Jutland

[HMSWarspite]

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.

Yes, but if the GE get to advance those ships, the RN would have built Renown & Repulse quicker, and probably Hood (and her 2 sisters Howe and Rodney). Have fun... Or did you mean as an artifical game balancing technique with no bearing on RL?

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 ?

The problem with running the German BCs around is the 5 QE class fast battleships - the original HSF BCs just cannot cope with them. If you allow extensive extra BCs and the BC sqd running around a lot by itself, I would (as RN construction chief) accerate my BCs as above, but also maybe build more QEs (or similar). 30kt German BCs are too few to matter, and the others can slow you down to be caught by QEs.

 

[KGB]

Yes, but if the GE get to advance those ships, the RN would have built Renown & Repulse quicker, and probably Hood (and her 2 sisters Howe and Rodney). Have fun... Or did you mean as an artifical game balancing technique with no bearing on RL?



The problem with running the German BCs around is the 5 QE class fast battleships - the original HSF BCs just cannot cope with them. If you allow extensive extra BCs and the BC sqd running around a lot by itself, I would (as RN construction chief) accerate my BCs as above, but also maybe build more QEs (or similar). 30kt German BCs are too few to matter, and the others can slow you down to be caught by QEs.

QEs are 2-3 knots slower.
Separated fleet of QEs will be possibly destroyed when they'll meet 9 BCs, knowing that these BCs were very well armoured, in some ways even better than UK BBs, were faster and more accurate.
If we look to the real WW1 issues, we can expect that most HSF BCs will survive that encounter, but more than half of them will be, supposedly crippled. But again I suppose that most of QEs will be sunk and/or crippled.

PS: All of this thoughts are just my thoughts based on the fact I, as a HSF commander, would get Mackensen class BCs, with their VERY fat and wize-placed armour and good 355mm guns.
If not, than the results of 7 HSF BCs vs 5 QEs battle are far from being predictable.

 

[HMSWarspite]

QEs are 2-3 knots slower.
Separated fleet of QEs will be possibly destroyed when they'll meet 9 BCs, knowing that these BCs were very well armoured, in some ways even better than UK BBs, were faster and more accurate.
If we look to the real WW1 issues, we can expect that most HSF BCs will survive that encounter, but more than half of them will be, supposedly crippled. But again I suppose that most of QEs will be sunk and/or crippled.

PS: All of this thoughts are just my thoughts based on the fact I, as a HSF commander, would get Mackensen class BCs, with their VERY fat and wize-placed armour and good 355mm guns.
If not, than the results of 7 HSF BCs vs 5 QEs battle are far from being predictable.

You missed my point: if you get 9BCs including Mackensens, I don't get 5 QEs, I would build another 4 (slightly improved I suspect), or possibly the 4 Hoods and Renown/Repulse (or maybe even both - all BCs were slowed in response to German lack of building! The UK could and did outbuild Germany throughout the 20 years before the war). I think you are under rating the QEs as well: Warspite took a lot of hits at Jutland without sinking! Whilst the Hoods are fragile, you wouldn't like the 15" much. You might get away, but I suspect with the fright of your life!

Also the western front is now very short of shells etc (due to the effort spent on the naval race)

 

[RCNVR]

I would agree with Warspite on this. The RN was easily able to out build the HSF in WWI and also in WWII.

Also after about 1916?? the RN started to get improved shells that did not break up on impact/fail to explode/explode prematurely etc. With the better shell and generally heavier shells than the HSF encounters might be different compared to the Jutland results. It would also be interesting if you factored in the improvements in training, gunnery etc that the RN worked on after Jutland. These are not really what ifs as they actually happened.

 

[Bullethead]

You missed my point: if you get 9BCs including Mackensens, I don't get 5 QEs, I would build another 4 (slightly improved I suspect), or possibly the 4 Hoods and Renown/Repulse (or maybe even both - all BCs were slowed in response to German lack of building!

I figure there would definitely have been the 3 R-class BBs that were cancelled (Renown, Repulse, Resistance), and thus no Renown-class BCs and no "Outrageous"-class, either. Maybe 1 or 2 Hoods, but I think not. This kinda figures on Fisher not coming back as well as the Germans continuing to build. Still, without Fisher's return, I doubt there would have been many, if any, more BCs built after Tiger. I think the RN was kinda disillusioned with the type even before Jutland and would have preferred decommissioning some of the 12" BBs when more R-class came online, and then maybe building some improved QEs instead of BCs.

