RE: Help needed - MWIF naval counter descriptions (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames



Message

Jeff Gilbert -> RE: Help needed - MWIF naval counter descriptions (10/9/2006 12:37:51 AM)

Mziln,

Exactly! I'm glad you see it my way. [:D]
However, [sm=00000939.gif] the decimal point is not really dropped when discussing naval guns instead, caliber has a different meaning as it is the the multiple value of the bore width to obtain barrel length.

Jeff

[sm=Christo_pull_hair.gif]

PS - good one about the silent decimal point.
Post PS - I'll stop now as I am sure everyone else is tired of reading this banter.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Help needed - MWIF naval counter descriptions (10/9/2006 3:40:49 AM)

Perhaps a couple of screen shots of Terje's work will enlist volunteers to do some of the naval units that so far have no writeups?

[image]local://upfiles/16701/3A464054D685477885009964C3300275.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Help needed - MWIF naval counter descriptions (10/9/2006 3:42:34 AM)

And here's a short description of a naval engagement that the Japanese won.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/DBD8BA259D144E2F80207BD3C0ED9CC5.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Help needed - MWIF naval counter descriptions (10/12/2006 9:48:04 PM)

Here is a partial list of Japanese battleships.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/6B378E4BA01D4AFF94FBA3CF58454D87.jpg[/image]



mlees -> RE: Help needed - MWIF naval counter descriptions (10/13/2006 6:10:03 PM)

quote:

Post PS - I'll stop now as I am sure everyone else is tired of reading this banter.


I'm not. (hehe!) Jeff is correct here. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calibre & http://www.hazegray.org/faq/smn6.htm#F14 (question f14 concerns us here)

Notice that "caliber", when used in the context of cannons, describes the overall barrel length, and not bore diameter.

So the US 5"/38 is a 5" diameter bore, with a barrel 5x38 inches long (190 inches = 15ft, 10 inches). (And NOT 5.38 inches in diamter.) :)



Mziln -> RE: Help needed - MWIF naval counter descriptions (10/14/2006 3:35:30 AM)

Try searching the web for 30.06 rifle sales. Would that be for a 30.06 inch rifle?



mlees -> RE: Help needed - MWIF naval counter descriptions (10/15/2006 8:20:46 PM)

Read my post carefully, Mziln. I said "cannon" (as in Naval Cannon 5 inches and larger). Not rifles.

Did you even check the links I provided? [&:] (I promise, they were not links to Porn.)



Mziln -> RE: Help needed - MWIF naval counter descriptions (10/16/2006 9:17:10 PM)

You must have missed the entry discussion with Jef and myself.

The discussion was about the use of the decimal point when describing gun calibers. We were discussing weather it is .50 caliber or 50 caliber. In which case I said I have seen it written both ways. The .50 or 50 (it is written both ways) caliber machine gun is not a rifle it is a gun. At this link the author uses both.


You are repeating Jeffs post 61. Which ended the discussion.

My post #66 is an attempt to show you that gun dealers choose to use calibers in a non uniform way.

Link to Outdoor Life article "Happy Birthday .30/06"

Lets see .30/06 would be a .3 x 6 that would be a gun with a .3 inch bore and a 1.8 inch barrel?


No its the "Thirty aught six" Springfield cartridge.

A .308 inch (7.62 mm) rifle cartridge, also known as the 7.62 x 63 mm, that was introduced as the standard cartridge of the United States Army in 1906 (hence, the "06").

Calibers are written in a non uniform way.

Naval guns are even more convaluted depending on the country and the year. Check Russia/USSR Designations. Which shows you and Jeff both jumped to unfounded conclusions.

End of discussion.




mlees -> RE: Help needed - MWIF naval counter descriptions (10/16/2006 10:54:14 PM)

I'm sorry. There were two (or more points) discussed. I fixated on one of them, and ignored the others, when I saw the point made.

In post #49 You stated:

quote:

100 caliber = 1 inch or 25.4 mm

360 millimeters = 14.173228 inches
360 millimeters = 1417.3228 caliber


When I saw that, I assumed you were implying that the "caliber" of a 14 inch Naval Cannon is 1417. It is not.

