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  31 32 [33] 34 35   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 8/18/2008 11:05:01 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Eichenblatt

Just a quick question - will the (excellent) unit descriptions be available in some sort of archive or similar or will you be required to start a game in order to access the information on the units? I think that it would be great to have some sort of archive accessible from the start page of the game for those that just want to enjoy the graphics and descriptions of the units.

Steve et al. - keep up the great work! I am sure that this will be the finest grand strategy wargame of all times!

/Dave 

Thanks, and welcome to the forum.

Unit descriptions are in 3 files (land, air, and naval). These are simple TXT files, readable using NotePad, or a simple text editor. However, they contain embedded formating commands that are interpreted by MWIF.

It you start a game of Global War, all units can be accessed using the Units Review form and their descriptions read there - without really playing the game. The advantage of this over Notepad is that all the formating commands have been used to make the text appear the way the authors intended it to be read (e.g., with paragraphing and bullet points).

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Eichenblatt)
Post #: 961
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 8/18/2008 7:21:34 PM   
jesperpehrson


Posts: 1052
Joined: 7/29/2006
Status: offline
As Steve says they look a lot better in-game than as just plain text. The writeups are mainly for historical entertainment but I do think this is one of the largest collaborative efforts ever made for a wargame to add some nice historical flavour. I am sure you will enjoy it when you get the game in your hands!

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 962
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 8/19/2008 8:33:40 AM   
Eichenblatt

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 8/18/2008
Status: offline
Steve and capitan - Many thanks for the quick reply! I am very impressed by the way that you are handling this forum.

I understand that you are putting a lot of effort into this project and I am sure that the end result will be great!

When it comes to the unit write-ups, please make sure to proof-read the texts and make sure that they are consistent (i.e. abbreviations, decimals etc.). I think that this is quite important for the overall impression of the finished product.

Being a lawyer by trade, I am quite picky about these sorts of things...

< Message edited by Eichenblatt -- 8/19/2008 8:34:50 AM >

(in reply to jesperpehrson)
Post #: 963
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 9/23/2008 9:14:40 PM   
warspite1


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

Have you heard whether Marcus is still doing the CW carriers? I checked with Andy and he has not heard. If not I am happy to take on (as you probably know!).

Thanks

Rob

(in reply to Eichenblatt)
Post #: 964
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 9/23/2008 9:28:52 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Steve

Have you heard whether Marcus is still doing the CW carriers? I checked with Andy and he has not heard. If not I am happy to take on (as you probably know!).

Thanks

Rob

Why don't you send him an email/PM? I haven't heard from him recently, but he had said he would busy until September.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 965
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 9/23/2008 10:24:54 PM   
warspite1


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Steve

Have you heard whether Marcus is still doing the CW carriers? I checked with Andy and he has not heard. If not I am happy to take on (as you probably know!).

Thanks

Rob

Why don't you send him an email/PM? I haven't heard from him recently, but he had said he would busy until September.
Warspite1

I have but heard nothing, so I thought I would check with you.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 966
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/10/2008 10:06:10 AM   
warspite1


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

Could I ask whoever did the write up`s for the ships listed below, whether I can be allowed to amend them to bring them into line - content wise -with the other CW naval units that I am doing? Having done the work, I fully understand if you would rather not have your work changed but would appreciate it if you could let me know soonest as I am shortly "moving in to the Med" where Sydney and Perth in particular feature. It would be nice to have all the CW ships in one format but as I say, if not then no problem.

HMAS Adelaide       HMNZS Achilles
HMAS Hobart         HMNZS Leander
HMAS Perth
HMAS Sydney

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 967
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/10/2008 5:47:49 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Polite Request:

Could I ask whoever did the write up`s for the ships listed below, whether I can be allowed to amend them to bring them into line - content wise -with the other CW naval units that I am doing? Having done the work, I fully understand if you would rather not have your work changed but would appreciate it if you could let me know soonest as I am shortly "moving in to the Med" where Sydney and Perth in particular feature. It would be nice to have all the CW ships in one format but as I say, if not then no problem.

HMAS Adelaide       HMNZS Achilles
HMAS Hobart         HMNZS Leander
HMAS Perth
HMAS Sydney

It was Mark Neiswender.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 968
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/23/2008 8:14:11 PM   
warspite1


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

In Mech in Flames there is a Canadian aircraft carrier counter - HMCS Canada. This is obviously a "what if" counter, but I would be grateful if anyone knows if its reason for inclusion is based upon a specific plan to build such a ship for/by the RCN but that was subsequently cancelled.

