Jutland

vertical

Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2006
Messages
130
Reaction score
0
Location
Oregon
Country
llUnited States
How knowledgeable this forum is concerning the subject matter is border line scary (this is a compliment) :). And this is coming from someone who's been visiting simulation forums for a decade or so now.

All right, that's about all I can contribute to this analysis of WWI era damage control. Carry on, gentlemen. It's an interesting read.

(thoroughly impressed) vertical
 

KGB

Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2006
Messages
282
Reaction score
0
Location
Troitsk
Country
llRussia
When a projectile hits armour plate you can get a "scab" effect. The shell doesn't penentrate but its kinetic energy is transmited through the plate causing a "scab" of plate to be detached from the inside. That of course would cause damage as well as weakening the plate.
Weakening - yes. As well as destroying the plate's fixture.
The shrapnel, which is created as the result of kinetic energy transforms to thermal and forming the shockwave inside the material can be dangerous.
Well, in fact it was dangerous for small, contrained cabins of tanks.

For battleships this was not so vital; but in fact the most dangerous results of non-penetration hit in Jutland (for main-caliber turret) was the kinds spoken already - turret jamming.


Damages of turrets and secondary artillery. Damages of turrets were characterized by figures of hits: one - in the third turret of "Lion", two - in the first and third turrets of "Queen Mary", one - in the third turret of "Malaya" and one hit in the first turret of "Warspite". Only 8 cases (Wilson totals 13 hits in turret of the English ships (" the Linear ships in fight ", p. 183)).

Hits in two cases spent to forward plates of 280-mm of the reservation to their punching and to penetrating shells inside of turrets with ignition of ammunition, consequence of that were big fires as fire extended downwards, reaching artillery cellars. In a number of cases for the ships it came to an end accident.

Deformation of forward armored plates and their cave-in inside of towers came to an end them jamming with loss of ability to rotate. Also, there was a damage of internal mechanisms of a tower ("Tiger", " Princess Royal").

From concussion left also out of operation the hydravlic mechanisms of turrets. At damage and cave-in of the reservation of a tower pipe its splinters jammed inside and caused out of operation charges submission ("Tiger"). Roofs of turrets were not always penetrated, but there was a case when the shell has got inside of a turret ("Lion"). In two cases has occured plates deformation ("Warspite") and its failure from bolts ("Malaya").


PS: There are some things in DG engine, that must be fixed and/or improved in Jutland.
Here is a pic of this:
 

Hud

Recruit
Joined
Jul 18, 2006
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Location
Cornwall
Country
ll
I would thoroughly recomend reading D K Brown "The Grand Fleet Warship design and developement 1906 -1922" He covers a lot of these topics in great technical detail and as former Deputy Chief Naval Architect of the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors knows his stuff. This book together with Cambell,s book and Dr Brooks work on "Dreadnought gunnery and the Battle of Jutland" I find indespsable. One thinks DG Jutland could be as controversial as the real battle!
 

Daedalus

Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
698
Reaction score
0
Location
Fort Knox Ky
Bugs? you must have an older version, this one has been working and stable for months!
I know as I play this game almost every day and I will for as long as I can. :) Be sure you are updated to the last release and that way if you are having issues it will take care of them. If you need post here and let us know what is up.
 

Zakalwe

Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2006
Messages
665
Reaction score
1
Location
Ecktown, S-H, German
Country
llGermany
KGB,

as for No. 2 in your pic I seem to recall Norm or Jim saying these splashes near and behind the ships are from shells passing through the hulls.

I think something similar is written in the manual.

Z,
 

KGB

Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2006
Messages
282
Reaction score
0
Location
Troitsk
Country
llRussia
KGB,

as for No. 2 in your pic I seem to recall Norm or Jim saying these splashes near and behind the ships are from shells passing through the hulls.

I think something similar is written in the manual.

Z,
No, I've checked this more than 10 times.
No passing through hull, i.e. the pic I've shown is true for any type of shells, from 305mm to 76mm and less. Well, I hope u won't say that 76 mm shell can pass through Adzuma or Iwate ?
 

