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: HBO and WWII

 
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] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: HBO and WWII Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: HBO and WWII - 6/13/2014 1:39:42 AM   
TOMLABEL


Posts: 5116
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: Alabama - ROLL TIDE!!!!!
Status: offline
Wow! I've seen pictures of the bridge wing section as displayed and seeing the shell penetration points brings out the incredible violence of the engagement. However, I did not know until you mentioned it that it is aligned directly at Iron Bottom Sound. Fantastic!!!

TOMLABEL

< Message edited by TOMLABEL -- 6/13/2014 2:41:09 AM >


_____________________________


Art by the Rogue-USMC

WITP Admiral's Edition: Ship & Sub Art/Base Unit Art/Map Icon Art

"If destruction be our lot - it will come from within"...Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 31
RE: HBO and WWII - 6/13/2014 2:16:18 AM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
One point of note that has bearing on this game regarding the 1st Naval Battle of Guadalcanal (11/13/42), is that many historians have written for years that it was a confused action that led to a blundering of forces becoming unintentionally entangled in opposing formations.
This is not true at all.

Admiral Callaghan is well documented as regarding his orders (prior to engagement) as a suicide mission, and subsequently deliberately corrected course twice during the early stages of the engagement to ensure knifing through the known Japanese formation at point blank range.

His reasoning was that his two Heavy Cruisers stood no chance against two known Japanese Battleships - unless they closed to 0 range - to assure damage on the Japanese battleships.

Unfortunately, this has been taken as a clue by many that night actions were always confused uncoordinated affairs that could go down unintentionally to ramming range.
This is historically untrue - and a bit of a dis-service to the men that participated in that particular surface action.

Equally untrue, but has acquired the status of "urban knowledge" is the fact that the San Francisco confused the Atlanta for an enemy ship and fired into her.

The truth is that upon a second course correction ordered by Callaghan, the Atlanta with a smaller turning radius than the San Francisco, and the next ship in line and ahead of the San Francisco, turned sharper and drifted into the San Francisco's field of fire while she was engaging the Japanese Battleship Hei...with the result of her rounds drifting into the Atlanta. That was unfortunate friendly fire - but not confusion of targets per-say...

My point being - that unlike WitP/AE, surface actions were not confused point blank affairs. Confusing - as all battles are - yes. Unintentionally drifting to ramming range - you won't find one in the Pacific.

< Message edited by Big B -- 6/13/2014 3:29:03 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to TOMLABEL)
Post #: 32
RE: HBO and WWII - 6/13/2014 3:43:11 AM   
geofflambert


Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
That sort of thing is typical. There's an extent to which strategy and tactics are best designed if they take into account these sort of things but prevail anyway. Also in the CW ships that had minimal firepower (cannonwise) were sometimes the most deadly, namely rams. I'm thinking the lore from those CW battles still infuse the Navy College. You would want your DD commanders especially and your cruiser commanders to be aware of this "option" when the circumstances warrant. Guadalcanal was a close run thing, and also a wake-up call.

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 33
RE: HBO and WWII - 6/13/2014 5:18:55 PM   
joey


Posts: 1408
Joined: 5/8/2004
From: Johnstown, PA
Status: offline
Why does such a HBO series have to based on a surface ship?
I wonder how a miniseries about a submarine would play out?
Perhaps a series based on Dick O'Kane in the Wahoo and later in the Tang.
The events concerning the non functioning torpedoes as a backdrop would certainly add to the suspense.



(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 34
RE: HBO and WWII - 6/14/2014 7:22:53 PM   
pmelheck1

 

Posts: 610
Joined: 4/3/2003
From: Alabama
Status: offline
I think Dick O'Kane would be great with a bit of info on Dudley Morton to show some of the folks who didn't see the end of the war similar to what was done with John Basilone in the Pacific. Another idea would have been interesting to me would have been to follow a sub sailor, a Naval aviator and a cruiser or battleship sailor with skips between them especially with gaps in combat between the folks being followed.