I can see nothing to suggest that this is the case and that the only carriers the Canadians operated were those transferred from the RN. Any assistance would be appreciated.

Thank-you

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 969
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/23/2008 9:56:59 PM   
paulderynck


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


In Mech in Flames there is a Canadian aircraft carrier counter - HMCS Canada. This is obviously a "what if" counter, but I would be grateful if anyone knows if its reason for inclusion is based upon a specific plan to build such a ship for/by the RCN but that was subsequently cancelled.

I can see nothing to suggest that this is the case and that the only carriers the Canadians operated were those transferred from the RN. Any assistance would be appreciated.

Thank-you

Never heard of a Canadian aircraft carrier before HMCS Bonaventure in the '50s. (Nor after...)

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 970
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/23/2008 10:34:31 PM   
warspite1


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


In Mech in Flames there is a Canadian aircraft carrier counter - HMCS Canada. This is obviously a "what if" counter, but I would be grateful if anyone knows if its reason for inclusion is based upon a specific plan to build such a ship for/by the RCN but that was subsequently cancelled.

I can see nothing to suggest that this is the case and that the only carriers the Canadians operated were those transferred from the RN. Any assistance would be appreciated.

Thank-you

Never heard of a Canadian aircraft carrier before HMCS Bonaventure in the '50s. (Nor after...)

Warspite1

There was HMCS Warrior from March 1946, but she was swapped for HMCS Magnificent (as Warrior was not suited to northern waters) who was herself swapped for HMCS Bonaventure. I suspect HMCS Canada is a completely fictional unit but want to make sure this is the case before committing to paper.

The question remains open if anyone can shed any light on it.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 971
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/23/2008 10:36:32 PM   
terje439


Posts: 6813
Joined: 3/28/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


In Mech in Flames there is a Canadian aircraft carrier counter - HMCS Canada. This is obviously a "what if" counter, but I would be grateful if anyone knows if its reason for inclusion is based upon a specific plan to build such a ship for/by the RCN but that was subsequently cancelled.

I can see nothing to suggest that this is the case and that the only carriers the Canadians operated were those transferred from the RN. Any assistance would be appreciated.

Thank-you


Got a mail from the same guys that answers on the quiz.

"HMCS Canada inclusion is probably because the real HMS Canada's sister ship was the HMS Eagle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Canada_(1913)

At the time she was bought, her sister ship, the Almirante Cochrane, was also purchased for the Royal Navy. She was less complete than the Almirante Latorre, and was never completed as a battleship. Instead, she lay incomplete on the slip from 1914 to 1917, when she was purchased and completed as HMS Eagle, one of the first aircraft carriers. As Eagle she served in World War II and was sunk in the Mediterranean while escorting one of the Malta convoys."

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 972
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/23/2008 10:50:17 PM   
warspite1


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: terje439


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


In Mech in Flames there is a Canadian aircraft carrier counter - HMCS Canada. This is obviously a "what if" counter, but I would be grateful if anyone knows if its reason for inclusion is based upon a specific plan to build such a ship for/by the RCN but that was subsequently cancelled.

I can see nothing to suggest that this is the case and that the only carriers the Canadians operated were those transferred from the RN. Any assistance would be appreciated.

Thank-you


Got a mail from the same guys that answers on the quiz.

"HMCS Canada inclusion is probably because the real HMS Canada's sister ship was the HMS Eagle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Canada_(1913)

At the time she was bought, her sister ship, the Almirante Cochrane, was also purchased for the Royal Navy. She was less complete than the Almirante Latorre, and was never completed as a battleship. Instead, she lay incomplete on the slip from 1914 to 1917, when she was purchased and completed as HMS Eagle, one of the first aircraft carriers. As Eagle she served in World War II and was sunk in the Mediterranean while escorting one of the Malta convoys."

Warspite1

Terje thanks for that - excellent spot whoever your source is - only problem is that the counter dates from 1942 and in terms of quality she is in the same category as the Audacious-class - Audacious, Ark Royal II and Eagle II.

(in reply to terje439)
Post #: 973
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/25/2008 12:16:43 AM   
terje439


Posts: 6813
Joined: 3/28/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: terje439


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


In Mech in Flames there is a Canadian aircraft carrier counter - HMCS Canada. This is obviously a "what if" counter, but I would be grateful if anyone knows if its reason for inclusion is based upon a specific plan to build such a ship for/by the RCN but that was subsequently cancelled.

