stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856 
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Apr 7, 2020 10:47:53 GMT
One small technical point with today's WWII post. You mention HMSAS Capetown but I think its actually HMS_Capetown, which as wiki reports was damaged in this incident. I.e. it carries the name of the S African city but is in the RN.
Also noticed you have
Which seems very strange to me. If the freighter is trapped then I can't see how two U boats can release it. More to the point they can't really escort it anywhere as they lack the surface power to protect it against any attack and would be very vulnerable themselves. If their submerged their a lot safer but they can only do that so long without exhausting their batteries and they would be pretty slow moving so the freighter would have to travel slowly for them to keep up. Which increases the probability of it being detected and attacked. The idea sounds very odd, especially since the U boats would be far more profitably used in the role their designed for, attacking allied MS. Suspect the source may have some duff information?
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 7, 2020 14:26:07 GMT
One small technical point with today's WWII post. You mention HMSAS Capetown but I think its actually HMS_Capetown, which as wiki reports was damaged in this incident. I.e. it carries the name of the S African city but is in the RN. Also noticed you have
Which seems very strange to me. If the freighter is trapped then I can't see how two U boats can release it. More to the point they can't really escort it anywhere as they lack the surface power to protect it against any attack and would be very vulnerable themselves. If their submerged their a lot safer but they can only do that so long without exhausting their batteries and they would be pretty slow moving so the freighter would have to travel slowly for them to keep up. Which increases the probability of it being detected and attacked. The idea sounds very odd, especially since the U boats would be far more profitably used in the role their designed for, attacking allied MS. Suspect the source may have some duff information? Steve
Thanks for the small technical point, will eidt it stevep . Concerning U-105 and U-106, this happened as mentioned. U-106 (2nd Patrol) - Outbound Lorient, 26/02/1941, inbound Lorient, 17/06/1941; patrol duties carried out: patrolling central Atlantic, off Cape Verde and West African coast, then escorting the German blockade runner "MV Lech"; supplied from "EGERLAND" on 17 May 1941, ca. 400 nm NNW of St. Peter and Paul Rock [pos: 07°21'N, 31°09'W] with diesel, lubricating oil, water, provisions and distilled water.
Check page 32: Report of Interrogation of Prisoners of War, rom German Supply Ships"Lech"
It was alleged by an officer prisoner that when the merchant ship "Lech" was sent to Brazil, early in 1941, with spare parts for a German Air Line, the Brazilian Government was asked whether it would allow a German U-Boat to escort her. The Brazilian Government is alleged to have replied that it could not give official permission but it would instruct the Brazilian Navy not to "see" the U-Boat.
(N.I.D. Note. It seems possible that a U-Boat did accompany the "Lech" during part of her journey from Rio de Janerio towards the Azores. A merchant vessel of 3,290 tons, the "Lech" was reported to have loaded, in March, 1941, with coffee and hides for her return journey but was intercepted and scuttled herself in position 45° 33' N., 23° 23' W., at 1300/22nd May, 1941.)
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Apr 7, 2020 16:02:10 GMT
One small technical point with today's WWII post. You mention HMSAS Capetown but I think its actually HMS_Capetown, which as wiki reports was damaged in this incident. I.e. it carries the name of the S African city but is in the RN. Also noticed you have
Which seems very strange to me. If the freighter is trapped then I can't see how two U boats can release it. More to the point they can't really escort it anywhere as they lack the surface power to protect it against any attack and would be very vulnerable themselves. If their submerged their a lot safer but they can only do that so long without exhausting their batteries and they would be pretty slow moving so the freighter would have to travel slowly for them to keep up. Which increases the probability of it being detected and attacked. The idea sounds very odd, especially since the U boats would be far more profitably used in the role their designed for, attacking allied MS. Suspect the source may have some duff information? Steve
Thanks for the small technical point, will eidt it stevep . Concerning U-105 and U-106, this happened as mentioned. U-106 (2nd Patrol) - Outbound Lorient, 26/02/1941, inbound Lorient, 17/06/1941; patrol duties carried out: patrolling central Atlantic, off Cape Verde and West African coast, then escorting the German blockade runner "MV Lech"; supplied from "EGERLAND" on 17 May 1941, ca. 400 nm NNW of St. Peter and Paul Rock [pos: 07°21'N, 31°09'W] with diesel, lubricating oil, water, provisions and distilled water.
