On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 21:09:04 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 22:52:14 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:35:35 -0400, J. Clarke
>><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Weren't most of the capital ships already under construction (or least
>>>>planned) prior to 7 Dec 1941?
>>>
>>>Nope. When the war started the US had 8 carriers in commission and
>>>two more under construction. When the war ended the US had more than
>>>100 carriers in commission.
>>
>>Quesition: were any of the so called "Jeep carriers" (i.e. merchant
>>ships refitted with flight decks and typically able to handle no more
>>than 20-30 planes - as opposed to the large fleet carriers carrying
>>100-120 planes like the Enterprise, Wasp, Hornet etc) even conceived
>>of before Pearl Harbor?
>
>The idea was around in the '30s and there was some planning in the US
>in 1940. The British had at lease one in service before December 7,
>1941.

You are presumably talking about HMS Furious which fought in the
Norwegian campaign (Apr-Jun 1940) - didn't end up so well...

On 6/13/2022 5:21 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 11:41:50 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/11/2022 11:02 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 09:38:16 -0700, Paul S Person
>>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> For one thing, the Navy was still of the opinion that the Battleship
>>>> was the key weapon and that the decisive battles would be Battleship v
>>>> Battleship.
>>>>
>>>> Then Pearl happened and it turned out that the Aircraft Carriers could
>>>> do as well, if not better.
>>>
>>> In fairness, while Pearl Harbor may have started that belief, Midway
>>> REALLY cemented the new understanding of CV vs BB. Did ANY of the US
>>> or Japanese CVs see each other at Midway? If they did I'm unaware of
>>> it.
>>
>> Midway was the second battle where opposing fleets did not see each
>> other directly. Coral Sea is credited as the first by most histories
>> that I'm aware of.
>
> Very true - but Coral Sea was considered pretty much a stalemate with
> losses on both sides. Nobody I've read ever said that of Midway.

Tactical stalemate, strategic victory for the Allies as they stopped the
Japanese offensive.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 6/13/2022 7:19 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 10:06:05 -0700, Paul S Person
> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>> DG does sell bunches of others, some of them downloadable (no
>> shipping/handling, no box to store). If you are interested,
>> <https://shop.decisiongames.com/SearchResults.asp?searching=Y&sort=7&cat=77&show=10&page=1>
>> should get you to a screen that, by using the categories on the left,
>> you can use to explore what is available.
>
> Thanks for sharing that link - I see from the website they're still
> using the old SPI hexagonal triangle logo and some of the titles were
> very familiar obviously many not - it has after all been close to 40
> years....
>
> I also searched 'War in Europe game' and was astounded by the asking
> prices. I am also amazed at the asking prices for my "White Box" 1ed
> D&D.....I will need to discuss this further with my kids obviously
> (their mother's gone and they'll probably be getting my few remaining
> games) For instance my "white box" set is in less than great condition
> BUT I've got the Greyhawk, Blackmoor and G,DG&H books with them as
> well.
>
> Alledgedly each of the above is "going for" $500-2000 (in US$ no less)
> which this old gamer finds amazing...

My kids play D&D on the internet now with their friends and cousins
across Texas. They are not like us ...

Lynn

On 6/14/2022 12:05 AM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 6/13/2022 7:19 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 10:06:05 -0700, Paul S Person
>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> DG does sell bunches of others, some of them downloadable (no
>>> shipping/handling, no box to store). If you are interested,
>>> <https://shop.decisiongames.com/SearchResults.asp?searching=Y&sort=7&cat=77&show=10&page=1>
>>>
>>> should get you to a screen that, by using the categories on the left,
>>> you can use to explore what is available.
>>
>> Thanks for sharing that link - I see from the website they're still
>> using the old SPI hexagonal triangle logo and some of the titles were
>> very familiar obviously many not - it has after all been close to 40
>> years....
>>
>> I also searched 'War in Europe game' and was astounded by the asking
>> prices. I am also amazed at the asking prices for my "White Box" 1ed
>> D&D.....I will need to discuss this further with my kids obviously
>> (their mother's gone and they'll probably be getting my few remaining
>> games) For instance my "white box" set is in less than great condition
>> BUT I've got the Greyhawk, Blackmoor and G,DG&H books with them as
>> well.
>>
>> Alledgedly each of the above is "going for" $500-2000 (in US$ no less)
>> which this old gamer finds amazing...
>
> My kids play D&D on the internet now with their friends and cousins
> across Texas.  They are not like us ...
>
> Lynn

BTW, my "kids" are 38 and 35. My son spent 8 years in the USMC (United
States Marine Corps).

