was a comment made by Norman 42 on the subject of Territorials and Militia last year. Hope that helps...


_____________________________

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



(in reply to Norman42)
Post #: 1506
RE: Need help!!! - 11/16/2009 8:01:38 AM   
Caquineur


Posts: 96
Joined: 4/21/2009
From: Aix en Provence, France, Europe
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
quote:

ORIGINAL: Norman42
...
Many major powers besides Great Britain have territorials for their colonies, so even though GB had a specific identity of Territorial Forces, the game itself uses the term for a larger picture: Locally Raised Irregular Forces and Militias; ie French Foreign Legion, Kings African Rifles, Afrikaaners Defence Guard, Philipene Army, Manchukuo Army, Rhodesian Scouts, Libyan Blackshirts, etc etc.
...
Warspite1
Mariandavid - this was a comment made by Norman 42 on the subject of Territorials and Militia last year. Hope that helps...


I don't know about the other units listed, but the French Foreign Legion is definitely NOT a Locally Raised Irregular Force or a Militia...

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 1507
RE: Need help!!! - 11/16/2009 7:22:16 PM   
warspite1


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Caquineur

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
quote:

ORIGINAL: Norman42
...
Many major powers besides Great Britain have territorials for their colonies, so even though GB had a specific identity of Territorial Forces, the game itself uses the term for a larger picture: Locally Raised Irregular Forces and Militias; ie French Foreign Legion, Kings African Rifles, Afrikaaners Defence Guard, Philipene Army, Manchukuo Army, Rhodesian Scouts, Libyan Blackshirts, etc etc.
...
Warspite1
Mariandavid - this was a comment made by Norman 42 on the subject of Territorials and Militia last year. Hope that helps...


I don't know about the other units listed, but the French Foreign Legion is definitely NOT a Locally Raised Irregular Force or a Militia...

Warspite 1

Okay - don`t shoot the messenger


_____________________________

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



(in reply to Caquineur)
Post #: 1508
RE: Need help!!! - 11/17/2009 1:47:26 AM   
mariandavid

 

Posts: 297
Joined: 5/22/2008
Status: offline
My thanks: Following the 'ranking'suggested for the Indians the territorials would be the territorial battalions of the various regiments; the militia the second-rank units of the various rajah's etc, the railway battalions and the european groups like the Calcutta Light Horse. ie the latter highly unlikely to see service and not very good when they do!

Caquineur: be fair to Warspite - the French after all know how difficult it is to classify the legion! - mercenaries (not quite they cannot drop guns if not paid), while not part of either the Metropolitan, l'Afrique or La Coloniale! Seriously though - do you know who was their most senior authority - in the sense that who could decide that a legion battalion would be first assigned to some force or other?

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 1509
RE: Need help!!! - 11/17/2009 7:02:32 AM   
Caquineur


Posts: 96
Joined: 4/21/2009
From: Aix en Provence, France, Europe
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
quote:

ORIGINAL: Caquineur
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
quote:

ORIGINAL: Norman42
...
Many major powers besides Great Britain have territorials for their colonies, so even though GB had a specific identity of Territorial Forces, the game itself uses the term for a larger picture: Locally Raised Irregular Forces and Militias; ie French Foreign Legion, Kings African Rifles, Afrikaaners Defence Guard, Philipene Army, Manchukuo Army, Rhodesian Scouts, Libyan Blackshirts, etc etc.
...
Warspite1
Mariandavid - this was a comment made by Norman 42 on the subject of Territorials and Militia last year. Hope that helps...

I don't know about the other units listed, but the French Foreign Legion is definitely NOT a Locally Raised Irregular Force or a Militia...
Warspite 1
Okay - don`t shoot the messenger


Ooops ! Sorry if I made myself misunderstood with the "" - it was in no way intented towards you (or Norman42), only about the sentence that I quoted.

