Jutland

Don Rickles

Recruit
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Country
llRussia
You email us. That way we get right to your issue.

Here have a look at the award Armchaor General gave us...

Armchair General Magazine: Interactive Military History

"The developer’s support has been overwhelming and receptive to player’s suggestions and comments",

Speaks for itself...
when you release you must get miny mail from everyone reporting a same bug! ;)

game good everybudy?

i prefer to get word from other gamer.

review sell to miny ads to all! :lier:

d.
 

bill44

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2006
Messages
645
Reaction score
1
Location
Wagga Wagga
Country
llAustralia
For the record, there was one Ge ship that nearly had the same problem but the flash didn't make it to the magazine, only the hoist. Having lost the entire C & D turret crews at Dogger Bank and nearly the magazine, due to cordite flash Seydlitz managed to lose C turret at Jutland for the same reason. The effects were minimised by changes made after Dogger BAnk. As I say, the devil is in the % you put on each side! :D
Yep, the Germans learned a lot from Dogger Bank, I have read that the ship was saved by the actions of one of the crew who, worked the red hot wheels that opened the doors to flood the magazine, losing the flesh off both hands. Lion would also have gone the way of the other 3 BC's had it not been for Royal Marine, Major Francis Harvey, who with his dying breath ordered the magazines flooded.
Queen Mary is an interesting one, she was hit forward, and her forward magazine went up, destroying the forward part of the ship as she sank by the bow, P&Q magazines which ran the beam of the ship exploded, tearing the mid section apart, men could be seen scrambling out of the turret doors of the after turret, the aft magazine then exploded, 1 officer and 5 ratings survived.
Now lets see that modelled :laugh:
 

Jim McConnell

Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2006
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Location
Massachusetts
Country
llUnited States
Not with you: without knowing anything about the game detail mechanics, I would just handle it as a % chance of magazine explosion (which is already modelled), following any penetrating (main) mount hit. The tricky bit is what value to apply to the %!

In addition, the additional powder storage in the turret ammo supply system to speed rate of fire is only (IIRC) one theory as to the high number of explosions. There are also concerns about basic flash tightness, weak main armour leading to straight penetrations to the magazines, and also the stability of British cordite, although personally I think that last is not relevant. For the record, there was one Ge ship that nearly had the same problem but the flash didn't make it to the magazine, only the hoist. Having lost the entire C & D turret crews at Dogger Bank and nearly the magazine, due to cordite flash Seydlitz managed to lose C turret at Jutland for the same reason. The effects were minimised by changes made after Dogger BAnk. As I say, the devil is in the % you put on each side! :D
Warspite, though I agree that there are many theories as to the root cause of RN magazine explosions at Jutland :) , I most emphatically can't agree that a fixed % chance of a magazine explosion after a penetrating main mount hit would be a good solution for the DG/Jutland game engine. You give some of the reasons for my disagreement yourself, in your second paragraph.

I would agree that unstable cordite, though the identifiable cause of some non-Jutland magazine explosions in RN ships (e.g. Vanguard), was likely not a factor in the magazine explosions at Jutland.

But the ammunition handling practices of RN ships, particularly Beatty's BC's, might surely have been a factor, indeed, some would say WAS surely a factor. As for the KM's experience with Seydlitz at Dogger Bank, IIRC the KM stored their propellant charges in brass containers until unpacking them in the turret. Thus the turret flash which nearly destroyed Seydlitz at Dogger Bank was contained short of the magazine. Whereas the RN stored its propellant charges in silk bags, even in the magazine, thus making their charges more susceptible to flash along the entire ammo passage route.

So it seems clear to me that the practice among the RN's BCF of accumulating "ready use" propellant charges at several locations along the "route of passage" between magazine & turret might significantly affect a ship's chance of a catastrophic magazine explosion. The RN took steps to correct this problem after Jutland, but the capital ships never met again, so the effect of the procedural improvements was never put to the test.

It seems to me, then, that this should be modeled as a factor separate from the penetrating main turret hit itself. Perhaps with a variable % factor, depending upon the period in the war during which the action is fought. This % should be variable within a fleet for a given action; the ammo handling practices of Grand Fleet at Jutland differed from those prevalent in BCF.

This would give DG/Jutland the maximum flexibility for future expansion into other WW1 time periods & theaters. Personally, I'm looking forward to actions between the Turks & the Russians in the Black Sea some day :cool: ...
 