I can see nothing to suggest that this is the case and that the only carriers the Canadians operated were those transferred from the RN. Any assistance would be appreciated.

Thank-you


Got a mail from the same guys that answers on the quiz.

"HMCS Canada inclusion is probably because the real HMS Canada's sister ship was the HMS Eagle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Canada_(1913)

At the time she was bought, her sister ship, the Almirante Cochrane, was also purchased for the Royal Navy. She was less complete than the Almirante Latorre, and was never completed as a battleship. Instead, she lay incomplete on the slip from 1914 to 1917, when she was purchased and completed as HMS Eagle, one of the first aircraft carriers. As Eagle she served in World War II and was sunk in the Mediterranean while escorting one of the Malta convoys."

Warspite1

Terje thanks for that - excellent spot whoever your source is - only problem is that the counter dates from 1942 and in terms of quality she is in the same category as the Audacious-class - Audacious, Ark Royal II and Eagle II.



Follow-up mail from JGN in my inbox today:

If the HMCS Canada is an Audacious class carrier that makes it even more probable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_the_Royal_Navy

The Audacious class aircraft carriers were a class of ship proposed by the British government in the 1930s - 1940s. The Audacious class was originally designed as an expansion of the Implacable class with double storied hangars. However, it was realised that the hangar height would not be sufficient for the new aircraft that were expected to enter service, so the design was considerably enlarged.

Four ships of were laid down between 1942 and 1943 during World War II as part of the British naval buildup - HMS Africa (D06), HMS Ark Royal (91), HMS Audacious (D29) and HMS Eagle (94). At the end of hostilities Africa and Eagle were cancelled. Work on the remaining two was suspended.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 974
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/27/2008 5:33:59 AM   
doctormm


Posts: 124
Joined: 5/28/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


In Mech in Flames there is a Canadian aircraft carrier counter - HMCS Canada. This is obviously a "what if" counter, but I would be grateful if anyone knows if its reason for inclusion is based upon a specific plan to build such a ship for/by the RCN but that was subsequently cancelled.

I can see nothing to suggest that this is the case and that the only carriers the Canadians operated were those transferred from the RN. Any assistance would be appreciated.

Thank-you


The Canada was originally introduced in the America in Flames game, as a "Classic Scale" ship. I imagine that it is based entirely in fantasy. The MiF counter you mention is the Ships in Flames version of the AiF counter.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 975
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/27/2008 12:49:36 PM   
micheljq


Posts: 791
Joined: 3/31/2008
From: Quebec
Status: offline
I know Canada owned a carrier named "Bonaventure". I think it was in service in the 1950s, could have been used in the Corean War I don't know, and should have been retired in the seventies. I don't think Canada ever owned a CV named "Canada". I can be mistaken. Maybe it was the HMS (Her Majesty Ship) Canada, renamed HMCS (Her Majesty Canadian Ship) Bonaventure after the british handled the carrier to Canada.

That should be the only carrier Canada ever had.



< Message edited by micheljq -- 11/27/2008 12:53:06 PM >

(in reply to doctormm)
Post #: 976
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/27/2008 3:28:15 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline
The CV HMCS Canada has no real-world equivalent. The list of Canadian carriers that were ever in service can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country. All of them were light or escort carriers.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to micheljq)
Post #: 977
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/27/2008 5:43:59 PM   
micheljq


Posts: 791
Joined: 3/31/2008
From: Quebec
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

The CV HMCS Canada has no real-world equivalent. The list of Canadian carriers that were ever in service can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country. All of them were light or escort carriers.


Thanks interesting list, I was sure Canada would list only one but there is five. DOH!

< Message edited by micheljq -- 11/27/2008 9:39:46 PM >

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 978
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/27/2008 9:25:47 PM   
terje439


Posts: 6813
Joined: 3/28/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: micheljq

I know Canada owned a carrier named "Bonaventure". I think it was in service in the 1950s, could have been used in the Corean War I don't know, and should have been retired in the seventies. I don't think Canada ever owned a CV named "Canada". I can be mistaken. Maybe it was the HMS (Her Majesty Ship) Canada, renamed HMCS (Her Majesty Canadian Ship) Bonaventure after the british handled the carrier to Canada.

