|
|
Post by cv10 on Aug 8, 2017 10:43:08 GMT -6
What share of minelaying is done by Irene? Almost all of it since she arrived. She can lay 400 mines at a time. My next biggest minelayer can lay 120 mines. In the game, you are limited to 1 player-defined minefield per turn, and only two ships in a task force can carry mines. I use Irene by herself rather than send out another minelayer with her, as this gives me more control over how the field is laid. I really wish that HMS Princess Margaret hadn't been lost (I don't mind sending both of them out together, an minefield with 800 mines is too big to refuse). The two of them might be my favorite ships just because their minefields are so huge, but the QE-Class Battleships run close competition. |
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Aug 8, 2017 18:57:15 GMT -6
In the game, you are limited to 1 player-defined minefield per turn, and only two ships in a task force can carry mines. I use Irene by herself rather than send out another minelayer with her, as this gives me more control over how the field is laid. not sure if you already know this by your explanation above, but i was messing around with only minelaying last weekend (getting used to the game gradually so tiny bites lol), and really you'r only limited to 1 area where you can lay mines but you can send multiple TFs with a ML each and have them each lay a section of minefield one by one and thereby *possibly creating a decently long line of mines every turn. likely easier with Germany since they get lots of 120+ mine CLs i send the MLs separately in waves at 12kts+ so they don't lay mines, turn the ML in the direction i want the minefield to go, lower speed to 9kts within distance of the mining mission target (don't know what that max distance is yet), and the ML lays a line of mines the way i want. then i bring in another ML, again 12kts+ to the place i want it to start laying mines then 9kts to lay the mines. i only did it a couple times and am still refining it so don't know how far i can take it, but this was my 2nd attempt with 2 TFs of 2 MLs plus a 3rd uncontrolled TF with m180 i lead to the area i.imgur.com/CBwmLBc.pngi was having fun seeing if i could lay a line of mines up by Scapa Flow before running a bombardment mission so if the Grand Fleet sorties they might run into the mines - this attempt is sloppier than i think might be possible to pull off. was even thinking of throwing 4 CLs in 4 DD TFs and activating only the CL so i can have 3-4 separate MLs each creating a part of the line |
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on Aug 15, 2017 20:43:29 GMT -6
Turn 31: 28 September, 1915:Planning As usual I will start with some logistics. 5 Dreadnoughts are currently under repair, and 4 of them will return from the yard within the next two weeks. The 5th one is HMS Conquerer, which will be under repair until November (nasty torpedo damaged). In the meantime, it seems the Admiralty is partial to a a bit of rest in operations. They have declined to recommend or order any sort of operation for the next two weeks. I'm partial to one myself, as my dreadnoughts need a bit of training, and my battlecruisers even need one even more. In addition, I'm staggering the refits for the dreadnoughts, so that I can maintain a potent force.
However, I intend to run a minelaying operation close to the Helgoland Bight. My Arethusa-class Light Cruisers can lay 70 mines, and I'm going to have them do a fast minelaying operation right by the edge of the German minefield. Hopefully this should produce some results. I just found out that British minefields have claimed another victim: SMS V-5 was mined several weeks ago. This bring the mining tally to: 1 CL and 1 DD vs the 1 B, 1CA, 6DD, 1 MS, 2 AMC, and 2 SS that I have lost to German mines.  now for a bit of narrative |
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on Aug 15, 2017 21:08:47 GMT -6
By the Commissioners for Executing the Office of Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom.
To Admiral Sir George Callaghan KCVO
hereby appointed Commander-in-Chief of His Majesty's Grand Fleet
By Virtue of the Power of Authority to us given by His Majesty's Letters Patent under the Great Seal, We do hereby constitute and appoint you Commander-In-Chief of His Majesty's Grand Fleet due to the death of the late Admiral Sir John Jellicoe VC, GCB, SGM. Charging and Commanding you in that position to observe and execute the Queen's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions for the Government of His Majesty's Naval Service and all such Orders and Instructions as you shall from time to time receive from Us or from your Superior Officers for His Majesty's Service. And likewise Charging and Commanding all Officers and Men subordinate to you according to the said Regulations Instructions or Orders to behave themselves with all due Respect and Obedience to you their Superior Officer. Given under our hands and the Seal of the Office of Admiralty this 28th day of September in the 5th Year of Her Majesty's Reign.