Alain, the bad-tempered bear with a headache and a very short fuse (sometimes)



(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 1510
RE: Need help!!! - 11/17/2009 7:08:57 AM   
Caquineur


Posts: 96
Joined: 4/21/2009
From: Aix en Provence, France, Europe
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mariandavid
...
Caquineur: be fair to Warspite - the French after all know how difficult it is to classify the legion! - mercenaries (not quite they cannot drop guns if not paid), while not part of either the Metropolitan, l'Afrique or La Coloniale! Seriously though - do you know who was their most senior authority - in the sense that who could decide that a legion battalion would be first assigned to some force or other?

David,

The French Foreign Legion is a part of the regular French army - they are in no way mercenaries !

About the assignment of forces among the French army, I don't have the foggiest, sorry

(in reply to mariandavid)
Post #: 1511
RE: Need help!!! - 11/18/2009 3:26:54 AM   
warspite1


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Caquineur

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
quote:

ORIGINAL: Caquineur
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
quote:

ORIGINAL: Norman42
...
Many major powers besides Great Britain have territorials for their colonies, so even though GB had a specific identity of Territorial Forces, the game itself uses the term for a larger picture: Locally Raised Irregular Forces and Militias; ie French Foreign Legion, Kings African Rifles, Afrikaaners Defence Guard, Philipene Army, Manchukuo Army, Rhodesian Scouts, Libyan Blackshirts, etc etc.
...
Warspite1
Mariandavid - this was a comment made by Norman 42 on the subject of Territorials and Militia last year. Hope that helps...

I don't know about the other units listed, but the French Foreign Legion is definitely NOT a Locally Raised Irregular Force or a Militia...
Warspite 1
Okay - don`t shoot the messenger


Ooops ! Sorry if I made myself misunderstood with the "" - it was in no way intented towards you (or Norman42), only about the sentence that I quoted.

Alain, the bad-tempered bear with a headache and a very short fuse (sometimes)



Warspite1

Not a problem Caquineur!




_____________________________

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



(in reply to Caquineur)
Post #: 1512
RE: Need help!!! - 11/18/2009 2:18:56 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
Does anyone know what/who USS Monterey would have been named after?

_____________________________

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



(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 1513
RE: Need help!!! - 11/18/2009 2:24:17 PM   
ItBurns

 

Posts: 85
Joined: 1/3/2009
Status: offline
Its a town in California that contains a military base - both Navy and Marines if I remember correctly.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 1514
RE: Need help!!! - 11/18/2009 2:31:52 PM   
warspite1


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ItBurns

Its a town in California that contains a military base - both Navy and Marines if I remember correctly.

Warspite1

ItBurns - thanks, can I ask you to confirm your source please? The reason I ask is that most of the Independence-class were named after battles. There are one or two exceptions (as with all US carrier classes) and I want to ensure I have the right Monterey.

Many thanks


_____________________________

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



(in reply to ItBurns)
Post #: 1515
RE: Need help!!! - 11/18/2009 3:00:53 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
I had nothing to say - I just did not like my former "number of posts" number

_____________________________

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



(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 1516
RE: Need help!!! - 11/18/2009 3:11:38 PM   
ItBurns

 

Posts: 85
Joined: 1/3/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: ItBurns

Its a town in California that contains a military base - both Navy and Marines if I remember correctly.

Warspite1

ItBurns - thanks, can I ask you to confirm your source please? The reason I ask is that most of the Independence-class were named after battles. There are one or two exceptions (as with all US carrier classes) and I want to ensure I have the right Monterey.

Many thanks



You are of course correct. The first thing that came to my mind was the base but once you mentioned battles I remembered a little dust up during the Mexican-American war by that name: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monterey.

Oh, and congrats on avoiding THE BEAST!

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 1517
RE: Need help!!! - 11/18/2009 8:06:50 PM   
Orm


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

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I had nothing to say - I just did not like my former "number of posts" number


Let those of wisdom calculate the number and the number is that of a man, and the number is not really known to man.



((The number may have changed during the ages since it was first written. Some claim that the number to be 616. And most scholars seem to think that the number was ment to refer to the roman emperor Nero. Both 616 and the classical number could be seen as writing "Emperor Nero" with numbers.))

_____________________________

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 warspite1)
Post #: 1518
RE: Need help!!! - 11/18/2009 8:29:14 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
Here are some revisions/new writeups from David.

