|
Post by vonfriedman on Apr 14, 2023 1:58:18 GMT -6
On the whole, twin-engine fighters served a useful purpose for air forces. As the war progressed twin-engine fighters would find further uses, with aircraft such as the Grumman Tigercat and the de Havilland Sea Hornet (much prized by famed pilot "Winkle" Brown). The Savoia Marchetti SM91 was inspired by the P38 Lightning, which the Italians knew well (in 1943 an intact P38 landed in Sardinia) and the SM92 was independently designed similar to the North American P82 Twin Mustang. Unlike this, the SM92 also had a rear-firing machine gun.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Mar 29, 2023 9:23:57 GMT -6
I'd be interested to know something about the mining campaign of North Vietnamese ports. Was it performed by aircraft or by naval assets? And what is the opinion current today on the reasons why this operation was not undertaken earlier?
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Mar 29, 2023 0:57:01 GMT -6
UAD offers custom scenarios NWS will also be able to offer custom scenarios when it decides to upgrade its Steam and Iron game to at least the level of RTW2
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Mar 20, 2023 4:13:24 GMT -6
How effective is it to apply bulges to an old battleship/battlecruiser with TPS protection level from 1 to 2?
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Mar 15, 2023 15:54:14 GMT -6
You can try playing the raider campaign made by hschuster44, which you can download from the "Raider Campaign update" thread. It has a very accurate WW1 OOB and a map based on that of the Baltic Sea, with place names changed accordingly. In this way, even if at the expense of absolute realism, long and boring missions on the high seas without sighting anything are avoided.
Regarding the second question, some of us are looking forward to NWS updating SAI to cover WW2 as well.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Feb 18, 2023 2:09:03 GMT -6
Very interesting, thanks. In my opinion, based on the silhouette and the camouflage shape, she is indeed HMS Gloucester, but it is NOT the 28.3.1941 In fact, on the same website there is a photo of the British cruisers under Italian fire, from which we note, in addition to the high speed and the smoke screens, that the near miss of an Italian shell raises a completely different type of splash, compared to the photo we are talking about.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Feb 17, 2023 2:50:55 GMT -6
The images included here would have been taken on the morning of 28 March 1941 off the coast of Gavdos and would refer respectively to HMS Ajax and HMS Orion under fire from the battleship RN Vittorio Veneto, a shell of which would have raised the splash that can be seen shortly distance from Orion. Source: "A colpi di cannone" 1st part by Enrico Cernuschi (edited c/o Rivista Marittima, Oct. 2022) The difference between these images and that of HMS Gloucester above is striking.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Feb 16, 2023 15:13:20 GMT -6
Some other entirely credible photos of that engagement, with British ships moving at high speed and smoke screen, can be found in Cernuschi's text that I mentioned earlier. Tomorrow I will try to put them on this thread.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Feb 15, 2023 10:02:52 GMT -6
All this was known to me. HMS Gloucester not only "snaked" but also emitted a smokescreen. I keep thinking that particular photo was NOT taken off Gavdos on 28 March1941. Thanks anyway
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Feb 15, 2023 9:37:33 GMT -6
I do not understand. It is known that from the first encounter with the Italian ships off Gavdos the British cruisers fled away to escape the fire of the enemy, which had bigger guns, covering themselves with smoke screens and zigzagging. None of this appears in the photo.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Feb 15, 2023 8:52:02 GMT -6
Thanks for the clarification. I too think that the image refers to an aerial bombardment. However, since the explosions were almost simultaneous, I am led to think that it was a high-altitude bombing. It also seems to me that Stukas used larger bombs, as appears in the photos of the attack on HMS Illustrious
The attached photo is published in a recent work (in Italian) by Enrico Cernuschi and is entitled: "Off Gavdos 28 March 1941. The cruiser Gloucester under Italian fire." The source from which that photo comes is not reported.
I am of the opinion that the author is wrong, also because there is no trace of the smoke screen used by Admiral Pridham Whippel's cruisers in the morning of 28.3.41, moreover, because it does not appear that the ship is running away at full speed, as it happened.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Feb 15, 2023 6:27:53 GMT -6
A question I can't answer. When a shell - in particular an armor-piercing shell - missed its mark and ended up in the water (the most frequent case) did it explode or not? I assume that the column of water raised by a non-exploding shell was clear, while in the other case there was also smoke from the explosion. The same, I assume, is true in the case of bombs dropped from an aircraft. In particular, in the attached photo which refers to HMS Gloucester in the Mediterranean, in your opinion is the British ship subjected to an aerial bombardment from high altitude or to ship fire?
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Jan 29, 2023 3:40:25 GMT -6
Flag ship option is an interesting idea. I assume that most of the battleships were suitable to act as flagships, but in the Regia Marina the light cruisers Duca d'Aosta and Eugenio di Savoia had an admiral bridge while the similar Montecuccoli and Attendolo did not.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Jan 28, 2023 4:59:05 GMT -6
Perhaps the unit machinery criterion can be applied to KGVs.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Jan 27, 2023 2:08:49 GMT -6
I assume that we all agree that naval warfare is only one part of the war phenomenon and that the instances where the fleet alone is capable of determining the outcome of a war are limited. Our problem, however, consists in imagining what further step forward NSW can take (let's say in a future RTW4) in order to better simulate the war phenomenon, without however becoming a kind of monstrous reconstruction of all its aspects. Perhaps we could start from the extension of the procedure with which, in RTW2, colonies or possessions are invaded, so as to also involve the homelands. The success (or failure) of a landing in the territory of the enemy homeland, the conquest (or loss) of bases and, finally, the victory (or defeat) could also be made to depend on the outcome of the "convoy battles" and, to a lesser extent, coastal bombardments. That said, and recalling "the battle of the Atlantic" in ww2, it would also seem necessary to rethink the way submarine warfare is handled.
|
|