KGB

Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2006
Messages
282
Reaction score
0
Location
Troitsk
Country
llRussia
Bugs? you must have an older version, this one has been working and stable for months!
I know as I play this game almost every day and I will for as long as I can. :) Be sure you are updated to the last release and that way if you are having issues it will take care of them. If you need post here and let us know what is up.
I have latest version, and still having bugs, unfortunatelly.
:cry:
 

Bullethead

Storm Eagle Studios
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
3,890
Reaction score
3
Location
Wakefield, LA
Country
llUnited States
Non-penetrating but damaging hits don't have to be due to 'physical' damage (although splinters and spalling are a big problem). Dont forget the pure kinetic energy a big shell represents, and then there is a big explosion a few feet (or inches) away....
Most certainly. At Jutland, about 1/2 of the destroyed turrets (in game terms) in surviving ships were the result of non-penetrations. All the Brit ships that blew up were almost certainly hit on turrets but, except for Invincible, we can't be exactly 100% sure of that, nor know if there was a penetration or "the next best thing".

Be that as it may, you're talking about 1/2 to 1.5 tons of supersonic steel specifically designed to punch through anything in its path. That's gonna hurt even in a best-case scenario.
 

Bullethead

Storm Eagle Studios
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
3,890
Reaction score
3
Location
Wakefield, LA
Country
llUnited States
How knowledgeable this forum is concerning the subject matter is border line scary (this is a compliment) :). ...
There's no grog like a naval grog :D

Warships have always been the most complex war machines every made at their particular point in time. As such, they've always been incredibly expensive, so there has always been way fewer of them than any other type of military hardware. This has also always meant that admirals have been raised believing you have to very careful with your fleet (you're not going to get another one), unless you're sure you can win the war Right Now.

All this has always meant that naval battles are few compared to land or air battles. More importantly for grogdom, such battles as were fought were more likely to have been indecisive. Thus, there's always something for grogs to speculate about. And because of the relatively few numbers of warship types at any given time, it's pretty easy for the average grog to hold most of the stats in his head or at least within easy reach from his computer. And there's less argument about the stats because the expense of the major ships mean that most things were written down in great detail (if you can find it).

Thus, naval grog arguments have to get much deeper into the technicalities and what-ifs than other types of grogs, because they have fewer combat results as agreed touchstones. And every naval grog thinks he's got as many facts at his disposal as the game developers, because there aren't that many facts out there to begin with, compared to other types of warfare. So IMHO it's much easier to satisfy WW2 tank grogs, for example, than it is naval grogs :D
 

HMSWarspite

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
650
Reaction score
1
Location
Bristol
Country
ll
There's no grog like a naval grog :D

Warships have always been the most complex war machines every made at their particular point in time. As such, they've always been incredibly expensive, so there has always been way fewer of them than any other type of military hardware. This has also always meant that admirals have been raised believing you have to very careful with your fleet (you're not going to get another one), unless you're sure you can win the war Right Now.

All this has always meant that naval battles are few compared to land or air battles. More importantly for grogdom, such battles as were fought were more likely to have been indecisive. ... :D
A very good point. Going back to my table top WW1 campaign, as CinC Grand Fleet, there was a problem in the game objectives. The HSF managed twice or three times to catch my pre-dreadnoughts on their own. I helped him, by using them as bait! (I think the umpire was 'nudging' encounters to stop me ending the campaign in the first 2 months of the war - not having much disincentive to be at sea en mass, the GF was always close but 'just too far away!'). Having lost about half a dozen pre-dreads, for maybe 1 of the HSF, I still felt very happy- the GF was getting stronger as ships completed, and the HSF wasn't (or at least only slowly). There were peripheral benefits such as one engagement between our BCs in early 1915, where I finally got a BC (VdT I think), but the main thing was he had 30 of the most modern DDs excorting them, but not enough CLs. This would have been a good idea, except my sub-commander (commanding the Harwich force of 8 CL, and lots of DDs) got yelled at for 'doing a Nelson' and sailing his force through my line without orders as the German DDs lined up for a smoke screen to cover the Ge withdrawl. I had to appologise for calling him an idiot! Result: my BC firing masked for 10 minutes, but a massacre of the Germans - only one German DD made it off the table (under a copy of the rules IIRC: the umpire ruled that it was the North Sea, and obviously there was a sea mist. We just muttered 'cheats'!). Anyway, to return to the point: after what was 3:1 to HSF in terms of engagements, I was still in possession of the GF, was not under any circumstances going to split it, and it was hence just a matter of time before I caught the HSF at sea, or the Ge player realised that going to sea was pointless. I did not have any real concerns for my minor ships, so long as the GF was intact, and hence the early part of the war was very much more active than RL. I was not really inhibited by anything except loss of Dreads, and mitigated that by never going to sea with less than the full fleet.

