|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Jul 26, 2017 22:37:18 GMT -6
I am posting this for one reason only- for the brutal satisfaction of seeing just deserves delivered, such as we have all felt many a time. The scene is north of Bari. The Italian Navy sorties a force of battle cruisers and heavy cruisers at dusk to protect a predicted bombardment target on the coast. A terrible time to fight, but two of the Italian battle cruisers have the latest in 1930's torpedo protection, so rather than immediately stand in the decision is made to cautiously plumb the dark and hope for a target. Eventually the Austrian fleet is found. I present to you, the Siebenburgen, 41,000 tons of fast Austrian steel. My, it looks like she had a bad night. How did this come to be you ask? I present to you the very first stroke of the log; Not a very Latin sounding destroyer Garrison, but good work you say? The Uzsok, my friends, is an Austrian destroyer. This blow caused the Austrian to circle to Starboard, while her squadron turned away to port. Minutes later, there were ships in the dark to either side. When the floodlights were suddenly lit, the Austrian found herself between the 2nd and 3rd Heavy Cruisers of the 6th Cruiser squadron, then running parallel as they had turned away together. Ladies and gentlemen, send the children to bed, pour yourself a finger of your finest, let the weak ward their eyes, and relish what 10-inch semi-armor piercing rounds accomplish at 300 yards. ...yup, gonna sleep well tonight.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jul 27, 2017 1:08:00 GMT -6
That right there is some Saturday morning cartoon levels of violence. Like 1980's Bugs Bunny or Tom & Jerry.
You have to admire the flash-tightness of Austrian turret designs.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Jul 27, 2017 3:59:28 GMT -6
TBH, I'd attribute it more to the quality of Austrian powder. There's good evidence that the real problem the Brits had with turret fires was the flash sensitivity of their powder. Seydlitz's two-turret propellant fire at Dogger Bank actually ignited unpacked charges *in the magazines of both turrets*, but no charges still in their magazine cases ignited. It is generally agreed that Lion's turret fire at Jutland would have led to her loss if the magazines hasn't been closed and flooded, but the amount of powder that burned in that fire was about 1/6th of what burned on Seydlitz at Dogger Bank. See webpages.charter.net/abacus/news/jutland/18/CHAPTER%2018.htm . During WWII, the USN carried out tests to compare the sensitivity of British powder with standard and flashless US powder. Cordite ignited at 22" from the flash source, standard US powder at 5", and flashless at 1". Now consider that in a magazine filled with powder, the amount of powder that will ignite due to a given flash is proportional to the cube of the radius at which the flash will ignite the powder. It would be interesting if, instead of the British just having the "hidden flaws" disadvantage, powder quality depended on technology and/or on player decisions (how much money are you going to spend on testing powder fire flash safety?), with the advantages of cutting corners being attractive enough for some players to roll the dice with potentially ending up with explody powder.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jul 27, 2017 5:16:31 GMT -6
Interesting information. I was thinking myself that it might not be a bad idea to add a propellent tech tree to RtW2 instead of just folding it into the AP and HE techs. You could have different levels sensitivity to flash like you wrote and you could add in techs for flashless powder for reducing own ship's visibility at night and reducing the amount that your gunners and directors are flash-blinded. The disadvantage of flashless powder seeming to be it generated significantly more smoke which would be a disadvantage during the day. Adding in player determined levels of stability based on how much additional research you want to fund would be awesome but perhaps difficult to implement.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Jul 27, 2017 6:44:21 GMT -6
That right there is some Saturday morning cartoon levels of violence. Like 1980's Bugs Bunny or Tom & Jerry. My favorite minute is minute 13, when the 12-gun San Marco hit 13 times from 501 yds. I used to interpret these as a second volley loaded and fired within the bounds of the same minute, however in this case I'm going to call glitch, as the implication then becomes that in 2 broadsides at 501 yards 11 rounds missed. This would seem contrary to the evidence of the log. Yup, for the dozen-or-so times this has happened to me in a game (ruination by night-time torpedo), it sure was nice to see the AI do it to themselves. I am trying to imagine what the muzzle-flashes must have looked like with ships on either beam blazing away in the night as fast as they could. The Austrian had one moment when they managed to respond, minute 15 their secondaries fired, before and after which they seemed to have been stunned into torpor by the cannonade. At least she probably settled evenly. Oh! Germaine to the second topic, in the first action of the war the 41,000 Lissa - also a Siebenbergen - was in fact destroyed by magazine flash fire by the 4th heavy round that struck her at long range. I would chalk up the Austrian's immediate survival (if we try to put logic to random numbers) to either A) blind luck, B) Semi-armor piercing rounds [What? I was sure I had loaded SAP...], or C) perhaps they didn't yet have any rounds loaded and they thought they were cruising among friendlies still.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jul 27, 2017 7:56:24 GMT -6
No, I doubt it was a glitch.
Silly Austrians for fighting with dreadnoughts at night anyway.
We need a naval corollary for Vizzini's great blunders.
One of them has to be never take a dreadnought into naval battle at night. Like taking a Barrett .50 cal to a fight inside a gas station restroom with the lights out.
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Jul 27, 2017 8:11:21 GMT -6
Probably like Towsons lighthouse from the siege of Fort Erie.
One can only imagine the difficulty in implementing any command and control while under that sort of bombardment.
