Finished a bit of an esoteric book "Naval Shipyards Of The World: From the Age of Sail to the Present Day" (present day being publishing date of 2000), by Robert J. Winklareth.

Every country and every state shipyard of that country plus the private shipyards that produced naval ships.  Most capital ships (in the age of sail, down to third rates) are named, with a short history if the ship was famous. Many shipyards had financial problems and were acquired by others or by the state.

Many layouts shown with the number of slipways, dry-docks and heavy cranes. Huge fluctuations of shipyard labor depending of course on what happened in history.  Tremendous production rates in some of these yards, particularly in WWII (of course).

Interesting book but hardly a read like a novel.

Do NOT take any advice from the bloke Orcs is referring to.

THAT person is, without doubt, the most accident prone member of the forum.
(Though I haven't he hasn't cut himself with a scalpel for AGES.

NB. British armour in Korea
Official History vol.1 Appendix N gives 8 Hussars a total of 64 Centurions (3 Sabre squadrons @20 + RHQ), 6 Cromwells (OP I think), 3 tank dozers (Centurion I think), 3 Churchill ARV, 3 Churchill bridgelayer, 4 carriers, 18 scout cars.

C Sqn 7 RTR is given as SHQ (2 Churchill VII, 2 Churchill ARV, 4 troops @ 4 Churchill Crocodile

45 Field Regiment RA also had 6 OP Cromwells (which were combined with those of 8H to form Cooper force).

Ta Peps

Congratulations.

Congrats!!!

Congratulations!

Will you now become Baron Kermit of Birkenhead?

A pint of Tactical Nuclear Penguin please barman!

Congratulations your Baronship.

Quote from: Jordi on 02 August 2024, 09:37:57 PMHi a question.
Can a CO issue orders to off -table support if there' is no fac or faoon table (artillery and air).

No - if there is no FAC or FAO in a lists you can only use the off-table Air or Artillery in Scheduled Strikes (unless your list specifically states that a CO or HQs can order off-table assets).
Apologies - I missed this as I was away.
Cheers
Mark

Quote from: sultanbev on Yesterday at 07:36:33 PM1) All the Sherman entries that show (75mm) armed variants have A/T = 3/90, which is for the 76mm armed Sherman.
> Yes - the difference between the two is primarily its armour penetration ability. But reducing the AT to 2/90 which is the only option seems to under-gun the 75mm considerably. But I'm happy to debate alternative options?

2) Churchill Mk.IV in Korea? Not heard of that.
> Info from a conversation with Tank Museum (Bovingdon): "the Churchill tank, including Mark IV variants, was used in the Korean War, although the British Army primarily deployed later marks, like the Mark VII Crocodile flamethrower tank. Its direct combat use in Korea was limited, with Armour Recovery Vehicles (ARVs) and Bridge Layers of the Churchill type mainly seeing service.
 
3) There was at best only 1 Comet in Korea, and that narrative is based on one dodgy photo.
> The image, along with one taken of British units in Hong Kong ahead of embarkation to Korea, is as you say debatable. And I'd be happy to remove it, until any other more solid evidence.

4) Centurion Mk.3 not Mk.2 in Korea, although stats would be same at this level. The Mk.2 was a bit of an oddball in that it had thicker hull front armour (118mm) compared to 76mm of Mk.1, Mk.3-8.
> Noted - thanks

4) 120mm Wombat in Vietnam? No, 'Wombat Gun' was the Aussie nickname for the 40mm M79 grenade launcher. They actually were issued 90mm M67 RR but they weren't used in action much.
> a good shout on that - thanks

5) Danes used tracked Roland? wut?
> No, that is an transcription error on my part.

6) 40mmL60 towed Bofors more effective (4/100 cf 2/100) than twin 40mm Bofors on M19 and M42? Ooops
You are not going to convince me that a Bofors gun, L70 even with radar, is as good as a ZSU-23-4. Longer ranged, yes.
> yes, the whole issue of AA factors v Ground targets is a challenge but the stats are incorrect and will be ammended.