Hud

Recruit
Joined
Jul 18, 2006
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Location
Cornwall
Country
ll
The British cordite charges had black powder igniters. The safety coverings for these were being removed in the mags. They were supposed to be torn off when the charge reached the gun. So not only were they stacking ready to use cordite but exposing the igniters as well. Effectively laying a fuse all the way back to the mags. Lion had a new gunnery officer prior to Jutland and he was horrified by some of the practices he saw. He also removed a lot of over age cordite. The problem was partly caused by anxiety to achieve a high rate of fire to match or surpass the perceived German rate and possibly lack of understanding of cordite properties. This has been argued endlessly on other forums. To get back to the simulation sea conditions and vis are giong to be important in DG Jutland, DG RJW still in my opinion has too many "nice days". North Sea weather can be pretty grim as I know from experience. Incidently Jutland was the first battle I ever saw wargamed when one Xmas my grandfather(who was there) and some of his former rather illustrious colleagues used my grandmothers dining table and various eating implements to recreate the battle. I have to admit that I was more interested in having my meal and was rather annoyed at these gentleman. My grandmother was furious by all accounts. It wasn't Christmas dinner I know that much. Sorry to ramble on with such piffle must be age. Am I too old to be playing games?
 

HMSWarspite

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
650
Reaction score
1
Location
Bristol
Country
ll
Jim McConnell said:
I most emphatically can't agree that a fixed % chance of a magazine explosion after a penetrating main mount hit would be a good solution for the DG/Jutland game engine. You give some of the reasons for my disagreement yourself, in your second paragraph.
I didn't mean to imply 'totally fixed %'. I meant fixed at the time of hit. For example, a mount with no ammo, or that was knocked out without explosion previously shouldn't expload (either no cordite, or managzine evacuated and flooded as a precaution).

But the ammunition handling practices of RN ships, particularly Beatty's BC's, might surely have been a factor, indeed, some would say WAS surely a factor.
I wasn't saying it wasn't a factor (double nagative anyone). I merely pointed out it wasn't the only possible factor,

Perhaps with a variable % factor, depending upon the period in the war during which the action is fought. This % should be variable within a fleet for a given action; the ammo handling practices of Grand Fleet at Jutland differed from those prevalent in BCF.

This would give DG/Jutland the maximum flexibility for future expansion into other WW1 time periods & theaters. Personally, I'm looking forward to actions between the Turks & the Russians in the Black Sea some day :cool: ...
A real subtlety would be a composite factor made up of:

Fleet base % (reflects baseline practices, =f(navy, date etc), x ship variation (random to reflect degree of variation from fleet SOP, and set at game start, or tied to the ship, or ship type - old unrefitted BCs get a bigger one, new superdreads get a smaller one)

As a real treat, give the same ship base variation as a variable on rate of fire (the ships that 'cheat' fire fast and die quickly!)

However this is all chrome, and the source of much debate unless the overall average explosion rates are felt right! How many turret hits were there at Jutland, vs how many blown up. Off the top of my head I know of 4 for 3 (RN), and 2(IIRC) for 0 IGN.
 

Haida

Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2006
Messages
206
Reaction score
0
Location
The Hammer
Country
llCanada
Good discussion

We could debate this for a long time. For the British battlecruisers the combination of weak armor, unsafe handling of cordite and the instability of the cordite itself all contributed to them blowing up so easily.

Another factor is the German shells had much better penetrating power than the British shells. If the British shells were as good we might have seen a couple German battlecruisers blow up too.

From a gameplay standpoint I think it's a must to model in these dis-advantages for the Royal Navy at least until the end of 1916. Otherwise the game will be too difficult for the High Seas Fleet player.

Another interesting point, do you model the sinking of the Magdeburg and the British ability to read German signals? This was a huge advantage for them. Because of that the High Seas Fleet was never able to trap a smaller portion of the Royal Navy like they planned, because Room 40 always knew what they were up to.
 

RCNVR

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
Location
Vancouver
Country
llCanada
I think that trapping part of the RN is likely to be a major feature of Jutland (the game not the battle) as Grand Fleet (GF) vs High Seas Fleet (HSF) will probably result in an RN victory at a cost. And of course this was the German plan which did not work due to Room 40. The numbers are simply too high for the HSF to win.

