Something is right with our bloody ships today

[martin worsey]

I have been reading a very interesting thread on Jutland Game and History and have experienced a similar incident to that described by Gnaeus. Whilst the arguments raised for explosive British cordite, poor hadling and poor shell performance are not, in my opinion, especially controversial and were explained very eloquently, I was somewhat supprised at the conclusion that Scheer would run from the British through a perceived dilusion of their strength and that, if the British had succeeded in provoking a battle of anhialation, it would in all probobility have been the British who were anhialated.
I have thus been reading the accounts of shell hits in Capbell's book and would appreciate any views on the way that I am reading the evidence.
If we look at the performance of heavy artillery on the key areas of different types of ship, there would appear to be dramatically different outcomes as follows: -
Armoured Cruisers - I would include the British I types within this category as that is effectively what they were and how they were originally classified. Relatively few hits tended to result in cordite flash destroying the ship. Presumably (excepting the hit on New Zealand's barbette) very few hits in the turret/barbette area would have failed to produce dramatic flash fires and the destruction of the ships. Warrior was the only AC to be hit extensively and avoid this fate but she was sunk anyway due to flooding. Interestingly, there were no German AC's at Jutland as most of them had all been sunk and the remainder withdrawn from active service. Blucher however suffered a severe propellant fire after only two hits at Dogger Bank and would presumably have suffered similar fate to the 4 British AC's with British propellant. The repercussions of heavy artilley being fired at these ships is probably expected as they were only designed to engage enemies with light-medium guns; protection against heavy guns being their speed which (at the time of their design) would enable them to out run any such armed ship.
Battlecruisers - Including the battle of Dogger Bank, these ships received the highest number of hits. The proportion of hits striking turrets/barbetts, damaging the armour and penetrating/exploding within the turret appears very similar between the respective ships. The only significant difference appears to be that propellant fires and destruction of the turrets occur more frequently in German ships. Similarly, the Germans suffered a great deal more damage on the waterline and serious flooding; only Lion at Dogger Bank experienced such problems.
Battleships - Once again the Germans suffered more from damage to their watertight integrity in proportion to the number of hits received. Each side only received one turret hit and these did not cause significant damage.
In conclusion, it would appear that British poor performance was significantly contributed to by placing ships in situations that they were not designed for and were wholly unsuitable (c 40% of heavy calibre hits were received by AC's). Dangerous propellant was also a significant issue and Campbell concludes that 2-3 additional Battlecruisers and an additional Battleship would have been lost if the Germans had had British propellant. The effect of gunnery seems somewhat more subtle with German shells performing well against the more lightly armoured ships and less heavily armoured areas of the heavy ships. The Germans also seem to have weaknesses in poor propellant hadling and vulnerable areas of their ships such as the torpedo flats. It appears to me that a full on slugfest between the fleets would have probably resulted in a British victory providing they were not significantly disadvantaged in some way.

 

[martin worsey]

Re: Something is right with our bloody ships today (but what about the other side).

Having re-read my post, I do not think it is very clear and I would just like to clarify it: -

1. I think the game is fine as it is because you can chose to select the ACH options that you want to use.
2. I think that the ACH options are correct and give a good reflection of the capabilities of British ships. I am playing with both options enabled and enjoying the game even when I get thashed..
3. In terms of the results that you seem to sometimes get with the ACH options enabled, I think that they possibly favour the Germans too much against how things were historically. In historical terms, I think that the Germans posssibly should have some ACH's of their own.
4. Reading the detailed accounts of Jutland gunnery, I note that almost 40% of the hits obtained by German heavy guns were on ships that were primarily designed to counter commerce raiders and were unsuited to face battleship type guns; the predictable consequences was more of a failure in British Admirals rather than bad ships.
5. German guns seemed to perform well against lightly armoured ships and the more lightly armoured parts of the heavy ships. They seem to have struggled to penetrate 9" armour on the British Battlecruisers at the ranges that fighting took place at Jutland. Hits that penetrated the vulnerable areas of these ships seem to have gone through weak points (e.g. the junction between heavy and lighter armour on Lion's Q turret) rather than the heavy armour.
6. British shells also seem to fail to penetrate heavy armour but did seem to cause damage and holes in the armour that caused flooding at the waterline or had the potential to cause fires in turrets and barbettes.
7. German propellant handling seems to have been as bad if not worse than the British and their Battlecruisers had a lot of turret fires. The rate that German turrets were destroyed in battle seems somewhat higher than the British. In the game, I seem to be losing a lot of turrets at reasonable (e.g. over 14,000 yards) range in comparison to the Germans. This seems to afflict for instance, the Queen Elizabeth class which were much better armoured in this area than the British Battlecruisers that were being hit at Jutland.
8. The Germans lost one Battlecruiser that sank and had another that was sinking, together with several other ships that let in considerable quantities of water. The British did not suffer to anything like this extent and the Lion at Dogger Bank seems to be the only example of a British ship letting in significant quantities of water through gunfire.