That should be the only carrier Canada ever had.




And another mail from JGN:

How long is the extended game?

HMS Warrior (R31) laid down: December 12, 1942 and launched: May 20, 1944 - sold to Canada as HMCS Warrior 1946 - 1948, sold to Argentina 1958 as ARA Independencia (V-1).
HMCS Magnificent (CVL 21) - laid down July 29, 1943 and launched November 16, 1944 - sold to Canada (replacing Warrior) as HMCS Magnificent (CVL 21) 1946 – 1956.
HMS Powerful (R95) laid down: November 27, 1943 and launched: February 27, 1945 - sold to Canada as HMCS Bonaventure (CVL 22) April 1952 - July 1970.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_the_Royal_Navy


Bogue class escort carriers manned by Canadian crews in World War II

HMS Nabob (D77) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Nabob_(D77)
HMS Puncher (D79) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Puncher_(D79)

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/canada/ww2/

(in reply to micheljq)
Post #: 979
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/28/2008 1:15:14 PM   
warspite1


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


In Mech in Flames there is a Canadian aircraft carrier counter - HMCS Canada. This is obviously a "what if" counter, but I would be grateful if anyone knows if its reason for inclusion is based upon a specific plan to build such a ship for/by the RCN but that was subsequently cancelled.

I can see nothing to suggest that this is the case and that the only carriers the Canadians operated were those transferred from the RN. Any assistance would be appreciated.

Thank-you

Warspite1

I think my original question got lost in translation! - but thanks all for your efforts.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 980
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/28/2008 3:39:05 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline
Hopefully buried in all the trivia is some actual answer, which, to the question you seem to have asked, is no, there appears to have been no specific plan for the RCN to have a fleet carrier during the war, although it may have been part of contingency planning if the Axis invaded England.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 981
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/28/2008 11:44:03 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
I wasn't a fan of the artillery units when they came out either, but they have begun to feel like a natural part of the game. Think about the extra assets deployed on each side at Kursk. Not every division in an army would have identical battle assets. Artillery was frequently assigned at the Army Group level, and I now think those counters work perfectly.

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 982
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 1/17/2009 1:36:36 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
Further to the posts back in June, please see revised format for the TRS and AMPH (one of each).

