The Sweedish navy

[Norse]

I would like to point out to Hubert that Sweeden had a top-modern fleet at the outbreak of world war 2.

I just wanted to point this out, so you can make a decision of wheter it should be represented by a Cruiser unit or not (I think it should). Anyway, you know I love your game

~Norse~

[Hubert Cater]

Anyway, you know I love your game

Thanks, and I do realize that many of the comments and criticisms are all constructive and ultimatly towards the goal of having the perfect game.

I am interested in the same goals and I have done what I think is necessary/reasonable to enhance game play so far while remaining consistent with my original vision. If I've left anything out or have decided to leave some things as they are, believe me it's not pride, but rather trying to get as many things done as possible while maintaining the above mentioned balance.

I am always listening/reading, even if I don't have the chance to post, but for me it's one step at a time, one game at a time, and I am just as excited to see what the future holds

Hubert

[Old Patch]

while I'm sure Hubert has examined all of the minor navies, I'm not sure Sweden rates a unit at this scale, nor could it be considered "Top Modern". The main units were three small 25 year old coastal defense ships with a short range and slow speed, two odd cruisers (a 35 year old armored ship and cruiser/carrier), 14 destroyers, abotu a dozen small coastal sumarines, and assorted small craft. Spain has a larger, longer ranged fleet and it doesn't rate a fleet either. Turkey even has a (old) battlecruiser!

I think there might be cause for a reduced size fleet (give Turkey, Spain, and Sweden a 5 point cruiser when they enter) but I suspect they would be so much easy target practice for a major power. And without movement restrictions I'm sure you would see things like the Swedish fleet hunting Italian subs in the Med. Still, that's what's the Editor is for!

[Norse]

Originally posted by Old Patch:

while I'm sure Hubert has examined all of the minor navies, I'm not sure Sweden rates a unit at this scale, nor could it be considered "Top Modern". The main units were three small 25 year old coastal defense ships with a short range and slow speed, two odd cruisers (a 35 year old armored ship and cruiser/carrier), 14 destroyers, abotu a dozen small coastal sumarines, and assorted small craft. Spain has a larger, longer ranged fleet and it doesn't rate a fleet either. Turkey even has a (old) battlecruiser!

I think there might be cause for a reduced size fleet (give Turkey, Spain, and Sweden a 5 point cruiser when they enter) but I suspect they would be so much easy target practice for a major power. And without movement restrictions I'm sure you would see things like the Swedish fleet hunting Italian subs in the Med. Still, that's what's the Editor is for!

First off, I don't think the argument used here, that the Sweedish navy 'might' end up hunting Italian subs is a good enough reason why the Sweeds shouldn't have a naval unit at all. After all, world war 2 was all about "odd" things like that. You had New Zealanders fighting in Italy, and arabs fighting under Rommels command in France. Still, the Sweedish unit would haveto slip thru the German wrath and hope that Sweeden would survive long enough for such an event to even happen.

Secondly, the Sweedish navy would atleast be able to sink a couple ships and cause some hindrance. So if it were a Cruiser unit, then it could hit a German naval unit and cause some damage, before Sweeden would surrender and / or the Germans overpower the Sweedish naval unit. I don't see why this would be unrealistic.

I mean, after all, when Germany attacks Sweeden in this game, most people commence an invasion from the sea. And why shouldn't Sweeden be capable of atleast causing a couple points of damage here?

I put my vote on giving Sweeden a Cruiser unit.

Spain and Turkey can get one too, I leave that up for someone else to discuss.

25 year old equipment doesn't neccesarily mean that it is inadequate and completely unable. Just look at the Finns when the Russians came.

~Norse~

[ July 30, 2002, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: Norse ]

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Hey! Did i hear what i think i did?..........Youre right, outdated can still be affective. The minors do need some strengthening/look. Some had navies that need to be represented. Even the smallest most "outdated" details should be included. In the beta demo, sweden didnt have an airforce, but now they do. I look forward to that editor!

"I thought i heard the word, "Finn"...

"There 'e goes wid'is blasted Finns!"

CVM

[Old Patch]

Originally posted by Norse:

[/qb]

First off, I don't think the argument used here, that the Sweedish navy 'might' end up hunting Italian subs is a good enough reason why the Sweeds shouldn't have a naval unit at all. After all, world war 2 was all about "odd" things like that. You had New Zealanders fighting in Italy, and arabs fighting under Rommels command in France. Still, the Sweedish unit would haveto slip thru the German wrath and hope that Sweeden would survive long enough for such an event to even happen.[/QB]

[Aloid]

Guys, one thing to remember. A fleet in this game, regardless of size, stops any size fleet cold in the water for the turn it is attacked.

I guess the question is, would the Sweedish navy stop anyone cold like that? Does it mess with play balance? Do we really need to add "noise" to the game in an effort to be "grogy"? I don't know the answer, but I'd guess it was no...

Though I like the grogy part... especially if it's related to beer!!

Aloid

[Sol Invictus]

Did someone say beer? Add some naval forces for Greece and Romania while your at it.

[Norse]

Here are my answers to what is posted so far.

