RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (Full Version)

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



Message

Nikolai II -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (10/14/2009 3:39:54 PM)

In the meantime, just to pretend I am being useful:

http://en.allexperts.com/e/j/ja/japanese_aircraft_carrier_unryu.htm <- The name Unryu means "Heavenward Bound Dragon Riding the Clouds".

Personally I think that is what the name is meant to mean, just like Los Angeles is short for a much longer name. Most dictionary sources claim Unryu simply means "Cloud Dragon"

Aso would probably be named after Aso-san, Japan's largest volcano -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Aso
Or rather for the kami residing there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aso_Shrine
(Seeing as how it was a Kanpei-taisha shrine, meaning that it stood in the first rank of government supported shrines.

But yea, someone elses research, ready made, is probably a lot better ;)

..

Hmm.. other trivia: Battleships were apparently named after provinces in Japan. Shinano did get to keep its name despite turning out as a carrier, since it had been laid down as a battleship.

Ah.. and Carriers were generally named after flying creatures, so Aso would probably be for the Kami and not the mountain.
http://books.google.se/books?id=KP2Um0GZqtkC&lpg=PA10&ots=RSLAEESy5z&dq=japanese%20carrier%20names&pg=PA9#v=onepage&q=japanese%20carrier%20names&f=false
(Hopefully that link works. And that Orprey book seems like it would be even more useful as a resource, unless the article was made post-2005 and incorporates the book)

..

Anyway, sorry about the disjointed post, and hi everyone.
(I would have registered earlier, but I first found these forums four days after the last call for betatesters closed, so I didn't bother ;))



Extraneous -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (10/15/2009 6:49:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikolai II

In the meantime, just to pretend I am being useful:

http://en.allexperts.com/e/j/ja/japanese_aircraft_carrier_unryu.htm <- The name Unryu means "Heavenward Bound Dragon Riding the Clouds".

Personally I think that is what the name is meant to mean, just like Los Angeles is short for a much longer name. Most dictionary sources claim Unryu simply means "Cloud Dragon"

Aso would probably be named after Aso-san, Japan's largest volcano -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Aso
Or rather for the kami residing there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aso_Shrine
(Seeing as how it was a Kanpei-taisha shrine, meaning that it stood in the first rank of government supported shrines.

But yea, someone elses research, ready made, is probably a lot better ;)

..

Hmm.. other trivia: Battleships were apparently named after provinces in Japan. Shinano did get to keep its name despite turning out as a carrier, since it had been laid down as a battleship.

Ah.. and Carriers were generally named after flying creatures, so Aso would probably be for the Kami and not the mountain.
http://books.google.se/books?id=KP2Um0GZqtkC&lpg=PA10&ots=RSLAEESy5z&dq=japanese%20carrier%20names&pg=PA9#v=onepage&q=japanese%20carrier%20names&f=false
(Hopefully that link works. And that Orprey book seems like it would be even more useful as a resource, unless the article was made post-2005 and incorporates the book)

..

Anyway, sorry about the disjointed post, and hi everyone.
(I would have registered earlier, but I first found these forums four days after the last call for betatesters closed, so I didn't bother ;))


Welcome to the Forums.

But I like Combined Fleet for Japanese ship names.

Unryu: "Cloud of a Heaven-flying dragon", "Dragon in Clouds"



Nikolai II -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (10/15/2009 10:55:20 PM)

Nice summary page there.. but I think they miss out on the poetry in the name. For example, but the Unryu names I found sound nicer than the ones that page suggests, in my opinion. :)

But a very nice page to start ones research from. :)



micheljq -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (10/16/2009 1:56:28 PM)

Pretty poetic when an airplane from the "Cloud of a Heaven-flying dragon" drops a 250kg bomb on your face! [sm=sterb003.gif][sm=sterb003.gif][sm=00000289.gif]



warspite1 -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (10/16/2009 6:23:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: micheljq

Pretty poetic when an airplane from the "Cloud of a Heaven-flying dragon" drops a 250kg bomb on your face! [sm=sterb003.gif][sm=sterb003.gif][sm=00000289.gif]

Warspite1

The Japanese had some "previous" for that kind of mis-appropriate naming. Their kamikaze rocket powered flying bomb was called Okha or Cherry Blossom; nice.....