Lynn

On 6/11/2022 9:42 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 17:11:19 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/11/2022 3:19 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> On 6/11/2022 4:31 PM, Default User wrote:
>>>> Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/10/2022 10:35 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Nope.  When the war started the US had 8 carriers in commission and
>>>>>> two more under construction.  When the war ended the US had more
>>>>>> than 100 carriers in commission.
>>>>>
>>>>> Got any backup on that number of 100 ?  Seems unreal even though a
>>>>> WWII carrier was just a heavy cruiser ? with a flat top.  Did we have
>>>>> amphibious carriers back then ?
>>>>
>>>> Wikipedia sez, with two references:
>>>>
>>>> By war's end in 1945, the United States Navy had added nearly 1,200
>>>> major combatant ships, including ninety-nine aircraft carriers, eight
>>>> "fast" battleships, and ten prewar "old" battleships[6] totaling over
>>>> 70% of the world's total numbers and total tonnage of naval vessels of
>>>> 1,000 tons or greater.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Brian
>>>
>>> Thanks !
>>>
>> And just to scare you, by mid-1945 the ship builders were only just
>> starting to hit their stride in the US. *evil grin*
>
> Yep. People don't really seem to understand today the massive
> disparity in production capacity between the US and anybody else in
> the world that was present at the end of WWII.
>
> Oh, the atomic bomb production line was just about ready to start
> rolling.

What do you mean "was" ? The USA built 12,000 ??? nuclear bombs in the
1950s and 1960s.

Lynn

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:

> On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 21:09:04 -0400, J. Clarke
> <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 22:52:14 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:35:35 -0400, J. Clarke
>>><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Weren't most of the capital ships already under construction (or least
>>>>>planned) prior to 7 Dec 1941?
>>>>
>>>>Nope. When the war started the US had 8 carriers in commission and
>>>>two more under construction. When the war ended the US had more than
>>>>100 carriers in commission.
>>>
>>>Quesition: were any of the so called "Jeep carriers" (i.e. merchant
>>>ships refitted with flight decks and typically able to handle no more
>>>than 20-30 planes - as opposed to the large fleet carriers carrying
>>>100-120 planes like the Enterprise, Wasp, Hornet etc) even conceived
>>>of before Pearl Harbor?
>>
>>The idea was around in the '30s and there was some planning in the US
>>in 1940. The British had at lease one in service before December 7,
>>1941.
>
> You are presumably talking about HMS Furious which fought in the
> Norwegian campaign (Apr-Jun 1940) - didn't end up so well...

You mean HMS Glorious (fleet carrier sunk). However, that is not what
is being referred to. However, what is being referred to is HMS Audacity
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Audacity) which was an escort carrier.

--
Stephen Harker sjharker@netspace.net.au
was: http://sjharker.customer.netspace.net.au/
now: http://members.iinet.net.au/~sjharker@netspace.net.au/
or: http://members.iinet.net.au/~sjharker_nbn/

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>On 6/11/2022 9:42 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 17:11:19 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/11/2022 3:19 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>> On 6/11/2022 4:31 PM, Default User wrote:
>>>>> Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/10/2022 10:35 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope.  When the war started the US had 8 carriers in commission and
>>>>>>> two more under construction.  When the war ended the US had more
>>>>>>> than 100 carriers in commission.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Got any backup on that number of 100 ?  Seems unreal even though a
>>>>>> WWII carrier was just a heavy cruiser ? with a flat top.  Did we have
>>>>>> amphibious carriers back then ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Wikipedia sez, with two references:
>>>>>
>>>>> By war's end in 1945, the United States Navy had added nearly 1,200
>>>>> major combatant ships, including ninety-nine aircraft carriers, eight
>>>>> "fast" battleships, and ten prewar "old" battleships[6] totaling over
>>>>> 70% of the world's total numbers and total tonnage of naval vessels of
>>>>> 1,000 tons or greater.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Brian
>>>>
>>>> Thanks !
>>>>
>>> And just to scare you, by mid-1945 the ship builders were only just
>>> starting to hit their stride in the US. *evil grin*
>>
>> Yep. People don't really seem to understand today the massive
>> disparity in production capacity between the US and anybody else in
>> the world that was present at the end of WWII.
>>
>> Oh, the atomic bomb production line was just about ready to start
>> rolling.
>
>What do you mean "was" ? The USA built 12,000 ??? nuclear bombs in the
>1950s and 1960s.