It is extremely unfair to compare Norway's naval forces to the Sweedish naval forces during world war 2. Norway sank Blücher using an outdated coastal fortress, and Norway only had 2 or 3 ironclads from the 1890's. To compare this against the Sweedish navy just doesn't match up, it is not comparable. (Norway spent its money on infrastructure instead of military, after all, Norway had just gained it's indepdence and were a struggling nation in thoose days).

Therefore, I don't see how your "but Norway didn't do well on the seas" argument are valid when discussing Sweeden's navy here.

Aloid is saying that a naval counter will stop another. Two things, the Sweedish coast is pretty long, and there is no way the Sweedish navy can prevent anyone attemting invasion here. That is just not possible. Secondly, the Sweedish navy was large enough to have a naval battle against the Germans, where both sides would take some casaulties but the Sweeds are eventually defeated. If the Sweeds had a naval counter in the game, then this would be portrayed just fine (and historically correct in my opinion). Aloid, as the German commander, if you move your navy to the exact location the Sweeds have their navy, then there will be battling before you can properly unload your troops.

The lack of ANY Sweedish naval presence is historically incorrect. For me, it takes alittle of the realism away, as even in a game as SC the Sweeds would have a naval presence.

I agree, they should be given a Cruiser unit on strenght 5, then it will be perfect. Then a simulated attack on Sweeden will be portrayed much more historically correct.

Hubert, can you please add a Cruiser on strenght5 for the Sweeds? At the very least, it would not be historically incorrect to do so. Just take a look at all thoose ships Sweeden had. Now ask yourself, as the Germans, can you really send ONLY transports to invade Sweeden? Surely, the Sweeds will have the ships to attack thoose transports if they are not given escort of some kind (air, naval, atleast some battling need's to take place).

~Norse~

[Aloid]

Okay Norse, well stated...

Perhaps it's really not noise after all.

I'm just not grogy enough to know.

I'll still take the beer though!

Aloid

[Massattack]

Norse, not saying I disagree with your arguments, but it is worth pointing out that a lot of the action is abstracted at this level. We all know that the naval counters represent more a task force than a single BB/CV or whatever, or a Uboat wolfpack. Likewise with transports, it is easy to construe these as also including some escorts. The damage troops take on landing might be from opposing land-units, shore batteries, or small naval forces.

Regards.

[Norse]

Yes indeed, 1 naval counter is a 'fleet' unit and not just 1 ship. The name of the ship listed is probably just the capital ship or so.

Anyway, this is what Old Patch said Sweeden had:

Cruisers of different sizes, 14 destroyers, 12~14 submarines, and other support crafts.

Let's do alittle math, and say the Sweedish navy consists of 30ish ships that they'll use. Germany had about 50ish naval vessels, after removing their training vessels and the ones in the pipeline. Now, you are saying, "but the German fleet had bigger and better ships". Sure, that is why they get 4 naval units at full strenght. Is it still unfair to give one counter at strenght 5 to Sweeden?

~Norse~

[ July 31, 2002, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: Norse ]

[Old Patch]

I have been misquoted. I said Sweden had:

3 Costal defense ships - less than 8,000 tons each so they are smaller than a heavy cruiser.

1 Armored cruiser - about 4400 tons and over 30 years old, so smaller than most other navies light cruisers.

1 Crusier/carrier - about 4700 tons which only carried 6 float planes, not any kind of fighter or strike plane.

Destroyer equal to most other navy's pre-war destroyers.

All told, about 45,000 tons of warships. Looking at navy lists for WWII, I'm going to guess that a cruiser unit in SC is about 100,000 tons of ships and a battleship is about 150,000 tons.

[TrionDelta]

Norse,

there is no way that the germans had 50 combat ships. Im talkin DD and up. I have a book on naval history (several actually) and it listed the total amount of german DDs at 20 i think they had 9 crusiers and 2BB's (at one time) the total # of german BBs was 9 but they never had them at one time. And 5 of those BBs were Pocket Battleships meaning they were smaller but had the same armerment as a normal BB, comparable to a BC but more armored

[ July 31, 2002, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: TrionDelta ]

[Old Patch]

At the time of the invasion of Poland Germany had afloat and ready for combat:

2 BC's (35,000 tons @)

3 PB's (12,000 tons @, half the guns of a BB)

3 CA's (15,000 tons @)

2 B's (obsolete BB's from WWI, 13,000 tons @)

6 CL's (6,500 tons @)

22 DD's (10 of which were 3,000 ton 1936A with 6" guns)

24 small DD's (about the same size and weapons as Swedish destroyers)

[Norse]

Originally posted by Old Patch:

All told, about 45,000 tons of warships. Looking at navy lists for WWII, I'm going to guess that a cruiser unit in SC is about 100,000 tons of ships and a battleship is about 150,000 tons.

What sources do you use to claim that Sweedens fleet was 45.000 ton?

Though even if you are right, and it measures 45.000 ton, then it is an advocate for why Sweeden should be given the naval unit on strenght5. Remember that it cannot be reinforced anyway.

~Norse~

[ July 31, 2002, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: Norse ]

[Norse]

I think we need to ask the real question here.

