| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Posts: 7
|
|
|
Post subject: Canadian Navy units (done)
|
 |
|
Hey ppl i'm new  and i've been playing WaS for about 2 months and i've read on this website for about a month.
Does this forum have the cards for the UK escort carriers that were manned by canadian crews?
I found this card from Vorganith (I think) oh wait...how do we post images...
well anyways,here are the stats that were on the card
HMS Puncher (Bogue class escort carrier)
speed:1 Availabality date:1944 capacity:1
Attacks 0 1 2 3
------------------------------
Main 2 2 1 -
AA 5 - - -
Armor 3/7/3
SA:Outstanding Air Support:Once per turn,if this unit is in the same sector as a friendly carrier,it gains one of that carrier's ''expert'' abilities. |
|
 Fri Oct 09, 2009 12:21 am |
|
|
Nerd on the Prairie
Posts: 3052
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Welcome!
_________________
 |
|
| Fri Oct 09, 2009 12:28 am |
|
|
Posts: 805
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: Canadian Navy units(i'm new)
|
|
|
| I fail at making cards wrote: |
Does this forum have the cards for the UK escort carriers that were manned by canadian crews? |
You mean the US escort carriers that were loaned to the British and manned by Canadian crews?
| Quote: |
HMS Puncher (Bogue class escort carrier)
speed:1 Availabality date:1944 capacity:1
Attacks 0 1 2 3
------------------------------
Main 2 2 1 -
AA 5 - - -
Armor 3/7/3
SA:Outstanding Air Support:Once per turn,if this unit is in the same sector as a friendly carrier,it gains one of that carrier's ''expert'' abilities. |
Comparing it to the Fencer it should probably be
Mains: 2/2/2
AA: 5
Armor: 2/8/3
Unless its different in some way I don't know about. If you're going with one SA it'll probably end up at 10 or 11 points, depending on how much that +1 VA is worth.
Also, welcome! |
|
| Fri Oct 09, 2009 12:45 am |
|
|
Posts: 1754
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
To post an image
type in
[img] the URL [/img]
only without the spaces.
However, Puncher was not a Canadian ship, she was never commissioned into the RCN, she'd be classified as a British Ship.
IIRC canada didn't get her first aircraft carrier until 1946, a British Colossus class....I think.
She'd have the same stats as Fencer.....SA. I'd rather see something more inclined to her history. Unfotunaty nothing too fun happened to her. IIRC, Nabob (another Bogue Class) survived a torpedo hit, she can get a card with something along the lines of
Torpedo Survivor - The first time this unit is going to be destroyed by a torpedo attack roll a die, on a 5 or 6 she is crippled instead.
Ummmmmm, also, to suggest cards. In the future, list the name, Year available, armament, displacement and armor.
sounds like a lot right? fortunatly theres a good website here.
http://www.warshipsww2.eu/staty.php?language=E&period=
Don't get too strung up if you can't find all the info, there's people (me) who will look up what you can't find in big heavy books.
Welcome
Last edited by Rengokuy on Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:35 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:31 am |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 4166
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Welcome aboard!
HMS Puncher
Ameer/Ruler class
11,420 tons
18 knots
2 - 5in/38 Mk 12 guns
16 - 40mm Bofors (8x2), 27 to 35 20mm
18-24 aircraft
Commissioned: April, 1944
Paid off: January 1946
Strike/CAP carrier used to provide air cover for aerial minelaying strikes and attacks on enemy shipping and U-boat depots. Also provided convoy escort and training duties. Canadian crew.
These were an improved Attacker (Fencer) class.
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship! |
|
| Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:32 am |
|
|
Posts: 1642
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I listed the Puncher and the Nabob as Canadian on the Repaint reference. I would argue that the AVG's murky nationality has already set a precedent for a split roundel, and that these two Carriers deserve a British/Canadian version. Wouldn't that satisfy everyone?
Either that, or a British roundel with an asterisk. 