Plus, there would have been a few less CLs and DDs, and probably fewer subs as well. While the Brits could build lots of stuff, they couldn't build EVERYTHING and certainly couldn't man everything, what with the BEF needing guns and cannonfodder at such a rate.

I think you are under rating the QEs as well: Warspite took a lot of hits at Jutland without sinking! Whilst the Hoods are fragile, you wouldn't like the 15" much. You might get away, but I suspect with the fright of your life!

In my previous experience, the QEs ate the German BCs for lunch. The speed difference wasn't enough to really notice, the QEs could shoot as far as they could usually see, and the German BCs couldn't. Thus, any battle starting at 20kyds+ tended to stay at about that range, and the German BCs hardly ever got a shot off, meanwhile being smacked around by plunging 15". The Germans were in dire straits because they couldn't run away and couldn't close the range fast enough to do real damage while they were still able to. So mostly the QEs would empty their magazines and pretty much wipe out the German BCs for the foreseeable future. Those that didn't sink were maimed for the duration of the war, usually. The only real German hope in such cases was for sundown or bad weather.

OTOH, if the range was such that the German BCs could reach the QEs, things were much more interesting. QEs weren't the toughest BBs in the GF and 12" could hurt them. Still, usually the awesome power of the 15" won out anyway.

 

[KGB]

After upgrading the project, Hood was completed in 1920, while she was laid down in 1916.
I think she was one of the best, due to almost identical armor as QE class, and 30 knots speed. But still - she was completed in 1920, so u will have to wait 6 years after the war starts, to get her.

As for R-class BBs, they were too slow to catch HSF BCs, and Baeyrn class were undoubtely better.

Speaking about range, I doubt that WW1 class BBs could get 2-3% oh hit at maximum range, and I think also that HSF FCS were superior, so I doubt that QE's could cause any substantional damage while HSF were closing in.

Again, that is not low crew quality that caused accuracy problems for GF, well, actually not the greatest reason.

If Jutland project will be close to real world, than I can tell that nine BCs are more threat than 5 QEs. But if those QEs will got at least one Hood - that is absolutely another story. Not speaking about R class BBs - they will never catch BCs.

 

[Rhetor]

After upgrading the project, Hood was completed in 1920, while she was laid down in 1916.
I think she was one of the best, due to almost identical armor as QE class, and 30 knots speed. But still - she was completed in 1920, so u will have to wait 6 years after the war starts, to get her.

As for R-class BBs, they were too slow to catch HSF BCs, and Baeyrn class were undoubtely better.

Speaking about range, I doubt that WW1 class BBs could get 2-3% oh hit at maximum range, and I think also that HSF FCS were superior, so I doubt that QE's could cause any substantional damage while HSF were closing in.

Again, that is not low crew quality that caused accuracy problems for GF, well, actually not the greatest reason.

If Jutland project will be close to real world, than I can tell that nine BCs are more threat than 5 QEs. But if those QEs will got at least one Hood - that is absolutely another story. Not speaking about R class BBs - they will never catch BCs.

All the possible engagements listed above might be possible, if Jutland were somewhat similar to TOAW - a huge database of ships, powerful editor, and there we go.

Hopefully the editor in Jutlant will allow us at least to manually select what vessels we want to have in our task force.

I would personally choose a Falklands-in-reverse scenario - Moltke and Goeben vs. some British ACs. That should be fun :laugh:

 

[HMSWarspite]

After upgrading the project, Hood was completed in 1920, while she was laid down in 1916.
I think she was one of the best, due to almost identical armor as QE class, and 30 knots speed. But still - she was completed in 1920, so u will have to wait 6 years after the war starts, to get her.

As for R-class BBs, they were too slow to catch HSF BCs, and Baeyrn class were undoubtely better.

Speaking about range, I doubt that WW1 class BBs could get 2-3% oh hit at maximum range, and I think also that HSF FCS were superior, so I doubt that QE's could cause any substantional damage while HSF were closing in.

Again, that is not low crew quality that caused accuracy problems for GF, well, actually not the greatest reason.

