Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
- 6/16/2002 3:24:06 PM   
U2


Posts: 3332
Joined: 7/17/2001
From: Västerås,Sweden
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by dgaad
[B]

This discussion has not been, from the very beginning, about letting people lay the number of mines that were laid pre-patch. I've said this a dozen times, I will say it again this time a little differently : implement a scheme which gives the players OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY on the location of mine loading facilities, then layer on limits to the numbers that can be laid (by limiting numbers available, increasing the cost of mines, etc, any one of a dozen ways). [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, I know that dgaad but that was just my thought on mines. My problem was the amount of mines that could be laid and you are talking about OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY. My post was not meant to continue your topic. Eventhough I agree with Matrix on your discussion one has to admire a man that sticks to his beliefs.
Dan

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 61
- 6/16/2002 4:32:28 PM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by U2
[B]

Yes, I know that dgaad but that was just my thought on mines. My problem was the amount of mines that could be laid and you are talking about OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY. My post was not meant to continue your topic. Eventhough I agree with Matrix on your discussion one has to admire a man that sticks to his beliefs.
Dan [/B][/QUOTE]

I lack many qualities, but persistence is not one of them. Assuming that's a quality. Some might disagree. ;)

Anyway, yes I was happy with the patch as well, except of course for my now well known issue with the mine loading thing. ;)

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 62
- 6/16/2002 5:01:05 PM   
U2


Posts: 3332
Joined: 7/17/2001
From: Västerås,Sweden
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by dgaad
[B]


Anyway, yes I was happy with the patch as well, except of course for my now well known issue with the mine loading thing. ;) [/B][/QUOTE]

Well known to say the least:) Hockeytown=Detroit? If that is it congrats for winning the Stanley Cup and for having three great swedes.
Dan

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 63
- 6/16/2002 5:23:29 PM   
Didz


Posts: 728
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: UK
Status: offline 		I won't pretend to have fully understood all of Paul's posting mainly because I don't have a very good map of the area and so could not place some of the locations.

However, what comes across quite clearly is that the US Mining operations during the period and area covered by UV were quite extensive.

There is mention of offensive mining between Aug42 through to Feb43 around the Solomon Islands, Guadacanal, Shortland and Bouganville. In fact it appears for a short time that minefields were the only defence provided for the Marines on Guandacanal.

So, that being the case at least I don't feel as bad about using mines around the Slot during game play.

What is not clear from Paul's post is whether the minelayers laying these mines were making the long trip back the Noumea to reload with mines after each mission which seems to be the crux of this debate.

Later in the post there is the mention of SS James Macpherson being used to ferry mines to the minelayers in May 43 and that by Nov43 there was a forward Mine Assembly depot on Guadacanal.

But it is not clear whether these options were available and could have been used earlier and if so why they were not. Neither is it clear, if they were not used, whether it was because the CinC did not consider them necessary or because the operational commander never requested them.

There is also dgaad's information regarding the Austrailian mining operations to consider which don't seem to figure in the game at all.

So overall the impression I get is that:

[list=a]
  • There is no real issue over the extent of offensive mining in UV.
  • The effectiveness of mines needed to be reviewed in particular where the water depth was greater than 120ft.
  • There might be some additional capability required to represent the Aussie mining capability.
  • The issue of operational flexibility still needs to be clarified, at least from my point of view.
    [/list=a]

    I would just add that I am as keen to avoid a 'gamey' exploitation of mines as anyone but at the same time don't want to artificially restrict the use of mines where they were used historically.

    Also from a purely player viewpoint I would prefer not to add even more micro-management to the game by making the control of Mining Missions more fiddly than it needs to be. Under the new fixed load system I suspect that Mining TF's will need to be loaded and then refuelled en-route to the Slot which is probably going to be a real pain.