Did you notice the reference to 'mid-1945'?

On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 13:04:09 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 6/13/2022 9:09 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 11:44:20 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/12/2022 10:06 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 23:22:11 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 10:13:37 -0700, Paul S Person
>>>>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 11:30:13 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 09:40:35 -0700, Paul S Person
>>>>>>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> While 22 June 1941 was definitely summer it was not EARLY summer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The original plan was to attack as soon as the ground hardened. It was
>>>>>> delayed a couple months by Yugoslavia.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I remain mystified about what might have been in Yugoslavia or Greece
>>>>>>> (much less Crete which was 7 weeks after the attack on Greece) that
>>>>>>> was of such immense value to the Third Reich.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There was a regime change in Yugoslavia: what /was/ a reliable Axis
>>>>>> proto-ally (or Pro-Axis Neutral in the game "War in Europe") suddenly
>>>>>> became ... a lot less pro-Axis. Since it had a border with Austria, it
>>>>>> was a possible threat to the lines of communication for the attack on
>>>>>> Russia, and had to be suppressed.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm aware of that - and my whole point is that while the Yugoslav
>>>>> attack set things back 2-4 weeks, the attack on Greece set things back
>>>>> about 3-4 weeks and the later attack on Crete even more.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2-4 weeks delay in Russia wouldn't have been that severe but the
>>>>> original start date in Russia was some time between May 1-15 as
>>>>> opposed to the final date of 22 June 1941.
>>>>
>>>> There were British units in Greece and the Italians weren't doing
>>>> well. Greece had to be suppressed to keep the Brits from moving into
>>>> Yugoslavia and then into Austria.
>>>>
>>>> Just imagine a British Army Group in /Austria/ in, say, October 1941.
>>>>
>>>> The British withdrew to Crete, so that had to be taken as well. The
>>>> next logical step, Alexandria from Crete, was never taken.
>>>>
>>> Possibly in part because Crete gutted the German paratroopers and they
>>> never did another opposed airdrop again.
>>
>> Very likely; Hitler was, IIRC, not amused.
>>
>> Taking Alexandria that way would have been iffy, depending on the size
>> of its garrison.
>>
>> But trying to do so overland didn't work so well either.
>
>IIRC Hitler was never amused when the enemy actually fought back. ;)

Kind of like Putin.

Or Trump, currently gnashing his teeth and disowning his daughter.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 17:19:26 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 10:06:05 -0700, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>DG does sell bunches of others, some of them downloadable (no
>>shipping/handling, no box to store). If you are interested,
>><https://shop.decisiongames.com/SearchResults.asp?searching=Y&sort=7&cat=77&show=10&page=1>
>>should get you to a screen that, by using the categories on the left,
>>you can use to explore what is available.
>
>Thanks for sharing that link - I see from the website they're still
>using the old SPI hexagonal triangle logo and some of the titles were
>very familiar obviously many not - it has after all been close to 40
>years....

A lot of those -- that is, the boxed versions -- are second or updated
editions, and may may not be exactly what you remember. Thus, IIRC,
they have (or had) such a version of /U.S.N./ that does, indeed, cover
the entire war.

They used to have a freebie computer game called /Strike Fource One/
which, if nothing else, would have shown you what "computer game"
means in this context but, alas, it appears to no longer be
availalble. The traditional "introductory game", /Napoleon at
Waterloo/ appears to be downloadable for $10.00, which is
comparatively low.