Check page 32: Report of Interrogation of Prisoners of War, rom German Supply Ships"Lech"
It was alleged by an officer prisoner that when the merchant ship "Lech" was sent to Brazil, early in 1941, with spare parts for a German Air Line, the Brazilian Government was asked whether it would allow a German U-Boat to escort her. The Brazilian Government is alleged to have replied that it could not give official permission but it would instruct the Brazilian Navy not to "see" the U-Boat.
(N.I.D. Note. It seems possible that a U-Boat did accompany the "Lech" during part of her journey from Rio de Janerio towards the Azores. A merchant vessel of 3,290 tons, the "Lech" was reported to have loaded, in March, 1941, with coffee and hides for her return journey but was intercepted and scuttled herself in position 45° 33' N., 23° 23' W., at 1300/22nd May, 1941.)
OK many thanks. It still seems an impractical idea but then a lot of others were tried let alone proposed during WWII as with any time in history.
Steve
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Apr 8, 2020 10:46:36 GMT
Putting this here because its a general comment rather than in reference to real life events so don't belong to the WWI thread.
I find that interesting because one of the TL's I'm playing with - might actually try and post one some time  I have something similar to make a more successful Gallipoli attack. Striking a bit further north into Cilicia where the only railway the Turks have that goes into their Arabian empire is very vulnerable Its a better place for an attack as the terrain with mountains to the north mean only a few passes to defend and it really screws the Turks in the rest of the empire. This is still a feint to before a more successful attack on Gallipoli. Not a wank so it doesn't lead to the landing forces marching on Constantinople but decisive for other reasons.
Hence good to hear that at least one important figure in the government had a similar idea.
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 8, 2020 14:44:43 GMT
Putting this here because its a general comment rather than in reference to real life events so don't belong to the WWI thread.
I find that interesting because one of the TL's I'm playing with - might actually try and post one some time I have something similar to make a more successful Gallipoli attack. Striking a bit further north into Cilicia where the only railway the Turks have that goes into their Arabian empire is very vulnerable Its a better place for an attack as the terrain with mountains to the north mean only a few passes to defend and it really screws the Turks in the rest of the empire. This is still a feint to before a more successful attack on Gallipoli. Not a wank so it doesn't lead to the landing forces marching on Constantinople but decisive for other reasons. Hence good to hear that at least one important figure in the government had a similar idea.
Steve
Is not going to be the first time that we will see some of his ideas, he would have plenty of those many years later in a other major conflicht. Also what would the benefit being of a allied landing in Syria, depending on Ottoman resistance, could they mange to drive into what is now Turkey itself, forcing the Ottomans to, as mentioned in the post, to divert troops away from the Dardanelles and even Caucasus Front. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Apr 8, 2020 17:32:03 GMT
Putting this here because its a general comment rather than in reference to real life events so don't belong to the WWI thread.
I find that interesting because one of the TL's I'm playing with - might actually try and post one some time I have something similar to make a more successful Gallipoli attack. Striking a bit further north into Cilicia where the only railway the Turks have that goes into their Arabian empire is very vulnerable Its a better place for an attack as the terrain with mountains to the north mean only a few passes to defend and it really screws the Turks in the rest of the empire. This is still a feint to before a more successful attack on Gallipoli. Not a wank so it doesn't lead to the landing forces marching on Constantinople but decisive for other reasons. Hence good to hear that at least one important figure in the government had a similar idea.