    _____________________________

    Didz
    Fortis balore et armis

    (in reply to dgaad)
    • Post #: 64
    New Rules - 6/16/2002 5:56:37 PM   
    mogami


    Posts: 12789
    Joined: 8/23/2000
    From: You can't get here from there
    Status: offline     		Hi, I am running mine layers out of Truk in a PBEM game with no problems. I lay 275 mines per week (2 minelayers)

    _____________________________






    I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

    (in reply to dgaad)
    Post #: 65
    - 6/16/2002 6:08:49 PM   
    Avenger


    Posts: 140
    Joined: 6/8/2002
    Status: offline     		Can minelayers lay mines in the same hex that they have mined previously? Will the mines in that hex become thicker? Will ships hit those mines if I increase the density of the minefield? I ask because the Japs are constantly going thru my minefields and never hit them!

    --Avenger

    (in reply to dgaad)
    Post #: 66
    mines - 6/16/2002 6:31:35 PM   
    mogami


    Posts: 12789
    Joined: 8/23/2000
    From: You can't get here from there
    Status: offline     		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Avenger
    [B]Can minelayers lay mines in the same hex that they have mined previously? Will the mines in that hex become thicker? Will ships hit those mines if I increase the density of the minefield? I ask because the Japs are constantly going thru my minefields and never hit them!

    --Avenger [/B][/QUOTE]


    Hi, Yes you can lay mines in hex you already laid mines. (increasing number in hex)
    Are they running through shallow water hexs you have mines in? deep water?

    _____________________________






    I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

    (in reply to dgaad)
    Post #: 67
    - 6/16/2002 6:31:38 PM   
    dgaad

     

    Posts: 864
    Joined: 7/25/2001
    From: Hockeytown
    Status: offline     		[QUOTE]Originally posted by U2
    [B]

    Well known to say the least:) Hockeytown=Detroit? If that is it congrats for winning the Stanley Cup and for having three great swedes.
    Dan [/B][/QUOTE]

    All the Swedes on the team have been great contributors. I for one was very glad to see Lidstrom get the recognition he deserved. Steve Yzerman, the Captain, called Lidstrom "The best Red Wing to ever wear the uniform since I've been on the team." That's 19 years if my memory serves, and no mean praise coming from him.

    _____________________________

    Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

    (in reply to dgaad)
    Post #: 68
    Re: New Rules - 6/16/2002 6:35:08 PM   
    dgaad

     

    Posts: 864
    Joined: 7/25/2001
    From: Hockeytown
    Status: offline     		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
    [B]Hi, I am running mine layers out of Truk in a PBEM game with no problems. I lay 275 mines per week (2 minelayers) [/B][/QUOTE]

    Kinda scotches the whole notion of fixed bases in order to restrict mine use. Back to the drawing board. By the way, the drawing board already contains a sketched out scheme involving operational flexibility (as in Mine Warfare Engineer Units), but with a cost of approximately 200 per mine. Now, that would restrict their use, but give the player more flexibility as to where the mine loading occurs. There are other methods suggested by players : a mine "hub" like a barge hub, etc.

    ;)

    Don't bother telling me to shut up. ;)

    _____________________________

    Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

    (in reply to dgaad)
    Post #: 69
    - 6/16/2002 6:36:11 PM   
    dgaad

     

    Posts: 864
    Joined: 7/25/2001
    From: Hockeytown
    Status: offline     		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Avenger
    [B]Can minelayers lay mines in the same hex that they have mined previously? Will the mines in that hex become thicker? Will ships hit those mines if I increase the density of the minefield? I ask because the Japs are constantly going thru my minefields and never hit them!

    --Avenger [/B][/QUOTE]

    Answer is yes. "Thicken" the minefield. Be advised, this can get progressively risky to your own minelayers with the new rules (which I don't object to -- except for the fixed location of mine centers, but you knew that already).

    _____________________________

    Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

    (in reply to dgaad)
    Post #: 70
    limiting - 6/16/2002 6:39:37 PM   
    mogami


    Posts: 12789
    Joined: 8/23/2000
    From: You can't get here from there
    Status: offline     		Hi, It does limit mine use. Under 1.00 I could have laid 1925 mines per week with the 2 mine layers. But 275 still is a lot of operational flexabilty when it comes to mine laying. I will run out of good locations in 2 months (in a 19 month campaign)
    This is not counting future mine layers or subs.:eek:

    _____________________________






    I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

    (in reply to dgaad)
    Post #: 71
    Your own mines a danger - 6/16/2002 7:35:50 PM   
    Kitakami


    Posts: 1302
    Joined: 5/3/2002
    From: The bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
    Status: offline     		[QUOTE]Originally posted by dgaad
    [B]

    Answer is yes. "Thicken" the minefield. Be advised, this can get progressively risky to your own minelayers with the new rules (which I don't object to -- except for the fixed location of mine centers, but you knew that already). [/B][/QUOTE]

    I can vouch for this.