_____________________________


(in reply to joey)
Post #: 35
RE: HBO and WWII - 6/15/2014 1:06:51 AM   
joey


Posts: 1408
Joined: 5/8/2004
From: Johnstown, PA
Status: offline
I think following three individuals could cover the entire Pacific theater and be quite interesting.
Too bad no one will ask us. j

(in reply to pmelheck1)
Post #: 36
RE: HBO and WWII - 6/16/2014 2:45:40 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

One point of note that has bearing on this game regarding the 1st Naval Battle of Guadalcanal (11/13/42), is that many historians have written for years that it was a confused action that led to a blundering of forces becoming unintentionally entangled in opposing formations.
This is not true at all.

Admiral Callaghan is well documented as regarding his orders (prior to engagement) as a suicide mission, and subsequently deliberately corrected course twice during the early stages of the engagement to ensure knifing through the known Japanese formation at point blank range.

His reasoning was that his two Heavy Cruisers stood no chance against two known Japanese Battleships - unless they closed to 0 range - to assure damage on the Japanese battleships.

Unfortunately, this has been taken as a clue by many that night actions were always confused uncoordinated affairs that could go down unintentionally to ramming range.
This is historically untrue - and a bit of a dis-service to the men that participated in that particular surface action.

Equally untrue, but has acquired the status of "urban knowledge" is the fact that the San Francisco confused the Atlanta for an enemy ship and fired into her.

The truth is that upon a second course correction ordered by Callaghan, the Atlanta with a smaller turning radius than the San Francisco, and the next ship in line and ahead of the San Francisco, turned sharper and drifted into the San Francisco's field of fire while she was engaging the Japanese Battleship Hei...with the result of her rounds drifting into the Atlanta. That was unfortunate friendly fire - but not confusion of targets per-say...

My point being - that unlike WitP/AE, surface actions were not confused point blank affairs. Confusing - as all battles are - yes. Unintentionally drifting to ramming range - you won't find one in the Pacific.



I never knew any of this, but I find it eminently plausible. I always wondered why this action was so 'confused'. Thanks for the education

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 37
RE: HBO and WWII - 6/16/2014 4:26:21 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11


One bit of promising news is that HBO have green-lit Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks to make their third epic mini-series, this one called ‘Masters of the Sky’ which will be about the 8th Air-Force over Western Europe in WW2.



So it's going to be a combination of 12 O'clock High and Memphis Belle?

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 38
RE: HBO and WWII - 6/16/2014 5:00:27 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius


quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

One point of note that has bearing on this game regarding the 1st Naval Battle of Guadalcanal (11/13/42), is that many historians have written for years that it was a confused action that led to a blundering of forces becoming unintentionally entangled in opposing formations.
This is not true at all.

Admiral Callaghan is well documented as regarding his orders (prior to engagement) as a suicide mission, and subsequently deliberately corrected course twice during the early stages of the engagement to ensure knifing through the known Japanese formation at point blank range.

His reasoning was that his two Heavy Cruisers stood no chance against two known Japanese Battleships - unless they closed to 0 range - to assure damage on the Japanese battleships.

Unfortunately, this has been taken as a clue by many that night actions were always confused uncoordinated affairs that could go down unintentionally to ramming range.
This is historically untrue - and a bit of a dis-service to the men that participated in that particular surface action.

Equally untrue, but has acquired the status of "urban knowledge" is the fact that the San Francisco confused the Atlanta for an enemy ship and fired into her.

The truth is that upon a second course correction ordered by Callaghan, the Atlanta with a smaller turning radius than the San Francisco, and the next ship in line and ahead of the San Francisco, turned sharper and drifted into the San Francisco's field of fire while she was engaging the Japanese Battleship Hei...with the result of her rounds drifting into the Atlanta. That was unfortunate friendly fire - but not confusion of targets per-say...

My point being - that unlike WitP/AE, surface actions were not confused point blank affairs. Confusing - as all battles are - yes. Unintentionally drifting to ramming range - you won't find one in the Pacific.



I never knew any of this, but I find it eminently plausible. I always wondered why this action was so 'confused'. Thanks for the education


I think it was covered well in Hornfischer's Neptune's Inferno. I also read Frank's Guadalcanal around the same time and I forget if it had some mention there as well. Recommend both, by the way.

