Map and chart for U.S and Canada cost,with nets and mines update!

[Gerald]

hello! Are this practicable or possibility to find?

[irish1958]

Originally Posted by Vendor

hello! Are this practicable or possibility to find?

Admiral King didn't think the U-Boats were a threat, and the US Nave really didn't get serious about ASWF until 1943,
I don't think there was much in the way of mine fields and/or nets on the US coasts. The cities remained lighted (?lit), outlining the ships for attack by the subs. Air support for the Navy and Coast Guard remained a very low priority and hunter-killer groups non existent.
The US Navy refused to listen the the British about the U-Boat threat and ignored their experience and tactics (until about 1943).
Admiral Kimmel was unfairly blamed for Pearl Harbor, but Admiral King's failures were magnitudes greater and he was considered a war hero.
Anyway, the US Coasts were mainly unprotected.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by irish1958

Admiral King didn't think the U-Boats were a threat, and the US Nave really didn't get serious about ASWF until 1943,
I don't think there was much in the way of mine fields and/or nets on the US coasts. The cities remained lighted (?lit), outlining the ships for attack by the subs. Air support for the Navy and Coast Guard remained a very low priority and hunter-killer groups non existent.
The US Navy refused to listen the the British about the U-Boat threat and ignored their experience and tactics (until about 1943).
Admiral Kimmel was unfairly blamed for Pearl Harbor, but Admiral King's failures were magnitudes greater and he was considered a war hero.
Anyway, the US Coasts were mainly unprotected.

All of it true and accurate but open up the Campaign_SCR in GWX3.0 mission editor and a different picture regarding minefields and anti sub nets emerges

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

All of it true and accurate but open up the Campaign_SCR in GWX3.0 mission editor and a different picture regarding minefields and anti sub nets emerges

For relevant info.

[krashkart]

You can filter by year what is displayed in the editor, too, to see how those minefields grow over the years. The Grey Wolves made the coasts of England a very frightening place by '43 or so.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by krashkart

You can filter by year what is displayed in the editor, too, to see how those minefields grow over the years. The Grey Wolves made the coasts of England a very frightening place by '43 or so.

@Vendor
If you'd care to name me a port on the US east coast and a date I'll post it up for you if you want.

[nemchenk]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

All of it true and accurate but open up the Campaign_SCR in GWX3.0 mission editor and a different picture regarding minefields and anti sub nets emerges

I'm intrigued by what appears to be a mounting picture of GWX being quite different from historical reality -- I guess I was under the mistaken impression that it was a close simulation... As a new player, are my assumptions about how close GWX is to WWII way off base?

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by nemchenk

I'm intrigued by what appears to be a mounting picture of GWX being quite different from historical reality -- I guess I was under the mistaken impression that it was a close simulation... As a new player, are my assumptions about how close GWX is to WWII way off base?

It is a fine line trying to form a balance between historical accuracy, realism and gameplay immersion.

One area we believed was seriously unhistorical was the games inability to prevent harbour raiding anywhere the individual chose.

To this end we put nets and mines, not so much as to make them impossible to enter but to at least make the effort more challenging with a leaning toward what was more historically accurate (certainly in most ports).

[ryanglavin]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

It is a fine line trying to form a balance between historical accuracy, realism and gameplay immersion.

One area we believed was seriously unhistorical was the games inability to prevent harbour raiding anywhere the individual chose.

To this end we put nets and mines, not so much as to make them impossible to enter but to at least make the effort more challenging with a leaning toward what was more historically accurate (certainly in most ports).

Hey jim, you got a map for murmansk?

[ryanglavin]

Originally Posted by irish1958

Admiral King didn't think the U-Boats were a threat, and the US Nave really didn't get serious about ASWF until 1943,
I don't think there was much in the way of mine fields and/or nets on the US coasts. The cities remained lighted (?lit), outlining the ships for attack by the subs. Air support for the Navy and Coast Guard remained a very low priority and hunter-killer groups non existent.
The US Navy refused to listen the the British about the U-Boat threat and ignored their experience and tactics (until about 1943).
Admiral Kimmel was unfairly blamed for Pearl Harbor, but Admiral King's failures were magnitudes greater and he was considered a war hero.
Anyway, the US Coasts were mainly unprotected.

Yes, unprotected, but you really can't blame King. For a really good support argument, Clay Blair goes on on pretty much a 5 page rant supporting King. It actually makes sense, which is the cool part.

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by ryanglavin

Yes, unprotected, but you really can't blame King. For a really good support argument, Clay Blair goes on on pretty much a 5 page rant supporting King. It actually makes sense, which is the cool part.

About historical argument,can you be more specific in your speech,I refer to your last part of Clay Blair and his title-role under the War.

[ryanglavin]

Originally Posted by Vendor

About historical argument,can you be more specific in your speech,I refer to your last part of Clay Blair and his title-role under the War.

I'll find it in the book for you, but for a quick reference, its the last 1/4th of the first volume, which was drumbeat.
If I can recall correctly, Blair made the claim that, King wanted to build more escorts for coastal waters, but the British and convoys took priority.


Edit: great, can't find the book.

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by ryanglavin

I'll find it in the book for you, but for a quick reference, its the last 1/4th of the first volume, which was drumbeat.
If I can recall correctly, Blair made the claim that, King wanted to build more escorts for coastal waters, but the British and convoys took priority.


Edit: great, can't find the book.

If you find more about the book,let me be notify if there are some supplementary or link.....

[irish1958]

Originally Posted by ryanglavin

I'll find it in the book for you, but for a quick reference, its the last 1/4th of the first volume, which was drumbeat.
If I can recall correctly, Blair made the claim that, King wanted to build more escorts for coastal waters, but the British and convoys took priority.


Edit: great, can't find the book.

That is quite true; all admirals wanted more of everything and they had to make do with what was available. The war dept stripped the Pacific fleet of most of their destroyers and sent them to the British. Because of Republican resistance in the Congress, no effort to gear up for war occurred before 1942 and decisions to concentrate on building the Army (and Marines), the Pacific fleet, and the Manhattan project took precedence.
However, the Navy department did nothing to limit merchant losses until 1943.
No coastal blackouts, no air patrols, no arming of merchant vessels, no formation of convoys to make use of the limited resources, no effort to seek out and eliminate the milk cow supply subs, without which the patrols to the East and Gulf coasts of the USA would be severely limited or impossible.
Admiral King was responsible for all of the above omissions.

Originally Posted by ryanglavin

Yes, unprotected, but you really can't blame King. For a really good support argument, Clay Blair goes on on pretty much a 5 page rant supporting King. It actually makes sense, which is the cool part.

King overturned the favorable findings of the Naval Court of Inquiry regarding Kimmel. The unjustness of this is fully revealed by Professor Michael Gannon--see my website for details at:
http://www.pearlharbor911attacks.com.
Regards,
Tom Kimmel