Extraneous -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (10/17/2009 1:58:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikolai II

Nice summary page there.. but I think they miss out on the poetry in the name. For example, but the Unryu names I found sound nicer than the ones that page suggests, in my opinion. :)

But a very nice page to start ones research from. :)


I like the tabular record of movement for all the Japanese ships offered at Combined Fleet also (here is Unryu as an example).


Here is the link to the main index for Combined Fleet.



warspite1 -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (10/24/2009 9:49:20 AM)

Please see attached first go at one of the Japanese ASW`s. This is very much in draft form at present and so if anyone knows any detail re this element of the IJN then comment would be appreciated.

[4426 ASW Escort - by Robert Jenkins]
.P The date on the back of these ASW and ASW Carrier counters do not relate in
any meaningful way to actual build dates for the ships that took undertook the
convoy escort role during World War II. The counter date should therefore be
ignored.
.P These counters do not represent an individual convoy or any specific ships,
but are designed to represent convoy escort groups. They have mixed values
reflecting the fact that the make-up of an escort group could differ from one
convoy to the next.
.P Being an island nation dependent upon seaborne trade, the Japanese, like the
British, had every reason to pay more attention than they did to the need to
protect their vulnerable shipping lanes. However, during the inter-war years the
Japanese were guilty of placing too much emphasis on the offensive weapons of
war such as aircraft carriers and battleships to the detriment of other ship types.
The Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) destroyers that were constructed were generally
powerful vessels and useful in the fleet role. However, they were less useful in
the convoy escort role as the Japanese failed to develop sonar and radar to the
same extent as their future enemies.
.P Once war began, the limitations of Japanese industrial capability meant that
they were not able to build the much needed specialist escort vessels in the
numbers required; and they compounded their problems by starting a destroyer
escort build program only in 1943. As a result, the IJN had to employ what
vessels they could in the escort role as their destroyer fleet started to suffer
irreplaceable losses once the war began.
.P This write-up looks at the W1-class minesweepers.
.B
.B Name: W1
.B Engine(s) Output: 4,000 ihp
.B Top Speed: 20 knots
.B Main Armament: 2 x 4.7-inch (120mm) guns, 1 x 3-inch (76mm) guns
.B Displacement (standard): 615 tons
.B Thickest Armour: N/a
.P The W1-class were a class of four minesweepers. They were the first purpose-
built ships of this type ordered by the IJN. They were ordered in 1922 and built
over the course of the next three years.
.P They were not particularly good sea-boats, but a program to add additional
ballast and reduce top weight in the thirties, made them more stable. Reflecting
the desperate need to counter US Navy submarines and aircraft, during 1944, the
three surviving ships of the class (W2 had been sunk in March 1942), had their
minesweeping capability removed. They were given five 25mm guns for close-range
anti-aircraft (AA) defence and 36 depth charges.
.P Only W4 survived the war, W1 and W3 being sunk in the closing months of the
conflict.
.P W1`s most high profile engagement of the war came in January 1942. The
campaign in Malaya was leading toward its successful conclusion and the IJN were
tasked with transporting troops to Endau, south of Kuantan, in the southeast of
the peninsular. Two transports were used for this operation and they were
escorted by a fleet of five minesweepers and three submarine-chasers. A powerful
cruiser and destroyer force provided further protection.
.P On the 26th, the British sent aircraft to attack the convoy but without
success and that evening, two destroyers HMS Thanet and HMAS Vampire were sent to
attack the convoy. The first ship they came across was W1 but torpedoes, launched
from the Australian destroyer missed the minesweeper and she was able to signal
to the heavier escort units for assistance.
.P In the early hours of the 27th, a fierce but brief fight broke out when the
cruiser Sendai and five destroyers arrived to assist W1. The result was the
destruction of Thanet although Vampire was able to sail back to Singapore. Damage
was caused to the two Japanese transports.
.P The survivors from Thanet - believed to number around 35 - were picked-up by
the destroyer Shirayuki. Sadly they were executed by the Japanese a few days
later.
.P W1 survived almost to the end of the war, but on the 10th August 1945 while in
Yamada Bay, she was sunk by US aircraft.



warspite1 -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (10/25/2009 6:34:20 PM)

More help required please:

Going through the Japanese counters I have come across what I think must be a cruiser named Kurama from 1942 (5 attack rating). I can see no record of any ship with this name. Any ideas anyone?