 

[rgreat]

Re: Something is right with our bloody ships today (but what about the other side).

You may be right on your points, but consider that British ships usually explode before they can "let in considerable quantities of water", so they are usually either lightly damaged or sunk instantly.

German ships in comparsion tends to go under much slower...

 

[saddletank]

Re: Something is right with our bloody ships today (but what about the other side).

Any ship is going to let in water slowly if its hit enough times, and the sub-compartmentation of RN ships was less effective that KM ones so I see no problem with slow sinkings... Warrior, Audacious and two or three DDs at Jutland were lost this way.

 

[JAG88]

Re: Something is right with our bloody ships today (but what about the other side).

Having re-read my post, I do not think it is very clear and I would just like to clarify it: -

1. I think the game is fine as it is because you can chose to select the ACH options that you want to use.
2. I think that the ACH options are correct and give a good reflection of the capabilities of British ships. I am playing with both options enabled and enjoying the game even when I get thashed..
3. In terms of the results that you seem to sometimes get with the ACH options enabled, I think that they possibly favour the Germans too much against how things were historically. In historical terms, I think that the Germans posssibly should have some ACH's of their own.
4. Reading the detailed accounts of Jutland gunnery, I note that almost 40% of the hits obtained by German heavy guns were on ships that were primarily designed to counter commerce raiders and were unsuited to face battleship type guns; the predictable consequences was more of a failure in British Admirals rather than bad ships.
5. German guns seemed to perform well against lightly armoured ships and the more lightly armoured parts of the heavy ships. They seem to have struggled to penetrate 9" armour on the British Battlecruisers at the ranges that fighting took place at Jutland. Hits that penetrated the vulnerable areas of these ships seem to have gone through weak points (e.g. the junction between heavy and lighter armour on Lion's Q turret) rather than the heavy armour.
6. British shells also seem to fail to penetrate heavy armour but did seem to cause damage and holes in the armour that caused flooding at the waterline or had the potential to cause fires in turrets and barbettes.
7. German propellant handling seems to have been as bad if not worse than the British and their Battlecruisers had a lot of turret fires. The rate that German turrets were destroyed in battle seems somewhat higher than the British. In the game, I seem to be losing a lot of turrets at reasonable (e.g. over 14,000 yards) range in comparison to the Germans. This seems to afflict for instance, the Queen Elizabeth class which were much better armoured in this area than the British Battlecruisers that were being hit at Jutland.
8. The Germans lost one Battlecruiser that sank and had another that was sinking, together with several other ships that let in considerable quantities of water. The British did not suffer to anything like this extent and the Lion at Dogger Bank seems to be the only example of a British ship letting in significant quantities of water through gunfire.

Hi.

Fine points, but I would like to add that the germans had trouble penetrating the 9" british armor because they were fighting at around 15.000 yards (never below 14.000) and that is borderline for the 305mm, let alone the 280mm ones.

Also, at the time of the hit on Lion Lûtzow was firing CPC, not APC. which is why Lion was spared a worse fate during the RtS.

In contrast, the RN got to fire at around 11.000 yards and unopposed, (even below 10.000) and you are bound to cause serious damage even with crappy shells at those ranges, specially with the 15" guns wh¡ch were the ones responsible for most of the turret penetrations on the german GKs, the other turrets were damaged due to barbette hits on VdT, a 1907 ship, by 13.5" at 14 - 15.000.