It will be interesting to see how this is dealt with.
Along with how they deal with aircraft, submarines, better wireless, higher speeds, longer gunnery ranges (director control), better torpedoes, larger fleets, weather, mine fields every where, the list just keeps going on. This IS a big job to do right.

Another big questions will be the fog of war issue. Give any of the commanders the same visual ability in DG and Jutland either would not of happened at all or I suspect that the HSF would have been beaten (depends on which side is the player) I don't think we will get the same results unless the designers really rig the game (hopefully not)

Personally I am looking forward to fighting some of the smaller scale battles which could have gone either way. Hegoland (spelling), Dogger Bank, I am not sure about any other significant ones in the North Sea unless you include some of the Channel engagements.

By the way Warspite do you want the rudder problem of HMS Warspite modelled in the game?
 

KGB

Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2006
Messages
282
Reaction score
0
Location
Troitsk
Country
llRussia
And what about the gameplay of the Jutland ?
Will there be Dogger-bank battle ?
The Folklend battle ?
What about armoured cruisers Scharnhorst & Gneisenau and their journey ?

Can we use Bayern class Superdreadnought in new title ?

Sorry if this questions are dumb, well, I'm just wondering :p

PS: check link to the 4th photo
It must be http://www.stormeaglestudios.com/public/Images/Jutland/Jutland Screens/Jutland_Batch_01_04_1024x768.jpg
instead of
http://www.stormeaglestudios.com/public/Images/Jutland/Jutland Screens/Jutland_Batch_01_03_1024x768.jpg
 
Last edited:

Rhetor

Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
822
Reaction score
0
Location
Gdańsk, Poland
Country
llPoland
I would like to second the question about the "Bayern" class. How could I forget about these?

So please tell me, will I be able to sink "Iron Duke" with 380mm shells, apart from 280 and 305mm? :D
 

HMSWarspite

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
650
Reaction score
1
Location
Bristol
Country
ll
...

By the way Warspite do you want the rudder problem of HMS Warspite modelled in the game?
Already is: do a search on my posts, and you will find the story of an Aux cruiser of mine in DG that was punishing IJN cannon fodder and then got the rudder jammed and ran itself ashore! :cry: I presume this will read across into Jutland.;) The thing we haven't got modelled (I think) at present is freeing rudder, and sailing off again, having taken the fire of a significant part of the HSF! We could transfer the % chance of blowing up debate into the 'did Warspite turn one complete circle or 2 at Jutland?' debate!:yummy:
 

Bullethead

Storm Eagle Studios
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
3,890
Reaction score
3
Location
Wakefield, LA
Country
llUnited States
Those magazine explosions were a direct consequence of the poor cordite storage practices that the british employed...:
I disagree. The German practices were no better. The main difference was in the chemical properties of the different Brit and German propellants. The Brit propellant burned very hot and very quickly even when unpackaged (think det-cord) whereas the German propellant did not. This violent burning of the Brit propellant created huge overpressures in confined spaces, which were more than the surrounding structure could stand. Thus, the Brits blew up when they had internal propellant fires, but the German ships didn't.

At Dogger Bank, Seydlitz had both aft turrets engulfed in a propellant fire that involved some charges in the magazines themselves, not just those en route to the guns. The total was over 6 tons of propellant. Yet the ship did not come close to exploding, because the fire wasn't quick and violent enough for that. It didn't even displace any of the structure. If German propellant would have caused ships to explode, certainly Seydlitz would have gone kerboom.

OTOH, Lion at Jutland had just 8 charges (all in approved, shielded waiting positions) ignite from a smoldering fire from an earlier hit in Q turret. The violence of this combustion seriously deformed the magazine bulkheads below decks, even though the blast (not fire, but blast) was partially vented through the missing parts of the turret roof. If Q magazine hadn't been flooded already, this almost certainly would have blown Lion to bits, because the magazine doors and scuttles weren't flashtight from the working chamber side.

So why did Pommern blow up? The best guess is that this was due to shells, not propellant. The shock of the torp hit (in a ship with no torpedo bulkheads and 2ndary magazines next to the skin all along the length) probably armed some fuzes, which were then triggered by being tossed about. It should be noted that Konig nearly suffered a similar fate from a freak shell hit below the belt that blew through the torpedo bulkhead and the coal bunker inside it, and then destroyed a 2ndary magazine. Charges ignited but the flood of seawater quenched them. After the battle, however, some armed shells were found buried under the wreckage and coal.