The surviving Japanese records seem to indicate five 18-inch gunned planned Yamatos and two 20-inch gunned "Super Yamatos" were projected, so there is one ship missing. There is little difference in the values given to the six WIF counters in question by ADG (either 10 or 11 attack rating).

It would be good to know what ADG were thinking re these counters so the write up accurately reflects this.

Re the Yamato and "Super Yamato" classes, in the absence of any objection, I am going to assume that ADG allow the Japanese player to build up to four Yamatos: Yamato, Musashi, Shinano, Karyu (Ship no. 797 not allowed) and two Super Yamatos: Suma and Hizen.






Froonp -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (10/25/2009 10:13:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

More help required please:

Going through the Japanese counters I have come across what I think must be a cruiser named Kurama from 1942 (5 attack rating). I can see no record of any ship with this name. Any ideas anyone?

I've always saw it as an extra Mogami class cruiser.
The counter itself is from the MiF counterheet.

quote:

The surviving Japanese records seem to indicate five 18-inch gunned planned Yamatos and two 20-inch gunned "Super Yamatos" were projected, so there is one ship missing. There is little difference in the values given to the six WIF counters in question by ADG (either 10 or 11 attack rating).

It would be good to know what ADG were thinking re these counters so the write up accurately reflects this.

Re the Yamato and "Super Yamato" classes, in the absence of any objection, I am going to assume that ADG allow the Japanese player to build up to four Yamatos: Yamato, Musashi, Shinano, Karyu (Ship no. 797 not allowed) and two Super Yamatos: Suma and Hizen.

From what I see, ADG allows the Japanese player to build up to 5 Yamatos with 9 x 18.1" guns.
- Yamato (Version shown after refit April 1944.) (laid down 05/11/1937, launched 09/08/1940, Complete 17/12/1941)
- Musashi (Version shown after refit April 1944.) (laid down 30/03/1938, launched 02/11/1940, Complete 06/08/1942)
- Shinano (laid down 04/05/1940, never launched, never complete, cancelled 1942)
- Karyu (ADG also calls it "No. 111") (Version shown as designed. Cancelled 30% complete.) (laid down 08/11/1940, never launched, never complete, cancelled 1942)
- Suma (ADG also calls it "improved No. 110") (Version shown as designed. Cancelled 30% complete.) (laid down 08/11/1940, never launched, never complete, cancelled 1942)

And 1 Super Yamatos with 6 x 19.7" guns
- Hizen (ADG also calls it "A-150") (Version shown as designed. Cancelled 30% complete.) (laid down 08/11/1940, never launched, never complete, cancelled 1942)

All 6 are 63,000 dispacement tons ships with a crew of 2,500, 263 m long ships.

The 2nd "Super Yamato" is not here.



Extraneous -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (10/25/2009 10:13:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

More help required please:

Going through the Japanese counters I have come across what I think must be a cruiser named Kurama from 1942 (5 attack rating). I can see no record of any ship with this name. Any ideas anyone?

The surviving Japanese records seem to indicate five 18-inch gunned planned Yamatos and two 20-inch gunned "Super Yamatos" were projected, so there is one ship missing. There is little difference in the values given to the six WIF counters in question by ADG (either 10 or 11 attack rating).

It would be good to know what ADG were thinking re these counters so the write up accurately reflects this.

Re the Yamato and "Super Yamato" classes, in the absence of any objection, I am going to assume that ADG allow the Japanese player to build up to four Yamatos: Yamato, Musashi, Shinano, Karyu (Ship no. 797 not allowed) and two Super Yamatos: Suma and Hizen.





Japanese battlecruiser Kurama February 28, 1911 - September 20, 1923

KURAMA CLASS HEAVY CRUISER 1942




warspite1 -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (10/25/2009 10:20:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

The surviving Japanese records seem to indicate five 18-inch gunned planned Yamatos and two 20-inch gunned "Super Yamatos" were projected, so there is one ship missing. There is little difference in the values given to the six WIF counters in question by ADG (either 10 or 11 attack rating).

It would be good to know what ADG were thinking re these counters so the write up accurately reflects this.

Re the Yamato and "Super Yamato" classes, in the absence of any objection, I am going to assume that ADG allow the Japanese player to build up to four Yamatos: Yamato, Musashi, Shinano, Karyu (Ship no. 797 not allowed) and two Super Yamatos: Suma and Hizen.

