Scale

What yet another thread on this?

Its been like 20 so far…

Each Infantry is a Army, while Armor could be Army or Corps. Larry said no such guideline exists because in different theatres its different scale. In Africa its corps level, while Eastern front its army scale.

As far as the air its about 1,000 front line planes per unit

Naval varies:

BB/CV=4-6
CA= 10-15
DD=20-25
SS= 30-40
AP= 50+

I was curious about this as well.

It bugs me that in the 41 scenario they have the fleet at Pearl Harber represented by a single BB. I don’t know exact numbers, but I know there were at the very least 4 BB’s 4-6 CA/CL’s 20 or more DD’s. It would have been nice to have at least another dd figure there to represent just how big the fleet was. Not a big deal but it seems like a oversight.

1 BB piece is correct. They had 8 battleships but they were basically WW1 retreads. The Bismarck alone could wipe out these 8 “five minute ships” with half its guns removed.

Its a shame the US navy even called these junks battleships and allowed people to work on them.

Anyway if they had two then japan would need too many planes to sink them and it would imbalance the game just to justify the modeling of this attack. I suppose you can make a house rule making the starting japanese fighters attack at 4 to represent batter pilots and these would not be replaceable once they are gone.

I agree two BB’s would be a stretch but at least a DD representing all the those WWI destroyers and Cruisers.

And as I recall, Bizmarks downfall could be attributed to a handfull of WWI Fairey Bi-planes. :wink:

@GUY:

And as I recall, Bizmarks downfall could be attributed to a handfull of WWI Fairey Bi-planes. :wink:

i don’t know what the odds were, but it was a very, very lucky shot to hit the rudder with a torpedo. was such an awesome ship too

And terribly unlucky that the Bizmarks AA couldn’t hit one of the Bi planes. I was just making a point that outdated WW1 equipment could still have a chance against the newest war machines. This kind of event of underdog winning wasn’t unheard of during WWII. Which is why I guess we use dice to determine the battles and not low luck rules.

the bi-planes came in under the range of the Bismarck’s anti-aircraft fire. these guns couldn’t shoot any lower than a 90 degree angle, so the planes just flew right above the water

@Imperious:

I suppose you can make a house rule making the starting japanese fighters attack at 4 to represent batter pilots and these would not be replaceable once they are gone.

Or you could use the rules and set-up from A&A Pacific. The first Japanese attack is a Surprise-attack and all US units defend on a 1 in the first turn. Brilliant.

@timerover51:

I am not sure where you picked up that piece of misinformation

yeah, here’s some links for you buddy:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1085727/Hero-airman-helped-sink-Bismarck-warship-dies-aged-93.html
http://www.tolsta.info/bismarck.htm

i also got my information from the book ‘Exploring the Bismarck’, by Robert D. Ballard. Published in 1991.

my favourite quotes are: “But as his plane pulled away the Bismarck couldn’t hit them with her guns because they were so low so they were putting shells into the water” (first link), " We could see the aircraft coming down low over the water and the splash where their torpedoes entered, then all of a sudden there was a huge spurt of blue flame and a gigantic column of spray alongside the stern of the Bismarck" (second link), and “Flying just above the waves, a British Swordfish drops its torpedo on the Bismarck’s port side. At this level, the plane was too low to be hit by the Bismarck’s guns” (from the book).

so how about you try and get your facts right, before trying to be a smartarse and ragging on everyone? because now you just look like a twat

@tin_snips:

@timerover51:

I am not sure where you picked up that piece of misinformation

yeah, here’s some links for you buddy:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1085727/Hero-airman-helped-sink-Bismarck-warship-dies-aged-93.html
http://www.tolsta.info/bismarck.htm

i also got my information from the book ‘Exploring the Bismarck’, by Robert D. Ballard. Published in 1991.

my favourite quotes are: “But as his plane pulled away the Bismarck couldn’t hit them with her guns because they were so low so they were putting shells into the water” (first link), " We could see the aircraft coming down low over the water and the splash where their torpedoes entered, then all of a sudden there was a huge spurt of blue flame and a gigantic column of spray alongside the stern of the Bismarck" (second link), and “Flying just above the waves, a British Swordfish drops its torpedo on the Bismarck’s port side. At this level, the plane was too low to be hit by the Bismarck’s guns” (from the book).

so how about you try and get your facts right, before trying to be a smartarse and ragging on everyone? because now you just look like a twat

Not cool.   -1
Is name-calling really necessary??

I thought the main problem was that the Bismarck’s modern AA guns were not calibrated and sighted to fire at planes that were moving as slow as the swordfish.  The Bismarck had good AA weaponry - they just were too modern to shoot at old tech planes.