>I also searched 'War in Europe game' and was astounded by the asking
>prices. I am also amazed at the asking prices for my "White Box" 1ed
>D&D.....I will need to discuss this further with my kids obviously
>(their mother's gone and they'll probably be getting my few remaining
>games) For instance my "white box" set is in less than great condition
>BUT I've got the Greyhawk, Blackmoor and G,DG&H books with them as
>well.

I re-housed my games some time ago. The boxes are gone. A lot of
mounted maps were replaced with unmounted mapsheets while I was in
the Army. And I found the state of /The Fantasy Trip/ to be appalling
-- it was literally cut back to what I needed and everything else
discarded. All in all, it was clearly a set of games gathered and
treated with no thought at all of the future.

>Alledgedly each of the above is "going for" $500-2000 (in US$ no less)
>which this old gamer finds amazing...

The higher end, I suspect, will turn out to be for /unopened original
boxed games/ and even the lower may require minimal wear-and-tear. But
feel free to prove me wrong by actual experience!

I suppose the opportunity may be passing me by, but at one time what
were then called "old folks' homes" were possible dumps -- er,
recipients -- of these games, as they had a lot of veterans in them.

Well, donation is better than the landfill. IMHO, at least.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Tue, 14 Jun 2022 13:47:08 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 6/11/2022 9:42 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 17:11:19 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/11/2022 3:19 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>> On 6/11/2022 4:31 PM, Default User wrote:
>>>>> Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/10/2022 10:35 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope.  When the war started the US had 8 carriers in commission and
>>>>>>> two more under construction.  When the war ended the US had more
>>>>>>> than 100 carriers in commission.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Got any backup on that number of 100 ?  Seems unreal even though a
>>>>>> WWII carrier was just a heavy cruiser ? with a flat top.  Did we have
>>>>>> amphibious carriers back then ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Wikipedia sez, with two references:
>>>>>
>>>>> By war's end in 1945, the United States Navy had added nearly 1,200
>>>>> major combatant ships, including ninety-nine aircraft carriers, eight
>>>>> "fast" battleships, and ten prewar "old" battleships[6] totaling over
>>>>> 70% of the world's total numbers and total tonnage of naval vessels of
>>>>> 1,000 tons or greater.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Brian
>>>>
>>>> Thanks !
>>>>
>>> And just to scare you, by mid-1945 the ship builders were only just
>>> starting to hit their stride in the US. *evil grin*
>>
>> Yep. People don't really seem to understand today the massive
>> disparity in production capacity between the US and anybody else in
>> the world that was present at the end of WWII.
>>
>> Oh, the atomic bomb production line was just about ready to start
>> rolling.
>
>What do you mean "was" ? The USA built 12,000 ??? nuclear bombs in the
>1950s and 1960s.

We are talking about events that took place in 1945. What happened in
the '50s and '60s is irrelevant.

On 6/15/2022 9:42 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 13:04:09 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/13/2022 9:09 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 11:44:20 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/12/2022 10:06 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 23:22:11 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 10:13:37 -0700, Paul S Person
>>>>>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 11:30:13 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 09:40:35 -0700, Paul S Person
>>>>>>>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>> While 22 June 1941 was definitely summer it was not EARLY summer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The original plan was to attack as soon as the ground hardened. It was
>>>>>>> delayed a couple months by Yugoslavia.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I remain mystified about what might have been in Yugoslavia or Greece
>>>>>>>> (much less Crete which was 7 weeks after the attack on Greece) that
>>>>>>>> was of such immense value to the Third Reich.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There was a regime change in Yugoslavia: what /was/ a reliable Axis
>>>>>>> proto-ally (or Pro-Axis Neutral in the game "War in Europe") suddenly
>>>>>>> became ... a lot less pro-Axis. Since it had a border with Austria, it
>>>>>>> was a possible threat to the lines of communication for the attack on
>>>>>>> Russia, and had to be suppressed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm aware of that - and my whole point is that while the Yugoslav
>>>>>> attack set things back 2-4 weeks, the attack on Greece set things back
>>>>>> about 3-4 weeks and the later attack on Crete even more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2-4 weeks delay in Russia wouldn't have been that severe but the
>>>>>> original start date in Russia was some time between May 1-15 as
>>>>>> opposed to the final date of 22 June 1941.
>>>>>
>>>>> There were British units in Greece and the Italians weren't doing
>>>>> well. Greece had to be suppressed to keep the Brits from moving into
>>>>> Yugoslavia and then into Austria.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just imagine a British Army Group in /Austria/ in, say, October 1941.
>>>>>
>>>>> The British withdrew to Crete, so that had to be taken as well. The
>>>>> next logical step, Alexandria from Crete, was never taken.
>>>>>
>>>> Possibly in part because Crete gutted the German paratroopers and they
>>>> never did another opposed airdrop again.
>>>
>>> Very likely; Hitler was, IIRC, not amused.
>>>
>>> Taking Alexandria that way would have been iffy, depending on the size
>>> of its garrison.
>>>
>>> But trying to do so overland didn't work so well either.
>>
>> IIRC Hitler was never amused when the enemy actually fought back. ;)
>
> Kind of like Putin.
>
> Or Trump, currently gnashing his teeth and disowning his daughter.

