9 replies to this topic

[Charles Markuss]

The following errors need correction in GQ 3.German ship names (approximate English pronunciation in brackets {} using English words to get the sound right):Bluecher, not Blucher. {Blee’chher} chh = as in Loch Ness or Bloch, not as in lock.Koeln, not Koln. {Kelln} e with pouted lips.Koenigsberg, not Konigsberg. {Kay’nicksberg or Kaynichhs‘berchh, depending on regional accent}, a with pouted lips.Luetzow, not Lutzow. {Lits’ov} i pronounced with pouted lips.Nuernberg, not Nurnberg. {neern’berck or ‘berchh}, not ‘burg.RulebookPage 1-18 the plural of das U-Boot (dass oo’boat) is die U-Boot {dee oo’boat’eh}, not U-Boöte. Note all German nouns start with a capital letter.Page 2-1 and page 5-4, Schwarm {shvaarm}, not Schwarme. The plural would be die Schwaerme {dee shwer’meh}. The e at the end of a word in German is never silent e.g. Porsche = Porsch’eh, not Porsch.Page 2-9 Proximity fuzes. VT does not stand for Variable Time; it was a USN designation, hence the V. The fuze is not variable time, since no time is set.Page 2-12 in the Mediterranean at least British aerial torpedoes were often dropped at less than 500 yds range to ensure a hit, and would attain the correct depth within 400 yds. I suspect the same comments would apply to most other nations. This rule is rather severe. I can supply sources.Page 5-2 Torpex was 50% more powerful than TNT, but this would give only a 14% increase in radius of damage , i.e. the destructive power, since the latter s roughly proportional to the cube root of the charge weight. I can supply sources. The rules obviously simplify the differences in charge weights, and British torpedoes had heavier warheads than US ones and were more reliable. A comparison between all the nations’ warhead weights and explosive types would be interesting – I have the data if you are interested.Page 5-7 Pillenwerfer (pill thrower / discharger), not Pillenwefer. {pill’en’verfer}.Page 5-8 HF/DF was first fitted to the RN sloop Culver (ex-USCG) in July 1941, which was not of the Black swan class. By the end of 1942 was standard on all RN anti-submarine escorts, not just the ship types mentioned, and deemed essential for their work. It was not fitted to AA escorts such as the Bay class, because it was considered to be unnecessary.Page 5-8 Zaunkeonig (literally fence king), not Zaunkong. {tsown’kay’nick or ‘nichh}.Page 5-9 LUT = Langeunabhaengiger Torpedo (position independent torpedo) not Lageunabhangiger. {lang’eh’un’aphengiger torpaydoe}. Incidentally, Federapparat Torpedo = spring apparatus torpedo {fay’der’apparaat torpaydoe}.Page 5-9 Type XXI did not pioneer power-loading of torpedo tubes; similar equipment was fitted to the large and deep-diving (500’) British O, P and R class boats whose crews has trained for a war with Japan, but were then redeployed and squandered in the Mediterranean. All 6 torpedo tubes could be reloaded in about 7 minutes. Page 6-2 Bf 109 Gustav, not Gustov. FW 190 Wuerger {virr'ger} not Wurger (from wuergen – to choke or throttle), {virr’gen}. He 177 Greif (griffon) {grife}, not Grief. Zerstoerer (destroyer) not Zerstorer, {tser’shtairer}.

[Cpt M]

Page 2-9 Proximity fuzes. VT does not stand for Variable Time; it was a USN designation, hence the V. The fuze is not variable time, since no time is set

Actually, from what I'm read of official Navy documents, the fuse was referred to as VT and Variable Time. This may well be a case of a non-official term becoming the de facto 'official' term through use. (Wouldn't be the first nor last time.)

Page 2-12 in the Mediterranean at least British aerial torpedoes were often dropped at less than 500 yds range to ensure a hit, and would attain the correct depth within 400 yds. I suspect the same comments would apply to most other nations. This rule is rather severe. I can supply sources.

True enough and I can add that the Coastal Forces often launched from well under 500yds. But keep in mind that this possible only by 'fiddling' with the torpedoes arming pistol and was rarely official sanctioned. Doctrine dictated an arming distance of roughly 500yds and since doctine drives training that is what you'll generally see in main. In theater modifications are quite a different matter and, where applicable, could be handled as a rule modificaton for a specific scenario.