From what I see, ADG allows the Japanese player to build up to 5 Yamatos with 9 x 18.1" guns.
- Yamato (Version shown after refit April 1944.) (laid down 05/11/1937, launched 09/08/1940, Complete 17/12/1941)
- Musashi (Version shown after refit April 1944.) (laid down 30/03/1938, launched 02/11/1940, Complete 06/08/1942)
- Shinano (laid down 04/05/1940, never launched, never complete, cancelled 1942)
- Karyu (ADG also calls it "No. 111") (Version shown as designed. Cancelled 30% complete.) (laid down 08/11/1940, never launched, never complete, cancelled 1942)
- Suma (ADG also calls it "improved No. 110") (Version shown as designed. Cancelled 30% complete.) (laid down 08/11/1940, never launched, never complete, cancelled 1942)

And 1 Super Yamatos with 6 x 19.7" guns
- Hizen (ADG also calls it "A-150") (Version shown as designed. Cancelled 30% complete.) (laid down 08/11/1940, never launched, never complete, cancelled 1942)

All 6 are 63,000 dispacement tons ships with a crew of 2,500, 263 m long ships.

The 2nd "Super Yamato" is not here.

Warspite1

Excellent - thanks Patrice. I think the Suma detail you gave is wrong - the fifth Yamato was cancelled before being laid down, however you have given me what I need for the write up of these BB`s - 5 Yamatos and 1 Super Yamato coming up!! [:)]



warspite1 -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (10/25/2009 10:26:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

More help required please:

Going through the Japanese counters I have come across what I think must be a cruiser named Kurama from 1942 (5 attack rating). I can see no record of any ship with this name. Any ideas anyone?

The surviving Japanese records seem to indicate five 18-inch gunned planned Yamatos and two 20-inch gunned "Super Yamatos" were projected, so there is one ship missing. There is little difference in the values given to the six WIF counters in question by ADG (either 10 or 11 attack rating).

It would be good to know what ADG were thinking re these counters so the write up accurately reflects this.

Re the Yamato and "Super Yamato" classes, in the absence of any objection, I am going to assume that ADG allow the Japanese player to build up to four Yamatos: Yamato, Musashi, Shinano, Karyu (Ship no. 797 not allowed) and two Super Yamatos: Suma and Hizen.





Japanese battlecruiser Kurama February 28, 1911 - September 20, 1923

KURAMA CLASS HEAVY CRUISER 1942


Warspite1

Extraneous - thanks, the first website is no good as the WIF counter is 1942 [:(], however, the second is very interesting but written in a curious style - after a first read, I assume its not factual but a what if scenario for the Japanese cruisers?? I`ll do some more digging around this - at least this gives me somewhere to start so thank-you [:)]



Froonp -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (10/25/2009 10:49:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
From what I see, ADG allows the Japanese player to build up to 5 Yamatos with 9 x 18.1" guns.
- Yamato (Version shown after refit April 1944.) (laid down 05/11/1937, launched 09/08/1940, Complete 17/12/1941)
- Musashi (Version shown after refit April 1944.) (laid down 30/03/1938, launched 02/11/1940, Complete 06/08/1942)
- Shinano (laid down 04/05/1940, never launched, never complete, cancelled 1942)
- Karyu (ADG also calls it "No. 111") (Version shown as designed. Cancelled 30% complete.) (laid down 08/11/1940, never launched, never complete, cancelled 1942)
- Suma (ADG also calls it "improved No. 110") (Version shown as designed. Cancelled 30% complete.) (laid down 08/11/1940, never launched, never complete, cancelled 1942)

And 1 Super Yamatos with 6 x 19.7" guns
- Hizen (ADG also calls it "A-150") (Version shown as designed. Cancelled 30% complete.) (laid down 08/11/1940, never launched, never complete, cancelled 1942)

All 6 are 63,000 dispacement tons ships with a crew of 2,500, 263 m long ships.

The 2nd "Super Yamato" is not here.