_________________
Repaint Reference...
http://aaminis.myfastforum.org/about6080.html |
|
| Fri Oct 09, 2009 6:28 am |
|
|
SOCCEROO FEVER
Posts: 6808
|
|
|
| Fri Oct 09, 2009 6:38 am |
|
|
SOCCEROO FEVER
Posts: 6808
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
HMCS?
_________________
 |
|
| Fri Oct 09, 2009 6:39 am |
|
|
Posts: 1642
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Officially HMS, but with a British/Canadian split roundel. The British Flag was a technicality, as I'm sure everyone knows. Splitting the roundel would at least acknowledge the true loyalty of these two Ships.
I put them with the Canadians, as the British did.
_________________
Repaint Reference...
http://aaminis.myfastforum.org/about6080.html |
|
| Fri Oct 09, 2009 6:58 am |
|
|
Posts: 1754
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
nope HMS, never commissioned into the RCN. (Hence why I insist they are British and not Canadian, unlike a ship such as Uganda, or Shropshire, who's prefix changed to HMCS and HMAS respectively as they were transferred to their colonial nation) |
|
| Fri Oct 09, 2009 6:59 am |
|
|
Posts: 1642
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Rengokuy wrote: |
nope HMS, never commissioned into the RCN. (Hence why I insist they are British and not Canadian, unlike a ship such as Uganda, or Shropshire, who's prefix changed to HMCS and HMAS respectively as they were transferred to their colonial nation) |
I know they were officialy HMS. I'm saying, why not give them a British/Canadian roundel, like the AVG got a split roundel. How is that improper?
_________________
Repaint Reference...
http://aaminis.myfastforum.org/about6080.html |
|
| Fri Oct 09, 2009 7:06 am |
|
|
Straight-Shooter
Posts: 2067
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Rengokuy wrote: |
nope HMS, never commissioned into the RCN. (Hence why I insist they are British and not Canadian, unlike a ship such as Uganda, or Shropshire, who's prefix changed to HMCS and HMAS respectively as they were transferred to their colonial nation) |
Canadian crewed, and the crews of the FAA squadrons on them were mostly Canadian.
If Graf Zeppelin and Aquila made it into the game, Puncher and Nabob at least deserve dual roundels.
_________________
http://riversidegaming.myfastforum.org/
Last edited by Jameson on Fri Oct 09, 2009 3:37 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Fri Oct 09, 2009 3:33 pm |
|
|
Straight-Shooter
Posts: 2067
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: Canadian Navy units(i'm new)
|
|
|
| Asbestos wrote: | | I fail at making cards wrote: |
Does this forum have the cards for the UK escort carriers that were manned by canadian crews? |
You mean the US escort carriers that were loaned to the British and manned by Canadian crews?
|
Wow. Congratulations, you win the internet.
_________________
http://riversidegaming.myfastforum.org/ |
|
| Fri Oct 09, 2009 3:36 pm |
|
|
Posts: 1754
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Jameson wrote: | | Rengokuy wrote: |
nope HMS, never commissioned into the RCN. (Hence why I insist they are British and not Canadian, unlike a ship such as Uganda, or Shropshire, who's prefix changed to HMCS and HMAS respectively as they were transferred to their colonial nation) |
Canadian crewed, and the crews of the FAA squadrons on them were mostly Canadian.
If Graf Zeppelin and Aquila made it into the game, Puncher and Nabob at least deserve dual roundels. |
What does Graf Zeppelin have to do with anything? She was german, built by germans, intended to be crewed by germans.
Now if she was finished and crewed by Austrians with German pilots then she may have a little more relevance.
We recently finished the Colossus class CV's.
Just change the year available to 1946 and the Name to Warrior and you have the first Canadian aircraft carrier.