Cheers.

 

[martin worsey]

Re: Something is right with our bloody ships today (but what about the other side).

Hi.

Fine points, but I would like to add that the germans had trouble penetrating the 9" british armor because they were fighting at around 15.000 yards (never below 14.000) and that is borderline for the 305mm, let alone the 280mm ones.

Also, at the time of the hit on Lion Lûtzow was firing CPC, not APC. which is why Lion was spared a worse fate during the RtS.

In contrast, the RN got to fire at around 11.000 yards and unopposed, (even below 10.000) and you are bound to cause serious damage even with crappy shells at those ranges, specially with the 15" guns wh¡ch were the ones responsible for most of the turret penetrations on the german GKs, the other turrets were damaged due to barbette hits on VdT, a 1907 ship, by 13.5" at 14 - 15.000.

Cheers.

Thanks for the comments.

I don't know which sources you are using or necessarily how reliable mine are. I would however mention the following that may be of interest: -

1. Derfflinger suffered ammunition fires after being struck on X and Y turrets at c11km by Revenge (15")
2. Seydlitz suffered ammunition fires after being struck at c14-15km at Jutland and c16km at Dogger Bank. Both from 13.5" shells.
3. The most serious damage to Lutzow was caused by two hits at c10km by 12" shells (although this was fore of A barbette and thus fore of the armoured belt).
4. The most serious hits on Seydlitz occurred at c18-19km and also fore of A barbette.
5. Tiger's X barbette was penetrated by an 11" shell at 13km, although this did not explode.
6. Princess Royal's X barbette withstood a hit from a 12" shell at 13.5km (although the armour was damaged.

Thus it would appear that performance was somewhat more variable.

I am no expert but I would have expected the CPC shell to have been less likely to penetrate but more likely to cause damage.

V d T was ordered as part of the 1907 budget but was not finally commissioned until late 1910. She was thus 5 years old at Jutland. Interestingly, she commissioned about the same time as Indefatigable whome she comprehensively out classed. She was not far off the performance of any of the other BC's as far as I know. I find it interesting (probably no one else will) that most books frame the dreadnaught arms race purely in terms of Anglo-German rivalry. As the Germans only ever built nine AC's, most of them were not that good and she had few overseas bases, it seems overkill to suplement Britain's 30 odd AC's with a further 6 Invincible's which could only ever be useful against AC's. I can only surmise that they were intended to counter the French (and possibly American) navy which was far better equipped for commerce raiding. I this context, they would not be totally obsolete by 1916; just built for the wrong war.

 

[JAG88]

Re: Something is right with our bloody ships today (but what about the other side).

Thanks for the comments.

I don't know which sources you are using or necessarily how reliable mine are. I would however mention the following that may be of interest: -

Campbell, so I dont think we will differ much.

1. Derfflinger suffered ammunition fires after being struck on X and Y turrets at c11km by Revenge (15")

Actually Revenge started at 11.000 yards, which is sensibly less than 11km, and then corrected as she overshot.

The Revenge opened fire shortly after the Neptune, and also took the Derfflinger as her target. Her first salvo at 11,000yds was over, but she came down 800 and straddled with her second. The Revenge made five hits, and then shifted to the von der Tann, as other ships ahead were firing at the Derfflinger.

So it is like 9.300m or 9.3Km at the most.

2. Seydlitz suffered ammunition fires after being struck at c14-15km at Jutland and c16km at Dogger Bank. Both from 13.5" shells.

Correct, only that is yards and not meters, so the distance is actually closer in Km, and neither shell penetrated.

3. The most serious damage to Lutzow was caused by two hits at c10km by 12" shells (although this was fore of A barbette and thus fore of the armoured belt).

Indeed, less than 10.000 yards, pretty close.

4. The most serious hits on Seydlitz occurred at c18-19km and also fore of A barbette.

Well, the turret hit one was a "perfect" hit, almost no angle was involved, nor vertical or horizontal, even so the 15" shell did not manage to fully penetrate and burst in holing causing some damage, but the turret and guns remained in action.

The two other hits were significant later on, when someone thought that driving at 22kn with a torpedoed ship and sporting a damaged bow was a good idea. The same thing sank Lûtzow, but in that case there was a good reason to try to go fast as she was under fire at the time.