If Jutland project will be close to real world, than I can tell that nine BCs are more threat than 5 QEs. But if those QEs will got at least one Hood - that is absolutely another story. Not speaking about R class BBs - they will never catch BCs.

The R class is confusing this discussion: they are the next class after the QEs but nothing to do with the dabate. The remaining 3 would not have been cancelled after Jutland (or in response to an accelerated German BC program) because they were nearly complete anyway (completed MArch, May, May abd December 1916). The Bayern similarly are a differenent question.

Hood class were slowed considerably when the German BC building slowed. I have Hood ordered (original design) Apr 1916, laid down (final design) Sept 1916, launched Aug 1918 completed March 1920. Note the nearly 2 years to complete due to the end of the war. Her sisters: Anson, Howe and Rodney were ordered in April also (except Anson in July) 1916, laid down Sept with Hood, but cancelled Oct 1918 having barely proceeded. As a comparison the QEs (admittedly smaller ships) took from 12-20 months to build and 4-10 months to complete (the 10 being Barham, the rest all taking 3-4).

I do not agree with your assessment of fire control.The idea that the BC could close the ramge against QEs unscathed is not supportable. There is an endless debate about relative FCS (particularly optics) performance. The case is by no means clear. I have even seen a conclusion that stated the German system was faster to get the range at the start of the battle, but fell off in performance rapidly in action, whereas the British system degraded less, and might have been overall superior under true battle conditions. The debate is somewhat academic as the chances of getting unrestricted visibility in the North Sea are somewhat limited.

 

[KGB]

I do not agree with your assessment of fire control.The idea that the BC could close the ramge against QEs unscathed is not supportable. There is an endless debate about relative FCS (particularly optics) performance. The case is by no means clear. I have even seen a conclusion that stated the German system was faster to get the range at the start of the battle, but fell off in performance rapidly in action, whereas the British system degraded less, and might have been overall superior under true battle conditions. The debate is somewhat academic as the chances of getting unrestricted visibility in the North Sea are somewhat limited.

That's the case of 2,4 kms more range QE's have, have almost no chance to be a matter in North Sea. In ocean - yes, still not great, but that does matter.
I don't want to begin a debate about UK FCS of WW1 time. Some says one, others say another.
My opinion, that in general HSF FCS was better.

 

[Hud]

The 1914 battleship programe was to have been 3 R's as Bullethead states plus 1 QE to be called Agincourt. The contracts had been awarded & I think some work had started. There was also a proposal that the Canadian govt fund 1 or 2 battleships . These would possibly have been modified QE's.I think for 1915.The gestation of the Hood is an interesting topic itself starting from a proposal in late '15 for an "experimental" battleship based on the QE's. Refering to Bullethead's comments re range, both the British 13.5 and 15 outranged the German heavy guns partly to do with elevation but other factors as well. In fact Chatfield's anxiety on Lion at the commencement of the action was that they didn't open fire when they had the range advantage. Interestingly in terms of DG Jutland relevance Chatfield at a conference in the '20's about increasing the elevation of the battlefleet's guns said the governing factor in range was visibility. As regards shells the Britsh had by 1918 almost replaced their outfit with the so called "Greenboys". Pre war when Jellicoe was DNO I believe he wished to continue the shell tests against I think the old "Colossus" & "Edinburgh" with regards to oblique impacts but was promoted & I understand the testing was never completed. Jutland could have been interesting if that had happened. All dreadnoughts of this period had their vunerablilities. "Malaya" was almost lost after she was hit by her starboard secondary battery. The whole battery was put out of action & the flash nearly set off her 6" mags. "Warspite" suffered from "cranky" steering for the rest of her life as a result of the damage she suffered. Commenting on the "Bayern" class "Baden" was thoroughly examined at the end of the war and showed that German design parameters were different to British. They accepted hull stresses up to 15% greater and had lighter hulls. "Baden's" bottom for example was almost half the thickness of corresponding British ships. The German ships had much more elaborate constuction techniques which is why ship for ship they were more expensive to build and took longer to build. Their torpedo flats were often a source of concern eg "Lutzow". Pre 1914 & throughout the war Britain could outbuild anyone with the exception of the U.S.A. The main constraint was not slips but money with the gov of the day wanting to cut back arms spending for social programes. I think it is fair to say the Germans lost the building race by 1914 particularly as they were being hamstrung by demands from the army. Any threat by the the Germans of new construction during the war would have been met by Britain and given the utmost priority whatever the Generals on the Western Front thought. The "Hood's" 3 sisters were only cancelled after it became known the "Mackensen's" were unlikely to be completed.