    PBEM Game, scenario 17, turn 13, both players switched to ver 1.10 patch.

    First thing I see as the Japanese in the combat report is my 2 ML hitting a mine each... in a minefield they had been laying themselves.

    Did not sink, but will be out of comission for a while.

    (in reply to dgaad)
    Post #: 72
    Re: Your own mines a danger - 6/17/2002 2:48:22 PM   
    Didz


    Posts: 728
    Joined: 10/2/2001
    From: UK
    Status: offline     		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kitakami
    [B]

    PBEM Game, scenario 17, turn 13, both players switched to ver 1.10 patch.

    First thing I see as the Japanese in the combat report is my 2 ML hitting a mine each... in a minefield they had been laying themselves.

    [/B][/QUOTE]

    I am aware of this being an occupational hazard for minesweepers but not sure how common it was for minelayers to back over their own mines.

    _____________________________

    Didz
    Fortis balore et armis

    (in reply to dgaad)
    Post #: 73
    - 6/17/2002 3:06:54 PM   
    Didz


    Posts: 728
    Joined: 10/2/2001
    From: UK
    Status: offline     		It suddenly occured to me that some of the issues with Mines might have been avoided if the Minefield was associated with passage through a hexside rather than passage through a hex.

    This in effect would have restricted the minefield to a 30 mile strip of water rather than a 900 sq. mile patch. So to get the same universal interdiction effect one would need to make six trips.

    More importantly it would have made it easier to lay mines whilst leaving a clear passage for your own vessels (say in and out of harbour) and in the case of The Slot the mines could have been restricted to the shallow hexsides with mining along the central channel being either prohibited due to water depth or subject to rapid degradation.

    It would also have made the mining of beach hexsides much more specific in that only ships actually trying to land troops on that beach would risk a mine whereas bombardment TF's standing several miles offshore would be in the clear. To catch the bombardment group one would have to lay mines on the seaward hexside but that would not be a 100% certainty unless one also mined the two flanking hexsides to prevent to prevent the enemy avoiding the mines by moving along the coast. (in other words it would be a lot more expensive to lay an effective minefield in open water)

    Mined hexsides could have been highlighted in red whilst laying them would have needed a two click destination procedure. E.g.

    Start Laying in this hex > Finish laying in this hex.

    Mined hexsides could then have been made impassible to both enemy and friendly ships with the onus on the player to make sure he kept the appropriate hexside clear.

    Just a thought. Bit too late for UV I realise.

    _____________________________

    Didz
    Fortis balore et armis

    (in reply to dgaad)
    Post #: 74
    - 6/17/2002 3:24:04 PM   
    Hartmann

     

    Posts: 888
    Joined: 11/28/2000
    Status: offline     		In the first couple of turns when switching to the patch, I lost about a dozen ships to my own old mines (plus a bunch of others damaged). Seems to me that the "offensive" minefields are more dangerous to me than to my enemy simply because my ships have to go through these regions far more often.
    In the end, I sweeped them all except the shallow mines. There is one shallow hex just South of Rabaul which seems dangerous, nevertheless: every TF of mine going through that hex lost a ship until I removed that minefield.
    All my MLs are at Truk now (where they probably will stay for the rest of the game).

    Hartmann

    (in reply to dgaad)
    Post #: 75
    - 6/17/2002 3:41:51 PM   
    Nixuebrig

     

    Posts: 1138
    Joined: 1/2/2001
    From: (c) Lübeck, now Berlin
    Status: offline     		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hartmann
    [B]In the first couple of turns when switching to the patch, I lost about a dozen ships to my own old mines (plus a bunch of others damaged). Seems to me that the "offensive" minefields are more dangerous to me than to my enemy simply because my ships have to go through these regions far more often.
    In the end, I sweeped them all except the shallow mines. There is one shallow hex just South of Rabaul which seems dangerous, nevertheless: every TF of mine going through that hex lost a ship until I removed that minefield.
    All my MLs are at Truk now (where they probably will stay for the rest of the game).