Post 1 of 2.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 1519
RE: Need help!!! - 11/18/2009 8:32:03 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
2nd and last post in the series.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1520
RE: Need help!!! - 11/19/2009 7:05:55 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
Good stuff!

Only one minor comment for consideration. Where there is more than one counter for a country e.g. Egypt, it would be worth having a short opening "standard" paragraph that explains the brief high-level detail that puts what follows into context. The problem of course being that the write-ups may be read at random and not by "group".

For example:

Egypt had been conquered by the British in 1882, and its importance to the British Empire lay almost solely in the Suez Canal that linked India and other eastern outposts and Dominions of the Empire to Britain. [maybe one or two lines on the protectorate and Independent Constitutional Monarchy to round off].

This opening paragraph makes clear the important background before reading the individual counter detail but this detail is contained in only one unit.


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 11/19/2009 9:11:24 PM >


_____________________________

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



(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1521
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/19/2009 7:47:27 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mariandavid

Territorial versus Militia: I am working on the multiple territorial/militia Indian units. What do people consider to be the distinction/difference between these two classes in WiF terms? Input gratefully received!

I really don't know but the words convey the following to me:

Militia - often volunteers who practice soldiering a few times a year, commanded by their own officers who are also part-timers, they can form into regular army formations in wartime and likely see the majority of their officers replaced by "regular" army types although most militia officers are utilized somewhere in the military infrastructure and can reemerge as valued commanders later on.

Territorials - often conscripts from third world colonialized countries commanded by regular army officers of the colonial power.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to mariandavid)
Post #: 1522
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/22/2009 4:07:27 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
Here is my first draft of the Saratoga-class carrier Lexington. As usual, I would be grateful for the spotting of any spelling, grammar or historical inaccuracies please.