Steve
Is not going to be the first time that we will see some of his ideas, he would have plenty of those many years later in a other major conflicht. Also what would the benefit being of a allied landing in Syria, depending on Ottoman resistance, could they mange to drive into what is now Turkey itself, forcing the Ottomans to, as mentioned in the post, to divert troops away from the Dardanelles and even Caucasus Front.
lordroel, Well taking and holding Cilcia, which has a good defensive position due to the mountains that largely surround it so it should be possible, would largely isolate the Ottoman heartland in Anatolia from the bulk of their empire in Syria, Iraq, Palestine and Arabia. With British control of the seas the only access from Anatolia would be by labourous routes through the mountains north and east of Cilcia with no railway and probably no decent road links. This might well force the Turks to counter-attack to try and regain it but fighting their way through mountain passes as the Austrians and Russians are finding is bloody difficult and costly. Failing to retake it means the the empire outside Anatolia is largely out of supply. You might even see the advance through Mesopotamia [aka Iraq] while OTL failed horrendously at Kut could succeed and end up capturing Baghdad and its going to be a lot harder for the Turks to hold Palestine and Syria for any extended time.
It might be more difficult breaking out from Cilcia to advance into Anatolia, because of the terrain but the British forces are likely to be better equipped. Plus during 1915-16 IIRC Russia was having marked success in NE Anatolia. Albeit I think this was mainly on the coastal plain but possibly there would be the chance for the two allies to link up. Which might not make much difference to the war.
As a diversion - i.e. not meaning to stay but moving onto Gallipoli, as well as quite possibly drawing forces from the straits it might trigger some neutrals to move onto the allied side and would cause serious concerns for the Turks. Also one thing I'm think of is that a patrol early after the landing runs into an escort of Turks leading enslaved Armenians to their death in Syria, thereby making news of the genocide available early and possibly leading to it being diminished somewhat.
Steve
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Apr 9, 2020 9:02:09 GMT
In today's WWII post you have the para:
Since this is talking about German night bombing and some British success in shooting them down I'm wondering if the Luftwaffe here should be the RAF?
Otherwise looks great, albeit a grim time for the allies.
Steve
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Apr 10, 2020 10:21:50 GMT
lordroel , In today'sWWII thread there is a bit of a contradiction on the number of CVs the Japanese have. It says:
Japanese Military
Then goes on to list 9! Hosho, Ryuo and Shoho are relatively small CVs, the IJN have only 6 fleet carriers at this point, which are the others mentioned but as long as just referring to all carriers it only needs changing the 7 to 9 in the 1st bit.
Also as a side issue an interesting difference with the incident in the N Atlantic around USS Niblack with the US Naval page as that is convinced there is a subs trying to fire on them while here its suggested that was a mistaken identity and there was no sub there. 
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 10, 2020 10:31:12 GMT
lordroel , In today'sWWII thread there is a bit of a contradiction on the number of CVs the Japanese have. It says: Japanese Military
Then goes on to list 9! Hosho, Ryuo and Shoho are relatively small CVs, the IJN have only 6 fleet carriers at this point, which are the others mentioned but as long as just referring to all carriers it only needs changing the 7 to 9 in the 1st bit. Also as a side issue an interesting difference with the incident in the N Atlantic around USS Niblack with the US Naval page as that is convinced there is a subs trying to fire on them while here its suggested that was a mistaken identity and there was no sub there. Steve
Sorry my bad stevep, regarding the 1st Air Fleet Orbat. Well if the USS Niblack had done nothing and there was a German sub out there, then people could have died. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Apr 10, 2020 11:16:04 GMT
lordroel , In today'sWWII thread there is a bit of a contradiction on the number of CVs the Japanese have. It says: Japanese Military
Then goes on to list 9! Hosho, Ryuo and Shoho are relatively small CVs, the IJN have only 6 fleet carriers at this point, which are the others mentioned but as long as just referring to all carriers it only needs changing the 7 to 9 in the 1st bit. Also as a side issue an interesting difference with the incident in the N Atlantic around USS Niblack with the US Naval page as that is convinced there is a subs trying to fire on them while here its suggested that was a mistaken identity and there was no sub there. Steve
Sorry my bad stevep , regarding the 1st Air Fleet Orbat. Well if the USS Niblack had done nothing and there was a German sub out there, then people could have died.