By Command
The Right Honourable Arthur James Balfour FRS, MP, DL, First Lord
Admiral Sir Henry Jackson KCVO FRS, First Sea Lord
Captain Sievey, the 10th Earl of Barra, Naval Secretary to the Board
|
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on Aug 15, 2017 21:28:09 GMT -6
If I might borrow a page out of Admiral garrisonchisholm , I wish to consult fellow officers. A recent Enquiry found that HMS Conquerer was not damaged and nearly sunk by a German torpedo. Nor was it damaged by a stray mine. After an exhaustive search for evidence, the true culprit was found to HMS Fury, one of her squadron's own escorting destroyers! As usual, the British destroyers were being inept in the firing of their torpedoes, doing so well before they were within any kind of optimal position or range. While to starboard of the British dreadnoughts, HMS Fury's captain decided it would be a good idea to fire his torpedoes at the Germans, directly to port of the British dreadnoughts. Apparently, he did not realize that firing torpedoes in such a manner would force the torpedoes to go through the British battle-line in order to hit the Germans.
Obviously this kind of behavior merits severe punishment. As HMS Conquerer was nearly sunk, and suffered heavy casualties from the torpedo hit, I'm inclined to hang him from the yardarm of HMS Warspite, even if HMS Warspite has to have one installed specifically for the hanging. My legal justification for doing so is based on Article 30 of the Naval Discipline Act of 1860, which is as follows:
"XXX. Every Person subject to this Act who shall unlawfully set fire to any Dockyard, Victualling Yard, or Steam Factory Yard, Arsenal, Magazine, Building, Stores, or to any Ship, or Furniture thereunto belonging, not being the Property of an Enemy, Pirate, or Rebel, shall suffer Death or such other Punishment as is herein-after mentioned"
As he torpedoed and nearly sank one of His Majesty's ships, particularly as the torpedo impact had to have caused at least one fire, I think that this article, and the penalties laid out in it, can be applied. I mean after all, one can't reasonably claim to have legally torpedoed a dreadnought of the Royal Navy.
However if the Admiralty is inclined to mercy, or feels it otherwise proper and pursuit to good discipline, I am willing to consider lesser charges under Articles XXV and XXXVIII:
"XXV: Every Person subject to this Act who shall either designedly or negligently suffer any Ship of Her Majesty to be improperly lost, stranded, or hazarded, shall be dismissed from Her Majesty's Service, with or without Disgrace, or suffer Imprisonment or such other Punishment as is herein-after mentioned"
"XXXVIII(B): If he shall be guilty of Manslaughter he shall suffer Penal Servitude, Imprisonment, or such other Punishment as is herein-after mentioned"
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Aug 15, 2017 21:57:24 GMT -6
If stupidity weren't allowed, half our admirals wouldn't have ever risen to their current rank! Then who would come up with the plans no one else is willing to lay out? |
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Aug 15, 2017 22:35:43 GMT -6
I would advocate Article 28B, for the simple fact that a trial and inquest is merited under loss of life. It might disclose that the Captain had ordered "Clear tubes for firing!", and the midshipman who shouted to the voice-pipe could have had some pie come up and stifle part of his utterance. (Destroyer bridges, very Kerbal, snacks everywhere) It would be a shame to tarnish a man's career, let alone challenge his very life, without the chance for the exact proceedings to come out.
But if the court finding is he honestly didn't give a flip about the battle-line and it was up to them not to get in the way of his precious torpedo, then yes hang him. :]
|
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Aug 16, 2017 0:08:44 GMT -6
(For those unfamiliar with and curious about the Naval Discipline Act of 1860, the text is available here.) I am not a legal expert, but I feel like it would be most appropriate to charge the destroyer's CO under Article XXV, at least if the concern is with the damage inflicted upon HMS Conqueror. If crewmen or officers of HMS Conqueror died or were injured as a result of the torpedo strike, then it may also be appropriate to charge the destroyer's CO under Article XXXVIII.B (manslaughter). I would however urge that we not settle on a verdict and punishment prior to the courts-martial, and moreover we should take care not to set too harsh a precedent for dealing with friendly fire incidents, particularly if it should be discovered in the course of the investigation or courts-martial that the torpedo was discharged unintentionally. While the circumstances may justify a dishonorable discharge from the Navy or imprisonment of the officers or crewmen most directly concerned, I would be leery of pursuing the death penalty, and we may even wish to consider putting the officers most directly concerned "on the beach," so to speak, rather than pressing charges in courts-martial. At the very least, we must ensure that the appearance of a fair investigation and, if necessary, trial is maintained, in case the proceedings should become public. |
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on Aug 16, 2017 7:17:17 GMT -6
Charge I: Violation of Article XXV of the Naval Discipline Act
Specification I: That Lieutenant-Commander John Fawcett did, on or about the 22nd of July, while in command of His Majesty's Ship Fury, violate lawful general naval regulation to wit: Article XXV of the Naval Discipline Act of 1860, when the ship under his command recklessly and negligently fired a torpedo that hit His Majesty's Ship Conquerer, gravely damaging said ship.
Charge II: Violation of Article "XXXVIII(B) of the Naval Discipline Act
Specification I: That Lieutenant-Commander John Fawcett did, on or about the 22nd of July, while in command of His Majesty's Ship Fury, violate lawful general naval regulation to wit: XXXVIII(B) of the Naval Discipline Act of 1860, when a a torpedo fired in a reckless and negligent manner hot His Majesty's Ship Conquerer, causing the deaths of Twenty officers and ratings who were killed when their ship was struck by said torpedo.