 

[Hud]

The R class is confusing this discussion: they are the next class after the QEs but nothing to do with the dabate. The remaining 3 would not have been cancelled after Jutland (or in response to an accelerated German BC program) because they were nearly complete anyway (completed MArch, May, May abd December 1916). The Bayern similarly are a differenent question.

Hood class were slowed considerably when the German BC building slowed. I have Hood ordered (original design) Apr 1916, laid down (final design) Sept 1916, launched Aug 1918 completed March 1920. Note the nearly 2 years to complete due to the end of the war. Her sisters: Anson, Howe and Rodney were ordered in April also (except Anson in July) 1916, laid down Sept with Hood, but cancelled Oct 1918 having barely proceeded. As a comparison the QEs (admittedly smaller ships) took from 12-20 months to build and 4-10 months to complete (the 10 being Barham, the rest all taking 3-4).

I do not agree with your assessment of fire control.The idea that the BC could close the ramge against QEs unscathed is not supportable. There is an endless debate about relative FCS (particularly optics) performance. The case is by no means clear. I have even seen a conclusion that stated the German system was faster to get the range at the start of the battle, but fell off in performance rapidly in action, whereas the British system degraded less, and might have been overall superior under true battle conditions. The debate is somewhat academic as the chances of getting unrestricted visibility in the North Sea are somewhat limited.

I tend to agree with you Warspite. The 3 other Hoods also had their design and armour layout slightly modified.The German FCS did need highly trained operators with a special aptitude. After the examination of Baden the British concluded there ws nothing to gain from changing from co-incidence to streoscopic rangefinders. Where that is valid for the game is you could expect the Germans to get the range first providing the British commander allows them to approach to within their range. Hence the importance of visibility.

 

[Bullethead]

Speaking about range, I doubt that WW1 class BBs could get 2-3% oh hit at maximum range, and I think also that HSF FCS were superior, so I doubt that QE's could cause any substantional damage while HSF were closing in.

Actually, at Jutland during the so-called "battlecruiser phase", the QEs were consistently hitting the German BCs at 20kyds or so, to which the Germans could not reply. Barham and Valiant achieved nearly 4% hits here, although Warspite and Malaya weren't so good. Still, 5BS on average achieved about double the hit rate of BCF, usually at longer ranges and in pretty much the same visibility conditions.

The only reason the QEs took any damage at Jutland was due to incompetence when BCF+5BS met HSF. The signals officer in Lion (Seymour) should have been fired after Dogger Bank, and Evan-Thomas had such a complete lack of initiative that he kept on going towards certain destruction while waiting for the proper signal, before making his turn. By the time Seymour pulled his head out and E-T finally obeyed the signal, the leading elements of the HSF, plus the depleted 1SG, were all in range, so 5BS got hammered, Warspite and Malaya both nearly being lost as a result.

Had Seymour done his job right, or had E-T an ounce of tactical savvy, the QEs wouldn't have taken a scratch in the whole battle.

Again, that is not low crew quality that caused accuracy problems for GF, well, actually not the greatest reason.

I don't know about this. The GF shot very well, due to constant training. BCF's shooting, however, sucked. BCF got about 1/2 the hit rate of GF units. This was the subject of much contemporary comment, and official steps were taken to rectify the problem. This is why, at Jutland, 3BCS was with the GF and 5BS was with BCF. And BCF can't claim (as Beatty's partisans did later) that its poor shooting at Jutland was due to a visibility disadvantage, because 5BS was right there with them and shot much better.

If Jutland project will be close to real world, than I can tell that nine BCs are more threat than 5 QEs. But if those QEs will got at least one Hood - that is absolutely another story. Not speaking about R class BBs - they will never catch BCs.

Given 20kyds+ starting range, competently handled QEs should have no fear of anything the Germans really had, in whatever numbers. Mabye some never-finished German BCs were faster, but they wouldn't have used that speed to close in alone and get hammered by all the QEs while the other German BCs were still out of range. So most of the Germans would be held to the speed of their slowest ship, and that wasn't fast enough to dictate the range.