First a TRS

[4718 Transport - by Robert Jenkins]
.B Name: RMS Lancastria
.B Engine(s) output: 13,500hp
.B Top Speed: 17 knots
.B Main armament: Not Applicable
.B Gross Tonnage: 16,243 tons
.B Thickest armour: Not Applicable
.P World in Flames uses two main types of naval transport counter. Transport
(TRS) and Amphibious (AMPH). The use of these counters depends to an extent on
what optional rules are being used. However as a general rule, TRS represent the
types of ship that were used to transport men and material from one friendly
port to another, while AMPH represent the specialised shipping that could land
men and material on a hostile shore.
.P In World War II, ships of every type and from every available source, were
placed under the command of the British Ministry of War Transport (M.O.W.T.).
These ships were not only drawn from Britain`s own merchant fleet but also from
those of Britain`s allies - the Norwegian contribution being particularly
important. In addition, enemy ships that were captured by the RN also fell under
the control of M.O.W.T.
.P Some ships were commissioned into the Royal Navy (RN) and were given an RN
crew, while others were either totally crewed by civilians or had a mixed
complement. By way of example, some merchant vessels were equipped with heavy
guns that required operation by DEMS (Defensively Equipped Merchant Ship)
gunners and these men typically came from the RN or even the army.
.P It is worth remembering that during World War II, around 50,000 allied
merchant seamen were killed and that statistically there was a greater chance of
being killed in the Merchant Navy than in the British Army, RN or Royal Air
Force.
.P RMS Lancastria was completed in 1922. She was originally built for the Anchor
Line and was named Tyrrhenia. However, she was transferred to the famous Cunard
Line whilst being built. Two years later she was refitted and renamed Lancastria
as her original name was not user friendly to passengers.
.P In her new role she sailed regularly from Liverpool to New York until 1932.
In that year she was transferred to the Mediterranean for use a cruise ship and
also performed this role in northern waters. The Second World War changed all
that.
.P As the "Phoney War" came to an end with the German invasion of Norway and
Denmark in April 1940, Lancastria was requisitioned by the Ministry for War
Transport for use as a troopship. Her first duty was to assist in the evacuation
of troops after the poorly planned and executed Norwegian campaign went wrong
(see Transport Counter 4720).
.P Her next - and last - role saw her take part, along with a number of other
large liners, in Operation Aerial. While the story of the "Miracle of Dunkirk"
is well known, Aerial, the evacuation of troops and civilians from ports in
Western France, is less well documented. After the evacuation of the BEF from
Dunkirk there were still over 150,000 British troops in France. Winston
Churchill sent a second Expeditionary Force of two divisions to join them in a
bid to help save the French from defeat. However, there was little prospect that
this force would be able to achieve anything and within a couple of weeks, this
second force was also in need of evacuation.
.P On the 15th June, the decision was made to launch Aerial. Troops and
civilians were embarked mainly from four ports, St-Malo, St-Nazaire, La Pallice
and Brest. On 17th June the newly installed President of France, the World War
One hero Marshal Petain ordered his troops to cease firing. By the end of that
day, the majority of the remaining British troops had been evacuated, although
the operation would continue for many days thereafter. The Luftwaffe sought to
hamper the British operation through bombing attacks and aerial mine-laying.
.P As part of Aerial, Lancastria had left Liverpool and arrived at the Loire
river estuary on the 16th. By the afternoon of the following day while off St
Nazaire, she had embarked a large number of troops and civilians. The actual
number embarked is not known and the official records will not be available
until 2040 but all ships were overloaded with evacuees and Lancastria was no
exception. Despite her official capacity being officially 1,580, she is believed
to have taken onboard anywhere between 4,000 to 9,000. Just before 4pm, she was
bombed by German aircraft, hit three times and sank within twenty minutes. To
make matters worse fuel oil that had leaked into the sea, caught fire. To add to
those killed in the initial bomb blasts, many others drowned, choked to death on
the oil or were shot by strafing German aircraft.
.P Losses that day are difficult to judge given the confusion surrounding how
many were embarked in the first place, but it is generally accepted that a very
minimum of 3,500 people lost their lives. To put this into context, that is more
than died due to the losses of the Titanic and Lusitania combined. This makes
her loss the worst single maritime loss in British maritime history. So serious
was the loss, that at a time of one defeat after another, the British Government
initially withheld the news in the interests of public morale.
.P The Captain that day, Rudolf Sharpe, was a survivor of this tragedy and later
went on to captain the troopship Laconia (see Transport counter 4719 Laconia) in
which he was to lose his life in 1942.
.P During Aerial, the Allies were aided by the fact that the advancing German
troops found keeping up with the retreating Allied soldiers difficult and the
enemy bombers had to fly long distances to reach the western ports. As a result,
in total, 163,225 men were evacuated during this operation. These included over
30,000 men from Cherbourg, 21,000 from St Malo, 32,000 from Brest, 57,000 from
St Nazaire and 2,000 from La Pallice. A further 19,000 were rescued from other
smaller ports.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 983
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 1/17/2009 1:49:51 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
...and an AMPH

