Show me the source where 23knts are obtained Campbell gives over 22 and 22 dead as the top speeds. Jellicoe was in dispute with Beatty over 5BS operational control he was making a case for getting them back hardly an objective position.
Alternative I-class BCs
- Thread starter grayst
- Start date
Well here is a thing.
I've done three runs with Bellerophon, Indefatigable and Minotaur against a line of 3 German targets. 12.3k range, 15 kts speed.
In no case could I see any gunnery handicap on the part of Indefatigable.
In fact in all three runs she got the first hit, and in two of them showed a significantly better hit rate than Bellerophon.
The first run was against 3 Nassaus with the fragile AP option left (accidentally) on. This meant not a whole lot of damage was inflicted, but Indefatigable did best.
Next run was 3 Nassaus with fragile AP off. The 12" ships did best, not much difference between them.
Third run was 3 Deutschlands (PDs), fragile AP off. As reported from previous tests, Minotaur put down her opponent way ahead of the 12" ships.
It still looks like an AC can inflict more damage faster than a BB or BC on anything up to a PD.
And remember, this is using a Minotaur (broadside of 4x9.2" and 5x7.5") as an inferior proxy for an alt-I with a broadside of 8x9.2".
But at only half the rate of fire, and with fewer rounds per gun as well. Use 9.2"s instead of 12"s and you might have the weight to make sure your ship is actually protected against enemy 8.2"s - which the I's weren't.
saddletank
Forum Conscript
Without wanting to seem too negative 3 runs is hardly a useful sample, espcially as they are against different targets. Do 30 or 300 or 3000 and them a probability curve will begin to show.
Of course I'd hope SES have messed about with testing their BCF handicap and to save you doing this 300 times maybe Bullethead can help here?
Dunno if I can do that, but run 4 with the PDs was, once again: Minotaur wins by a mile, Indefatigable doing slightly better than Bellerophon.
That is wind state 9, just to clarify.
Also it is interesting if these trial speeds can be improved by wind. For example: wind from behind.
Last edited:
Bullethead
Storm Eagle Studios
Absolutely. I personally did many hundreds of runs. So take it as a given that over the long run, BCF ships don't hit as frequently as other ships in the game. On average, they hit like they did at Jutland, compared to other units. However, that doesn't exclude them from having good runs here and there where they shoot better than anybody else, because of all the variables in gunnery.
You seem to have problems remembering things, let me repeat what Zakalwe kindly quoted:
"I learned later, as an unpleasant surprise, that the 5th Battle Squadron, when going at its utmost speed found considerable difficulty in increasing its distance from the enemy`s 3rd Battle Squadron, consisting of ships of the König class, and on return to Scapa I recieved a report from the Admiralty which credited this enemy squadron with a speed of 23 knots for a short period of time..... "
Unless Jellicoe was lying through his teeth, he was not the source of the information and, he was not alone at that, Beatty never detached the QEs either, in fact, he used QE as his flagship. Didn't he?
And yes, Campbell reports that the best recorded speeds were 23 and 22 kts, only 20kts for the 3rd with no speed for the 4th... so following your logic Kronprinz was not moving at all. Right?
Seriously, you are trying to take Jutland and Dogger Bank as evidence that, since x speed was not achieved, therefore, its was impossible to do so, and that is absurd. We have König reaching 23kts for a while during the battle, and since during trials they all reached the same speed +/- 0,15kts, it is safe to assume that save for some exogenous circumstances (coal loading, time without refit, machinery failures, all issues not considered in the game) they should be able to reach them.
Otherwise, we would have to set likewise differences for all ships and classes for circumstantial issues that were only present at Jutland or at another point during the war, Valiant would have to be slower than the rest of the QEs, the Rs limited to 22kts, Von der Tann limited to 23kts, Moltke to 25kts, the Is to 22kts, etc...
The game has to make certain concessions, and most of us are ok with that.
If the sea state was lower there would definitly be advantages, but today any ship inshore would make for a lee shore or sheltered achourage in those conditions. I cant think that it would improve trials in any way.