Bottom line: once the QEs are at a range where they can shoot and the Germans can't, they can keep that range and the Germans can't do anything about it. And the QEs could hit well enough at such ranges to cause much damage to the Germans.

I have a strong feeling that German players will come to hate the QEs as much as RJW Russian players hate the IJN ACs and the Chitose PCs.

 

[Rhetor]

I have a strong feeling that German players will come to hate the QEs as much as RJW Russian players hate the IJN ACs and the Chitose PCs.

I am affraid that if the AI stays as it is now, most of the advantages of the QEs would not transpire. The AI again would recklessly close the range steaming straight at player's flagship.

The reason why the Japanese ACs are so hated is only the fact that they are so damn well armored, that they pretty often are able to survive Russian pounding, and break their battle line. I am affraid that won't happen, if AI-controlled QEs tried that against Hochseeflotte.

 

[KGB]

Given 20kyds+ starting range, competently handled QEs should have no fear of anything the Germans really had, in whatever numbers. Mabye some never-finished German BCs were faster, but they wouldn't have used that speed to close in alone and get hammered by all the QEs while the other German BCs were still out of range. So most of the Germans would be held to the speed of their slowest ship, and that wasn't fast enough to dictate the range.

Bottom line: once the QEs are at a range where they can shoot and the Germans can't, they can keep that range and the Germans can't do anything about it. And the QEs could hit well enough at such ranges to cause much damage to the Germans.

I have a strong feeling that German players will come to hate the QEs as much as RJW Russian players hate the IJN ACs and the Chitose PCs.

Jutland

UK big caliber shells fired: 4538
Big caliber shells hits:101
Hit % = 2.23

Germany big caliber shells fired: 3497
Big cliber shells hits: 121
Hit % = 3.46

These are pure digits, and they convinced me, in better accuracy that HSF had.

Going in sharp course angles making any hit chances even smaller, so I am sure in my chances to catch up QEs. And 5 ships vs 9 means victory to 9 ships fleet. In general QEs were armoured like HSF BCs, if you will forgive me that common words, they were slower, but had more powerfull guns. In total it would be 40 381mm vs 16 355,6mm + 16 305mm, + 28 280mm. Plus maybe Hindenburg (8 305mm), and Goeben (10 280mm).
Plus, possible 2 more Mackensen class BCs (of total 4 laid down ones)
Also, after Jutland HSF ships got their MC guns maximum elevation angle increased, so mostly all guns from 280mm to 380mm got range of more than 20.000 meters.

Speaking about more R class ships or more Hoods, we can also mention Erzatz York class BCs, which were very same to Mackensen, in armour and speed of 0.5-1 knot slower, but had 8 380mm main caliber guns.
Only Erzatz York was laid down in Ciel though, in July 1916.

 

[Rhetor]

Jutland

UK big caliber shells fired: 4538
Big caliber shells hits:101
Hit % = 2.23

Germany big caliber shells fired: 3497
Big cliber shells hits: 121
Hit % = 3.46

These are pure digits, and they convinced me, in better accuracy that HSF had.

Going in sharp course angles making any hit chances even smaller, so I am sure in my chances to catch up QEs. And 5 ships vs 9 means victory to 9 ships fleet. In general QEs were armoured like HSF BCs, if you will forgive me that common words, they were slower, but had more powerfull guns. In total it would be 40 381mm vs 16 355,6mm + 16 305mm, + 28 280mm. Plus maybe Hindenburg (8 305mm), and Goeben (10 280mm).
Plus, possible 2 more Mackensen class BCs (of total 4 laid down ones)
Also, after Jutland HSF ships got their MC guns maximum elevation angle increased, so mostly all guns from 280mm to 380mm got range of more than 20.000 meters.

Speaking about more R class ships or more Hoods, we can also mention Erzatz York class BCs, which were very same to Mackensen, in armour and speed of 0.5-1 knot slower, but had 8 380mm main caliber guns.
Only Erzatz York was laid down in Ciel though, in July 1916.

The problem is that Britain would without any doubt build more ships than Germany could. The capacity of British shipyards and political will to build the strongest navy in the world were greater than in Germany. That is why in any hypothetical scenario German Navy would always be a numerically inferior force.