Shouldn't the minors posessing a fleet of atleast moderate size be given a naval unit to represent their naval presence? (Turkey, Sweeden, Spain)

I think yes, because they had a presence that would haveto be dealth with. To sink their fleet, would require the commitment of atleast one or two naval units from any major power. If the fleet is not sunken, then it would prey havoc upon cheap naval units such as the transporter and cause some resistance in the name of their country

In my opinion, this needs to be in the game. But I understand that everyone doesn't agree with that, which is fine.

~Norse~

[TrionDelta]

new topic,

about the german BB's 2 were obsolete used for training. But the tripitz and Bismark were modern BBs who could ezily out gun all but the king Geroge V class of British BB.

[Old Patch]

Norse;

For naval sources I am using Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships volume 1906-1921 (p. 355-363); and volume 1922-1946 (p. 368-377). Great books but a little pricey (c. $100 per volume, and there are 4 volumes covering from 1860-1992). For further information on the Swedish cruiser/carrier (the Gotland) see R. D. Layman's "The Hybrid Warship" p. 39-42 - a neat looking ship and an interesting design.

TrionDelta;

Yes, the Germans built two modern BB's (in SC terms a 10 point Battleship fleet - if you have 700 MPP's you don't what to do with). The Bismark's were the best battlships in Europe at the time, period. The KGV class were 5,000 tons smaller, slower, and had the worst main gun ever put on a battleship in British practice. Every time it was used in action it jammed, broke, or misfired (Prince of Wales vs. Bismark, KGV vs. Bismark, Duke of York vs. Scharnhorst). The POW was sunk by a WWI era torpedo with half the bursting charge of a full sized torpedo.

Need more proof? Britain's last (and only) BB after the KGV's went back to the 15" MkI gun first developed in WWI. The only worthwhile thing about the KGV's is that there were 5 of them and only 2 Bismarks.

[husky65]

Originally posted by Old Patch:

The POW was sunk by a WWI era torpedo with half the bursting charge of a full sized torpedo.

The POW was struck in the stern by 2 x Japanese air delivered torpedoes (a remarkably similar hit as was delivered to the Bismark, sealing its fate seven months earlier), then 3 more, POW was then hit by bombs before sinking.

It seems that there was a bit more to it than a WW1 class torp.

[Old Patch]

"It is however essential to explain how Prince Of Wales was sunk by a probable total of 1 330lb and 3 450lb torpedo warheads charged with the type of explosive used by the Germans in WWI. The 330lb charge broke off the 'A' bracket of the port outer shaft. . . Subsequently three torpedoes with 450lb charges hit the starboard side one of which bent the outer shaft wedging the propellor between the inner shaft and the hull, but it should be noted that the ship capsized to port."

Conway's 1922-1946, p.15

So we got four torps doing the big damage - of the three that hit starboard one just bent a shaft and she capsized on the side hit by the smallest torpedo. Even the Repulse (which was 25 years old when sunk in the same attack) took five torpedoes to sink.

[Aloid]

Wow, with Old Patch at your service, who needs google?

I learned some new a interesting info.

Thanks Old Patch...

Aloid

[ August 01, 2002, 01:34 AM: Message edited by: Aloid ]

[husky65]

Originally posted by Old Patch:

[QB]"It is however essential to explain how Prince Of Wales was sunk by a probable total of 1 330lb and 3 450lb torpedo warheads charged with the type of explosive used by the Germans in WWI. The 330lb charge broke off the 'A' bracket of the port outer shaft. . . Subsequently three torpedoes with 450lb charges hit the starboard side one of which bent the outer shaft wedging the propellor between the inner shaft and the hull, but it should be noted that the ship capsized to port."

[QB]

Conway apears to neglect the fact that the bombs hit midships, port side.

[Old Patch]

Aloid;

Just ther fruits of a mis-spent youth. Glad you liked it - feel free to stump me with any other obtuse naval questions you have.

Husky65;

Conway isn't a person, like Fred T. Jane (of "Jane's Fighting Ships"), it's the name of the company that publishes the series (and a lot of other neat books). None of my references give either the location, number, or size of the bomb hits on the POW, so from that evidence I would guess that neither those who were there nor thse who studied the incident later felt that the bomb hits were a significant factor in the sinking of the POW. As an anonymous American Admrial one quipped: "In attacking a ship, it is more efficient to let water in from below than to let air in from above" ("Attack on Taranto", Lowery and Wellman, p. 35).

As I think back on WWII, I am willing to say that bombs were not a good weapon to try and sink large, armored ships with. Right off the top of my head I can only think of four capital ships that were sunk just by bombs - the Ostfriesland (during the very suspect Billy Mitchell demonstration of the 20's) and Arizona at Pearl Harbor (magazine explosion), the Roma was sunk by two glider bomb (although these were huge compared to regular bombs, and again we have a magazine explosion) and finally the Tirpitz in Norway (again to enormous bombs - the Tall Boys weighed in at a monsterous 12,000 pounds).

[J Wagner]

I'm curious, is it possible to add a Swedish fleet with the editor?..