Alternative I-class BCs

[delcyros]

No. I must admit that I made this mistake. MEA CULPA.
After checking my files, I mistook PRINZREGENT LUITPOLDT for MARKGRAF. The latter ship had three Bergmann turbines instead of the usual Parson type ones. The centershaft was not blind as in PL. Whether or not the different turbine manufacturer affects poweroutput or the ability to redline, I don´t know.
Take my apologies.

 

[grayst]

No problem, Delcyros.

Take it as a compliment - when you say stuff, people take it seriously.

 

[JAG88]

Hey, no problem, it happens.

Good luck with the lecture.

 

[martin worsey]

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!

I am not entirely sure if your purpose is simply to understand the game or to use it as a gunnery simulation. I am not entirely convinced by the logic that is being used here.

The Invincibles had a crew of regular sailors and director fire control, the AC’s were much more variable in crew quality (with quite a few reservists) and no director control. Also, according to the figures in Campbell, the 3BCS had a higher % of hits in proportion to rounds fired than any of the other groups identified (1/2 BCS, 5 BS, Remaining British BB’s, German BB’s, German BC’s). The gunnery of Invincible and Inflexible was reportedly poor in the first half hour at the Falklands but this was attributed to the amount of smoke generated when steaming flat out and being disadvantaged by the wind direction. The German BC’s similarly performed poorly for the first hour or so at Dogger Bank due to similar issues. After the first half hour of the Falklands battle their gunnery improved dramatically especially when they were on the lee side of the Germans.

To be fair, Campbell states that comparing % hit rates is rather superfluous due to the differing visibilities, ranges bearings and the like. However, it is somewhat disingenuous to down grade their shooting based upon good performance under battle conditions.

Probably the most meaningful comparison that you can make is that Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were crack gunnery units and were totally outclassed at the Falklands despite the phenomenal bravery and skill of their crews. If medium guns were ineffective against AC’s; then they would be of even more dubious value against BB’s.

 

[Coypus]

Mr Delcyros I dont think anyone refuses Campbells work, I think writers on Jutland have serious issues with it and rightly so but it is widely quoted by those authors and used as a reference point. I don't think for instance Massie when writing an 800 page opus on the WWI would wish to get bogged down in technical detail, most of which is superfluous to both the narrative and the outcome so would rely on Campbell at times when required. Likewise Massie can only afford to devote limited space to the German side because the dynamic of the war at sea for the narrative principally comes from the British side. Its a differnt type of book .
As for Brook he like Campbell is a technican turned authour but approach their subject matter from different directions, Campbell I believe had a preconcieved understanding which unfortunatelty did not quite stack up on examination so creative use of omission and context is used that in no way detracts from the usefulness of his work with the caveat keep your eyes and mind open. Its a bit like Irving lecturers assure me that his early stuff is very good but you have to be wary. Brooks approached his work from the technical side like Campbell (incidently the German viewpoint is immateriel to Brooks book except as a counterpoint to prove various points and therefore superfluos. He does point out at times Campbell is not omnipotent though) but reached the logical conclusion that Jutland's outcome was a result of human factors not technical ones. Before you say no way most technical defects were elimanated after Jutland and the RN proved the better conception. And if we look at Brooks title its "Dreadnought Gunnery and the Battle of Jutland" "The question of Fire control" . not going to make the best seller list now is it. Compare that with "The Great Gunnery Scandal: The Mystery of Jutland" which provides us with not only a tabloid headline but a Scoobie Doo mystery. I wonder what the motive was
As with Brooks the German perspective is immateriel to Gordon it serves no function to the narrative except it is firing shells at our protagonists. Gordon quotes Campbell widely but rightly points out when he is talking crap (My father has been on the Warspite a couple of times and seen actual scars from Jutland still visible in the thirties) On technical issues Gordon generally stays below the parapet but uses English creatively when he does not agree with certain so called facts. Gordon rightly understands though the narrative is entertaining and convoluted that Jutland was decided by human error inspite and despite 3 bC's blowing up.
As for Jelicoe, Jellicoe may have performed well at Jutland but as far as assesment he was no Hugh Dowding . Scheer seen all the action of the run to the North and called the shots. Jellicoe was invovled in a political dogfight and already had evidence against broken regulations hushed in relation to Jutland. Jellicoe impartiality on Jutland like Beatty who changed logs is compromised. 4000 yards at two Knts differential takes an hour which ties in with what happened (the differential is actually higher but you guys and speed wont change). If you read on to page 108-110 in Campbell it largely ties in with Scheer The III strung out with only Konig and Grosser hitting the high notes of 22 knts from the German battle log the V division averaged 19.5 which again ties in with Scheer (not that it matters )

 

[Coypus]

I am not entirely sure if your purpose is simply to understand the game or to use it as a gunnery simulation. I am not entirely convinced by the logic that is being used here.

The Invincibles had a crew of regular sailors and director fire control, the AC’s were much more variable in crew quality (with quite a few reservists) and no director control. Also, according to the figures in Campbell, the 3BCS had a higher % of hits in proportion to rounds fired than any of the other groups identified (1/2 BCS, 5 BS, Remaining British BB’s, German BB’s, German BC’s). The gunnery of Invincible and Inflexible was reportedly poor in the first half hour at the Falklands but this was attributed to the amount of smoke generated when steaming flat out and being disadvantaged by the wind direction. The German BC’s similarly performed poorly for the first hour or so at Dogger Bank due to similar issues. After the first half hour of the Falklands battle their gunnery improved dramatically especially when they were on the lee side of the Germans.

To be fair, Campbell states that comparing % hit rates is rather superfluous due to the differing visibilities, ranges bearings and the like. However, it is somewhat disingenuous to down grade their shooting based upon good performance under battle conditions.

Probably the most meaningful comparison that you can make is that Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were crack gunnery units and were totally outclassed at the Falklands despite the phenomenal bravery and skill of their crews. If medium guns were ineffective against AC’s; then they would be of even more dubious value against BB’s.

The Invincible suffered a hit to one of her mast supports which made her spotting top senstive to vibration for most of the action which must have had an effect on gunnery also.

 

[Invincible]

Discusses early RN Battlecruisers, the debate over alternatives and large cruiser development in all navies based on the Cavendish class.