Read DK Brown page 92 on the accurcay of Jellicoe as a source with regards performance of warships. Jellicoe gets the George B McClellan award for exaggeration in WWI. Nowhere does Campbell give a Konig 23knts. Like Isaid before I believe the operational speeds were slower and as we have seen the Konigs were not at full load at Jutland and the Markgraf which carried 500 tons more coal could only make 20knts. To give 23 as a definitive speed is nonsense Likewise giving the Battlecruisers a definitive speed when for example after 2 hours of relatively sedate combat steaming the undamaged Moltke could only reach 23knts and the damaged VdT could only make 23 also. When you take into consideration turnings the given speed are even more generous. That is only my opinion based on the evidence I have if you provide a source will gladly come round to your way of thinking.You seem to have problems remembering things, let me repeat what Zakalwe kindly quoted:
"I learned later, as an unpleasant surprise, that the 5th Battle Squadron, when going at its utmost speed found considerable difficulty in increasing its distance from the enemy`s 3rd Battle Squadron, consisting of ships of the König class, and on return to Scapa I recieved a report from the Admiralty which credited this enemy squadron with a speed of 23 knots for a short period of time..... "
Unless Jellicoe was lying through his teeth, he was not the source of the information and, he was not alone at that, Beatty never detached the QEs either, in fact, he used QE as his flagship. Didn't he?
And yes, Campbell reports that the best recorded speeds were 23 and 22 kts, only 20kts for the 3rd with no speed for the 4th... so following your logic Kronprinz was not moving at all. Right?
Seriously, you are trying to take Jutland and Dogger Bank as evidence that, since x speed was not achieved, therefore, its was impossible to do so, and that is absurd. We have König reaching 23kts for a while during the battle, and since during trials they all reached the same speed +/- 0,15kts, it is safe to assume that save for some exogenous circumstances (coal loading, time without refit, machinery failures, all issues not considered in the game) they should be able to reach them.
Otherwise, we would have to set likewise differences for all ships and classes for circumstantial issues that were only present at Jutland or at another point during the war, Valiant would have to be slower than the rest of the QEs, the Rs limited to 22kts, Von der Tann limited to 23kts, Moltke to 25kts, the Is to 22kts, etc...
The game has to make certain concessions, and most of us are ok with that.
OK. Can I have some clarification, though?
- Can you put some numbers on it - difference in % probabiilty to hit?
- How does it work with respect to range?
- What constitutes a "BCF ship"? Just 1, 2 and 3BCS or the lighter forces as well? What about 5BS?
- Does the handicap apply to those ships in all circumstances? Suppose in the campaign game I detach 3BCS from BCF and attach it to the GF? What if I'm playing with the Scenario Editor and, say, put a "BCF ship" on the German side?
Sorry to be so demanding!
Now you are just grasping at straws, the report Jellicoe talks about was not made by him and, in any case, both him and Beatty never again risked the QEs by detaching them from the GF, so BOTH behaved in consequence.
The Ks were not at full load but closer to that than normal, draught was 29ft 9in out of a max of 30ft 6in, in those conditions König reached 23kts; mechanically, the other were just as able as the trials proved, as a matter of fact, König was the slowest in trials. The Rs close to full load couldn't do 22kts, Valiant did 23,4kts at Jutland, the I's didn't do 25kts at full load either, should they speeds be reduced also?
Now the GKs, underwater damage can slow you down significantly without even considering the extra weight. As you usual, you keep making false statements in spite of the quotes and sources provided, Moltke maintained 25kts for the whole battle, not 23kts, I already quoted the relevant paragraph, look it up.
Oh, and you have no evidence, just a need to troll.
Konig was making 43k shp and was at times steaming at over 22knts while Margraf managed only 20 and Grosser Kurfurst 22 dead according to Campbell and that is at utmost power (page 103) Now researching this as I actuallly do to find out why things happen, the Konigs were powered by turbines form 3 differnt manufacturors that could also be a influence on performance as Markgraf alone used Bergman turbines (Conways), along with the extra coal. (GK-Vulcan, K+K-Parsons turbines.) Molkte and Vonn der Tann had difficulty maintianing high speed and 1SG averaged 23knts according to Campbell (page 102). I think if you look back through the posts I have provided the exact location of my sources and mentioned the damage to VdT. I have no doubt at the end of the day as Conways states the Moltke would have been in good shape and able to do 25knts. Stokers rested grates cleaned no problem but according to Campbell she had problems earlier maintaing speed.
There was, exactly, a 0,3kts difference in trials between the fastest (Kronprinz, 21,3kts) and the slowest (König, 21,0kts), so no, your last piece of speculation is, again, incorrect. There was no abnormal difference in performance between the four.