Warspite1

Excellent - thanks Patrice. I think the Suma detail you gave is wrong - the fifth Yamato was cancelled before being laid down, however you have given me what I need for the write up of these BB`s - 5 Yamatos and 1 Super Yamato coming up!! [:)]


This is data from ADG from the old SiF booklet.
What is wrong in the detail I gave about the Suma ?



warspite1 -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (10/25/2009 10:57:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
From what I see, ADG allows the Japanese player to build up to 5 Yamatos with 9 x 18.1" guns.
- Yamato (Version shown after refit April 1944.) (laid down 05/11/1937, launched 09/08/1940, Complete 17/12/1941)
- Musashi (Version shown after refit April 1944.) (laid down 30/03/1938, launched 02/11/1940, Complete 06/08/1942)
- Shinano (laid down 04/05/1940, never launched, never complete, cancelled 1942)
- Karyu (ADG also calls it "No. 111") (Version shown as designed. Cancelled 30% complete.) (laid down 08/11/1940, never launched, never complete, cancelled 1942)
- Suma (ADG also calls it "improved No. 110") (Version shown as designed. Cancelled 30% complete.) (laid down 08/11/1940, never launched, never complete, cancelled 1942)

And 1 Super Yamatos with 6 x 19.7" guns
- Hizen (ADG also calls it "A-150") (Version shown as designed. Cancelled 30% complete.) (laid down 08/11/1940, never launched, never complete, cancelled 1942)

All 6 are 63,000 dispacement tons ships with a crew of 2,500, 263 m long ships.

The 2nd "Super Yamato" is not here.

Warspite1

Excellent - thanks Patrice. I think the Suma detail you gave is wrong - the fifth Yamato was cancelled before being laid down, however you have given me what I need for the write up of these BB`s - 5 Yamatos and 1 Super Yamato coming up!! [:)]


This is data from ADG from the old SiF booklet.
What is wrong in the detail I gave about the Suma ?

Warspite1

According to Conways, the fifth ship (No.797) was proposed in 1942, but was cancelled before being named or ordered. This was why I was unsure whether to have four or five Yamatos and one or two Super Yamatos. However, as said, in line with your response re ADG thinking I will do five and one.




Extraneous -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (10/26/2009 5:12:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

More help required please:

Going through the Japanese counters I have come across what I think must be a cruiser named Kurama from 1942 (5 attack rating). I can see no record of any ship with this name. Any ideas anyone?

The surviving Japanese records seem to indicate five 18-inch gunned planned Yamatos and two 20-inch gunned "Super Yamatos" were projected, so there is one ship missing. There is little difference in the values given to the six WIF counters in question by ADG (either 10 or 11 attack rating).

It would be good to know what ADG were thinking re these counters so the write up accurately reflects this.

Re the Yamato and "Super Yamato" classes, in the absence of any objection, I am going to assume that ADG allow the Japanese player to build up to four Yamatos: Yamato, Musashi, Shinano, Karyu (Ship no. 797 not allowed) and two Super Yamatos: Suma and Hizen.





Japanese battlecruiser Kurama February 28, 1911 - September 20, 1923

KURAMA CLASS HEAVY CRUISER 1942


Warspite1

Extraneous - thanks, the first website is no good as the WIF counter is 1942 [:(], however, the second is very interesting but written in a curious style - after a first read, I assume its not factual but a what if scenario for the Japanese cruisers?? I`ll do some more digging around this - at least this gives me somewhere to start so thank-you [:)]




It is a what if ship here is a link to Ship Name Histories - Database of histories of ship names beginning with letter K.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (10/27/2009 7:29:59 PM)

David has been hard at work on the land unit writeups for the Commonwealth. I thought it was time to showcase some of his unit descriptions.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/27D2671436734DC7BE5F1B07DB38F7B5.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (10/27/2009 7:31:10 PM)

Second and last in a series of 2.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/1FF3C5B3D6ED48AA9D6DDB32208435B0.jpg[/image]



warspite1 -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (10/27/2009 9:46:13 PM)

There`s some good fleshing out of my original write-ups (not the Rangoon unit), although just a few points:

- I think some additional comma`s are required
- allies should be capital A
- general tidy up where P. appears where .P should be (for new paragraph) and minor typos
- should the New Zealand Division be the 2nd not the 6th?
- For the 5th Infantry Corps why was the section about conscription removed? I thought this a useful addition to the Canadian situation in WWII and their lack of combat units overseas (and thus the need for supplementation by British units in the Canadian 2nd Army in June 1944).