[4037 Lexington - by Robert Jenkins]
.B Engine output: 180,000 hp
.B Top Speed: 33.25 knots
.B Main armament: 48 x 1.1-inch (28mm), 32 x 20mm guns
.B Aircraft: 88
.B Displacement (full load): 47,700 tons
.B Thickest armour: 7-inch (belt)
.P The two ship Saratoga-class were originally battlecruisers that were
designed for the United States Navy (USN) in response to the British Hood and the
Japanese Amagi-class. Under the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, the
USN decided to convert the two ships into aircraft carriers.
.P They were the USN`s first "real" carriers, following in the wake of the
experimental Langley, and were both completed at the end of 1927. These were very
large ships, which featured a full-length flight deck; 888 feet in length. Not
until the Midway-class carriers were constructed at the end of the war, would a
flight-deck be built this long on any carrier, in any navy. Despite their size,
they were very fast ships thanks to their enormously powerful machinery which was
capable of producing 180,000 hp.
.P Defensive armament originally boasted eight 8-inch guns in four twin turrets,
but these were removed on both ships in early 1942. They were replaced on
Saratoga with four twin 5-inch dual-purpose guns, but there were none available
for her sister at that time. Lexington received instead, twelve quadruple
1.1-inch anti-aircraft (AA) guns.
.P The ship had just one voluminous hangar which was served by two lifts. Despite
the hangar`s size, these carriers still required the use of a deck park in order
to have sufficient space for all their aircraft. From 1942, two catapults were
fitted, capable of launching 16,000lbs at 74 knots, although Lexington was sunk
before she had the chance to receive hers. Eight arrester wires assisted aircraft
landing.
.P Both ships of the class were named after famous battles from the American War
of Independence.
.P USS Lexington began her war with a lucky escape; as part of Task Force (TF)
12, she had left Pearl Harbor on the 5th December with an escort of cruisers and
destroyers. TF12 sailed for Midway in order to deliver aircraft to the island
and so missed the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on the morning of the 7th
December 1941 (see USS Arizona). Having arrived back at Pearl after the raid,
Lexington was ordered to the island of Wake to the south-west of Midway, (see USS
Chicago) although she was able to do nothing to save the heroic defenders of that Pacific
outpost which surrendered to the Japanese on the 23rd December.
.P Lexington`s next operation, a raid on Wake Island, was part of a series of
carrier strikes designed to take the war to the Japanese, however TF11, as her
task force was now designated, had their part of the operation cancelled on the
23rd January (see USS San Francisco). At the end of January, TF11 was tasked with
covering two troop and supply convoys into the South West Pacific (see USS
Trenton).
.P With TF11 now in that region, the US Navy decided to launch a strike against
the port of Rabaul, on the island of New Britain. On the 19th February, like the
Wake Island raid before it, the operation was cancelled, this time because the
task force was spotted by land-based Japanese bombers while some distance from
the target. TF11 then withdrew and joined up with ANZAC Force (See USS Chicago)
for a period of patrol in the Coral Sea and TF11 were then tasked with launching
an air strike, in conjuction with TF17, against Japanese positions in northern
New Guinea. The air strikes were carried out from a position south of the island
and was successful in sinking or destroying a number of Japanese ships, including
the cruiser Yubari which was damaged.
.P At the start of May, Japanese expansion was at last checked by the Allied
forces. Although they were to suffer a tactical defeat at the Battle of the Coral
Sea - losing Lexington in exchange for the converted small carrier Shoho - the
Americans inflicted two important blows against the Japanese; firstly, the
Japanese invasion of Port Moresby in New Guinea was postponed, and secondly, two
fleet carriers were removed from the Japanese order of battle for the forthcoming
Midway operation. The absence of the carriers proved fatal to Japanese hopes.
.P After their stunning early successes, the Japanese were at a loggerheads over
what to do next. The Army were not prepared to commit large ground forces to any
"Navy" operation, given their commitments in China, and this ruled out an
invasion of Australia or Ceylon. What was finally agreed upon was for a series of
operations that would expand the Japanese defensive perimeter and at the same
time, cut off Australia from the US. This latter objective meant in the first
instance, occupying the whole of New Guinea and the Solomon Islands.
.P The Americans became aware of the Japanese intentions through their superior
code-breaking activity and in response to discovering that the 5th Carrier
Division was being sent to assist the Japanese operation, Admital Nimitz ordered
all four fleet carriers and their support units to the Coral Sea to intervene.
Two of the carriers, Hornet and Enterprise, had only recently returned from the
raid on Tokyo (see USS Hornet) and so were not able to make the Coral Sea in time
for the battle. That left TF17 and TF11, that were already nearby, to take on the
Japanese. For the forthcoming battle TF11 became part of an enlarged TF17,
commanded by Admiral Fletcher. TF17 consisted of the carriers Yorktown and
Lexington; the cruisers Minneapolis, New Orleans, Astoria, Chester and Portland
and five destroyers. Under the command of the Australian Rear-Admiral Crace, were
a cruiser force containing two heavy cruisers: HMAS Australia and USS Chicago;
the light cruiser HMAS Hobart, and two destroyers. There was also a Fuelling
Group, consisting of two tankers escorted by two destroyers and finally, around
a dozen US submarines were in the area.
.P The overall command of Operation MO was entrusted to Vice-Admiral Inoue,
commander of the 4th Fleet, who commanded the battle from his flagship, the
cruiser Kashima, based at Rabaul, New Britain. The Japanese order of battle
consisted of the following units: The Tulagi Invasion Group consisted of a mixed
force of transports, minesweepers, destroyers and sub-chasers. They carried the
troops of the 3rd Kure Special Naval Landing Force (SNLF) that were tasked with
securing the island. Covering this convoy were the Support Group and Close Cover
Force. These contained two light cruisers, a seaplane tender and a number of
smaller vessels. The Port Moresby Invasion Group contained eleven transports
carrying a further 5,500 troops. This convoy had the light cruiser Yubari and a
number of destroyers and other smaller vessels for a close escort. The Covering
Group and Main Body Support Force was commanded by Rear-Admiral Goto, aboard the
cruiser Aoba, and also consisted of the light carrier Shoho, the heavy cruisers,
Kako, Kinugasa and Furutaka and a destroyer. Last, but by no means least was Vice
-Admiral Takagi`s Carrier Striking Force which contained the fleet carriers