Thus, IMHO, Brit ships should be much more likely to blow up than German ships. And not just Brit BCs and ACs, but the BBs as well, because they all used the same propellant. If circumstances had permitted a real battlefleet engagement at Jutland, I'm sure 1 or more Brit BBs would have blown up from propellant fires. German ships could blow up as well, but it was a more difficult to make it happen because it seems to have depended on heavy shock reaching the magazines, and the dreadnought-era ships were designed to avoid this problem as much as possible.
 

KGB

Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2006
Messages
282
Reaction score
0
Location
Troitsk
Country
llRussia
Bullet, lets step aside of cordite problems that Brits had in Jutland, and lets speak about hit-location and damage (as well as damage control) systems we will see in Jutland.

AFAIK there were spokes about non-penetration damage to ship hull, coming back to DG. We found out that there were no such kind in original DG, as well as there were no underwater shell hits in original title.

Bu we all know, that both of these are more than possible.
Lets speak about Tiger, for example:

In vanguard to fight Tiger got 10 hits from the German 280-mm AP shells from which eight have put most serious damages on the left board within 39 minutes. Two shells have got in the right board of the ship, but have not left greater destructions. From total of shells three have got in the main armored belt; in one case there was a 228,6-mm plate penetration, in other - there was only a cave-in of armored plates on 0,9 m. Consequence of this hit was flooding of one board branches. In two cases the top 25-mm and armored 76-mm of a deck made the way 280-mm shells, and only one of them has fallen to a main deck and not penetrated it. Three hits in turrets were accompanied by great concussion; in two cases shells passed throuh booking (the fourth and the third turret), one shell has cracked the reservation of a tower pipe.
At penetration of splinters of booking of the third tower for some time the equipment of submission has failed. As a result of one hit there was a fire inside of the ship on the left board near a cellar of 152-mm of artillery. Struggle for survivability consisted in correction of submission in the third tower at the left instrument, in flooding two cellars (one 152-mm of artillery and the third turret) for prevention of explosion and in fire extinguishing.
5 % of structure of crew have suffered 61 person.

So, as we can see, the non-penetration damage can be, and in fact is, very serious.

Can devs tell us anything about Jutlands hit-location system ?


Edited:

Here is screenshot for 280mm shell concrete places of hit Tigers hull.
View at Left board:
http://www.wunderwaffe.narod.ru/WeaponBook/Jutland_Damage/Draw/09.jpg
View at Right board:
http://www.wunderwaffe.narod.ru/WeaponBook/Jutland_Damage/Draw/12.jpg
 
Last edited:

Bullethead

Storm Eagle Studios
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
3,890
Reaction score
3
Location
Wakefield, LA
Country
llUnited States
KGB-

I'm quoting you out of order here because it's easier for me to answer that way....

So, as we can see, the non-penetration damage can be, and in fact is, very serious.
I agree with you completely on this. Brit shells at the time of Jutland seem to have been rather like RJW-era shells. They tended to break up or explode on impact rather than penetrate because they were 1) too brittle, 2) filled with shock-sensitive picric acid, and 3) had no real delay fuze. In the whole battle of Jutland, only 1 Brit shell penetrated heavy armor (although this was a 15" shell at about 10km, so the odds favored the shell), and relatively few penetrated even medium armor. However, the non-penetrating hits still caused serious damage to a number of German ships just from the shock of impact, the leaks the hits started from dislodging hull plates, and the spray of hot shrapnel.

AFAIK there were spokes about non-penetration damage to ship hull, coming back to DG. We found out that there were no such kind in original DG, as well as there were no underwater shell hits in original title.
I believe you are mistaken about this. The following is quoted from the RJW game manual, page 41, in the Weapons Effects section:

"... Regardless of whether a weapon penetrates the armor, it will do damage to unarmored areas of the ship near the point of impact. Weapon damage is dependent upon shell weight, velocity at impact, and location of impact. Impact locations below the water line are particularly damaging. ..."​

Both Jim and Norm posted several times that in the whole real RJW, there were zero penetrations of heavy armor, and yet ships still sank. IIRC, they mentioned this to explain why there was no difference between AP and HE shells in the RJW game. Because neither was likely to penetrate, and because both were likely to explode on impact, there was no real difference in their effects on the target, and thus no need to account for them separately in the game.

Shells in the RJW game do in fact hit ships below the water line. When ships capsize, you can see the shell holes in the red paint.
 