Range was not and issue in these last two since no armor was involved.

5. Tiger's X barbette was penetrated by an 11" shell at 13km, although this did not explode.

Quite and accomplishment for a 28cm shell.

6. Princess Royal's X barbette withstood a hit from a 12" shell at 13.5km (although the armour was damaged.

I cant find this hit, are you using Brooks?

Thus it would appear that performance was somewhat more variable.

Well, I said "around X" but I certainly should have qualified that statement with a "most", even when talking about turret penetrations that is true, save for the fluke on Seydlitz.

Lets put it this way, during both runs, when the range and visibility was mid to long, the HSF made 62 hits, the GF 36.

Later, at usually short range, the HSF made 22 (a dozen more if you count Black Prince) and the GF 78.

I am no expert but I would have expected the CPC shell to have been less likely to penetrate but more likely to cause damage.

Only when hiting the superstructure or light armor, 6" KC could well defeat it and so it did if you look at several of the hits in Lion. A nice explosion outside the ship is of little use.

V d T was ordered as part of the 1907 budget but was not finally commissioned until late 1910. She was thus 5 years old at Jutland. Interestingly, she commissioned about the same time as Indefatigable whome she comprehensively out classed. She was not far off the performance of any of the other BC's as far as I know.

Yeah, but the Indefatigables are Invincibles in steroids, they are still 1906 ships for me. Regarding Von der Tann, I blame her being so prone to damage to being the first true GK, why else would she lose as many turrets to breakdowns as to enemy action? She comes out a little frail to me. And 5 years in those times was a lot, at 20.000t was being fired at by three 28.000 ships with significantly larger guns.

I find it interesting (probably no one else will) that most books frame the dreadnought arms race purely in terms of Anglo-German rivalry. As the Germans only ever built nine AC's, most of them were not that good and she had few overseas bases, it seems overkill to suplement Britain's 30 odd AC's with a further 6 Invincible's which could only ever be useful against AC's. I can only surmise that they were intended to counter the French (and possibly American) navy which was far better equipped for commerce raiding. I this context, they would not be totally obsolete by 1916; just built for the wrong war.

I agree, they were not designed for fleet actions and paid dearly when faced ships that were, but hey, put large guns on something and people will get temped to use them... as a matter of fact, Blûcher makes more sense for the RN than Invincible... :laugh:

But yeah, the British had to worry about commerce raiding and the Jeune ecole crowd, they had even two types of CLs, one for commerce protection and another for fleet scouting, and a similar distinction could also be done about their Battlecruisers... but a battle between the 4 cats and the 5 german GKs would have been very... unpleasant.

The real problem was not that the RN built the Invincibles, but that the Germans actually created a cruiser fit for combat along the ships of the line, a proper and effective battlecruiser.

Their distinction between a Cruiser-Battleship and a Battleship-Cruiser approach made by the Germans always struck me as the heart of the issue.

Cheers.

 

[martin worsey]

Re: Something is right with our bloody ships today (but what about the other side).

I cant find this hit, are you using Brooks?

I got the range from D. K. Brown's "The Grand Fleet" for convenience but it is also mentioned in the last chapter of Campbell.

This is a good read as he is an Engineer and goes into detail about gunnery trials, design e.t.c.



Yeah, but the Indefatigables are Invincibles in steroids, they are still 1906 ships for me. Regarding Von der Tann, I blame her being so prone to damage to being the first true GK, why else would she lose as many turrets to breakdowns as to enemy action? She comes out a little frail to me. And 5 years in those times was a lot, at 20.000t was being fired at by three 28.000 ships with significantly larger guns.

I don't think that there is much difference between the classes. Indefatigable carried the longer 12" guns and had a better turret arrangement to allow an 8 gun broadside (although this apparently stressed the deck and damaged the ship). Armour was about the same but was apparently distributed slightly differently.




The real problem was not that the RN built the Invincibles, but that the Germans actually created a cruiser fit for combat along the ships of the line, a proper and effective battlecruiser.

Their distinction between a Cruiser-Battleship and a Battleship-Cruiser approach made by the Germans always struck me as the heart of the issue.