Shokaku and Zuikaku; the heavy cruisers Myoko and Haguro, and six destroyers.
Supporting these groups were seven submarines and numerous land based aircraft
from Rabaul, Lae and later Tulagi.
.P What ensued was a confused affair; the first naval battle fought between two
fleets that never sighted each other. All the fighting was carried out by the
aircraft of both sides.
.P The Japanese operation, code-named MO, began behind schedule, but as the
various groups entered the Coral Sea, they were unmolested by TF17 as Fletcher
decided to keep a watching brief and attack when he felt the time was right.
After re-fuelling, Fletcher ordered Yorktown and her escorts south of Tulagi from
where a number of air strikes were launched against the Tulagi invasion force on
the 3rd May. These strikes did not stop the taking of the island - which had
already been evacuated - but did cost the Japanese, one destroyer and three
smaller vessels, for the loss of three US aircraft. Yorktown then returned to
join Lexington and her escorts; all three Allied task forces joined up on 6th
May.
.P For the Japanese, this was the first indication that at least one US carrier
was in the area, and Goto`s Covering Group sailed west to cover the Port Moresby
Invasion Force that was due to enter the Coral Sea a couple of days later, having
left Rabaul on the 4th May. Meanwhile, Takagi`s Carrier Strike Force had sailed
from Truk three days earlier. Takagi sailed down the eastern side of the Solomon
Islands and entered the Coral Sea south of Guadalcanal. The plan was that from
there, they would be able to eliminate any enemy forces that entered the Coral
Sea seeking to interupt the New Guinea Operation.
.P Both fleets now made incorrect decisions as to what the other would do. The
Japanese believed the US forces would have attacked Tulagi from east of the
Solomons, while Fletcher thought that Takagi`s carriers would enter the Coral Sea
from the north to protect the invasion shipping. In fact, on the night of the 6th
May, they were sailing north on a parallel course less than 100 miles apart!
.P The following morning, Fletcher detached Crace`s cruisers and destroyers and
sent them to guard Jomard Passage, south-east of New Guinea, to keep watch for
the invasion fleet. It was a risky decision given their lack of air cover, but
one that paid off as although the force was attacked, they were only subjected to
light damage. Because both Fletcher and Takagi were completely wrong about the
other`s whereabouts, the reconnaissance aircraft failed to find what they were
looking for, although both found different targets.
.P The Japanese had found the oiler USS Neosho and her destroyer escort USS Sims.
Thinking that they had located the main US carrier force, a full strike was
launched against the two vessels at 0800hrs and in the face of overwhelming odds,
Sims was quickly sunk. Neosho would later be scuttled (see Transport Counter
4243).
.P Meanwhile, the Americans had a sighting of their own; and this really was a
carrier. The US aircraft had stumbled across the Tulagi Covering Force, and the
carrier Shoho. Fletcher could only assume that this was one of the two fleet
carriers, and he too ordered a full strike to take place immediately. Shoho did
not stand a chance, hit by numerous bombs and torpedoes, she sank within just a
few minutes for the loss of three aircraft. Inoue, fearing further attack,
decided to withdraw the invasion fleet and await further developments. The
sinking of the Shoho produced one of the most famous signals of World War II;
Lt-Commander Dixon, a Dauntless pilot from Lexington famously radioed "Scratch
one flat top!" at the demise of the Japanese vessel.
.P With daylight coming to an end, the Japanese launched twenty-seven aircraft,
as using some of their most experienced pilots, they hoped to find the US
carriers, even though it meant these aircraft would need to find their carrier
and then land in the dark. It was a disaster; no less than twenty-one aircraft
failed to make it back. Eleven had crashed trying to land and ten had been shot
down when they stumbled across the Yorktown and, thinking her their own ship, had
tried to land on her.
.P Both Fletcher and Takagi retired and waited for the morning; and the
inevitable battle that would be fought. At first light, scout planes from both
sides were in the sky and at 0820hrs one of Lexington`s pilots found the Japanese
carriers. Almost at the same time, the Japanese found Fletcher`s force and the
race began to get aircraft in the sky to attack. The two fleets were just over
two hundred miles apart and they began to close on each other.
.P Yorktown`s aircraft were first into the attack, targeting Shokaku as her
sister ship was partially hidden behind cloud. Shokaku took three bombs that
caused huge damage to the ship, but were not to prove terminal. Fortunately for
her, many of the US aircraft failed to find the carriers, and none of the torpedo
-bombers found their target. Just after midday, she withdrew from the battle, her
flight-deck rendered completely out of action.
.P The Japanese in-coming aircraft meanwhile had been picked up on Lexington`s
radar at 1055hrs and twenty minutes later, the Japanese attacked both ships, with
Lexington attracting the most attention. Two torpedoes struck her port side,
damaging her aviation fuel tanks, but Yorktown was missed by her attackers. The
dive-bombers arrived shortly after and again the bulk of the attacking aircraft
were directed toward the larger carrier. Two bombs smashed into Lexington and a
third hit Yorktown, causing major internal damage. Yorktown was also rocked by a
number of near misses that caused hull damage.
.P After they had spent their deadly cargoes, the fighter and bomber aircraft
returned to their carriers during the early afternoon. Incredibly, Lexington and
Yorktown were both able to recover their aircraft while Shokaku`s aircraft had to
put down on Zuikaku. With damage to both carriers and a shortage of fuel
following the loss of Neosho, Fletcher decided to withdraw. Things were equally
as bad for the Japanese as Zuikaku could report less than forty aircraft fit for
operations; Takagi too withdrew. In doing so, the Port Moresby invasion was
postponed, and the ships returned to Rabaul.
.P Unfortunately for Lexington, although the damage done earlier was seemingly
non-fatal, sparks from an electric motor ignited the aviation fuel vapour that
had been leaking since the first torpedo struck. A huge fire was started and this
was followed by two further large explosions in mid-afternoon that caused the
ship to become an inferno. Just after 1700hrs, Lexington was abandoned and two
hours later she was torpedoed and sunk by the destroyer Phelps. 216 officers and
men were lost.
.P The Lady Lex was gone, but the next major encounter would see her avenged and
more. For the Japanese, checked in the Coral Sea, the initiative they had held
since December 1941 was to end for good almost exactly one month later, at a
point a few hundred miles north-west of an island in the Central Pacific.....an
island named Midway (see USS Yorktown).