.P Whilst conscription took place in Canada in WWII, the Canadian government initially agreed to send only volunteers overseas (non-volunteers would serve within Canada). Although this resulted in a good quality force, it was clear that volunteers alone could not provide the Canadian Army with sufficient replacements to cover combat losses.
.P As a result the government held a referendum, the results of which meant that all conscripted troops could be sent overseas. This did not actually happen until November 1944.



brian brian -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (10/28/2009 12:44:37 AM)

this isn't the place to debate something like this, but a purchaser from a Third World country, of which I don't think there will ever be very many, wouldn't much care for the phrase "The only solution seemed to be to annex the place", which is rather Imperialistic to say the least. The bit about "the only rewards" is the same. Political history is much more a matter of perspective than military history and could be left out of the write-ups altogether, imo.



warspite1 -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (10/28/2009 7:26:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

this isn't the place to debate something like this, but a purchaser from a Third World country, of which I don't think there will ever be very many, wouldn't much care for the phrase "The only solution seemed to be to annex the place", which is rather Imperialistic to say the least. The bit about "the only rewards" is the same. Political history is much more a matter of perspective than military history and could be left out of the write-ups altogether, imo.

Warspite1

I would say this is exactly the place to debate this. The reason I have been posting a large selection of naval write-ups is that I am no expert in either the English language or military history. Therefore, I feel it useful to get comments on my work to ensure they are accurate historically and written in proper English. When the game comes out, if I have inadvertently written something wrong then no one is going to blame me, the author, but it will look bad on Matrix.

I have found this exercise very useful and have had some great feed-back - particularly on grammar correction and silly typo mistakes! Comment seems to have fallen off of late which is a real shame as I think these postings serve a useful purpose - and I`m quite sure my English has not improved suddenly!!

It is for the reason above that I recently requested more land unit write ups be shown too (post 1426).

To add my 2 cents on the Rangoon unit (which I think contains some good info and employs a good read readable style), I think you raise a good point. I know nothing about the Burmese wars and who invaded who, but taking what was written on face value, I would say that the author could have re-phrased the two points.

"After the Burmese invaded India once again in 1855, the British Government saw annexation as the best option to end these incursions. Of course, adding Burma as a colony also gave the British Empire the benefits of the country`s oil and Teak deposits."

Personally, I do not like the idea of re-writing history - what happened good or bad - happened, but I agree that care needs to be taken so as not to offend when dealing with delicate subject matter. This was why I felt it important to show the write up containing the attack on Mers-el-Kebir for example.

I think that separating military from political history is just not always possible, and is often necessary in order to get the correct context when describing events. Its just that sufficient care needs to be taken in the writing.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (10/28/2009 8:43:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

this isn't the place to debate something like this, but a purchaser from a Third World country, of which I don't think there will ever be very many, wouldn't much care for the phrase "The only solution seemed to be to annex the place", which is rather Imperialistic to say the least. The bit about "the only rewards" is the same. Political history is much more a matter of perspective than military history and could be left out of the write-ups altogether, imo.

I agree with Warspite - the post immediately above.

While we can not post all ~2500 writeups, by posting a good sample of them we can gather useful feedback on how they "come across" to a variety of readers. Your points here are quite valid and should be applied to not only this one, but need to also be weighed when reading through others about territorial and militia units of minor countries.

As I have said many times before, I would much prefer to read criticisms of MWIF here, when I can do something about it, rather than later, from someone who has paid money for the game after it's released. So thanks - which is meant quite sincerely.



Caquineur -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (10/28/2009 12:29:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
There`s some good fleshing out of my original write-ups (not the Rangoon unit), although just a few points:

- I think some additional comma`s are required
- allies should be capital A
- general tidy up where P. appears where .P should be (for new paragraph) and minor typos
...


Thanks for noticing the P./.P problem - I will correct that as soon as possible, and I will also give another look about commas and other typos.
The problem I have is that I don't have a personal computer yet - I can use the one at my job to work on text/data/rtf/word/excel/etc... files, but I don't want to use it to run a game (even MWiF). So there are some checks that I'm unable to do now - I will do them as soon as I buy a personal computer (in November or December, probably)
About formatting codes (.P, .B, ...), I did an exhaustive search in the file before sending the previous version to Steve, but forgot to do this with the current one [:@]

On matters relating to the texts themselves, I will send a mail to David right away - I'm sure he will read all comments with attention. Sometimes we exchange 4 mails for 1 single sentence, so you can be assured the work is taken seriously - well, most of the time [:D]