You keep failing to remember that it was I who quoted you the Campbell paragraphs regarding their speeds, and yes, Moltke had trouble maintaining 26kts, she could only do 25kts due to underwater damage, not the 23kts you were claiming earlier. Again, to see if it finally becomes clear to you:
"As a result of these hits the Moltke listed 3° to starboard which was corrected by counter-flooding the port wings. After this had been done, about 1000 tons of water were present in the ship with an increase in draught of 2ft 6in aft and a decrease of 8in forward, but the Moltke was able to maintain 25kts to the end. The 1616 hit by an APC shell should probably be credited to the Valiant, but it cannot be determined whether this ship or the Barham was responsible for the other 15in hits."
So, Moltke was thus limited since the 16h16 hit, that is almost from the beginning of the action, with underwater damage and an extra 1.000t of weight, with all that, she was slowed to the ridiculous low speed of... 25kts.
And Von der Tann? Basically the same story:
"Compartments on the armour deck and some on the middle deck flooded, while a considerable quantity of water entered compartments below the armour deck, and the stern torpedo flat was half filled. The steering-engine ran hot, and the steering compartments flooded, but complete failure of the rudder gear was averted and, after a short interval, the steering gear functioned again, while it was possible to shore the bulkhead leading to the after engine. The change in the ship's draught from 29ft (fore) 28ft10in (aft) before the battle to 28ft3in (fore), 31ft2in (aft), with a list of 2° to starboard, after the battle, shows that over 1000 tons of water were present in the ship."
Those were the details of the 16h09 hit, the main reason why VdT couldn't reach the 26kn that otherwise could have been met as Campbell indicates.
But Campbell lies, right? :laugh:
Last edited:
Happy to keep you enterntained rgreat (love your idea for more slider). Again trial speeds is not operational speed. I have read the passages and I agree that the Moltke could have done 25 knts at the end but I wonder why does Campbell speciffically contradict himself (Campbell uses "to the end" Conways "at the end")? He specifically says "their" when refering to Motlke and VdT in relation to fires and stoney coal and their difficulty maintaining high speed. 25 knts I assume is quite a high speed. Interestingly in those same passages quote of the shell effects he makes reference that Moltkes coal bunkers were not full which would tally with the trim of the Konigs. I don't believe Campbell lies perse I prefer to use mendacity as others have noted some of his claims are fancilful, cross referencing with other works is the best way.
I 'd lile to give my thoughts on this but have little time to spare from my occupations now (a lecture has to be prepared for my phd project and time is running).
I can see the discussion circulate about the same points of interest for quite a while now.
Why one would refuse J.Campbell's authoritativ work is really hard to understand for me. True, there are DETAILs left to be discussed in it (see Gordon or Brooks) and I personally dismiss his rejection of a torpedohit on SMS LÜTZOW because I came across contemporary sources from both sides to claim this very hit (and Campbell doesn't give an explenation) but as a general work it is exhaustive, perfectly researched (unlike Massie, Gordon or Brooks who in my perspective failed to make research in german sources and thus return only one perspective to the battle, not necessarely the better one) from both sides primary accounts to the action. Of course, as a historian I understand fully that sources May and in fact should be questioned. However, all of the hit revisions done by Brooks for example are speculative in nature and shouldn't be treated as evidence against Campbell (of course, Brooks is only interested in the british side and thus his intention is visible).
In order to question Campbell, You need more save information from both sides. Refusing Campbell and an primary source like Jellicoe is methodically difficult to sustain (not impossible but I have seen nothing to support Your point here). I could quote another (russian) source suggesting that GROßER KURFÜRST may have hit 24 kts in the run to the north but this doesn't matter at all. What matters methodically is that preselecting sources which support and dismissing sources which contradict Your opinion is simply creating a Dilemma: WHO IS RIGHT?
I believe that this question cannot be answered in general but has to be decided from case to case. The final point in the hitherto used approach would be to become a BELIEVER to someone. I 'd like to warn from doing so. You may value the sources against each other or You try what I suggested before:
Plot the heading and firing distance in relation to time for the only part in action when both squadruns run at utmost power. You are right that the 5th BS was making a 120 deg turn but all the boilers are lit up (unlike the III sqdr. which had to make up steam beforehand and didn't lit up all boilers before the advent of Beatty) and speed loss data for the QE-class is handily aviable. As far as I remember, You could in fact 'see' the acceleration of the 5th BS in such a rangeplot which allows You to identify it and dismiss this part because of methodical problems. I don't remember the change rate and the range rate figures and I am to much occupied to do it now.