[Jim O'Neil]

Variable Time was a cover name... one of several I gather.

[Lonnie Gill]

Charles,Thanks for the German lesson. As you can see, I have no proficiency with German. Given that, I made it a point to use the Anglicized spellings for ship names, etc. found in most English language sources. And, as you know, there is some variation in those as well. While I’m hardly the right one to assess the correctness of these spellings, the majority of the purchasers of these rules recognize and are familiar with these spellings from use in these sources for many years. Where they are incorrect, I ask for the continued tolerance of our German speaking crewmembers who have borne this burden for many years. Where I tried to make use of German terms in the text (U-Boot, etc.) you have rapped my knuckles with the ruler of truth. I did make an honest attempt to get them right and in some cases found three or four different variations in various sources. Hopefully, I get some credit for at least trying.Through the years, I have received different - and usually conflicting - guidance from a number of folks as to what is the “proper” German spelling for this or that word. A long time ago, I learned it was better to have people wonder if I was unversed in the grammatical rules of another language than open my mouth and prove it. Accordingly, I plan to stay with the Anglicized spellings. For those who want to go beyond the Anglicized spellings, I would refer then to your generous post which details the proper Germanic spellings and, thankfully, the pronunciation as well.The distance at which torpedoes were dropped seems to have depended on whose account you read: the courageous attacking aircrews or the valiant defending ship crews. Accounts of the same actions from different perspectives are often quite different. Certainly, there is historical evidence that some aircrews launched at very close range to assure a hit in the Med and elsewhere, but most did not. The greater the AA fire, the further away launches generally got made. Unlike these historical realities, gamers left to their own devices always have the best, veteran crews that launch at point blank range. The Torpedo DROP table is provided to return to more realistic variances between the crews of different flights. If you consider this too severe, you can employ a die modifier to account for those flights with truly veteran crews.The optional rule Section 1.4.11 is a simplified means to reflect the effect of more effective explosive. A one column shift to the right on the MINE and TORPEDO DAMAGE table yields moderately greater damage. As you point out, there were many variations in the warhead sizes and explosive effect of the different torpedoes. Naval warfare is very complex; which requires balancing greater detail in each area vs. greater complexity and time needed to resolve the simulation. Each of us has areas where we prefer to concentrate. If this is an area you are interested in, you can customize the table to reflect more differences in warhead effects. It might make a useful optional rule for all.Interesting, I hadn’t read that the British O, P and R class submarines had power torpedo tube loading. I assume it was fairly noisy, but was handy to be able to reload in seven minutes. They certainly were squandered in the shallow waters of the Med.Finally, aside from differences in German spellings, I see you’ve found some typos for Gustav and Greif on page 6-2. Guilty as charged; I’ll prepare an update in due course, which can be downloaded.LONNIE

[Charles Markuss]

lonnie wrote:

Charles,Thanks for the German lesson. I am also grateful to you for taking the time to reply. I am happy to help. I am only trying to improve your product and get it right. Considering all the updates already being released, is this really such a chore for you? Through the years, I have received different - and usually conflicting - guidance from a number of folks as to what is the “proper” German spelling for this or that word. This I find odd; except for Amish, which is hardly in global use, I do not see how this can be. Those of us who learned German as a first language and ending up with a degree in the subject and travel there regularly and maintain links with German cousins and aunts find this puzzling.Unlike US English (which Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India and South Africa all seem to manage well without), there are NO variations in Geman spelling onther than the use of 'ae' instead of 'ä',' oe' in place of 'ö' and 'ue' in place of 'ü', so I do not know to what variations you refer. I admit that in the Great War the name of the cruiser Köln was often spelled Cöln, but that's about it.Interesting, I hadn’t read that the British O, P and R class submarines had power torpedo tube loading. I assume it was fairly noisy, but was handy to be able to reload in seven minutes. They certainly were squandered in the shallow waters of the Med.I don't know how noisy - but will try and find out.Finally, aside from differences in German spellings, I see you’ve found some typos for Gustav and Greif on page 6-2. Guilty as charged; I’ll prepare an update in due course, which can be downloaded. You missed some others - there was no cruiser named Regensberg, nor one named Weisbaden; they were named after the cities of Regenburg and Wiesbaden, respecitviely. Friedrich der Grosse, not Gross. The RN cruiser Defence, not Defense. If you are useing 'oe' then as stated before you need to be consistent across the board, but you are not. If (only tongue in cheek mind you) I accused you of an anti-German bias, you would be offended. If it matters for the ships of other navies, it should matter for the Hochseeflotte and the Kriegsmarine.You will no doubt be pleased to hear that this will be my last word on the subject.Thanks for letting me give my opinions.LONNIE