To explain my point (at last!). There is a problem with victory conditions for Jutland and North Sea WW1 games in general. There must be some sort of balance between incentive to fight (to make it a 'game'), and victory conditions that don't reward the GF just hammering in, because the inherent superiority means that any vaguely likely complete disaster is likely to be strategically useful. Even losing 1:1 in dreadnoughts is fine in a game, but I don't think the commanders of the RN would have lasted long if Jutland had been something like a 8:8 'draw'. Strategically, that is very effective however (HSF now close to 50% of it's size, GF still 66%+). Even in a single short mini campaign like Jutland, there needs to be something to counter the 'death or glory' approach in the mind of the RN commander. I am a strong believer that the RN ships must not be 'doctored' to make them less effective for game balance. You need to create the real uncertainty in Jellicoe's mind ('the only man on either side who could lose the war in an afternoon'). Something in the victory conditions must hinder the RN - any result that swings the balence of naval power in Ge favour must be a huge German win. There must be something that discourages the RN just pressing on regardless. If you could wire up the game to give an electric shock each time a RN dreadnought gets hit, that would do it! Or more realistically, count RN losses as 10x German ones or something.

In fact the real result must be seen as no better than a draw to the RN in 'game terms', even though strategically it was a win. This was largely due to the HSF realsing how lucky they were not to get more badly beaten rather than the pure losses. In terms of relative effect on the fighting power of the real result, the RN could (and did) just shrug it off and come out stronger: it changed the design of the Hood for a start (for the better).

Sorry for the length, but ever since the table top campaign, I have puzzled over this, and have not really come up with a solution that doesn't have one or other side deciding the best way to play the game is not to turn up!

(Oh, and ironically, the campaign finished when I finally met the HSF with the GF in summer 1915. The engagement was inconclusive tactically, with many ships damaged on both sides, and at least one German, and one RN explosions. I pulled off, because we were close to the Ge minefields. I had 6 BB at sea the following week and most of my fleet in a month, and the HSF would have been in repair for 1 year plus (due to lack of dry docks, and I had inflicted 60% more damage to his fleet of fewer ships). Thus the campaign closed with a RN victory, and the HSF player would have done better by staying in the pub...
 

Shanghai Slim

Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
100
Reaction score
0
Location
Shanghai, PRC
Country
llUnited States
(...) I have puzzled over this, and have not really come up with a solution that doesn't have one or other side deciding the best way to play the game is not to turn up!
How about using an approach that factored in the value of shipping, in a manner similar to Distant Guns. Use incentives to reward arrival, protection or interception of merchantmen.

You could also offer tempting rewards to the Germans for successful completion of missions to shell the English coast.

"Victory point" systems can reward or incentivize any kind of behavior. Penalties can discourage others. You could let the user adjust the of reward/penalty levels to change the level of difficulty, or to balancing multi-play in scenarios with special goals, and could always provide optional or default "historical" settings.
 
Last edited:

HMSWarspite

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
650
Reaction score
1
Location
Bristol
Country
ll
How about using an approach that factored in the value of shipping, in a manner similar to Distant Guns. Use incentives to reward arrival, protection or interception of merchantmen.

You could also offer tempting rewards to the Germans for successful completion of missions to shell the English coast.

"Victory point" systems can reward or incentivize any kind of behavior. Penalties can discourage others. You could let the user adjust the of reward/penalty levels to change the level of difficulty, or to balancing multi-play in scenarios with special goals, and could always provide optional or default "historical" settings.
The snag with a shipping based approach is that the only place where shipping is a problem for the RN is the channel, and east coast. The channel is easy to protect, and the HSF appearing anywhere near it is enougth to give Jellicoe a really good high (far to restricted in room, and easy to cut off again). The east coast (and channel) are better defended (and attacked) by light forces. Minefields are also good...