[4713 Amphibious - by Robert Jenkins]
.P These counters do not represent individual ships. Instead they represent a
number of vessels of various types used in amphibious operations. For example in
large scale operations e.g. D-Day, these ships were required to a) get troops
and equipment transported across seas and oceans to their target destination and
b) on arrival at the target, enable sufficient quantities of men and material to
get ashore - often against a defended stretch of coast - and allow those troops
to consolidate their position and build a bridgehead for further reinforcement.
.P The failure of the Gallipoli campaign in World War I was largely due to a
lack of understanding of the above. Despite this, little effort was made by the
British during the inter-war years to develop amphibious warfare capability.
However, the defeat of the British Expeditionary Force in France brought into
sharp focus - certainly in the mind of Winston Churchill - that a means of
getting troops, tanks and guns across water and landed on a hostile shore, would
need to be found.
.P To this end, the British Prime Minister was key to setting up the Combined
Operations Command in June 1940. This Command had two functions.
Firstly to allow hit and run Commando raids and secondly, to allow the Allies to
mount a full scale invasion of enemy held territory. The first combined training
centre (CTC) was set up in Scotland and was followed by other centres, each for
specialist roles. There was a variety of ship types developed for this type of
warfare and many variations on a theme. These amphibious counter write-ups
outline some of the key ship types.
.B
.B Landing Ship Infantry
.B Name: HMS Princess Beatrix
.B Type: Landing Ship Infantry (Medium) (LSI(M))
.B Top Speed: 23 knots
.B Main Armament: 4 x 4-inch (102mm) guns, 5 x 40mm and 14 x 20mm AA weapons
.B Gross Tons: (Full load) 4,136 tons
.B Military Load: 6 Landing Craft Assault (LCA) or 6 Landing Craft Support (LCS)
+ 2 Landing Craft Mechanised
372 Troops and their equipment
.B
.P Prinses Beatrix and her sister Konigin Emma were built in 1939 to ferry
passengers on the Harwich - Hook of Holland ferry route. They were named after
members of the Dutch Royal Family. They were both requisitioned by the British
in 1940 and given anglicised names - Queen Emma and Princess Beatrix. They were
immediately converted for use as troopships and their fast speed made them ideal
for Commando operations.
.P These ships were not just troopships but were more accurately landing ships.
They were converted to enable them to take part in amphibious operations by
carrying the landing craft required to get troops ashore on hostile beaches.
These two ships could carry around 370 troops and their equipment as well as
eight Landing Craft. They were designated medium (M) in size.
.P Princess Beatrix and her sister ship were key to the success of Operation
Claymore. Claymore was a Commando raid against the Lofoten Islands, an island
group approximately 100 miles north of the Arctic Circle off Norway. It was
carried out on the 4th March 1941. The primary targets were Norwegian fish oil
factories from which the Germans were able to make Glycerine, used in the
manufacture of munitions. It should be noted that the importance of these types
of raid were not confined solely to the destruction of installations and such
like. In the early days they were important in taking the war to the Germans and
meant that the Germans needed to increase their garrisons with troops that could
be more productively used elsewhere.
.P For this operation the assaulting force contained troops from No.3 and No.4
Commando who were transported to the target in HMS Queen Emma and HMS
Princess Beatrix. The transports were escorted by five destroyers. The
battleships Nelson and King George V and the cruisers Edinburgh and Nigeria
provided further cover. They sailed from Scapa Flow on the 21st February for the
Faroe Islands, where the troops received their final training. The force then
sailed in atrocious conditions on the 1st March for the Lofotens. They were not
harassed by enemy aircraft on route and the ships arrived off islands in the
early hours of 4th March. The troops embarked onto the landing craft and raced
to the four invasion spots. The two cruisers were detached from the battleships
to provide close support to the invasion force.
.P Total surprise was achieved and soon the garrison were taken prisoner. The
Commandos then set about destroying the target installations - eleven fish oil
factories, military establishments as well as seven ships caught in the harbour.
The planned destruction was carried out and by midday re-embarkation was begun
which included 314 volunteers for the Norwegian forces. Last but by no means
least was the capture of spare rotors for a German Enigma coding machine which
were sent to Bletchley Park and proved to be of great value to the code breakers
there. The British suffered no battle casualties during the raid.
.P Princess Beatrix later took part in Operation Jubilee - the raid on Dieppe -
in August 1942, during which she carried troops from the South Saskatchenewan
Regiment. Among her other operations were Operation Torch (November 1942)
and Operation Husky (1943)
.P HMS Princess Beatrix was returned to her original owner in 1946.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 984
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 1/17/2009 1:53:35 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
....Finally a revised ASW counter