_____________________________

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



(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 1523
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/22/2009 5:00:47 PM   
mariandavid

 

Posts: 297
Joined: 5/22/2008
Status: offline
Very good. However I think it wise for all aircraft-carrier descriptions  (should have mentioned this earlier) to give the number of aircraft that could normally be carried (they were the 'main battery'). In this case noting that the number was less than that of the considerably smaller Essex class. The reason being that she had the same layout as RN carriers - closed not open hanger and no deck-side elevator. Not sure what her air group was in 1942 (no doubt someone can comment) but I think 18 fighters, 18 torpedo bombers and 26 dive bombers.

_____________________________


(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 1524
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/22/2009 5:41:24 PM   
warspite1


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mariandavid

Very good. However I think it wise for all aircraft-carrier descriptions  (should have mentioned this earlier) to give the number of aircraft that could normally be carried (they were the 'main battery'). In this case noting that the number was less than that of the considerably smaller Essex class. The reason being that she had the same layout as RN carriers - closed not open hanger and no deck-side elevator. Not sure what her air group was in 1942 (no doubt someone can comment) but I think 18 fighters, 18 torpedo bombers and 26 dive bombers.

Warspite1

Mariandavid - most of my technical specs for the US carriers (and indeed the Japanese) have these two numbers, but I could not find anything remotely consistent for the Saratoga`s . Some sources I cam across were still suggesting that 90 aircraft could be operated during WWII This compares to a low of 63. I quite agree that 63 seems the more believeable figure and happy to take advice on this to get an accurate number here. Cheers

_____________________________

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



(in reply to mariandavid)
Post #: 1525
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/22/2009 6:37:18 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
Please see the write-up for a US "What If" counter; the Montana-class battleships.