The bombardment of coastal towns works as an incentive (as in RL), but sooner or later the German player asks himself 'why am I doing this? It is effectively Russian roulette, unless I get lucky, or the GF splits itself'

You might come up with a prestige/politics based approach - the Germans get points for each day each BB is at sea (reflects the challenge to RN supremancy, and the effect on neutrals). The RN gets nothing, except a small number of points for sinking warships, and loses a lot for losing ships. This would give the germans an incentive to pop out to sea, and discourages a RN close blockade... Then you might get more variety.

One thing we don't know is the scope of the campaign. A few weeks around May 1916? Or something more wide ranging? Or no campaign, just battles? I hope not the latter. Or at least the battles should start with light forces in contant and heavy forces many tens of miles apart...
 

Brother Belcher

Recruit
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Location
Newcastle
Country
ll
Hello all !

This is my first ever post on ANY forum ! I've been interested in WW1 & WW2 Battleships for many years now and own several good books on the topic although I'm no expert. I must say this title has got my Naval juices flowing ! Reading HMSWarspite's posts on the possible campaign game has got me thinking. Please be aware I don't (currently !) own Distant Guns and I only know what I have gleaned from these forums and screenshots.

Hopefully any campaign will be long enough to simulate more than just Jutland itself. While i look forward to fighting that battle I'm more interested in the build up and operations in the North Sea in general. Jutland was a one off battle in over 4 years of skirmishing and planning and came about by numerous factors.

Each side had its own strengths/weaknesses and responsibilities. In a short campaign I'd hate to see both fleets come out of their corners and go "hammer and tongs" at one another. It didn't happen in real life. Fair enough in a short battle or scenario but not in a campaign.

The High Seas Fleet should be rewarded for aggressive tactics such as bombardments, sweeps, mine laying, ambushes and patrols etc. The risks should be real. Likewise the Grand Fleet should also sweep, patrol, cover, mine sweep etc. Light forces can do the day to day naval activities (scoring victory points ?) with the ever present risk of interception by superior enemy forces. This would require supporting forces and counter measures. Room 40 perhaps ? Regular patrols can provide juicy targets for swift hit and run raids.

Presumably a large battlefleet sortie took planning and coordination and would not sail at the drop of a hat although I'm aware with the help of Room 40 the Grand Fleet could be brought to readiness for steaming with a few hours notice. Wouldn't want the despatch of battle fleets to become some kind of klickfest with little or no bearing on reality.

Both sides should be mindful of losses. It was this self preservation and unwillingness to take risks which resulted in only one battle which was largely undecisive. In actual fact warship losses on combat were quite low considering the huge sums of money spent on these ships with all their state of the art technology. In otherwords they were very valuable and not to be risked unless "the game looks worth the candle". Bringing overwhelming forces against a divided or isolated force was a tactic used by both sides. The High Seas Fleet should have the added handicap of needing to score victory points to negate the Grand Fleets slow strangulation.

The player should have the ability to plan missions when circumstances are in his/her favour. Enemy ships in dock for repair and maintainance or abstract withdrawals to other theaters (Falklands/Dardanelles ?). Newly launched and worked up reinforcements.

Well I've rambled on too much for a first post but there's lots of pent up lurking inside. While I'm sure the combat/visuals of Jutland will be great its the feel and flavour of WW1 and all of the ingredients that I want.

Now give me your best broadsides and tell me the game engine can't handle what I want or it's only going to be single scenario's. Either way I'll buy it.
Many thanks if you've read this far !!

Cheers

Brother Belcher.
 

asheshouse

Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
67
Reaction score
0
Location
England
Country
ll
One of the biggest problems facing the fleet commanders on both sides even once battle was opened was knowing where the rest of the fleet was.

On the British side Jellicoe was desperately short of reliable information on the German fleets position as the two sides approached.