Be that as it may - I would really like to have a powerful editor, with many "what-if" ships, or a utility to "clone" existing types - imagine a clash between 28 QEs and 21 Bayerns :-D

Ah, and one more thing - I'd like to have "Goeben" in my fleet :-D

 

[HMSWarspite]

Jutland

UK big caliber shells fired: 4538
Big caliber shells hits:101
Hit % = 2.23

Germany big caliber shells fired: 3497
Big cliber shells hits: 121
Hit % = 3.46

These are pure digits, and they convinced me, in better accuracy that HSF had.

Sorry to be picky, but this shows that the HSF achieved more hits at Jutland. It does not prove either that it was due to 'accuracy' or that HSF had a generically better fire control. Break down the numbers: Beatty's squadron was truely appalling at gunnery (especially Tiger), and was engaged for the longest. This distorts the results. The 5th BS achieved approximately double the hit rate (IIRC - I don't have the stats - anyone help here?). Also, whilst I an not a huge fan of the 'poor visibilty for the RN' excuse, you do need to consider to what degree this is relevant.

Do you have the breakdown of hits between the BCs and the BBs on both sides?

Going in sharp course angles making any hit chances even smaller, so I am sure in my chances to catch up QEs.

Not sure I follow you. Are you implying that sailing more or less straight at the enemy makes you harder to hit? If so (and forgive me if you do not mean this), this is actually a complex issue of fire control, and differing fire control practice between the HSF and RN will affect how fast the range is got (don't know which way though!) In general that situation will give a rapid range rate (rate of reduction in range), however if the enemy's speed and course are anything like correctly assessed, this is easy to take out on the fire control table. The ship being 'end on' actually helps hit rate relative to parrallel courses, since range is harder to get right, and scatter of shells in a salvo tends to be higher in range than azithmuth ('angle'). Finally, any shooting that does get done by the approaching fleet is with very few guns (although not relevant in this case if the range is too great to fire anyway)

And 5 ships vs 9 means victory to 9 ships fleet. In general QEs were armoured like HSF BCs, if you will forgive me that common words, they were slower, but had more powerfull guns. In total it would be 40 381mm vs 16 355,6mm + 16 305mm, + 28 280mm. Plus maybe Hindenburg (8 305mm), and Goeben (10 280mm).
Plus, possible 2 more Mackensen class BCs (of total 4 laid down ones)
Also, after Jutland HSF ships got their MC guns maximum elevation angle increased, so mostly all guns from 280mm to 380mm got range of more than 20.000 meters.

We are not really arguing a 9:5 battle - you are right, this would be very difficult for the QEs. But this is not a realistic scenario. You could argue that the HSF vs a single battle sqd of the GF is a RN defeat, but this discussion started when I explained that (in a game) no RN player is ever going to let that happen.

Speaking about more R class ships or more Hoods, we can also mention Erzatz York class BCs, which were very same to Mackensen, in armour and speed of 0.5-1 knot slower, but had 8 380mm main caliber guns.
Only Erzatz York was laid down in Ciel though, in July 1916.

You are missing the point. In RL (and in any realistic campaign) the RN could and did outbuild the IGN at every stage. In fact there was a view by one historian (I wish I could remember who) that by even joining the naval race, the Kaiser sealed his own (and Germany's) fate in WW1, because he could never win it, or even seriously challenge Britain.

BTW Goeben was Turkish by 1916 - you might as well have all the Austrian BB in the HSF as well!:laugh:

 

[KGB]

Sorry to be picky, but this shows that the HSF achieved more hits at Jutland. It does not prove either that it was due to 'accuracy' or that HSF had a generically better fire control. Break down the numbers: Beatty's squadron was truely appalling at gunnery (especially Tiger), and was engaged for the longest. This distorts the results. The 5th BS achieved approximately double the hit rate (IIRC - I don't have the stats - anyone help here?). Also, whilst I an not a huge fan of the 'poor visibilty for the RN' excuse, you do need to consider to what degree this is relevant.

Do you have the breakdown of hits between the BCs and the BBs on both sides?

Unfortunately not.
There is no certain info on how many hits caused each BC or BB - same HSF or GF.

