SMS Scharnhorst at Port Arthur: Impressions and ideas

[hschuster44]

Discovered an interesting read recently: G. Bräutigam, East Asian Cruises, Remembering my service in the Imperial German Navy aboard S.M.S. Scharnhorst 1909-1911. That gave me some impressions (1) and ideas (2).

(1)    Scharnhorst visited Port Arthur in September 1909. I translate into English as follows (sorry for any grammatical errors): “We reached Port Arthur in the morning of September 18th, 8.30 am. This harbour is situated in the south of the Peninsula Liautung and is Japanese possession. On first sight PA reminded us of the Russian-Japanese war which has left terrible traces of devastation in the city and the harbor. Originally the Peninsula Liautung belonged to China and Manchuria. In the year 1895 Russia and China applied for this Peninsula which fell into Russian hands. This aroused Japanese envy and since that time the Japanese prepared for war against Russia. The Russians worked at full power within their new possession and placed value on fortifications immediately. As a consequence the city had become a fortress when war broke out in 1904. … Even now, when we visited this harbor five years later, we discovered wakes of heavy devastation. First of all the harbor attracted our attention since there were wrecks or single parts of iron on all sides of the beach, that had been brought to the surface again. In the middle of the entrance the Japanese had blocked the harbor by sinking 11 steamers, in addition to that some warships went down here. Since wartimes there is a lot of work concerning these wrecks in order to get them out of the waterway. Parts are split off and brought to the surface, as to this many divers are working in the depth … The city looks even more sad. The big empty Russian houses show the former upswing of the city. Now you can see big holes in nearly every house, the interior has been devastated by shells … Up to now no road has been repaired … ”

(2)    Some questions/ suggestions regarding SAI_RJW: a) Battle Generator and/ or custom scenario for a hypothetical German-Japanese conflict 1905-1910 (including e.g. Scharnhorst class CAs)? b) (Japanese) block ship objectives within the campaign (similar to mining missions: “Steamer 1 has commenced sinking” after having reached the relevant spot, increasing the risk for enemy ships to run aground when entering port)?

HS

[Fredrik W]

Thanks for the feedback!

There are blockship missions in the campaign that give the Japanese player points if he can bring blockships to the entrance of Port Arthur and scuttle them. They give the Japanese player VP:s, but they do not affect the grounding chances as the Japanese never succeeded in blocking the harbour entrance. Indeed, IIRC I think despite all the attempts to sink blockships at various harbour entrances, like the British at Zeebrugge or the Germans at Libau, no attempt managed to close the target port.

[randomizer]

... a) Battle Generator and/ or custom scenario for a hypothetical German-Japanese conflict 1905-1910 (including e.g. Scharnhorst class CAs)?

My very subjective opinion on this is that this idea is perhaps more applicable to SAI:The Great War at Sea instead of SAI-RJW.

If you start your battle generator date in 1905 and assume that the Russo-Japanese War played out historically you are entering another period of great technological flux across the world's first rate navies.

FW made changes to the gunnery algorithms and the way the AI behaves in the RJW that are applicable to that period but rapidly fell into doctrinal and operational limbo after Tsushima and that battle's assorted lessons were analysed by Admiralties and the Edwardian Age's versions of the modern Talking Head.  Of course, when the "experts" weighed in, there was a tendency to use the RJW to validate existing technological focus, pet theories of naval warfare and doctrines rather than producing a scientific, impartial study of the vast experience of the War.  That said however, it's taken us over a century to probably reach a point where we can have this sort of discussion without national mythologies and cultural mores getting in the way of objectivity.  The pundits could only use the very incomplete data that they had and colouring their conclusions with their particular professional and cultural lenses was probably inevitable.

What the rambling paragraph above is meant to say is for example, SMS Scharnhorst may properly belong in the RJW naval period but it was her fate to exist in the later and much different Great War naval era.

However, this is why it is recommended that SAI-RJW designs not be copied into original SAI and vice-versa; you are likely to see results and behaviours that tend to be increasingly non-representative as you move away from the core SAI-RJW period of 1898 through 1907.

So I think that SAI-TGWAS could probably produce a more reasonable battle generator for your proposed German-Japanese conflict in the era 1905-1910.  Of course designing your BG for the years 1898-1907 using SAI-RJW could create some interesting engagements to be sure.

Thanks.

[hschuster44]

... Thanks für your feedback and merry Xmas!