Inaccuracy in estimated positions of the Battle Cruiser force relative to the Grand Fleet maintained a real "fog of war" up to and throughout the encounter of the Grand Fleet and the High Seas Fleet.

Few of the Battle Cruiser Fleets cruisers remembered their prime role in a fleet action of locating and identifying the enemy and passing this information back to the commander.

Because of errors in estimates of position Jellicoe was suddenly faced with an encounter with the head of the German Fleet much sooner than he had anticipated.

If this game can accurately simulate the fog of war experience, reflecting both lack of knowledge of the position of parts of your own forces as well as the enemy then it will be superb. Of course I would always want to see a replay of the action with all sides visible to work out what actually happened.
 

Haida

Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2006
Messages
206
Reaction score
0
Location
The Hammer
Country
llCanada
The snag with a shipping based approach is that the only place where shipping is a problem for the RN is the channel, and east coast. The channel is easy to protect, and the HSF appearing anywhere near it is enough to give Jellicoe a really good high (far too restricted in room, and easy to cut off again). The east coast (and channel) are better defended (and attacked) by light forces. Minefields are also good...
This assumes that there won't be any U-boats in the game. U-boats nearly starved Britain out of the war during the unrestricted campaign in 1917. On the other hand the U-boats mostly operated on the west coast which is not really part of the game I guess. I don't know if the game engine will support subs but wouldn't it be nice for the German side, and the Brits would get them too. Minefields will need to actually work in the game, which they don't in DG. Devs: please make them work!

The bombardment of coastal towns works as an incentive (as in RL), but sooner or later the German player asks himself 'why am I doing this? It is effectively Russian roulette, unless I get lucky, or the GF splits itself'...
That is exactly why the HSF bombarded the coastal towns, to split the Grand Fleet and trap the smaller portion. It nearly worked too. Because of those raids the battlecruiser fleet was relocated to Rosyth. If it wasn't for Room 40 and the over-cautious Admiral von Ingenohl the HSF plan might have worked.

You might come up with a prestige/politics based approach - the Germans get points for each day each BB is at sea (reflects the challenge to RN supremancy, and the effect on neutrals). The RN gets nothing, except a small number of points for sinking warships, and loses a lot for losing ships. This would give the germans an incentive to pop out to sea, and discourages a RN close blockade... Then you might get more variety.
I like that idea. You might also give the RN points for attempting to intercept the HSF raids. The RN player would have to do this by strengthening the Channel Fleet and/or putting capital ships at Rosyth as was done in RL, since Scapa Flow is too far north. This would discourage the RN player from following a "fleet in being" strategy.
 

HMSWarspite

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
650
Reaction score
1
Location
Bristol
Country
ll
This assumes that there won't be any U-boats in the game. U-boats nearly starved Britain out of the war during the unrestricted campaign in 1917. On the other hand the U-boats mostly operated on the west coast which is not really part of the game I guess. I don't know if the game engine will support subs but wouldn't it be nice for the German side, and the Brits would get them too.
I was assuming that the game would be concntrating on the surface fleets, with U boats in support (sort of mobile minefields on the strategic map). Although, your example is a further reason why the RN doesn't put to sea with the GF! I want a surface ship game, not a strategic U boat campaign (although that would be a good game in its own right, but a waste of the DG engine...)
 

Shanghai Slim

Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
100
Reaction score
0
Location
Shanghai, PRC
Country
llUnited States
The snag with a shipping based approach is that the only place where shipping is a problem for the RN is the channel, and east coast.
Forgive my lack of historical knowledge, I’m a midget in the company of titans here. What I was actually thinking on shipping was a North Sea-based campaign which rewarded the RN for maintaining the blockade, and rewarded the Germans for shipping that got through (similar to DG). The reward system need not be symetrical. The rewards could be quantified as some seen/unseen victory points, or in some other abstract form. For example, in DG the level of shipping reaching China influenced the availability of Port Arthur, in Jutland shipping getting past the British blockade could be rewarded by additional resources of some sort for the HSF (manpower, ships, fuel/ammo supplies, reduced repair time, access to ports, whatever).