[4698 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. In addition, the counter mix is probably unbalanced in terms of origin
of the escorts and those with an aircraft component. As a result there will be a
degree of Royal Navy (RN) ship write up on Canadian counters and non-carrier
units being described on ASW Carrier counters.
.P These counters do not represent an individual convoy or any specific ships
but are designed to represent convoy escort groups. These counters have mixed
values reflecting the fact that the make-up of an escort group could differ from
one convoy to the next. Additionally, they show that as the war progressed, the
escorts allocated to convoys grew, not only in number, but also in anti-aircraft
(AA) and anti-submarine (ASW) capability. This was due to the great ship building
programs particularly in the US, Britain and Canada that churned out substantial
volumes of specialised escort vessels.
.P There were three main threats to convoys - Surface raiders, U-boats and
aircraft.
.B
.B Surface Raiders
.P See individual unit counters for details of action against convoys.
.B
.B U-boats
.P Unrestricted submarine warfare by the Germans in the First World War brought
the United Kingdom to the brink of defeat. The UK survived thanks largely to the
introduction of the convoy system that provided the previously unguarded and
mostly unarmed merchant vessels with warship protection.
.P At the outbreak of World War II, convoys were re-introduced as quickly as
possible but there had been a lack of investment in time and resources devoted
to the subject of convoy defence during the inter-war years and there were
initially insufficient escorts for the task. The RN therefore had to use
precious fleet destroyers that were badly needed elsewhere, and after losses
incurred during evacuations off Norway and France, this problem became critical.
Fortunately for the British, the Kriegsmarine were equally, if not more
unprepared and actually started the war with only fifty-seven U-boats, of which
just twenty-six were capable of Atlantic operations. This situation did not last
long as under the then Komodore Karl Donitz - head of the U-boat arm - a large
scale U-boat build program was instigated.
.B
.B Aircraft
.P During the Second World War, the potency of aircraft as ship killers became
evident. Most convoy routes came under threat from air attack at some point
along their length. To reach out into the Atlantic and Arctic, the Germans
employed their long range Focke-Wulf FW200 Condor aircraft that had a range of
2,212 miles (3,560km) and a 14-hour endurance. For more confined waters like the
North Sea, the English Channel and the Mediterranean, the Axis forces were able
to employ their shorter range aircraft in the ship killer role, and these were
used with deadly effect - particularly in the Mediterranean.
.P Countering these three threats was paramount - particularly across the trade
routes leading to the UK. The Battle of the Atlantic was to be the longest
battle in World War II. Had the Allies lost, the import to the United Kingdom
both of raw materials for the war effort and food for the population would have
been severely restricted and the United Kingdom could have been literally
starved into defeat. In addition, the movement of troops from the United States
and the far flung colonies and dominions of the Commonwealth to the frontline -
France, India, North Africa etc would have been much more hazardous. It is worth
remembering here that the men of the merchant navy suffered a higher percentage
of losses compared to the British Army, RN or Royal Air Force in World War II.
.P The write-ups for these counters gives information on the main types of
vessel that were available to the RN and the dominions. This write up looks at
armed merchant cruisers and highlights two examples, HMS Rawalpindi and HMS
Jervis Bay.
.P Armed merchant cruisers (AMC`s) were used by the RN and her dominion allies
to add to the defence of convoys and for patrol duty in the early years of the
war. These ships were identified as being suitable for such a role pre-war and
upon the outbreak of war or just before, were so converted. They were mostly
civilian liners in their previous role, that were fitted with between four and
eight 6-inch guns and typically three 3-inch AA guns. Fifty-seven such vessels
were converted for use as AMC`s and a total of fifteen were lost to enemy
action. From 1941 onwards, the majority of those remaining were converted to
troop ships as new specialist escorts were being completed.
.B
.B Name: HMS Rawalpindi
.B Engine(s) Output: 13,000 hp
.B Top Speed: 17 knots
.B Main Armament: 8 x 6-inch (152mm), 2 x 3-inch (76.2mm) guns
.B Displacement (full load): 16,697 tons
.B Thickest Armour: N/a
.P The Rawalpindi was a passenger liner for the P&O shipping company, built in
1925. She was converted into an AMC and commissioned into the RN in August 1939,
just before the outbreak of war.
.P After conversion and under the command of Captain Edward Kennedy, RN, she was
placed on patrol in northern waters. In October, she intercepted the German
blockade runner Gonzenheim while south-east of Iceland although the crew of the
German merchant were able to scuttle the ship before she could be captured.
.P The following month, on the 23rd, Rawalpindi was continuing her patrol duty
in the Faroes-Iceland gap, when she came across the German battlecruiser
Scharnhorst. The German ship and her sister Gneisenau were trying to break-out
into the Atlantic (see HMS Newcastle). Rawalpindi sent off a signal in error
that she had spotted the pocket-battleship Deutschland, although the mistake was
perhaps understandable given the poor visibility. Scharnhorst`s captain ordered
the British vessel to identify herself but Kennedy simply acknowledged the
German signal. The AMC was hopelessly outgunned and with a top speed of only 17
