|
Post by vonfriedman on May 5, 2015 11:25:02 GMT -6
Excellent summary of this subject. Perhaps the speed of von Spee's CAs, after the long period spent in the Pacific, was not very different from that of Cradock's cruisers. Somewhere I read that at the Battle of the Falkland the German CAs reached about 20 knots. As to the Otranto, this slow AMC could have withdrawn first, if she could.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on May 4, 2015 10:28:54 GMT -6
The engine SAI and RJW is based on the assumption that ships are equipped with radio equipment. A game that wants to simulate the age of sail puts a completely different problem with regard to information exchanged between admirals both ashore or at sea and individual ships.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on May 4, 2015 10:17:51 GMT -6
Thanks for this other information. The British strategy was not entirely wrong, even if the hesitation in sending the CA Defence is questionable. Once the position of von Spee was ascertained there were other naval forces, besides those of Stoddard and Cradock, that would have been diverted on the spot. I am convinced that Cradock was moved by the desire to cut-off the Leipzig and for this purpose the slow Canopus would have been a hindrance. When he met the ships of von Spee he decided to engage battle perhaps in order to avoid a public disrepute similar to that bestowed on Troubridge about the escape of the Goeben. He probably hoped also to damage some German ships. If he had not advanced too far from Canopus and had adopted instead the tactics later recommended by Churchill he would have saved his ships, as von Spee would not have risked two CA against two CA and one B, whose shooting ability was unknown to him (after all, the Canopus did not shoot badly in the first phase of the battle of the Falklands.) Von Spee would probably have sailed around the slowly retreating British squadron and an entire different story would have been written. Post scriptum - Following a source of mine, which also cites Marder vol II page 107 note 8, the Canopus chief engineer was a Commander William Denbow.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on May 3, 2015 8:28:52 GMT -6
I apologize in advance if this question has already been posed by others. At the end of the First World War the British had already developed a single engined torpedo bomber, the Sopwith Cukoo, with folding wings. In short, the naval aviation was born. The decisions that you should make in RTW game should therefore also refer to the option: it is better to build battleships or aircraft carriers? I agree that the first choice would have been preferred by many. As late as 1937, in his book "Britain in Danger", Captain B. Ackworth proposed to build a fleet composed by many relatively small and slow battleships fueled by coal.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on May 3, 2015 7:56:34 GMT -6
Thank you so much for the information. It seems, however, that the armor of Canopus in total exceeded that of Good Hope (and also of the Invincible class BCs), and probably it would have withstood better to the gunfire of von Spee armored cruisers. If you use the tactics suggested by Churchill in "The World Crisis" in SAI Coronel scenario, which is to orderly withdraw towards the battleship (see for example: archive.org/stream/worldcrisis00chur#page/458/mode/2up), darkness falls before the Germans can do a lot of damage. In a possible night melee they can also be defeated.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on May 2, 2015 10:52:35 GMT -6
Let me know if in your readings you have found the whole history of the troubles of the engines of HMS Canopus, just before the Battle of Coronel in 1914. It is said that the chief engineer made erroneous reports about her maximum speed. However it seems strange that in such serious circumstances as those faced by the Adm Cradock a thorough verification had not been carried out. In the memoirs of the Captain of Canopus H. S. Grant (My war at sea 1914-1916) there is no trace of those fake reports. He states, indeed, that the battleship would be able to reach 15 knots for short periods. In the chart of the course followed by HMS Canopus in the very day of that battle (see: www.rmg.co.uk/content/novembers-item-month-battle-coronel) a speed of 15 knots is shown for rather long periods of time.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Apr 19, 2015 14:06:33 GMT -6
In the Ulsan scenario, played as Russian, my ships were seemingly determined to run aground the island of Tsushima. I was unable to alter their course and so they continued to sail on a straight course, without anything happening. I stopped the game while the Russian cruisers were continuing to sail undeterred very near to the coast of the Japanese island. I wonder if this defect of realism has been previously reported by other players. It would be sufficient to eliminate the constraint that compels the Russian ships to navigate on a straight course until some other ship is sighted.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Apr 13, 2015 12:36:51 GMT -6
In my opinion the management of the air component should not be overly detailed and time consuming. The decision to launch an air strike should be managed in a way similar to that of launching a destroyer torpedo attack in a surface battle.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Apr 2, 2015 8:05:57 GMT -6
Aspiring admirals Vitgeft can use this tactic to win the battle of the Yellow sea. Bring the Russian ships under the coast dominated by the forts of Port Arthur as soon as possible. Sail up and down there, while exchanging broadsides with the Japanese. At nightfall sail towards the west, taking their own DDs behind. In the ensuing night action the Japanese may suffer some losses, while the Russian battleships sail away undetected.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Mar 25, 2015 14:08:15 GMT -6
Ah. Now I see. Father of the dreadnought too, surely. Though that had a limited shelf-life also, of course. But then all these big ships basically had a window of glory - if that's what it can be called - that lasted only at max 40 years, probably only 20 years (1895 to 1915, say) when they really peaked. No?