If the game scope is world-wide, German cruiser campaigns against allied shipping could simularly be rewarded, with disproportionate rewards for German successes to reflect the effect on the morale of the public (allowing single cruiser operations to have significant impact on the campaign outcome, just as in real life)

The bombardment of coastal towns works as an incentive (as in RL), but sooner or later the German player asks himself 'why am I doing this?
“Why am I doing this? Because I’m kicking @ss in victory points! If I pull off 3 or 4 or X successful coastal raids, the RN must try to inflict devastating losses just to have any hopes of winning.”

Just adjust the incentive levels to reflect real life (or playability, whatever your goal is). If a human British player sits idly by while AI German warships repeatedly shell British coastal cities, he is in no danger of being sacked like his real life counter-part. To replicate the historical (dis-)incentive, give the Germans high or increasing points for pulling these raids off.

Whatever strategies you want to dis-/encourage can be handled this way. I think this is pretty basic game theory.

You might come up with a prestige/politics based approach
Exactly! You could mix and weight the point systems you mentioned with whatever other ones you want, e.g. tactical successes + shipping + effect on homefront morale, etc.

Of course, since we don't know anything about the scope of the new game, all this is putting the cart leagues ahead of the horse. :)
 

Brother Belcher

Recruit
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Location
Newcastle
Country
ll
Regarding a campaign game I agree that prestige/political factors would add to the flavour. Obviously a single battle or scenario would focus on sunk ships and damage inflicted.

In a campaign game a timid German player should suffer eventual slow strangulation and therefore be encouraged to mount offensive missions. Apart from the obvious weakening of the enemy by direct engagements the propaganda and moral boost of these successful missions was equally important. The German Navy was a relatively new creation and eager to prove itself and justify its enormous expense. Equally, the Royal Navy had a long tradition and great things were expected from the British population. Neither side could afford too many disappointments. A succession of failures should result in the sacking of the Admiral or what ever position the player represents. In other words, Game Over !! :laugh:

Bombardment points should reflect the distance travelled, simulating the greater risks and rewards of the operation. A successful German attack on a northern British city "in their back city yard" would be a tremendous propaganda and moral boost and an outrage to the British public.

If the Germans are to be rewarded for days at sea to stimulate aggressive behaviour then they need to be sufficiently near to British waters. No point in rewarding them for cruising up and down within easy retirement to safe harbours.

Equally if a fleet remains inactive or not sufficiently aggressive for long periods of time then any accumulated points should gradually erode. This would prod the German player into action and encourage the British player in his "bottling up" of the Germans. However German fleet operations need to be balanced somehow to avoid unhistoric activity and a rapid accumulation of victory points by constant steaming and missions.

The actual missions (sweeps, bombardments, minelaying, patrols, raider breakouts etc I hope) would be the magnets to draw the fleets together although on their own and even without a significant engagement they would contribute in a small way to the score. For example, regular successful minelaying off the English coast would not only buiild up a prestige/moral score but would hopefully snag a few victims and also invite attack. In turn the minelayers would require supporting light forces. Before long we have ambushes and "live bait" !

After all, the bulk of a campaign game is the little missions. We all want fleet battles and the respective populations of the time demanded them. Even including Jutland the amount of ships sunk in battle was quite low compared to the size of the combatants involved. Battles are important, for the players enjoyment as well as any game objectives. I just hope the smaller pieces of the jigsaw are included and can be made to fit in a logical manner.

I know a lot of this is speculation as we have no firm details of the campaign game but it makes for interesting reading and discussion.

Cheers

Brother Belcher
 

HMSWarspite

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
650
Reaction score
1
Location
Bristol
Country
ll
“Why am I doing this? Because I’m kicking @ss in victory points! If I pull off 3 or 4 or X successful coastal raids, the RN must try to inflict devastating losses just to have any hopes of winning.”
The problem is that (unless the game is rigged) you will likely only get 3 or 4 successful coastal raids, before the RN catch the HSF. Unless there are counter incentives, there is only one way such an encounter can end in a DG style battle: OK the RN ships may be a bit more fragile, but they pack a LOT more weight of broadside. You need some really poor shells to offset that issue. At any time during the war, the HSF fleet is inferior in numbers to a significant degree and this rises throught the war.