And on a more general note, do not hesitate to send me PMs or e-mails when you notice typos or spelling mistakes in the land unit write-ups. I will read them carefully. Anyway, as English isn't my native language, I always read English carefully [;)]

Alain, aka Caquineur, talkative as expected from a French Southerner



ItBurns -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (10/28/2009 3:30:41 PM)

I have a minor quibble about the 2nd Canadian Arm history.  The last sentence in the paragraph just above the bullet points reads, "For the last two months of the year the five divisions, united for the first time, freed the Netherlands from occupation and famine."  From the context of the earlier sentences in the same paragraph I believe the author meant the "For the last two months of the war" and not "For the last two months of the year."  It's a minor point.



mariandavid -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (10/28/2009 4:02:19 PM)

Some brief responses to the comments on some of the land descriptions that I have been expanding. First I am taking the information more or less from my books so apologies if they are more military than political.

Warspite: Your entry on the 5th Canadian Corps was not removed. I instead shifted it to the description on the 3rd (or 4th? - my memory fails) to which it would be more appropriate. If a 5th Corps had ever been needed to be formed the issue of limited conscription would have vanished many years before! I was also trying to ensure that each entry contained different information on the vexing question of Canadian conscription - for example the whole convulated issue of the lack of support for conscription in Quebec is covered in the Montreal Militia counter.

Brian-Brian and Warspite: The issue of how to describe past events is not within my purview. However (happily throwing in my two-cents) my experience is that members of the 'third world' much prefer to have imperialism/colonialism described as it was in all its sorry grandeur and calamity rather than brushed over. Further in the case of Burma I felt it was important to a player to realise that that the colonial aggression implicit in phrases such as 'annex' and 'only rewards' was essential to understanding why Burma collapsed in the way it did. In the Rangoon and the other Burma counter text I emphasise that the British were never able to form loyal 'native' troops comparable to those of India, Kenya or Nigeria. Instead because of the lasting anger generated in the Burmese ruling and religious classes it was necessary to import Gurkha soldiers instead.

ItBurns: You are absolutely right. Mea Culpa - it should of course be 'the last two months of the WAR'!

Finally Warspite: once I have finished the commonwealth land I will with glee pounce upon your RN right-ups and see if I can make the same sort of helpful comments that you have of my work!



mariandavid -> RE: Info for Warspite (10/28/2009 4:15:07 PM)

Warspite: I tracked down the entry that contained your material on Canadian conscription. I moved it to the 3rd Corps - shown below but obviously in text not displayed form.

[2121] [3 Can]
.T 3rd Canadian Mechanised Corps
.P The Canadians formed two overseas corps during WWII.  Since 3 divisions (the 6th, 7th and 8th) remained in Canada they were available to form a third corps. However there was no need to concentrate them in one place. For most of the war the 6th Division served on the west coast, the 7th Division the east coast and the 8th was created as a back-up the the 6th, command the remaining units in British Columbia. It even included an armoured train which ran along the coast near Prince Albert in the north. Another limitation was the lack of the qualified staff officers needed for a new command As a result a 3rd Canadian Mechanised Corps never came into existence. Had it been formed it is likely that there would have been a high proportion of armoured troops since the government feared heavy losses.
.P This was because while conscription took place in Canada in WWII, the Canadian government initially agreed to send only volunteers overseas (non-volunteers would serve within Canada).  Although this resulted in a good quality force, it was clear that volunteers alone could not provide the Canadian Army with sufficient replacements to cover combat losses.
.P As a result the government held a referendum, the results of which meant that all conscripted troops could be sent overseas.  This did not actually happen until November 1944.



Caquineur -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (10/28/2009 5:09:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ItBurns

I have a minor quibble about the 2nd Canadian Arm history.  The last sentence in the paragraph just above the bullet points reads, "For the last two months of the year the five divisions, united for the first time, freed the Netherlands from occupation and famine."  From the context of the earlier sentences in the same paragraph I believe the author meant the "For the last two months of the war" and not "For the last two months of the year."  It's a minor point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mariandavid
ItBurns: You are absolutely right. Mea Culpa - it should of course be 'the last two months of the WAR'!


Thank you ItBurns, I will correct it.