I think taking out the AA factor from the notes and letting people pick the best of A/T or A-P factors for AA factors was a mistake. For instance a 100mm KS19 AA gun is going to have reasonable A/T and A-P factors, but poor AA factors at very long range.
> I am in total agreement and I am working on an errata that will resolve that problem.
The challenge caused by the use of AA guns against ground targets is common to many sets of rules and not easily solved. Cutting the AT/AP effect and ranges against ground targets by 50% seems overall to have the desired effect - but I am still playtesting that.

7) The Soviet ISU-122 has same gun as Is-2/3/4, so should be A-P = 5/70, A/T = 4/60
> Noted - thanks
8 ) IT-122-54 has a gun similar to the T-10, so A-P = 5/70, A/T = 6/60
> Noted - thanks
9) The T-10 series has HMG coax with its 122mm, so it's A/P factor should not be LESS than the earlier Is-2/3/4, should be at least the same.
> Noted - thanks
10) The 100mm M1944 ATG has same ammo as Su-100, so A/T = 4/60
> Noted - thanks

11) End date for Su-100 is at least 1996.
> which list are you looking at - as all the Soviet/Warsaw Pact lists should end in 1991?

12) The 125mm 2A45 ATG never entered service (as of 2015 at least).
> OK - Wiki has it as in service from 1989 - but no source.

13) Composite armour; In the West German notes it says these give normal saves to IATW and ATGW. That looks about right, I always thought a 5+ save is miserly.

In all other notes it has (older rule?) that Composite only gives a 5+ save versus IATW and ATGW. And yet the rule book doesn't state that armour gets no save against IATW, only ATGW.
> They should all be same as the West German notes - that is a transcription error - good spot

14) Wonder why Challenger ERA is 2+ save whereas everyone elses is 4+ save?
> an error - that can be corrected

15) Vigilant ATGW - the range correction to 65cm has been picked up for the ground mount, but not for the vehicle mounted variants.
> thanks - good spot

16) British SPAT: What is restricted ammo (due you mean arc?), and why is 17pdr Valentine SP Archer with less stats than 17pdr ATG and M10 17pdr SP Achilles? They all use same ammo.
> 'restricted ammo' refers to the fact that a number of 'tank-hunter' SPATs only carried a limited amount of specific ammo, usually HE. I needed a way to reflect this. The Valentine SP Archer and Achilles should be the same stats - will correct that

17) Arab and other lists. You can't use RPG-6 anti-tank grenades against infantry, just no!
>

18) Some lists still have some IATW with double the ranges they had in real life, sorry, you can't hit a point target with an RPG-7 at 800m (40cm). Don't know what thats about.
What is worse is that within one list you'll have some with correct ranges, and some with incorrect ranges, eg the British:

So the PIAT, No.94 rifle A/T grenades, and Carl Gustav are roughly correct (the latter for S550 700m range version from sometime in the 1970s, not the earlier M2) but the others are pure fantasy:
3.5" M20 range 110m (10cm being generous, in line with PIAT)
66mm LAW 300m (not 800m hahah) so 15cm
94mm LAW80 500m (not 1200m even more hahhaha) so 25cm
NB 84mm M2 from 1963 has 450m range, so about 25cm
> The whole IATW 'thing' is/was the stuff of nightmares  - but some of what you've spotted is actually manual copying errors on my part. Even getting some of them correct is a bonus IMHO. But I'll take a specific look and see what I can do quickly on them.

What happened?

As always - thank you for the detailed feedback Mark.
Answers to the various points are outline above (in bold).

In answer to you last question "What happened?" - as Leon (& I) have previously stated (on a number of occasions) this has been a massive logistical and highly manual process (a real challenge) as a lot of the original stats made absolutely no sense and were not logical in the way they had been constructed.
But the good news is that now all the lists are digital - it's a relatively easy process to update and amend them.
Yes, there will still be errors. Yes, there will still be omissions and mistakes (like the Danish Roland for example) but they are easily excised 

Cheers
Mark