Well her mother had to have cheated on him to produce her so.... :D

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 6/10/22 21:41, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 6/10/2022 10:35 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 13:37:47 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/10/2022 11:40 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 09:22:48 -0700, Paul S Person
>>>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [1] OK, the USA turned them out relatively quickly in WW2, but the
>>>>> ships turned out really quickly were merchant cargo ships, not
>>>>> warships.
>>>>
>>>> Not true - if you look at US production of warships in WW2 you would
>>>> find that US production in 1943-44 was larger than the entire Pacific
>>>> fleet as of Dec 7, 1941.
>>>>
>>>> Over in soc.history.what-if we once had a debate when I proposed that
>>>> even if the Japanese in December 41 / January 42 had destroyed EVERY
>>>> US ship it the Pacific (and that includes the North American west
>>>> coast and Panama) with zero losses to themselves that historical
>>>> levels of production in 1943-44 would have still resulted in US
>>>> victory no later than VJ Day + 1 year. (I assumed the Japanese fleet
>>>> would also expand at the historical rate)
>>>>
>>>> Logistically Japan was not capable of taking either Australia or New
>>>> Zealand with a force large enough to retain them. (And why would they?
>>>> There's no oil there)
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand Percival (at Singapore) was even less prepared than
>>>> Kimmel at Pearl Harbor. (I find it interesting that the Google search
>>>> "Who was US commander at Pearl Harbor" knew I meant 7 Dec 1941 rather
>>>> than any day before or since)
>>>
>>> Weren't most of the capital ships already under construction (or least
>>> planned) prior to 7 Dec 1941?
>>
>> Nope.  When the war started the US had 8 carriers in commission and
>> two more under construction.  When the war ended the US had more than
>> 100 carriers in commission.
>
> Got any backup on that number of 100 ?  Seems unreal even though a WWII
> carrier was just a heavy cruiser ? with a flat top.  Did we have
> amphibious carriers back then ?
>
> Lynn

Others have put some stuff up already. I am adding just the TYPES of
carriers from WWII:
* Commencement Bay-class escort carrier - All laid down after Sept 1943
* Essex-class aircraft carrier - All but 1 laid down after Dec 1941 - 24
* Independence-class aircraft carrier - Light carrier
* Lexington-class aircraft carrier - only 2 built, in the 1920s
* Saipan-class aircraft carrier - only 2 built in 1944 - no action
* Sangamon-class escort carrier - built as oilers in '30s and converted
* Yorktown-class aircraft carrier - 3 laid down in the '20s.

Looking at Wikipedia, it looks like less than 100, but they built or
converted a BUNCH of them, especially the ESSEX Class.

--
Dave Scruggs
Captain, Boulder Creek Fire (Retired)
Sr. Software Engineer - Stellar Solutions (Definitely Retired)

On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 14:20:16 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>>>> And just to scare you, by mid-1945 the ship builders were only just
>>>> starting to hit their stride in the US. *evil grin*
>>>
>>> Yep. People don't really seem to understand today the massive
>>> disparity in production capacity between the US and anybody else in
>>> the world that was present at the end of WWII.
>>>
>>> Oh, the atomic bomb production line was just about ready to start
>>> rolling.
>>
>>What do you mean "was" ? The USA built 12,000 ??? nuclear bombs in the
>>1950s and 1960s.
>
>Did you notice the reference to 'mid-1945'?