[Jim O'Neil]

Charles,With all respect, The variations between Austrian German, Bayrische (Bavarian to Americans) German and Prussian German made learning the language difficult.Now I know English in it's many variations makes German look simple ... but I had quite a time. I went so far as to take my German professor with me. After asking a man in the street directions in Bayreuth, and getting the glazed look, my professor conversed briefly with the man , then told me my German was "perfect", but he didn't speak German... only Bayrische!He equated it to the Cajun/negro dialects of the American South. So there is hardly "one" German Language ... and we haven't even touched Afrikaans spoken in South Africa.Chuss,Jim

[Charles Markuss]

Bravo6 wrote:

Charles,With all respect, The variations between Austrian German, Bayrische (Bavarian to Americans) German and Prussian German made learning the language difficult.Now I know English in it's many variations makes German look simple ... but I had quite a time. I went so far as to take my German professor with me. After asking a man in the street directions in Bayreuth, and getting the glazed look, my professor conversed briefly with the man , then told me my German was "perfect", but he didn't speak German... only Bayrische!He equated it to the Cajun/negro dialects of the American South. So there is hardly "one" German Language ... and we haven't even touched Afrikaans spoken in South Africa.Chuss,Jim

JimThanks.If we are talking about spoken German I agree entirely. For my part I can understand Swabian and Bavarian but find Plattdeutsch a challenge. I have been to Bayreuth a number of times. My point is that here we are talking about written German - i.e. the names of ships. German is always written the same, whether it is a Bavarian, a Swabian or a Saxon. Some of the names are incorrectly spelled, others have e added after o in some cases, but not all, so there is inconsistency. Getting them all correct is not great effort. send me the files and I will do it!

[Jim O'Neil]

Even Written German can be difficult. It is much better, and certainly better than English, but it does have it's vagaries (or perhaps just widespread misspellings). I know it took a while for me to grasp that ss and S-sett "ß" were the same thing.(I don't know if the character will come through...)Then we have the gothic script which gives me headaches to read... I have a copy of a Germn WW 2 document that is in this... a German, Certified German-English translator (and German by birth) returned it to me and said it was too hard to read. The US Army German speaking interrogators were so bad I had to help them. Written German can be difficult, even for Germans (not that we don't have "English" and American speakers who don't have plenty of trouble too.ChussJim.

[Charles Markuss]

Compared to English spelling, German spelling is simple, regular, consistent and predictable. There is no equivalent of the US variation to confuse things and irritate us Britons. Defense indeed!The ß is acheived by ALT + 0223 and is only used in place of ss after 'long' vowels, or at the end of words or after consonants. Thus Fußball {foos'bal} = football ,but not Fussel {fuss'el} = thread. Consequently I think ye protest too much.I have never liked Gothic script but can read it - if slowly- and I would never advocate its use for ship names.

[Jim O'Neil]

Actually ß is achieved by holding down the option key and typing an "s". I use a Macintosh for a reason!German spelling is much more regular than "English" because English is not *a* language, but an amalgam of languages including Latin, French, German, Celtic and a bit of every native language the English Speakers have come in contact with.Rules, exceptions, pronunciations and spellings are all variable ... which may be why we are rather relaxed about spellings of German Ships (and darn near everything else ... some of the spellings are creative indeed!).My German professor used to say we could ask any question about German we wanted except for "why" it was done the way it was ... he said if we asked that, he would ask us why we did something in English ... and we would never ever win.I think the mistake was only made twice.Jim