_____________________________


(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 39
RE: HBO and WWII - 6/18/2014 11:21:59 AM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

Semi Off-Topic on this Off-Topic thread...


Yesterday I watched "The Monuments Men" with wife at home (she wanted to watch it in the cinema but we couldn't make it them)...

Oh my... my wife constantly asked me why I was swearing...

I simply can't watch Hollywood fantasy historic movies... when I see wrong uniforms with wrong ranks and cars with wrong registration plates and wrong weapons I simply can't be stay silent...

It is beyond me that big budget movies can't get proper advisors for their movies - it should be so simple... ahh...


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 40
RE: HBO and WWII - 6/18/2014 8:31:44 PM   
blueatoll


Posts: 157
Joined: 3/28/2013
Status: offline
I'm voting for the USS Patterson. 13 Battle Stars, at Pearl, 1st days of Guadalcanal, at Savo Island (strange ships entering harbor call was from Patterson), convoy duty, the Marianas, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Leyte Gulf, Saipan, Palua, Yap.

It might be interesting to see the war from the perspective of a small fry who did a heavy lifting job.

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 41
RE: HBO and WWII - 6/19/2014 12:04:02 AM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: blueatoll

I'm voting for the USS Patterson. 13 Battle Stars, at Pearl, 1st days of Guadalcanal, at Savo Island (strange ships entering harbor call was from Patterson), convoy duty, the Marianas, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Leyte Gulf, Saipan, Palua, Yap.

It might be interesting to see the war from the perspective of a small fry who did a heavy lifting job.


Here is the list of USN Warships with 15 or more Battle Stars:

WWII Service Awards

USS Enterprise (CV-6)
20 Battle Stars
Presidential Unit Citation
Navy Unit Commendation

USS San Diego (CL-53)
18 Battle Stars

USS San Francisco (CA-38)
17 Battle Stars
Presidential Unit Citation

USS O'Bannon (DD-450)
17 Battle Stars
Presidential Unit Citation

USS New Orleans (CA-32)
17 Battle Stars

USS Minneapolis (CA-36)
17 Battle Stars

USS Maury (DD-401)
16 Battle Stars
Presidential Unit Citation

USS Nicholas (DD-449)
16 Battle Stars
Presidential Unit Citation

USS Buchanan (DD-484)
16 Battle Stars
Presidential Unit Citation

USS Portland (CA-33)
16 Battle Stars
Navy Unit Commendation

USS Russell (DD-414)
16 Battle Stars

USS Saufley (DD-465)
16 Battle Stars

USS Taylor (DD-468)
15 Battle Stars
Navy Unit Commendation

USS Thresher (SS-200)
15 Battle Stars
Navy Unit Commendation

USS North Carolina (BB-55)
15 Battle Stars

USS Morris (DD-417)
15 Battle Stars

USS Fletcher (DD-445)
15 Battle Stars

USS Narwhal (SS-167)
15 Battle Stars

_____________________________


(in reply to blueatoll)
Post #: 42
RE: HBO and WWII - 6/19/2014 6:16:43 PM   
Buckrock

 

Posts: 578
Joined: 3/16/2012
From: Not all there
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B
Admiral Callaghan is well documented as regarding his orders (prior to engagement) as a suicide mission, and subsequently deliberately corrected course twice during the early stages of the engagement to ensure knifing through the known Japanese formation at point blank range.

His reasoning was that his two Heavy Cruisers stood no chance against two known Japanese Battleships - unless they closed to 0 range - to assure damage on the Japanese battleships.


Out of curiousity, do you have a source that confirms Callaghan's own reasoning for how he intended to fight the battle? I didn't think there were any.

And I'm not sure his only option to deal with any expected Japanese BB's lay with the guns of his two CAs used at point-blank range. Callaghan also had search radar and some 81 torpedoes on his lighter ships to try his hand at setting up a surprise strike that didn't require point-blank range. And if you threw in FC/FD directed supporting fire from Callaghan's 3 main cruisers, you'd have a light force night attack almost straight out of the USN doctrine playbook for the time.

_____________________________

This was the only sig line I could think of.

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 43
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: HBO and WWII Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

1.094