With regards to MARKGRAF, I can see that You have a point here, she was slower and the 600 ts do not explain this. It is best explainable by her powerplant. She only had 2/3 of the design power installed, the centershaft originally proposed for a cruise Diesel engine was blind. As a matter of compensation, she recived wider diameter and more efficient propellors and turbines with more overload capacity. However, her trial speed was calculated based upon a slower result for deep water ( see discussion about trial speeds) and by a mistake made either by Gröner or Breyer this was not factored in and taken as actual Trial result. I have buried the source somewhere but again, I have to shift my attention to a different project now.
take care,
delc
I can see the discussion circulate about the same points of interest for quite a while now.
Why one would refuse J.Campbell's authoritativ work is really hard to understand for me. True, there are DETAILs left to be discussed in it (see Gordon or Brooks) and I personally dismiss his rejection of a torpedohit on SMS LÜTZOW because I came across contemporary sources from both sides to claim this very hit (and Campbell doesn't give an explenation) but as a general work it is exhaustive, perfectly researched (unlike Massie, Gordon or Brooks who in my perspective failed to make research in german sources and thus return only one perspective to the battle, not necessarely the better one) from both sides primary accounts to the action. Of course, as a historian I understand fully that sources May and in fact should be questioned. However, all of the hit revisions done by Brooks for example are speculative in nature and shouldn't be treated as evidence against Campbell (of course, Brooks is only interested in the british side and thus his intention is visible).
In order to question Campbell, You need more save information from both sides. Refusing Campbell and an primary source like Jellicoe is methodically difficult to sustain (not impossible but I have seen nothing to support Your point here). I could quote another (russian) source suggesting that GROßER KURFÜRST may have hit 24 kts in the run to the north but this doesn't matter at all. What matters methodically is that preselecting sources which support and dismissing sources which contradict Your opinion is simply creating a Dilemma: WHO IS RIGHT?
I believe that this question cannot be answered in general but has to be decided from case to case. The final point in the hitherto used approach would be to become a BELIEVER to someone. I 'd like to warn from doing so. You may value the sources against each other or You try what I suggested before:
Plot the heading and firing distance in relation to time for the only part in action when both squadruns run at utmost power. You are right that the 5th BS was making a 120 deg turn but all the boilers are lit up (unlike the III sqdr. which had to make up steam beforehand and didn't lit up all boilers before the advent of Beatty) and speed loss data for the QE-class is handily aviable. As far as I remember, You could in fact 'see' the acceleration of the 5th BS in such a rangeplot which allows You to identify it and dismiss this part because of methodical problems. I don't remember the change rate and the range rate figures and I am to much occupied to do it now.
With regards to MARKGRAF, I can see that You have a point here, she was slower and the 600 ts do not explain this. It is best explainable by her powerplant. She only had 2/3 of the design power installed, the centershaft originally proposed for a cruise Diesel engine was blind. As a matter of compensation, she recived wider diameter and more efficient propellors and turbines with more overload capacity. However, her trial speed was calculated based upon a slower result for deep water ( see discussion about trial speeds) and by a mistake made either by Gröner or Breyer this was not factored in and taken as actual Trial result. I have buried the source somewhere but again, I have to shift my attention to a different project now.
take care,
delc
The trial speed reference was used to indicate that there were no differences in performance when conditions were similar, which is what matters for the game. And regarding speed, Conways notes that Grosser K may have reached 24kts, perhaps this comes from the same source delcyros quotes, some clarification would be welcome here.
You are seeing a contradiction because you want to see a contradiction, I rather go with the more detailed work on Jutland than a quick note on a reference work.
And please do note, that all we have against Campbell's work is your unsubstantiated speculation.
Regarding Moltke's speed, he talks specifically to the difficulty in maintaining 26kts, 25 is still less than 26, at least today, tomorrow perhaps you will find a reason to believe otherwise.
As Delcyros noted, it would take a lot of data and arguments to prove Campbell wrong and, so far, I have read nothing in the like. From anyone.
Delcyros:
Markgraf had the same arrangement as Prinzregent Luitpold then? It is the first time I hear about that. If that is indeed the case then her in-game speed would undoubtedly have to be reassessed and reduced as with PL. That is a huge find.
Ps.: However, one detail bothers me, if Markgraf's speed was indeed reduced in comparison with the other Ks, why would she be assigned as a reinforcement to the fast unit, the 1st SG in August 1916? Why not assign the fastest Königs instead of the crippled one?
Last edited:
Are you sure about this, Delcyros?