Apparently, Jackie Fisher wanted a hybrid ship which combined battleship armour, guns and 25 kn speed but this was rejected on cost grounds. As the Germans were considered the most likely opponent, Dreadnaughts were considered adequate.

Cheers.[/QUOTE]

In general, I think that as we are talking early c20 technology, we have to expect things not to work entirely as they should. If you think of the amount of technology found in the average home or in the army, these ships are phenominal achievements. Ranges had trebbled in the 10 years since the RJW. Whilst shellls, designs e.t.c. are crap by todays standard, they would be remarkable by the standards of the day.

Also, we Brits have/had something of a reputation for arrogance; our navy was expected to thrash the Germans. When this did not happen, it is unlikely that our officers (i.e. the establishment) are going to accept any blame for a disappointing outcome. Much more likely that they blame the equipment. As the Germans were the underdogs and performed with credit, they would make much less of an issue of their equipment. I think that there were flaws in their equipment (e.g. your valiid point about VdT's guns breaking down) you just need to scratch below the surface.

However, as WW1 did not produce the decisive dreadnaught clash, we will only ever be able to speculate on the likely outcome (one of the reasons that it is so interesting).

 

[JAG88]

Re: Something is right with our bloody ships today (but what about the other side).

I got the range from D. K. Brown's "The Grand Fleet" for convenience but it is also mentioned in the last chapter of Campbell.

This is a good read as he is an Engineer and goes into detail about gunnery trials, design e.t.c.

Thx, that one is on the "to do" list.

I don't think that there is much difference between the classes. Indefatigable carried the longer 12" guns and had a better turret arrangement to allow an 8 gun broadside (although this apparently stressed the deck and damaged the ship). Armour was about the same but was apparently distributed slightly differently.

Von der Tann had more armor, but yeah, her breakdowns should make her suspect, after all, she also missed Dogger Bank.

Apparently, Jackie Fisher wanted a hybrid ship which combined battleship armour, guns and 25 kn speed but this was rejected on cost grounds. As the Germans were considered the most likely opponent, Dreadnaughts were considered adequate.

Well, he wanted speed more than anything, in what year was he considering a 25kn ship?

In general, I think that as we are talking early c20 technology, we have to expect things not to work entirely as they should. If you think of the amount of technology found in the average home or in the army, these ships are phenominal achievements. Ranges had trebbled in the 10 years since the RJW. Whilst shellls, designs e.t.c. are crap by todays standard, they would be remarkable by the standards of the day.

Indeed, those ships were the most advanced piece of machinery that man could create at the time, the field was changing fast and mistakes are bound to be made. Exiting times!

Also, we Brits have/had something of a reputation for arrogance; our navy was expected to thrash the Germans. When this did not happen, it is unlikely that our officers (i.e. the establishment) are going to accept any blame for a disappointing outcome. Much more likely that they blame the equipment. As the Germans were the underdogs and performed with credit, they would make much less of an issue of their equipment. I think that there were flaws in their equipment (e.g. your valiid point about VdT's guns breaking down) you just need to scratch below the surface.

No one is infalible, and blaming something/someone else is a time-respected tradition everywhere. The navy will blame the boats, the shipbuilders the propellant makers, these the designers, and these the navy again...

The bit about the arrogance, I remember that public statement about having nothing to learn from Baden, specially when I am reading that report about gunnery developments in navweps.

The Germans swore that their army got backstabed by the politicians in 1918.

Nobody likes to concede anything to the enemy.

However, as WW1 did not produce the decisive dreadnaught clash, we will only ever be able to speculate on the likely outcome (one of the reasons that it is so interesting).

Exactly! WW2 naval combat never got me interested to this level, the results are known, there is no mystery, no room for imagination.


Cheers.

 

[martin worsey]

The battlecruiser design was, I believe called X4 and was considered for the 1906 programme.

NB: I would just apologise; a couple of posts back I gave you a list of examples of damage to German ships and corresponding ranges. My intention was to present what I considered the best examples of the evidence and thus included details for Derfflinger and Lutzow that fell in line with your view and Seydlitz that supported an alternative view. Unfortunately I did not make this clear and it appeared to suggest that I was nit picking over a few yards in your generalisation of the ranges in the later part of the battle.