(The site you linked in post #49 is a brainless conversion calculator. Caliber was defined in that code as 100 to 1 inch. But that is not the only way the word "caliber" is defined.)

I have never seen a 14 inch Naval gun refered to as a "1417 caliber" weapon. Ever.

There are many reference works that list Naval cannon (of the same bore size) by barrel size and weight.

Naval gun tables references:

http://www.geocities.com/kop_mic/

As I tried to point out, anytime the word "calibre" when used in the context of a (usually larger than 5 inch) naval gun, the "caliber" rating is the length of the barrel, as Jeff says in post #58.

I realise that small arms (like the "30 aught 6" you mention, caliber is a measurement of bore. I wasn't (and never have been) talking about small arms.

quote:

Which shows you and Jeff both jumped to unfounded conclusions.


*shrugs*



thrud -> RE: Help needed - MWIF naval counter descriptions (10/18/2006 1:54:27 AM)

I would be willing to give writing up descriptions of some capitol ships...if I can get a list of them.  I have some books on capitol ships.

My email is ericposborne@msn.com



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Help needed - MWIF naval counter descriptions (10/18/2006 2:03:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thrud

I would be willing to give writing up descriptions of some capitol ships...if I can get a list of them.  I have some books on capitol ships.

My email is ericposborne@msn.com

Thank you for volunteering.

Terje has done all the writeups on naval units so far: USA, Japan, USSR, Germany, and some other smaller countries. I do not know which country he is currently working on, so you should coordinate with him to prevent duplication of effort. Terje has a complete list of the naval units and can provide you with literally hundreds of examples. Terje439@Hotmail.com

Greyshaft has been serving as foreman for unit description: writing style and the like. greyshaft@hotmail.com

You should do only a couple at first and let Greyshaft and Terje review those, before accumulating dozens that might need to be revised.



Greyshaft -> RE: Help needed - MWIF naval counter descriptions (10/18/2006 5:52:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thrud

I would be willing to give writing up descriptions of some capitol ships...if I can get a list of them.  I have some books on capitol ships.

My email is ericposborne@msn.com


Terje, can you advise which navies are still needed?

Thanks



terje439 -> RE: Help needed - MWIF naval counter descriptions (10/18/2006 12:54:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

quote:

ORIGINAL: thrud

I would be willing to give writing up descriptions of some capitol ships...if I can get a list of them.  I have some books on capitol ships.

My email is ericposborne@msn.com


Terje, can you advise which navies are still needed?

Thanks



Well the minor Mediterrenean nations as well as Britain, France and Italy. I would suggest that anyone joining in should tell me which nations they want to do, and to start with a smaller nation. If it is one thing I would say I've done "wrong" this far, it was to start with the US, as the bigger naval nations makes your progress harder to spot. (gee did I hate USN carriers at the end....)



CBoehm -> RE: Help needed - MWIF naval counter descriptions (10/18/2006 1:18:30 PM)

If they havent been done already I can volunteer to do the ENTIRE !! danish navy ...ok ok might not be as big as the USN ...but its twice the size of the Belgian or Polish navy !?



Greyshaft -> RE: Help needed - MWIF naval counter descriptions (10/18/2006 4:14:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CBoehm

If they havent been done already I can volunteer to do the ENTIRE !! danish navy ...ok ok might not be as big as the USN ...but its twice the size of the Belgian or Polish navy !?

