Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: capitan

Landunit writeups are getting back on track. I have recieved notification from a few of the writers about the current status but I am still awaiting replies from several of them as well.

If YOU are interested in collaborating in the great project now is your chance to do your bit. Send me a PM and I will assign you to frontline duty with one of the countries not yet taken care of. Uncle Steve needs you!

As a side note I just noticed that some of the writeups has been published in the latest WIF annual.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

HELP!!

Can any trainspotters assist please? The Kent group of the British County-class cruisers contained 7 ships, two of which - Australia and Canberra - were built for the Royal Australian Navy.  The five British had their 4-inch AA doubled and their belt armour increased from 1-inch to 4.5.  What I need to know and can`t find out anywhere is - did one or both of the Aussie ships receive the same treatment before the war? 

Thanks in advance

quote:

d their 4-inch AA doubled and their belt armour increased from 1-inch to 4.5. What I need to know and can`t find out anywhere is - did one or both of the Aussie ships receive the

quote:

ORIGINAL: wosung

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

HELP!!

Can any trainspotters assist please? The Kent group of the British County-class cruisers contained 7 ships, two of which - Australia and Canberra - were built for the Royal Australian Navy.  The five British had their 4-inch AA doubled and their belt armour increased from 1-inch to 4.5.  What I need to know and can`t find out anywhere is - did one or both of the Aussie ships receive the same treatment before the war? 

Thanks in advance

quote:

d their 4-inch AA doubled and their belt armour increased from 1-inch to 4.5. What I need to know and can`t find out anywhere is - did one or both of the Aussie ships receive the

"All the class except Canberra were reconstructed between 1935 and 1939. A 4 1/2 in cemented armor belt was added in way of the machinery spaces and transmitting station, and 4 in internal armour was added to the sides of the boiler room fan compartments."

For the AA armament: MANY different changes for each ship of the Kent class, some of them individual changes, before and during the war (including different numbers and versions of 4 inches). Frex: Australia 1 quadruple pompons replaced by two octuples in October 1942.

Source: Conway's all the world's fighting ships 1922- 1946, p 26-7.

Regards

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1



Wosung - thanks but I`ve got that - but then Nelson to Vanguard Warship Design and Development states it was just the five RN Kents . I HATE it when this happens!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jaguar

From the book titled "British Cruisers of World War II, Naval Institute Press, 1987, by Alan Raven and John Roberts:

Both of the Australian heavy cruisers were fitted with HACS Mk I, SIIL catapults and two .5in quadrupple AA mountings in the early 1930's, but were not significantly regitted otherwise before the outbreak of the war. They were scheduled for complete refitted during 1939 and 1940, but due to the outbreak of the war, the complete refits were never initiated.
Wartime refit history:
Australia:
Nov 1940- Dec 1940:
-four 4in single HA mountings removed
-four 4in twin HA mountings fitted
-type 286 radar fitted

Late 1943
-two quadruple .5in MGs removed
-seven single 20mm fitted
-type 273 and 283 radar fitted
-type 286 radar removed

Early 1944
-seven single 20mm removed
-seven twin 20mm fitted

Early 1945
-eight single Borfors Mk III fitted

Late 1945
-all 20mm removed

Canberra
Early 1941
-Four single pom-poms removed
-four 4in HA mounting removed
-two eight barrelled pom-poms fitted

No further armament changes listed before loss.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1



Wosung - thanks but I`ve got that - but then Nelson to Vanguard Warship Design and Development states it was just the five RN Kents . I HATE it when this happens!!!

As an aside, I just read and enjoyed Nelson to Vanguard but was a bit dismayed by his rooting for the home team at times stretching credulity -- forex arguing that Vanguard and Iowa would have been evenly matched, and rather uncritically accepting the "armored hangar" arguments re CVs without discounting for the drastically reduced sortie rate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: capitan

Here is a Belgian writeup from Charlie Lewis!

quote:

ORIGINAL: capitan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: capitan

This looks very nice.

But it also made me think about the size of the Belgian army and I couldn't get the math to add. So what I have to say is in no way critisism on the writeup but more a question about math.

With these exellent writeups it becomes easy to compare the units of WIF with the historical OOB (Order Of Battle) and numbers of soldiers in the units.

In WIF Belgium has 3 corps and 1 reserve corps. The writeup says the "1st corps" has 2 divisions and some 14000 men. Since I haven't seen the writeup for the other corps I asume for this argument that they have 3 divisions each and 22000 soldiers. That gives the entire Belgian WIF army 11 divisions with 80000 men including the reserve.

Oxfords Companion to WWII says the Belgian field army had 22 divisions with some 600000 men in may 1940 (fully mobilized). I verified those numbers with another source.

That makes a discrepancy between WIF and history that becomes very obvious with a small army like Belgium and such nice unit writeups.

Should this be mentioned somewhere? Perhaps a small writeup on each minor country?

Maybe an information screen could be added to most minor countries in the declaration of war step that included the historical date the minor entered the war and the status at that point of its armed forces.

-Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Does Oxford Companion give any details about the 22 divisions and 600,000 men, or just the total counts?

quote:

ORIGINAL: capitan

Fascinating Orm, I suppose the smaller countries are poorly represented in WIF because of the scale, as Charlie also says.

About the writeups in general, we should be careful to subject them to the academic scrutiny, they are not meant to be academic but instead they are supposed to give colour and entertainment. That said I am sure all the writers are grateful for any observations or insights that can improve the accuracy of the texts. In this particular case however I believe we are shortchanged by ADGs design and the scale of the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: capitan

Fascinating Orm, I suppose the smaller countries are poorly represented in WIF because of the scale, as Charlie also says.

About the writeups in general, we should be careful to subject them to the academic scrutiny, they are not meant to be academic but instead they are supposed to give colour and entertainment. That said I am sure all the writers are grateful for any observations or insights that can improve the accuracy of the texts. In this particular case however I believe we are shortchanged by ADGs design and the scale of the game.

I also belive it is intended by ADG that the Belgian Army is smaller than historical OOB would suggest. The fantastic unit writeups has however made me to want more. I am getting greedy by looking at all the nice things Steve and all you others brings to this site.

Would it be to hard to get a small writeup for some (all?) minor countries in addition to the writeups of the counters?

I would gladly volonteer my writing skills (or lack of it) on some of them if the overburdened Matrix team could find a way to include them.


-Orm