 

[JAG88]

Thx for the tip Martin, and there is no need to apologize, English is not my first language and after reading what I wrote well, I was not clear enough, and my "detailed" replies could even be construed as me taking offence or being confrontational, but it was not the case.

Best.

 

[Von der Tann]

Arrogance was always amongst the worst enemies of any army, especially when the high command and the officers started to believe in their own propaganda. A good example is the complete lack of any improvements on the British battlecruisers after Dogger Bank, where Lion almost did a Jutland. But since the battle was considered won, and no one liked to show any weaknesses, and of course because of the good ole "it can't be what shouldn't be" routine, nothing at all was done. Plenty examples in WWII for the Germans, especially when Hitler started to believe he alone could run the whole of the Eastern Front...

 

[saddletank]

On that subject what changes were made in the RN ships after Jutland? No-one then could deny there was something seriously wrong somewhere.

 

[martin worsey]

My reading would indicate that there was quite a bit of investigation and improvement after Jutland; new shells, improved training for night fighting, improved ammunition handling, increased armour on battlecruiser designs. Jutland did come as a massive shock and seriously rocked the establishment. One of the negative impacts was the elevation of Beaty who had demonstrated considerable incometence at both Dogger and Jutland (notably in signaling).

 

[saddletank]

Yes, wasn't Jellicoe, promoted upwards to a desk soon after Jutland and Beatty took command of the GF?

 

[Von der Tann]

I once read a report from the activities around the Grand Fleet shortly after the battle. Many officers and sailors were suffering from the great disillusion the battle had brought, for instead of winning another Trafalgar with flying colours, it had been a draw with painful losses. Nevertheless, the long-overdue lessons from the battle (and from Dogger Bank) were finally learned, and many ships were given an extra layer of protection by riveting additional armour to endangered spots, especially ammunition chambers.

 

[saddletank]

That wasn't really addressing the main weakness though was it? Then again I doubt the main weakness (the chemical composition of the cordite propellant) could have been addressed since the RN probably had millions of tons of the stuff stashed in ammo dumps around the country and to replace it with a new compound would have needed years of R&D. RN warships continued to explode throughout the war including a pre-dreadnought or two in 1918 and of course Hood in 1941 (and Barham too maybe due to the same cause?).

 

[JAG88]

Some improvements were made but, still, aggressive BCF Beatty became cautious GF Beatty in 1917, resorting to mine warfare and unwilling to risk further clashes with the HSF (according to Halpern) "until the situation becomes more favorable to us". Several lessons were learned and measures taken accordingly, but the three more important issues, cordite, APC shells and underwater protection could not be fully resolved until later in (shells) or after the war.

No wonder the British were willing to give up most of their prewar fleet in Washington, once the defects and effects of the cordite, and the old and new APC shells were realized, (plus the financial situation) a moratory was a most desirable option.

The cordite issue was never fully resolved if we take Hood as an example, independently of the measures taken to neutralize and limit the effects of propellant fires in turrets and chambers, a catastrophic magazine detonation remained a possibility and, therefore, a source of constant concern.

 

[martin worsey]

The problem to consider with exploding ships is that nobody knew for certain exactly what the problem was; they still don't. Enquiries and investigations were undertaken and measures were taken over an extended period. Handling procedures were tightened up, some types of ammunition were withdrawn (e.g. those containing pyrrhic acid and some HE types) and old ammunition was disposed of (the instability of cordite increases with age). Campbell suggests that work started on attempting to improve the propellant to German standards in "about 1920" and Brown suggests that it had similar properties by WW2.
Propellant is by its nature dangerous and German ships blew up in WW1 (and can do so in the game).
I believe that the ships cancelled at Washington would make a good subject for a game; America, Britain and Japan had some interesting contrasts in their design philosophies.

 

[Von der Tann]

"Ships that never were" are indeed a very interesting subject for what-if-scenarios. Unfortunately, I have yet to find a convincing what-if from this time, and my own efforts in this area are still somewhat lacking as well. Still, pitching the various designs from the construction bureaus of the great powers against each other would be most entertaining.