Fine by me... terje, have they been done yet?



terje439 -> RE: Help needed - MWIF naval counter descriptions (10/18/2006 7:58:29 PM)

nope they are still unfinished. I'll mail the different files etc to CBoehm then.



terje439 -> RE: Help needed - MWIF naval counter descriptions (10/18/2006 10:29:28 PM)

Well I am gonna bring this thread back to were it was supposed to be [:D][:D]

As you all expected, it is time for me to show my incapabilities to search for ships on the web [;)]

Todays topic will be.....Germany.
My thoughts are that alot of these ships might be fictional ships, but please prove me wrong [:)]

CV Kleist
CV Yorck
CV Clausewitz
CV Barbarossa (in the wif ship list written with the German "double s")
CVL Elbe
CA von Mackensen
CA Derfflinger



CBoehm -> RE: Help needed - MWIF naval counter descriptions (10/18/2006 11:06:29 PM)


quote:


CA Derfflinger


hmmm found a ww1 Derfflinger
[image]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/SMS_Derfflinger.jpg[/image]

and a whole bunch of very nice pics here http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/germany/battleships/derfflinger/sms_derfflinger.htm incl. one of it being scuttled in Scapa Flow

but alas couldnt find anything about a ww2 Derfflinger ...



terje439 -> RE: Help needed - MWIF naval counter descriptions (10/18/2006 11:10:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CBoehm


quote:


CA Derfflinger


hmmm found a ww1 Derfflinger
[image]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/SMS_Derfflinger.jpg[/image]

and a whole bunch of very nice pics here http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/germany/battleships/derfflinger/sms_derfflinger.htm incl. one of it being scuttled in Scapa Flow

but alas couldnt find anything about a ww2 Derfflinger ...


Yea I found that one as well, but the one I am after is supposedly built in 1942 which to me looks like an indicator that this is either a fictional ship, or a project that was never completed.

Terje



CBoehm -> RE: Help needed - MWIF naval counter descriptions (10/18/2006 11:25:36 PM)

yeah several of the german ww2 ships carried the same names as ww1 ships ...like any other navy recycling names ...and I assume you are right about it being fictional, its my understanding that most navies dont assign names to ships until they are actually finished until which they usually just have a production number ...sooo if the planned to be ww2-Defflinger was never finished ...it would in fact never have existed *uhhh twilightzone-stuff*



wosung -> RE: Help needed - MWIF naval counter descriptions (10/18/2006 11:46:54 PM)

These are probably counters to represent parts of a massive German naval build up plan, which was discussed in the German navy 1938/39.

This "Z-plan" was formally adopted in spring 1939, as Hitler assured Raeder that he wouldn't be in need of the Navy until 1946.

German sources themself differ in the figures for the Z-Plan, a sign for the typical megalomaniac, polycratic Nazi-planning.

Note, that most Z-plan figures meant the complete navy around 1946, not only the additional ships. It consisted of the following ships:

6 H-class BB (ships H, J, K, L, M, N, with 40,6 cm main batteries)

4 BB (2 Bismarck, 2 Scharnhorst class)

+3 CV (1 Graf Zeppelin, ship B [Zeppelin class], 1 Seydlitz [Hipper Class cruiser conversion, 18 A/c]) Additionally, during WW2 Kriegsmarine had contemplated completing the French carriers Joffre and Painlevé and converting the passenger liners Europe Potsdam and Gneisenau.

7-8 CA (Hipper, Blücher, Prinz Eugen, Lützow [1940 sold to USSR], Seydlitz, plus the 3 pocket-battleships Deutschland/Lützow [renamed on Hitlers' orders, "because Germany can't go down"], Scheer, Graf Spee)

13-24 light cruisers (new M-class ships M, N, O, P, Q,R, 7,800 tons, 35,5 kts., 8x150mm, 2x4 TT), 22-36 scout cruisers (there within: SP1-3: 6,300 tons, , 36 kts., 6x150mm, 2x5TT), 68-70 DD, 78-90 Torpedo-boats, 229-249 U-boats.

So, the ship names, you listed, might be pre-planning fiction. Just laid down ships weren't christened. Derfflinger at least was the name of a German BC in Hippers squadron at Jutland.