    Hartmann [/B][/QUOTE]

    Yes, noticed the same, best is to throw away old saves and send all MLs in future games back to Japan. I even lost 3 of 4 MSWs of a Task Force in my own Minefield, guess it is hard to remeber that you mined a area two days ago.

    (in reply to dgaad)
    Post #: 76
    - 6/17/2002 4:56:35 PM   
    Didz


    Posts: 728
    Joined: 10/2/2001
    From: UK
    Status: offline     		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Prince
    [B]

    Yes, noticed the same, best is to throw away old saves and send all MLs in future games back to Japan. I even lost 3 of 4 MSWs of a Task Force in my own Minefield, guess it is hard to remeber that you mined a area two days ago. [/B][/QUOTE]

    Sounds like the desire to limit the benefits of mines has gone a bit too far in the other direction.

    I haven't upgraded my game yet. I may wait and see if its a good idea I want to finish my current campaign anyway.

    _____________________________

    Didz
    Fortis balore et armis

    (in reply to dgaad)
    Post #: 77
    - 6/17/2002 9:16:06 PM   
    Yamamoto

     

    Posts: 743
    Joined: 11/21/2001
    From: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.
    Status: offline     		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Didz
    [B]

    Sounds like the desire to limit the benefits of mines has gone a bit too far in the other direction.

    I haven't upgraded my game yet. I may wait and see if its a good idea I want to finish my current campaign anyway. [/B][/QUOTE]

    I would like to know if the chances of hitting my own mines are now equal to the chances of the enemy hitting them or if the enemy still has a greater chance. I really enjoy using mines and I would hate to see that use eliminated. I NEVER used 'defensive' mines.

    Yamamoto

    (in reply to dgaad)
    Post #: 78
    - 6/18/2002 1:15:19 AM   
    Avenger


    Posts: 140
    Joined: 6/8/2002
    Status: offline     		I for one was quite happy with the change. I had mines all over the slot, extending a good ways out into the Ocean. It was real trouble for my own groups to navigate the lanes that I had created, causing many lost hours of movement. The Japs would freely cruise right through my mines and, as far as I know, were never hit by any. After the patch, within 10 days, 99% of my mines had drifted away. Now I could just concentrate on mining the shallow waters.

    If the change has been taken too far then I think that mining should be able to be done from any base, but only ever in shallow water. The shallow water hexes are few and far between.

    --Avenger

    (in reply to dgaad)
    Post #: 79
    - 6/18/2002 1:19:22 AM   
    Nixuebrig

     

    Posts: 1138
    Joined: 1/2/2001
    From: (c) Lübeck, now Berlin
    Status: offline     		my minefields were laid around Rabaul, i would call them defensive minefields, but i guess someone had another opinion of that.:) A DD on his way back to Truk was the next victim, looks like I locked myself in Rabaul.

    (in reply to dgaad)
    Post #: 80
    - 6/18/2002 1:27:15 AM   
    Hartmann

     

    Posts: 888
    Joined: 11/28/2000
    Status: offline     		I'm not totally against the new system. I think that most problems have to do with old saves. Once the deep water mines float away, the problem diminishes.

    But it seems that offensive mines in non-shallow water are

    a) too offensive to one's own ships
    b) next to impossible to keep afloat (especially as the minelayers have to go all the way back to Truk again)

    So (provided I did not confuse things) the conclusion is that it is not worth it to lay offensive mines at all, and I do not know whether this really was intended.

    My only real worry, though, is that even shallow water mines seem to be much more liable to hit your own ships now - is that true? It made me sweep certain hexes where many of my own convoys pass through.