Very true on the latter. Just mentioning the different versions of the incident between the two threads. It was probably best to assume the worst but the later mentions suggests that the US naval thread hasn't updated itself for later knowledge.
Steve
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Apr 21, 2020 11:09:21 GMT
One small typo in the US navy thread today in:
Kiser didn't look right so checking on the ship the class name is Henry_J._Kaiser-class - after the steel magnate who became a major shipbuilder in WWII. Only a single letter off unfortunately.
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 21, 2020 14:11:46 GMT
One small typo in the US navy thread today in:
Kiser didn't look right so checking on the ship the class name is Henry_J._Kaiser-class - after the steel magnate who became a major shipbuilder in WWII. Only a single letter off unfortunately. Steve
Thanks, will edit it. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on May 1, 2020 12:28:53 GMT
What I suspect is a typo in today's WWII post. You have
Since this is the post for 1-5-41 I assume that should be another date, probably the 30-4-41 as the ship was attacked yesterday?
On a what if another interesting one might be
If he failed to make it due to enemy action or accident I wonder who else might have been sent to replace him. Probably not going to make much difference given the problems he faces in terms of lack of modern forces and equipment but possibly a more determined character might have stood up to local civilian officials and had some more success.
Steve
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on May 1, 2020 12:40:44 GMT
Also on the WWI post you have:
But I can't see any image so possibly a broke link.
As I may have said before my main PC for some reason doesn't have working sound so I watched yesterday's Great War video later in the afternoon before I started gaming. Knew that the ANZAC units had been landed at the wrong spot but didn't realise how crucial this might have been. If they had gone ashore at the correct location, while the Turkish positions on the heights to their north would have posed a serious problem being able to advance across a plain they could have had a much greater success and possibly even cause a panicked withdraw of the forces further south opposing the British landings. Alternatively if Kamel hadn't stemmed their advance, in part by a trick, they still came damned near to taking control of the heights. While there would be further heights beyond them as the terrain had a lot of rough ground, basically being a fractured plateau it would have given the landing a lot more protection from enemy fire.
I'm a bit doubtful that there were ~66% casualties for the allies on the 1st day as that would be crippling for any force and I suspect would cause a serious collapse. That seems far too high.
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on May 1, 2020 13:29:01 GMT
Also on the WWI post you have:
But I can't see any image so possibly a broke link. As I may have said before my main PC for some reason doesn't have working sound so I watched yesterday's Great War video later in the afternoon before I started gaming. Knew that the ANZAC units had been landed at the wrong spot but didn't realise how crucial this might have been. If they had gone ashore at the correct location, while the Turkish positions on the heights to their north would have posed a serious problem being able to advance across a plain they could have had a much greater success and possibly even cause a panicked withdraw of the forces further south opposing the British landings. Alternatively if Kamel hadn't stemmed their advance, in part by a trick, they still came damned near to taking control of the heights. While there would be further heights beyond them as the terrain had a lot of rough ground, basically being a fractured plateau it would have given the landing a lot more protection from enemy fire.
I'm a bit doubtful that there were ~66% casualties for the allies on the 1st day as that would be crippling for any force and I suspect would cause a serious collapse. That seems far too high. Steve
About your World War II post, will edit it, thanks for spotting it. About the Great War photo, it not you, it is not visible for everybody, will edit it. |
|
I have something similar to make a more successful Gallipoli attack. Striking a bit further north into Cilicia where the only railway the Turks have that goes into their Arabian empire is very vulnerable Its a better place for an attack as the terrain with mountains to the north mean only a few passes to defend and it really screws the Turks in the rest of the empire. This is still a feint to before a more successful attack on Gallipoli. Not a wank so it doesn't lead to the landing forces marching on Constantinople but decisive for other reasons.