Not sure I follow you. Are you implying that sailing more or less straight at the enemy makes you harder to hit? If so (and forgive me if you do not mean this), this is actually a complex issue of fire control, and differing fire control practice between the HSF and RN will affect how fast the range is got (don't know which way though!) In general that situation will give a rapid range rate (rate of reduction in range), however if the enemy's speed and course are anything like correctly assessed, this is easy to take out on the fire control table. The ship being 'end on' actually helps hit rate relative to parrallel courses, since range is harder to get right, and scatter of shells in a salvo tends to be higher in range than azithmuth ('angle'). Finally, any shooting that does get done by the approaching fleet is with very few guns (although not relevant in this case if the range is too great to fire anyway)

Well, yes I'm speaking right about that. I mean that forecastle projection is much less than board projection, and in that case even when salvo covers the ship, there is much more probability of zero hits, than when it would be board projection. Also, it is harder to pick and follow certain range in that case.

We are not really arguing a 9:5 battle - you are right, this would be very difficult for the QEs. But this is not a realistic scenario. You could argue that the HSF vs a single battle sqd of the GF is a RN defeat, but this discussion started when I explained that (in a game) no RN player is ever going to let that happen.

In that case I fully agree with you. Of course, no in-game GF player will ever gonna make this happen.

You are missing the point. In RL (and in any realistic campaign) the RN could and did outbuild the IGN at every stage. In fact there was a view by one historian (I wish I could remember who) that by even joining the naval race, the Kaiser sealed his own (and Germany's) fate in WW1, because he could never win it, or even seriously challenge Britain.

Agreed. I didn't say Germany could outbuild UK, I've only said that they could build ships they've laid down, at certain conditions.

BTW Goeben was Turkish by 1916 - you might as well have all the Austrian BB in the HSF as well!:laugh:

If there will be a chance of not giving one of the strongest ships to Turkey - I won't let that happen.

 

[Rhetor]

You are missing the point. In RL (and in any realistic campaign) the RN could and did outbuild the IGN at every stage. In fact there was a view by one historian (I wish I could remember who) that by even joining the naval race, the Kaiser sealed his own (and Germany's) fate in WW1, because he could never win it, or even seriously challenge Britain.

I consider the whole German huge navy programme as one of the most stupid mistakes ever made by any country. The fleet achieved completely nothing of value, save adding Britain to Germany's enemies, and giving some people a hundred years later a great topic for a computer simulation game :-D

 

[Bullethead]

... Beatty's squadron was truely appalling at gunnery (especially Tiger), and was engaged for the longest. This distorts the results. ...

I agree on the overall results, but it seems that New Zealand actually shot worse than Tiger (which definitely shot very badly, no argument).

BTW, I've always wondered why the Brits used Tiger, their newest, best-armed, and best-looking BC, as a penal colony, knowing this must inevitably affect her gunnery.....

Do you have the breakdown of hits between the BCs and the BBs on both sides?

From Campbell's Jutland: An Analysis of the Fighting, pages 354-5:

1SG: 1670 heavy shots, 65 hits, 3.89%
HSF BBs: 1917 heavy shots, 57 hits, 2.96% (including point-blank vs. Black Prince during night)
HSF less BP night action: ~1900 heavy shots, 45 hits, 2.37% (all extreme range vs. 5BS in "RttN" or with no good targets in BB phase)

1 & 2BCS: 1469 heavy shots, 21 hits, 1.43%
5BS: 1099 heavy shots, 29 heits, 2.64% (average between excellent Barham/Valiant and bad Warspite/Malaya)
GF BBs: 1593 heavy shots, 57 hits, 3.70% (largely undisturbed by return fire due to lighting)
3BCS: 373 heavy shots, 16 hits, 4.29% (~10kyd range w/advantage of surprise)

 

[Bullethead]

I consider the whole German huge navy programme as one of the most stupid mistakes ever made by any country. The fleet achieved completely nothing of value, save adding Britain to Germany's enemies, and giving some people a hundred years later a great topic for a computer simulation game :-D

Amen to that! What were they thinking? What were they smoking? What did they expect would happen? And what would they do if the "Risk Fleet" failed to deter the RN? Geez, it boggles the mind.

The amazing thing to me is Germany's complete lack of strategic focus justs before and all during WW1. This at the height of Prussian military domination in all things. But they couldn't make up their minds as to what to concentrate on, how to pursue the war, and what to do if the prewar plans (both naval and army) failed. So much for the stereotypically precise Prussian military focus, eh?