(Some random stats:
Nassau class 1908: 12x11" (only 8 can fire on broadside)
Heligoland class 1911: 12x12" (ditto)
Kaiser class 1912: 10x12" (cant rememer if they can fire cross ship - either 8 or 10 gun bs)
Konig 1914: 10x12" (all can fire broadside)
etc
RN
St Vincent 1907 10x12" (8 gun BS)
Neptune 1909 10x12" (as Collossus)
Collossus (1911): 10x12" (in theory 10 bs, but probably really 8)
Iron Duke: (1914) 10x13.5 (all on BS)
Queen Elizabeth (1915) 8x15"
etc
BB at Jutland = 24 RN all dreadnoughts, + 4 fast battleships (QEs), for 114x12", 110x13.5, 48x15"
20 HSF (including 6 pre-dreads), for 48x11", 128x12" (and 24x11" pre-dreads) Generally speaking RN ships are all 1 or 2 gun 'sizes' bigger, and German higher numbers of guns do not give bigger broadsides. Shell weights (APC) are also informative: RN 12"=850lb, 13.5"=13-1400 (depends on mark of gun), 15"=1920lb. HSF 11"=666lb, 12"=890lb. You need a LOT of shell, and ship quality to overcome that in a DG game!
BC 9(RN): 5(HSF) - although it has to be admitted that without the fast battleships life could be exciting for RN BCs!)

None of this reflects the RL difficulty of effectively engaging, that does not really occur in DG!
 

KGB

Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2006
Messages
282
Reaction score
0
Location
Troitsk
Country
llRussia
The problem is that (unless the game is rigged) you will likely only get 3 or 4 successful coastal raids, before the RN catch the HSF. Unless there are counter incentives, there is only one way such an encounter can end in a DG style battle: OK the RN ships may be a bit more fragile, but they pack a LOT more weight of broadside. You need some really poor shells to offset that issue. At any time during the war, the HSF fleet is inferior in numbers to a significant degree and this rises throught the war.

(Some random stats:
Nassau class 1908: 12x11" (only 8 can fire on broadside)
Heligoland class 1911: 12x12" (ditto)
Kaiser class 1912: 10x12" (cant rememer if they can fire cross ship - either 8 or 10 gun bs)
Konig 1914: 10x12" (all can fire broadside)
etc
RN
St Vincent 1907 10x12" (8 gun BS)
Neptune 1909 10x12" (as Collossus)
Collossus (1911): 10x12" (in theory 10 bs, but probably really 8)
Iron Duke: (1914) 10x13.5 (all on BS)
Queen Elizabeth (1915) 8x15"
etc
BB at Jutland = 24 RN all dreadnoughts, + 4 fast battleships (QEs), for 114x12", 110x13.5, 48x15"
20 HSF (including 6 pre-dreads), for 48x11", 128x12" (and 24x11" pre-dreads) Generally speaking RN ships are all 1 or 2 gun 'sizes' bigger, and German higher numbers of guns do not give bigger broadsides. Shell weights (APC) are also informative: RN 12"=850lb, 13.5"=13-1400 (depends on mark of gun), 15"=1920lb. HSF 11"=666lb, 12"=890lb. You need a LOT of shell, and ship quality to overcome that in a DG game!
BC 9(RN): 5(HSF) - although it has to be admitted that without the fast battleships life could be exciting for RN BCs!)

None of this reflects the RL difficulty of effectively engaging, that does not really occur in DG!
Well, if there will be any way to get two of laid down Mackensen BCs to life, as well as two built and two laid down Bayern class BBs, the HSF can get superiority in some cases to GF.

Lets just speak about theories.
If there would be such an opportunity, I will separate my HSF in two parts -
BCs and BBs.
And the most active part would be, of course, BCs named:
Von der Tann, Moltke, Goeben, Seydlitz, Derflinger, Lutzow, Hindenburg, Mackensen and Graf Spee (maybe also laid down, but not completed as others of their class Prinz Eitel Friedrich and Furst Bismarck).
9 BCs will smash any other fast ships of GF, and would have very good opportunities of running from other BBs of GF.

So there is only one main question for me now - would SES make Mackensen class BCs and Bayern class BBs operational ?
 
Top