KGB

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

Both Jim and Norm posted several times that in the whole real RJW, there were zero penetrations of heavy armor, and yet ships still sank. IIRC, they mentioned this to explain why there was no difference between AP and HE shells in the RJW game. Because neither was likely to penetrate, and because both were likely to explode on impact, there was no real difference in their effects on the target, and thus no need to account for them separately in the game.

Shells in the RJW game do in fact hit ships below the water line. When ships capsize, you can see the shell holes in the red paint.
I was wrong, of course. Yes, there are hits below the waterline, and they are very dangerous. Checked this today already. :D

But, speaking about non-penetration damage I didn't explained my thought clearly. Though there is, of course, damage to the non-armoured parts, there were three main results of non-penetration hits:
1) Damage to the bearing elements of the hull,
2) outside boarder damage as the result of armour plates identation.
3) Bulkhead damage

Maybe all this three types are somehow released in DG: RJW, but don't knowing the game-mechanics I can't say it for sure.
 

Bullethead

Storm Eagle Studios
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
3,890
Reaction score
3
Location
Wakefield, LA
Country
llUnited States
But, speaking about non-penetration damage I didn't explained my thought clearly. Though there is, of course, damage to the non-armoured parts, there were three main results of non-penetration hits:
1) Damage to the bearing elements of the hull,
2) outside boarder damage as the result of armour plates identation.
3) Bulkhead damage

Maybe all this three types are somehow released in DG: RJW, but don't knowing the game-mechanics I can't say it for sure.
Game mechanics are Norm's thing, not mine. And even if I knew the answer, which I don't, I couldn't tell you :).

However, as a player/customer of the RJW game (which I had NOTHING to do with as an SES employee), and as somebody with an obsession for naval stuff, my thoughts are that you don't always have to penetrate the armor to do penetration-type damage. If you hit armor hard enough, big fragments of armor will fly inside even if the shell and its explosion stay outside the armor. And because these armor pieces have absorbed the kinetic energy of the shell, they're red-hot. So in this case, almost penetrating is almost as good as really penetrating. You should get most of the same damage effects on things such as turrets, which had lots of dangerous and/or vulnerable stuff just inside the armor, but less effect on bigger, less flammable areas such as engine rooms.

I assume that this type of "almost penetration" is what causes BB turrets to be destroyed from frontal hits, and BBs to suffer propulsion damage, in the RJW game. If the shell was very unlikely to penetrate, how else could it do this type of damage?
 
Last edited:

HMSWarspite

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
650
Reaction score
1
Location
Bristol
Country
ll
Game mechanics are Norm's thing, not mine. And even if I knew the answer, which I don't, I couldn't tell you :).

However, as a player/customer of the RJW game (which I had NOTHING to do with as an SES employee), and as somebody with an obsession for naval stuff, my thoughts are that you don't always have to penetrate the armor to do penetration-type damage. If you hit armor hard enough, big fragments of armor will fly inside even if the shell and its explosion stay outside the armor. And because these armor pieces have absorbed the kinetic energy of the shell, they're red-hot. So in this case, almost penetrating is almost as good as really penetrating. You should get most of the same damage effects on things such as turrets, which had lots of dangerous and/or vulnerable stuff just inside the armor, but less effect on bigger, less flammable areas such as engine rooms.

I assume that this type of "almost penetration" is what causes BB turrets to be destroyed from frontal hits, and BBs to suffer propulsion damage, in the RJW game. If the shell was very unlikely to penetrate, how else could it do this type of damage?

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. Damage to (for example) mountings can be due to overpressure (incapacitates crew and fragile stuff like optics), damage to lighter things (sighting hoods etc), or there is the old favourite - mounts don't rotate well if you distort the raceway even slightly. All of these could count as 'damaged' or 'destroyed' in DG terms. I believe (althougn would have to do some research to substantiate) that loss of function of main mounts in DG/WW1 timeframes was due to non-penetrating damage at least as often as the 'easy' mental picture of 'shell makes hole in armour and exploads inside' model. I think that in WW2, with better armour and more complex mounts, the balance swings even further. What is certain is that auxillery damage (hoists, electrical supply, etc) are at least as damaging as main penetrations in tersm of numbers in WW2. Finally, barrel hits also are pretty effective (so are prematures in the barrel, but thats another story!)
 

Hud

Recruit
Joined
Jul 18, 2006
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Location
Cornwall
Country
ll
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.
 
Top