Sources:
Conways' all the World's fighting ships 1922-1946, pp. 220-235.
Cajus Becker, Das Bildbuch der deutschen Kriegsmarine 1939-1945, pp. 42-50.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Help needed - MWIF naval counter descriptions (10/19/2006 2:53:46 AM)

Terje sent me the USSR and German naval writeups last week. I formatted the USSR ones today. Here are a couple of examples.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/E20D9918FE9A48E9A2140E17D1A0BE3C.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Help needed - MWIF naval counter descriptions (10/19/2006 2:54:51 AM)

2nd and last in the series.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/E90B2A2B94A0466C81D793348459076A.jpg[/image]



Mziln -> RE: Help needed - MWIF naval counter descriptions (10/19/2006 4:37:58 PM)

Commissioned the Sevastopol in November 1914, the Parizskaya Kommuna was a Gungut class battleship. She received her new name in 1921 from the Bolshevik government, and in 1929 she was transferred to the Black Sea Fleet where all the dreadnoughts had been lost during the revolution.

After all the dreadnoughts in the Black Sea Fleet were lost

– or –

After the dreaodnught in the Black Sea Fleet was lost



terje439 -> RE: Help needed - MWIF naval counter descriptions (10/19/2006 6:33:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln

Commissioned the Sevastopol in November 1914, the Parizskaya Kommuna was a Gungut class battleship. She received her new name in 1921 from the Bolshevik government, and in 1929 she was transferred to the Black Sea Fleet where all the dreadnoughts had been lost during the revolution.

After all the dreadnoughts in the Black Sea Fleet were lost

– or –

After the dreaodnught in the Black Sea Fleet was lost


You are of course correct. The proper sentence would be the first one, as there were more than one dreadnought in that fleet.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Help needed - MWIF naval counter descriptions (10/19/2006 8:00:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln
Commissioned the Sevastopol in November 1914, the Parizskaya Kommuna was a Gungut class battleship. She received her new name in 1921 from the Bolshevik government, and in 1929 she was transferred to the Black Sea Fleet where all the dreadnoughts had been lost during the revolution.

After all the dreadnoughts in the Black Sea Fleet were lost

– or –

After the dreaodnught in the Black Sea Fleet was lost


I see nothing wrong with the original sentence. "had been lost" is the proper tense since the loss of the dreadnoughts had occurred years before. It could be modified to show a stronger causality link "since ... lost there during ...". But that assumes additional information as to the purpose of her relocation. As the sentence exists, the causality might not exist and the relationship just coincidence.



terje439 -> RE: Help needed - MWIF naval counter descriptions (10/19/2006 8:45:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln
Commissioned the Sevastopol in November 1914, the Parizskaya Kommuna was a Gungut class battleship. She received her new name in 1921 from the Bolshevik government, and in 1929 she was transferred to the Black Sea Fleet where all the dreadnoughts had been lost during the revolution.

After all the dreadnoughts in the Black Sea Fleet were lost

– or –

After the dreaodnught in the Black Sea Fleet was lost


I see nothing wrong with the original sentence. "had been lost" is the proper tense since the loss of the dreadnoughts had occurred years before. It could be modified to show a stronger causality link "since ... lost there during ...". But that assumes additional information as to the purpose of her relocation. As the sentence exists, the causality might not exist and the relationship just coincidence.



the original sentence was "...after all the dreadnoughts in the Black Sea Fleet was lost during the revolution"
Since the "thing" that was lost is "all the dreadnoughts", it should be were not was. (unless my brain is fried atm, it was, they were)



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Help needed - MWIF naval counter descriptions (10/19/2006 10:26:23 PM)

Oh. I'll change it to "had been lost" in the text file.



Mziln -> RE: Help needed - MWIF naval counter descriptions (10/20/2006 5:03:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln

Commissioned the Sevastopol in November 1914, the Parizskaya Kommuna was a Gungut class battleship. She received her new name in 1921 from the Bolshevik government, and in 1929 she was transferred to the Black Sea Fleet where all the dreadnoughts had been lost during the revolution.


This was my attempt at a simplification of the description [:D]



CBoehm -> RE: Help needed - MWIF naval counter descriptions (10/20/2006 12:54:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: terje439

nope they are still unfinished. I'll mail the different files etc to CBoehm then.


ok I did the ENTIRE danish navy pfuuu *hard work* ...and its in the mail for Terje ...



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.890625