That was a complex linguistic/visual pun, Kasuga. No the wonder it left me behind! I shall reward you with this great picture. You've probably seen it before, of course. I love it because the subtle (digitally added) colour really brings it to life, I think, makes you feel like you can see it as it was.
Fine picture of a fine product made in Italy. Moreover the dreadnought concept was highlighted by General (Engineers Corps) Vittorio E. Cuniberti of the Italian Navy in an article on Jane's Fighting Ships in 1903.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Mar 24, 2015 9:01:47 GMT -6
Hello Doomed, did you manage to complete the scenario Lissa redux? Will you make it available to other players?
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Mar 24, 2015 8:49:36 GMT -6
This discussion seems to indicate a widespread interest in a new version of Thunder at Sea. In other words: not only naval battles between surface ships of the WW2 era but also an airpower component (realistic but not overly detailed) plus an "operation level" flavour. I've always been of the opinion that TAS + Fighting Steel Project was a great product. As it is clear that FS is no more a viable issue, we can only hope that NWS will devote to this new game as soon as possible.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Mar 9, 2015 5:51:26 GMT -6
Unzip the campaign files to your /campaigns folder, and the 5 sdf files into your Custom folder. __________________ The basis for this campaign is the Germany Stronger 1916 North Sea campaign provided in the stock game. This campaign starts in 1916 and ends in November 1919. The basic OOB for each side is historical, projected out to late 1919. However, at the start of the game, each side will have a large variety of optional reinforcements (for a **small** cost in VPs) that can augment their OOB's considerably. Just about every dreadnought, real or projected, on either side could show up. An expanded assortment of cruisers is also available, including "D", "E", and Hawkins class CA's for the British, and a projected Panzerkreuzer (10 x 8", 31 knots) CA design as well as the Flottenkruezers and more Coln(ii) class light cruisers for the Germans. Further reinforcement options will occur at roughly 6 month intervals until Spring 1918. I have learned that towards the end of 1WW the British battleship used armor piercing shells more effective than those used at Jutland (Marder indicates for them the nickname "green boys"). Also changes were introduced to make the British ships relatively flash proof. These things are taken into account, in this new scenario?
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Mar 6, 2015 14:19:49 GMT -6
The new game looks very interesting. In my opinion it must be avoided that the players know too well in advance the value of their ships as weapons of war. Avoid, for example, that the German player might know in advance, even before engaging the first battle, that British BC tend to blow up. Moreover, at least a portion of the resources should be spent badly. For example, some warships will be built that later reveal herself as a crazy choice (e.g. Fisher's giant light cruiser HMS Incomparable would be one) or at least a warship ill-suited to the needs of some particular campaign. In this way there would be a certain element of surprise during the game and the strategic and tactical decisions could be affected by the appearance of these shortcomings.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Oct 22, 2014 3:48:16 GMT -6
Apparently also the cruiser HMS Caroline will be restored. I hope she will be ready just in time for the anniversary of the Battle of Jutland. see: www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-29630240Some of you would be able to draw up a complete list of other warships that took part in the Great War and that still exist? I have news of the CA Averov (it is located in Greece but it was built in Italy), the BB USS Texas, the C USS Olympia and the small british monitor M33 in Portsmouth. Other museum ships are older. In Italy, in the park of the villa of the poet Gabriele D Annunzio on the Garda Lake there is the forecastle from the bow up to the conning tower and the foremast of the RN Puglia, a small cruiser or ariete torpediniere completed in 1901.
|
|