    Hartmann

    (in reply to dgaad)
    Post #: 81
    - 6/18/2002 1:28:46 AM   
    Hartmann

     

    Posts: 888
    Joined: 11/28/2000
    Status: offline     		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Prince
    [B]my minefields were laid around Rabaul, i would call them defensive minefields, but i guess someone had another opinion of that.:) A DD on his way back to Truk was the next victim, looks like I locked myself in Rabaul. [/B][/QUOTE]

    That's exactly why I did sweep the mines around Rabaul. Even the shallow water mines (those which do not disperse by themselves after a while) seemed "offensive" to my own ships.

    Hartmann

    (in reply to dgaad)
    Post #: 82
    Laying Mines = Too Much Trouble - 6/18/2002 4:07:40 PM   
    mjk428

     

    Posts: 1944
    Joined: 6/15/2002
    From: Western USA
    Status: offline     		All I wanted was to lay a defensive minefield at PM but getting my DM's there wasn't worth all the work. I understand that it was easy to exploit the old mine rules but I think this goes too far. Rather than raising the COST of mining, the DIFFICULTY was raised.

    I think that simply adding the "shallow hex"/"deep hex" distinction would have gone most of the way towards solving the problem. I saw suggestions given regarding base size and supply cost that I believe would work better than the limitation imposed.

    The ability to lay mines was a "cool feature" that now has no good use unless the IJN tries an invasion of Noumea or the USN invades Truk.

    That's my opinion - I could be wrong:)

    mjk428

    (in reply to dgaad)
    Post #: 83
    Re: Laying Mines = Too Much Trouble - 6/18/2002 4:39:42 PM   
    Didz


    Posts: 728
    Joined: 10/2/2001
    From: UK
    Status: offline     		[QUOTE]Originally posted by mjk428
    [B]The ability to lay mines was a "cool feature" that now has no good use unless the IJN tries an invasion of Noumea or the USN invades Truk.

    That's my opinion - I could be wrong:)

    mjk428 [/B][/QUOTE]

    That was what dgaad and I were concerned about right from day one of this thread. No one denied that there was a problem with the abuse of mines particularly in PBEM play but my impression is that the 1.1 solution was a knee-jerk reaction that didn't really model the actual restrictions on mine usage very well.

    I haven't tried 1.1 yet so I can't comment on how the new system plays but if you are right it sounds like even more of my ships will be in mothballs at Noumea under 1.1 than 1.0. I already have all my SC's and MSW's gathering rust now it looks like the DM's will be joining them. This game gets more like CAW all the while.

    _____________________________

    Didz
    Fortis balore et armis

    (in reply to dgaad)
    Post #: 84
    - 6/18/2002 6:20:06 PM   
    dgaad

     

    Posts: 864
    Joined: 7/25/2001
    From: Hockeytown
    Status: offline     		Well, it seems to me like the dev team has for some reason bugged out of this discussion. I agree with Didz in that the "solution" went too far, and has rendered mines a non-factor in the game, and there is no operational flexibility to change that. Frankly, even if we had moveable mine centers, I'm not sure if the net effect would be different since offensive minefields are almost as dangerous to friendly ships under this scheme than to enemy ships. I bet people are even afraid to lay defensive minefields in their own ports. I know I haven't.

    _____________________________

    Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

    (in reply to dgaad)
    Post #: 85
    I see no big problem with the new mine fix. - 6/18/2002 6:47:33 PM   
    Ron Saueracker


    Posts: 12121
    Joined: 1/28/2002
    From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
    Status: offline     		Let's see. As IJN I used an ML to lay a barrier east of Guadalcanal to limit access by night bombardment forces. Two hits so far on the enemy. Also sank an enemy MSW with one at Gili Gili. That's it (quite a result actually) in 6 weeks. My ships have not sufferred.

    By revamping the mine rules, strategic assets such as carriers are , once again, exactly that. The old mine rules made the game too much of a "toy". Now I can concentrate on historical aspects of the campaign and not have to worry too much that my opponent has painted half the South Pacific with uber mines.

    _____________________________





    Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

    (in reply to dgaad)
    Post #: 86
    Re: I see no big problem with the new mine fix. - 6/18/2002 6:58:36 PM   
    Didz


    Posts: 728
    Joined: 10/2/2001
    From: UK
    Status: offline     		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ron Saueracker
    [B]The old mine rules made the game too much of a "toy". Now I can concentrate on historical aspects of the campaign and not have to worry too much that my opponent has painted half the South Pacific with uber mines. [/B][/QUOTE]

    How bad was the abuse of Mines in PBEM?