knots, she could not hope to out-run the enemy. However, for a time Rawalpindi
did just that, until eventually the battlecruiser put a warning shot across her
bows. Kennedy ordered a smoke screen but this had no effect. He then ordered
that his ship to open fire. He would fight rather than surrender. It was no
contest. The profile of the Rawalpindi, with her high sides and tall
superstructure gave the Germans an ideal target and the 11-inch German shells
from Scharnhorst and Gneisenau - after the later had caught up with her sister -
tore into the unarmoured British vessel. A shell struck the bridge, killing
Kennedy and everyone else in the vicinity. The fight was all over within forty
minutes and when flames reached one of her magazines, Rawalpindi blew up.
.P Two hundred and thirty eight men died but the enemy attempt at break-out was
ended and the German ships, fearful that the Home Fleet was nearby, headed home.
.B
.B Name: HMS Jervis Bay
.B Engine(s) Output: 13,000 hp
.B Top Speed: 15 knots
.B Main Armament: 7 x 6-inch (152mm), 2 x 3-inch (76.2mm) guns
.B Displacement (full load): 14,164 tons
.B Thickest Armour: N/a
.P The Jervis Bay was a passenger liner for the Aberdeen and Commonwealth line
and was built in 1922. Like Rawalpindi, she too had been taken over by the RN in
August 1939 and was converted to an AMC.
.P After conversion, she was sent to patrol the South Atlantic station before
becoming a convoy escort in May 1940. It was on this duty that she met her
famous end. HMS Jervis Bay was the sole ocean escort for a convoy of thirty-
seven merchant ships, known as HX84. This convoy sailed from Halifax, Nova
Scotia on the 25th October 1940 and was heading for the UK. Meanwhile, from her
base in western France, the pocket-battleship Admiral Scheer sailed two days
later. The Germans had intercepted British radio transmissions and the German
ship was able to steer a course that she expected would lead her directly to the
convoy.
.P When the Admiral Scheer reached the convoy on the 5th November, Jervis Bay`s
captain, Edward Fegen ordered the convoy to scatter. At the same time he ordered
that his ship close the German vessel at full speed in order to buy time for
HX84. As with the Rawalpindi, the 11-inch guns of the Scheer out-ranged the 6-
inch type which was all that Jervis Bay could offer. 187 of her crew were killed
as the Scheer quickly sent Jervis Bay to the bottom of the sea. However, Fegen`s
decision to engage, kept the Scheer from attacking the convoy for an hour and
bought enough time for the convoy to scatter. As a result only five ships were
lost.
.P Jervis Bay was able to send a signal before she sank and as a result the Home
Fleet put to sea to try and trap Admiral Scheer. The battleships Nelson and
Rodney, the battlecruisers Hood and Repulse and the cruisers Naiad, Phoebe,
Bonaventure and Dido took up various stations to try and stop Scheer from
returning to port. The battlecruiser Renown was also detached from Force H for
this purpose. However, the German vessel sailed for the South Atlantic and so
avoided interception.
.P Fegen`s actions were in the finest tradition of the RN. In order to save as
many of the merchants that he was responsible for, Fegen attacked a much better
armed enemy ship, knowing that the odds of victory were hopeless. For this act
of self-sacrifice, Fegen was awarded a posthumous Victoria Cross - the highest
award for bravery in the face of the enemy.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 985
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 1/19/2009 4:01:17 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline
Some pretty fine stuff for these otherwise generic counters.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 986
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 2/15/2009 9:29:23 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
We are making the final push for the unit writeups. The air units are done and the naval and land units are ni the 50-60% range of being done. If you would like to help out, send a personal message (PM) to Capitan for the land units or to Sabre21 for the naval units.
==
Warspite1 confesses to having gone a little far in his writeups on the Commonwealth navy. Here is one of his more recent revisions.
===




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 987
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 2/15/2009 9:31:10 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
Page two. I assume that his cross references to other writeups are valid.
===




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 988
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 2/15/2009 9:34:31 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
Third and last page of Warspite1's Ark Royal writeup. Imagine what it would have been like if the Ark Royal had survived to the end of the war!

Most of the writeups are nowhere near as detailed as this, though they do give the relevant numbers (weight and armament) and usually one or two anecdotal paragraphs.
===




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 989
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 2/16/2009 2:49:02 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
Using CVs to ferry aircraft was an important aspect of naval operations in WWII ... saved at least one of the US CVs that otherwise might have been in Pearl Harbor on December 7th, for example. I did not know that was what the Ark Royal was doing when it was sunk, thanks for including that. The Illustrious was damaged on a similar run, and in the Pacific the Langley was also lost while trying to deliver fighter planes to Java.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 990
Page:   <<   < prev  31 32 [33] 34 35   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land Page: <<   < prev  31 32 [33] 34 35   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

2.094