If we let these be Canadian, then it's the equivalent of saying the Richelieu was American just because it was refitted in America with US equipment and a US paint job. The ship belongs to the nation it is registered under and none others. Why didn't England give Canada these ships, but give them Cruisers instead, I dunno. Ask England. I can't even find a date the Canadian crews hopped on because it's not logged as a transfer. Just that 1944 it had a Canadian crew and British Flight Crew (which probably means British aircraft as well, which would make sense because it was a British ex-American ship)
Sidenote - I'm having a bit of underground laughter that on a forum where something like Shinano and Oyodo, or ships like GZ have to be marked in a special manner because they aren't fully historical, but now when it comes to switching the nation of a ship, people are inclined to go with it. It's silly. Mark her fantasy planned and I'll let it slide. Other note, she wouldn't' be a double roundel, she'd have to be a triple roundel since she they were American fist......so it'd be
USS Walapa - 1944.05.02
HMS Puncher - 1944.05.02
HMS Puncher - 1944 - 1946
it looks silly but there's not date of Canadian service because she wasn't in Canadian service. So someones going to have to search around and figure out exactly when the Canadian crew hopped on, and for how long as well since it was transferred to teh USN again in 1946 (from the RN) |
|
| Fri Oct 09, 2009 3:59 pm |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 4166
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
From the website I read it did indeed have a Canadian crew from RN commissioning and throughout it's WWII service.
Edited to add: I would imagine one advantage of keeping it in the RN (to Canada) is that Britain paid for the purchase and for the operational costs.
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship! |
|
| Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:26 pm |
|
|
SOCCEROO FEVER
Posts: 6808
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Jameson wrote: | | Rengokuy wrote: |
nope HMS, never commissioned into the RCN. (Hence why I insist they are British and not Canadian, unlike a ship such as Uganda, or Shropshire, who's prefix changed to HMCS and HMAS respectively as they were transferred to their colonial nation) |
Canadian crewed, and the crews of the FAA squadrons on them were mostly Canadian.
If Graf Zeppelin and Aquila made it into the game, Puncher and Nabob at least deserve dual roundels. |
I am happy for dual Roundels. i don't see a problem.
_________________
|
|
| Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:59 pm |
|
|
Posts: 118
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
According to The Ships of Canada'a Naval Forces 1910-1985 (McPherson/Burgess), the entry under aircraft carriers (1939-1945) states:
Nabob
"...commisioned HMS Nabob at Tacoma Wash. Sept 7, 1943...modifications to RN standards completing January 12, 1944. About this time it was arranged that she and her near-sister Puncher should be manned largely by Canadians while remaining RN ships."
So, an authority on Canadian warships claims these are both actually RN ships, while including them in the book. As much as I'd love a couple of Canadian carriers in the game, it looks like we're stuck with Haida and the mighty Sackville (at least until we get HMCS Uganda or one of the AMC Princes...). Of course, it's a game and you can play it however you want - if you want to use a Fencer/St. Lo as a Nabob or Puncher - more power to you !
Oh, and Welcome - you can never have too many Canadians on board eh ! |
|
| Sat Oct 10, 2009 4:29 am |
|
|
Posts: 1642
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| weedsrock2 wrote: | From the website I read it did indeed have a Canadian crew from RN commissioning and throughout it's WWII service.
Edited to add: I would imagine one advantage of keeping it in the RN (to Canada) is that Britain paid for the purchase and for the operational costs. |
An accounting trick. That's my understanding of the situation, too. To quote a certain hero, "We are men of action, sir. Lies do not become us."
Canadian ships under a British Flag. If we didn't already have the precedent of the Flying Tigers, I would still argue for a split roundel for these two Carriers. They're like a textbook example of the concept.
_________________
Repaint Reference...
http://aaminis.myfastforum.org/about6080.html |
|
| Sat Oct 10, 2009 7:02 pm |
|
|
SOCCEROO FEVER
Posts: 6808
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
SA Canadian Crew. this ship counts as a Canadian ship for single nation builds.
_________________
|
|
| Sat Oct 10, 2009 9:46 pm |
|
|
Forum Administrator
Posts: 6928
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I admit that I don't have much prior knowledge about this situation, but after reading this thread I would tend to agree with Rengokuy. It looks to me like they should be considered RN.
_________________
 |
|
| Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:00 pm |
|
|
|