[4088 Montana - by Robert Jenkins]
.B Engine output: 172,000 hp
.B Top Speed: 28 knots
.B Main armament: 12 x 16-inch (406mm), 20 x 5-inch (127mm) guns
.B Displacement (full load): 70,500 tons
.B Thickest armour: 16.1-inch (belt)
.P The Montanas were a class of five battleships that were ordered for the
United States Navy (USN) in July 1940. They would have been the largest
battleships ever built by the Americans but work was cancelled in July 1943,
before construction had begun; or indeed any of the ships had even been laid
down. However, World in Flames gives the US player the chance to build all five
ships.
.P The design process for this class began in 1939, and plans were based on the
need to provide the USN with a counter to the Japanese Yamato-class battleships,
about which the USN had little real facts. The failure of the Japanese to honour
the 1936 London Naval Treaty meant that the preceeding Iowa-class could be built
to a revised 45,000 ton limit (although were actually some way in excess of this),
but the coming of war meant that the gloves were off as far as displacement limits
were concerned going forward. The Montanas would have been over 70,000 tons.
.P The Montanas were to have been bigger, better armed and armoured versions of
the Iowa-class battleships. They would have featured twelve rather than nine 16-
inch guns thanks to the addition of a fourth main turret. The anti-aircraft (AA)
armament would have seen the same number of 5-inch guns as the Iowas, although
the Montana-class would have used a newer version. Close-range protection would
have no doubt borne little similarity to the original design and weaponry would
have been beefed up considerably.
.P The armour protection was designed to withstand 16-inch shells and so was
heavier than that fitted to the Iowas. Their armour belt would have been 4-inches
thicker and similar levels of improved protection was mirrored throughout every
area of the ship.
.P All this came at the expense of speed and at 28 knots, the Montanas would have
been relatively slow ships and so less useful in escort operations with the fleet
carriers than the Iowas proved to be. By the time the Montanas were due to be
laid-down, war experience had confirmed that the battleship was no longer the
primary ship of the fleet and they had given way to the aircraft carrier in
importance.
.P The consequence of all this was that when a decision on the Montanas future
had to be made in 1942, the battleships were considered likely to be surplus to
requirements, and work on getting the materials together was initially suspended.
At the end of that year two additional Iowas were laid down, although these ships
were subsequently cancelled, followed seven months later by the Montanas.
.P In line with naming convention for USN battleships, the Montanas would have
been named after States of the US, in this case: Montana, Ohio, Maine, New
Hampshire and Louisiana.

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 11/22/2009 9:07:50 PM >


_____________________________

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



(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 1526
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/23/2009 1:30:24 AM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
I always thought the Jewish Brigade made an assault contribution when they finally made it to the front in ..... Italy? .... so is the Senio River in Italy? I'm not familiar with that one.


Edit: forgot to add, the intricacies of the British Empire were handled with aplomb in those entries, well done.

< Message edited by brian brian -- 11/23/2009 1:31:42 AM >

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 1527
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/23/2009 2:30:48 AM   
Neilster


Posts: 2890
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

...that when a decision on the Montanas future...

should not this be "Montanas' future"?

Cheers, Neilster

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 1528
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/23/2009 7:10:29 AM   
warspite1


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

quote:

...that when a decision on the Montanas future...

should not this be "Montanas' future"?

Cheers, Neilster

Warspite1

Yes it should - thanks Amendment to the master file made.


_____________________________

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



(in reply to Neilster)
Post #: 1529
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/23/2009 10:29:30 PM   
mariandavid

 

Posts: 297
Joined: 5/22/2008
Status: offline
Re Lexington: The figures I gave you are correct IF you state that they are for early 1942. In almost all navies what mattered was not the theoretical total but the number of squadrons assigned and their paper strength. In this case 4 squadrons each of 18 aircraft for a total of 72. When you do Saratoga the number has increased by 1944/45.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 1530
Page:   <<   < prev  49 50 [51] 52 53   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land Page: <<   < prev  49 50 [51] 52 53   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

1.783