    I have yet to get involved in a PBEM game so I have no first hand expereince only an impression from what I have read of other peoples games.

    In the #17 scenario the USN only has four DM's so I find the number of mines I lay quite limited anyway especailly as the slot is under Rabaul air cover and therefore a no go area.

    Just curious about how the uber mine scenario happens in PBEM games.

    _____________________________

    Didz
    Fortis balore et armis

    (in reply to dgaad)
    Post #: 87
    mining in PBEM - 6/18/2002 7:04:44 PM   
    Slaughtermeyer


    Posts: 156
    Joined: 5/10/2002
    From: Pennsylvania
    Status: offline     		I think the AAR of the Crocky vs Kid PBEM has a discussion of the effect of pre-patch über mining on that particular game.

    (in reply to dgaad)
    Post #: 88
    Re: mining in PBEM - 6/18/2002 7:37:09 PM   
    Didz


    Posts: 728
    Joined: 10/2/2001
    From: UK
    Status: offline     		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Slaughtermeyer
    [B]I think the AAR of the Crocky vs Kid PBEM has a discussion of the effect of pre-patch über mining on that particular game. [/B][/QUOTE]

    Thanks!

    I have just read through this thread and its quite enlightening.

    It appears that both Crocky and Kid were quite happy with the 1.0 mine rules. Kid admits that most of his mine problems were the result of him not using his minesweepers properly whilst Crocky was using his IJN minelayers quite aggressively. In short he didn't properly counter his opponents strategy.

    The Anti-Mine debate seems to have exploded amongst the observers reading the thread rather then the players and is based as expected on the fact that supposedly the US never lost a single ship to an enemy mine during the actual campaign.

    Apart from this being a non-argument it doesn't give any clue as to why the US ships led such a charmed life or whether the situation would have been different if Yamamoto had followed Crocky's strategy.

    Incidently Kid made the point that he had not lost a single US capital ship to mines either, only transports, but that point seemed to get lost in the Anti-mine histeria.

    So, I'm still left puzzling why mines became such an issue. I get the impression that Crocky and Kid didn't think they were and they were playing the game.

    _____________________________

    Didz
    Fortis balore et armis

    (in reply to dgaad)
    Post #: 89
    - 6/18/2002 7:40:57 PM   
    juliet7bravo

     

    Posts: 894
    Joined: 5/30/2001
    Status: offline     		Minings not to bad for the IJN, you get all those ML's to use, takes about 3 days to get from Truk down to the Rabaul area. Mining for the Allies has pretty much been eliminated as a viable option, especially in the Oz/PM/GG areas.

    (1) 2nd Allied mine center in Australia.
    (2) Include the HMAS Bungaree.
    (3) Tone down the danger from friendly mines somewhat.

    HMAS Bungaree

    http://www.navy.gov.au/

    Summary; mine load of 412-467 mines; Laid 9000 mines between Jun 41 and January 44; Should be included in game with both a mining capability and/or about a 500t cargo capacity.

    Type: Minelayer
    Gross Tonnage: 3,043 (gross) 1592 (net)
    Length: 357 feet 2 inches
    Beam: 48 feet 8 inches
    Draught: 20 feet 6 inches
    Speed: 10½ knots
    Machinery: Triple expansion and lp geared turbine - 2,500 HP
    Fuel: Coal
    Armament: 2x4 inch guns aft
    1x12 pdr gun forward
    8 Oerlikons
    2 Bofors
    6 Vickers machine guns
    Mines: 467
    Complement: 175
    Builders: Caledon Shipbuilding and Engineering Co Ltd, Dundee, Scotland - 1937
    Owners: The Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd
    Commissioned: 9th June, 1941

    (in reply to dgaad)
    Post #: 90
    Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
    All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
    Jump to:





    New Messages No New Messages
    Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
    Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
     Post New Thread
     Reply to Message
     Post New Poll
     Submit Vote
     Delete My Own Post
     Delete My Own Thread
     Rate Posts


    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

    1.953