How many of those ships on the slips in "mid-1945" (which I assume
means before or after Sept 2, 1945 which was the day the Japanese
signed their surrender) actually got built?

On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 09:54:02 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>A lot of those -- that is, the boxed versions -- are second or updated
>editions, and may may not be exactly what you remember. Thus, IIRC,
>they have (or had) such a version of /U.S.N./ that does, indeed, cover
>the entire war.
>
>They used to have a freebie computer game called /Strike Fource One/
>which, if nothing else, would have shown you what "computer game"
>means in this context but, alas, it appears to no longer be
>availalble. The traditional "introductory game", /Napoleon at
>Waterloo/ appears to be downloadable for $10.00, which is
>comparatively low.

I got N at W as part of my initial S&T package and got Strike Force
One as a bonus to the usual S&T magazine game. No question Napoleon at
Waterloo was by far the better game though their best game on the
subject was the Napoleon's Last Battles quad-game.

>>I also searched 'War in Europe game' and was astounded by the asking
>>prices. I am also amazed at the asking prices for my "White Box" 1ed
>>D&D.....I will need to discuss this further with my kids obviously
>>(their mother's gone and they'll probably be getting my few remaining
>>games) For instance my "white box" set is in less than great condition
>>BUT I've got the Greyhawk, Blackmoor and G,DG&H books with them as
>>well.
>
>I re-housed my games some time ago. The boxes are gone. A lot of
>mounted maps were replaced with unmounted mapsheets while I was in
>the Army. And I found the state of /The Fantasy Trip/ to be appalling
>-- it was literally cut back to what I needed and everything else
>discarded. All in all, it was clearly a set of games gathered and
>treated with no thought at all of the future.
>
>>Alledgedly each of the above is "going for" $500-2000 (in US$ no less)
>>which this old gamer finds amazing...

I haven't played D&D in 30 years though my 1st edition set contains
the "% in Liar" typo which was corrected in future printings to "% in
Lair" which is what it was supposed to be. This typo allegedly makes
it more valuable to collectors.

>The higher end, I suspect, will turn out to be for /unopened original
>boxed games/ and even the lower may require minimal wear-and-tear. But
>feel free to prove me wrong by actual experience!
>
>I suppose the opportunity may be passing me by, but at one time what
>were then called "old folks' homes" were possible dumps -- er,
>recipients -- of these games, as they had a lot of veterans in them.
>
>Well, donation is better than the landfill. IMHO, at least.

I sold or gave away a lot when I left home for grad school in the
early 80s but still have a surprising number especially of the Avalon
Hill boxed games (though I sold my Panzer Blitz / Panzer General boxes
while keeping Richthofen's War.

On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 16:59:28 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 09:54:02 -0700, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

<snippo>

>>They used to have a freebie computer game called /Strike Fource One/
>>which, if nothing else, would have shown you what "computer game"
>>means in this context but, alas, it appears to no longer be
>>availalble. The traditional "introductory game", /Napoleon at
>>Waterloo/ appears to be downloadable for $10.00, which is
>>comparatively low.
>
>I got N at W as part of my initial S&T package and got Strike Force
>One as a bonus to the usual S&T magazine game. No question Napoleon at
>Waterloo was by far the better game though their best game on the
>subject was the Napoleon's Last Battles quad-game.

I just wanted to clarify that the $10 edition referred to above is a
/computer/ version. While not free, it would allow you to see what
these games are like with an old friend that you can, perhaps, compare
it to while playing with it.

Somewhere on that site ("Pledge Program", IIRC) there is an entry for
the /next/ edition of /War in Europe/ which, the last time I heard
anything on it, was threatening -- well, promising -- to upgrade the
Air and Naval subsystems to somehow be more realistic.

By "realistic", I suspect they mean "less abstract", as those
subsystems, as you no doubt recall, are /very/ abstract in /War in
Europe/. As are the MSUs, of course.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."