Swordfish got lucky hitting the rudder. Thats the only way they could have stopped Lütjens from glory. Besides Prince of Whales should have been finished off in that first battle giving Germany a 2 for 1.

you call THAT name calling? mate, have you ever been to australia? that’s normal language

oh well, i’ll take your -1 to the +3 from the people who agreed with me  :wink:

As for Imperious Leader’s sneering comments with respect to the US battleships at Pearl Harbor…

Except as usual i am correct because the range and speed of Bismarck’s guns is longer and the ship is faster ( Remember we are talking about Bismarck… not your unneeded bringing in of Japanese battleships made by England which invented the vintage WW1 five minute ship concept) Proper Japanese made ships were nearly always better than what America had prewar, While the scraps she filled up her fleet had older British designs.

Bismarck would have sent salvo after salvo into these rust buckets with impunity with superior fire control and longer range guns, while your 8 tin cans would have been sunk one after another is quick succession. Bismarck would have kept its distance because it would outrun the older ships.

A modern battleship with heavy plating is far superior to old toy battleships inspired by designs from the spainish American war.

Some of us don’t follow the jingoist propaganda of the day. I suggest you read any book on WW2 naval at your school library to get the correct facts.

If Imperious Leader views the US ships as hopeless WW1 retreads, that would also apply to all but 2 of the Japanese battleships in WW2.

except by the fact that a number of these Japanese ships were modernized, while the Americans ones were not. Japan was preparing for war, while America was not doing this for its own battleships. The ships lost at Hawaii were modernized and retrofitted. And lastly, when you compare retrofitted Japanese ships to modern American ships, you neglect to mention that they are not the same quality by those 1943 and 1944 engagements because by then the Americans built a number of modern ships…obviously because you only see your one side, when clearly the comparison is prewar battleships of which the set up in June 42 would have it exactly as it is after all BASED ON QUALITY.

So the set up is correct: 2 for japan and 1 for USA. 1 for Yamato and some of the retrofitted ships. 1 for the rest of the rubbish not modernized , and 1 for the ‘scrap heap’ that represents the Pacific fleet that were also not modernized.

@tin_snips:

you call THAT name calling? mate, have you ever been to australia? that’s normal language

oh well, i’ll take your -1 to the +3 from the people who agreed with me :wink:

Look, I’m not sticking up for timerover or anyone else about what was said, or the truthfullness or validity of it, my point was simply the name-calling - I just don’t think it’s proper on the forums.  That’s all - it had nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with what you said.  Okay?   :-)

Its quite easy to cut, copy, and paste stuff from the internet. Its another thing to deny facts by fluffing up posts with frivolous information.

In the case of your claim that the US had “5 new battleships”:

The North Carolina didn’t see action till 10 June 1942, While the Washington did see action till early 42. Your clearly mistaking when the ship was launched vs. when it was ready for trials and subsequently ready for action. We are talking clearly about actual warships ready for battle. Otherwise we can add all kinds of bogus numbers to make up any argument.

Your claim is bogus. The balance sheet as of Dec 7 41 has no new American battleships. Obviously, you now argue “this is a 1942 scenario based information” knowing fully well that the original claim was what we/they had prewar Dec 41

Also nobody is saying anything about Japanese battleships. We are comparing the Bismarck to your ‘5 minute ships’, and Bismarck could shell to the bottom all these rust buckets one after another is succession, while keeping distance and using its superior range. This would be a battle of only your 8 ships vs Bismarck.

I have no idea why you keep bringing in Japanese ships, except perhaps you feel more comfortable talking about them.

the USS Nevada, completed in 1914…

The people who designed that ship had only the lessons of 1898 to go by. The Keel was laid down in 1912. Its quite clear that the mindset of the design came from the mold of what was out and hence could only take into account less than satisfactory information. After WW1 they learned alot more about building Battleships.

….well within range of all of the US battleships guns

Bogus… not in range of the 8 battleships at Hawaii. The Bismarck’s range was 23.6 miles. A larger caliber generally allows a longer range as the turret is also longer allowing the projectile to carry. Most of the US rust buckets were 12 Inchers, while like 2 were 14 inch.

The Bismarck had superb optic range finders when compared to the old technology of your rust buckets. The armor was focused on anti-torpedo defense, while its size and tonnage were substantially greater than the 8 rust buckets, it had a large speed advantage of about 10 knots ( about 30-32.5 knots was maximum speed), which would totally outclass the fire control equipment of these 8 ships.

Most of this information is common knowledge to anyone and you don’t need to read coffee table books with lots of pictures to get the information.

@captainjack:

Look, I’m not sticking up for timerover or anyone else about what was said, or the truthfullness or validity of it, my point was simply the name-calling - I just don’t think it’s proper on the forums.  That’s all - it had nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with what you said.  Okay?   :-)

no problems mate  8-)

Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! LOL

Thanks for all that info guys, good stuff.

It would be very interesting to see a setup using AA50 and the facts from 1941. For example a realistic US income level. I also remember seeing some info on a few American BB in the Atlantic at the start of the war. How many CVs did the US have in the pacific in 1941?

they had 4 in the pacific, and 4 on the other side.

**hornet,wasp, ranger,**and the Jeep carrier long Island all on the Atlantic side.

Source: common knowledge. sorry no book recommendation.

so US could have 1 in pac, and 1 in Atlantic or just one on Pacific…oh wait it has just one… so its perfect.