Judge Advocate of the Fleet
Sir Reginald Brodie Acland KC, JP
|
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Aug 16, 2017 8:04:19 GMT -6
Such a proceeding would damage fleet morale and the public's confidence in the Navy during wartime. Send the Fury's (ex) CO to be a shore liaison officer at Gallipoli so that he may redeem himself by getting KIA, and hush up the scandal.
|
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on Aug 16, 2017 13:59:58 GMT -6
Turn 31: 28 September, 1915:Operation Simple operation that can be summed up in a handful of sentences. Light Cruisers made it to minelaying objective, and mines were laid. Light cruisers returned home and san two minesweepers on the way. Friendly minesweeper strikes mine and was lost. After turn, was informed HMS St. Vincent was lost after striking a mine during a training exercise.
Due to the loss of dreadnought on training maneuver, the Admiralty has decided that a Court-Martial would stir up too much bad press, and it is felt that it would be better for the country to believe that the Germans had been responsible for those killed by torpedo, rather than their brother sailors.
LCDR John Fawcett hereby appointed Port-Captain of Grytviken on South Georgia Island, where it is hoped that he will be less of a danger to His Majesty's warships.
|
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Aug 16, 2017 14:48:10 GMT -6
Turn 31: 28 September, 1915:Operation Simple operation that can be summed up in a handful of sentences. Light Cruisers made it to minelaying objective, and mines were laid. Light cruisers returned home and san two minesweepers on the way. Friendly minesweeper strikes mine and was lost. After turn, was informed HMS St. Vincent was lost after striking a mine during a training exercise.
Due to the loss of dreadnought on training maneuver, the Admiralty has decided that a Court-Martial would stir up too much bad press, and it is felt that it would be better for the country to believe that the Germans had been responsible for those killed by torpedo, rather than their brother sailors.
LCDR John Fawcett hereby appointed Port-Captain of Grytviken on South Georgia Island, where it is hoped that he will be less of a danger to His Majesty's warships.
...but, does the arsenal there carry torpedoes?... >.> |
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on Aug 16, 2017 14:54:37 GMT -6
Turn 31: 28 September, 1915:Operation Simple operation that can be summed up in a handful of sentences. Light Cruisers made it to minelaying objective, and mines were laid. Light cruisers returned home and san two minesweepers on the way. Friendly minesweeper strikes mine and was lost. After turn, was informed HMS St. Vincent was lost after striking a mine during a training exercise.
Due to the loss of dreadnought on training maneuver, the Admiralty has decided that a Court-Martial would stir up too much bad press, and it is felt that it would be better for the country to believe that the Germans had been responsible for those killed by torpedo, rather than their brother sailors.
LCDR John Fawcett hereby appointed Port-Captain of Grytviken on South Georgia Island, where it is hoped that he will be less of a danger to His Majesty's warships.
...but, does the arsenal there carry torpedoes?... >.> The arsenal there is made up of of a crate of icepicks kept in an shack at 50 degrees Fahrenheit, which incidentally serves as the Port-Captain's office and residence, with the crate being his desk, and a bundle of old sails being the cot. |
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Aug 16, 2017 15:36:20 GMT -6
I should point out it would have been the torpedo officer's responsibility to make sure the firing lines were clear. That he authorised a torpedo trajectory that threatened friendly warships is his responsibility: his CO should not be punished for his incompetence - at least, not alone. I submit that the commander of the torpedo weapons on HMS Fury be dispatched to the minesweeping forces, cleaning up the cousins of the weapons he misused (and possibly meeting with an unfortunate 'accident' if the minesweeper should happen to hit a mine).
|
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on Aug 16, 2017 22:10:28 GMT -6
Having consulted with the book Castles of Steel, I have decided upon the following Final Ruling in regards to HMS Fury:
LCR John Fawcett is to be posted to the Mediterranean, to serve as a liaison officer with the Italian Fleet that is keeping the Austro-Hungarians bottled up in the Adriatic. This will remove him from command, and signal to all destroyer commanders that failure to prevent their own ship's crew from torpedoing our own dreadnoughts will be tolerated. However it should be a reasonably face-saving post for him, and if he does something worthy, he'll have a prospect of useful work again.
In the meantime, the torpedo officer responsible for firing it (the buck has to stop somewhere) has been sent to be second-in-command of a Minesweeper in the Dardanelles. While the Admiralty is indifferent to his fate (i.e being blown up by a mine), no official or unofficial ill will is to follow, as that would hardly be sporting to the rest of the crew, who didn't do anything to make the Germans want to give them the Blue Max
|
|
_(edited)_Screenshot_(739).png?width=180&height=180&fit=bounds)