Alain



brian brian -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (10/28/2009 8:03:34 PM)

I think it would be better to write something like "The British never raised local forces in Burma on the scale of an infantry corps such as the Burma MIL unit represents. Their rule in Burma was neither as long-term or as peaceful as in other parts of their empire, and it was not (add "considered"? did the British think that?) as likely that Burmese citizens would have made good soldiers fighting for the British side in a similar manner as the Indian Army. The one Burmese infantry division raised, the 1st, bore this out when...." That really would be enough neutral (hopefully) background on Burma for the game I think. To casually just use the verb 'annex' the way Winston Churchill would have described the place wouldn't just upset Third World citizens; to use the verb 'conquer' might be closer to the truth but might upset someone else, but do we even need to consider how British rule came to Burma in the 19th century for a WWII game? History is water under the bridge, but that doesn't mean we have to look at it through the same lenses as the people who made the history. WWII was the end of empires, and to open such a topic, one much more fraught with emotions, can only irritate people from one political viewpoint or another unless it is handled oh so delicately. The disintegration of the 1st Burmese Infantry and the retreat of the one good Indian division is something more like the notional units in the game, imo. Maybe they did make those two units into a specific corps though, I don't know.



edit: for the arrival of the Chinese, enabling the British retreat somewhat, could we get some props in there for "Vinegar Joe" Stilwell too, if we have the British commanders named?



warspite1 -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (10/28/2009 9:40:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mariandavid

Finally Warspite: once I have finished the commonwealth land I will with glee pounce upon your RN right-ups and see if I can make the same sort of helpful comments that you have of my work!

Warspite1

Mariandavid - that would be good thank you [:)]. As I say, the feed-back has fallen off of late and yet have subsequently seen errors in some of my write ups [:(]. It would be good therefore to have another pair of eyes looking at these. I find checking someone else`s work easier than my own - I guess because I know what I intended to say and sort of go into skim read mode.....

Thanks again - and please keep the land units coming.



mariandavid -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (10/29/2009 8:06:08 PM)

Brian Brian: As I said I think we disagree (and who knows who is right) as to what the attitude of peoples who were an unwilling part of an empire would be to a description of it; I honestly think that they would prefer flat statements! On your helpful alternatives (and Alain and I will look at both of the Burma items). The trouble is that I am considering the 1st Burma Division as part of an Indian Corps marker; the two militia/territorial counters (only one has been presented) only cover local units - it was here that the aversion of the urban (especially) Burmese showed.

In the game I assume that a 1 or 2 point unit (typical militia/terrorial) are not formed divisions and corps - the key in Burma is to note that these are mainly Indian and British - not Burmese. Were I a present day Burmese (and I am so glad that I am not!!) I would be offended if this was not shown or if the reason why was not presented.

I agree that it would be nice to consider as you say "History is water under the bridge, but that doesn't mean we have to look at it through the same lenses as the people who made the history." Unfortunately when doing a game the way they did look through the lens is fundamental and cannot be ignored, while both gamers and readers deserve to know why. As another example - how can one possibly explain the lack of local support for the Allies in the Netherlands East Indies in 1941 and then again in 1945 without stating the cruel truth of the character of the Dutch occupation, followed by the perceived betrayal by and equally cruel actions of the Japanese.

On dear and lovable Joe Stillwell - my understanding is that the Chinese divisions (notably the ones that helped save the Burma Army) and Joe himself are already covered. Both Slim and Alexander stated that these Chinese soldiers were as good as any in the British/Indian/Gurkha armies. 

 



warspite1 -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (10/30/2009 7:19:40 AM)

Okay - am officially hacked off with this naming of ships malarchy[&:] [:(] [&:] [:(]

Does anyone know what Karyu is named after? My guess is:

- Yamato-class were named after provinces (Yamato, Musashi and Shinano)
- I cannot see there was a Karyu Province, however, Karyu was never officially named
- Had she been built she would almost certainly have been converted to an aircraft carrier
- Therefore ADG have given her the name of a Dragon (Fire Dragon?) in line with naming convention for carriers (Note Shinano kept her name as she had already been named before construction altered to a carrier).
- Sounds plausible? or a load of old.......

As you can perhaps tell, I should not be writing this post as I am tired and irritable and have spent too long researching one small fact, which I cannot find the answer to anywhere so please help....someone...please!!



Page: <<   < prev  47 48 [49] 50 51   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.578125