I doubt anyone on that ship updated the log throughout.
|
|
|
Post by director on Jul 27, 2017 8:23:59 GMT -6
I am irresistably reminded of the destruction of the Italian cruisers Pola, Zara and Fiume at the Battle of Cape Matapan: torpedo damage puts a ship in the path of enemy BBs, at night, at point-blank range, with fatal results. Admittedly there is a powerful difference between a 15" shell hitting a cruiser and a 10" shell versus a battleship, but - looks like the 10" did the job just fine LOL. "Quantity can overcome quality, you just need ENOUGH quantity." But garrisonchisholm , seriously man - 500 yards? What? WHAT were you thinking? WERE you thinking LOL? Every AI design carries submerged torpedo tubes. As I know, from bitter, personal and repeated experience. But it is nice to see that the AI plays by - and suffers from - the same DoubleD**n captain idiocy that we have to deal with. "Yes, we applaud your courage, initiative and offensive-minded spirit. Now, if you would perhaps attack the enemy and not our own multi-million-dollar battleships?" bcoopactual - you can take a dreadnought into a night action and use it successfully. You just have to need a victory more than you need a dreadnought. Jutland, Cape Matapan, First and Second GUadalcanal, Surigao Strait: others will be able to add to that perhaps. One of my old navgame scenarios added USS Colorado to the forces of First Guadalcanal, with the same fire control radar fitted to the Brooklyn-class light cruisers in the same battle. She usually got sunk - everything on both sides seemed to get sunk - but whatever she fired on, died. And I do clearly remember, forty years ago, having a Tirpitz come out of the fog 10,000 yards from my poor Allied cruiser squadron. I lost two or three of the CAs (I don't remember that part LOL), but what they did to Tirpitz in return was frightful.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Jul 27, 2017 14:00:51 GMT -6
@garrison: Given the date visible in your screenshot, I'd say the first SiebenbĂĽrgen was likely destroyed by plunging fire through her utterly inadequate deck. This one survived because against 10" guns, her vertical protection, though still inadequate at this range, at least managed to prevent anything from reaching the magazines. director: For the WWII era, with Allied radar and a commander who knew how to make use of it, a dreadnought could rule the night just as the dreadnoughts of the Jutland era had ruled the day. She just had to be out of range of enemy air cover by dawn. If Callaghan had been able to make full use of the radar he had available to him at First Guadalcanal, things would have turned out much differently. If he'd been able to do that *and* had a BB available, the battle would likely have been very one side in his favor. Japanese dreadnoughts, OTOH, were screwed by torpedoes and US BBs with radar at night, and by air cover during the day. The Japanese would have done better with more light forces and more carriers, and no BBs whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by director on Jul 27, 2017 15:24:27 GMT -6
rimbecano - we could have an interesting discussion about First Guadalcanal sometime; I think serious critical discussion of it is often derailed by Admiral Callaghan's good character and death in battle. Personally I think it was a demonstration of shocking incompetence from the theater commander down to Callaghan, not exceeded by Savo Island or Pearl Harbor. It is interesting to speculate on the outcome had the Japanese been able to fight the war they planned for - with a long series of attritional strikes against an American fleet unchanged from, basically, 1920. But Pearl Harbor ended American war plans as first envisioned (a massed fleet advancing to relieve an unconquered Philippines bastion) and attritional warfare in the South Pacific turned out not to be as favorable to Japan as her admirals had thought. Japan certainly needed more light forces and carriers. But she also needed more planes and pilots to sustain those, the oil to fuel them and the industrial and financial capacity to continue to develop and deploy new aircraft. She needed, in fact, not to go to war with the Allies. The chief problem with Japan starting the war with a carrier-centric navy is one of time: her top naval officers would have had to make that commitment in the late 1920s or early 30s, and aircraft were neither numerous or dangerous then. There was at that time no actual operational proof that aircraft could be decisive in their own right. Theory, yes; proof, no. The capital ship, however, had existed in an unbroken line from the Spanish Armada (or before) down to the superdreadnoughts, and since there was no proven weapons system that could deny them the seas, they continued to be valued and built. Even the US Navy, with the Two Ocean Navy bill and funding in hand, emphasized battleships and only planned to build a half-dozen or so of the Essex class for scouting and for minor strikes and fighter operations.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 27, 2017 17:52:37 GMT -6
I just wanted to make a few comments about the First Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. I realize we don't want to start a discussion but on the history forum we could continue this.
1. The US grouping of ships was a conglomeration of different class and equipment, which is not the way the Navy wanted it to be. They generally grouped ships of the same class and capability together but due to the losses, they had to use what was available. As to the command issue, Admiral Norm Scott had experience with new SG radar on Helena and had made mistakes at Cape Esperance. He vowed he would not do that again. Unfortunately, he was relieved by Admiral Dan Callaghan and was then transferred to the Atlanta which did not have the SG radar. Three other ships, all destroyers had SG radar. The higher the radar mast, the longer the range so Helena had the longest reach, but was not leading the force, the tin can's were.
2. This group and the transports had been under air attack all day from IJN aircraft. This was very tiring and they were not really prepared for the night operation.
3. Any radar that has obstacles like Savo Island in its path can be blanked and will not see any ship passing in front of it. This happened to the Blue at Savo Island. At night, it is dark as the dickens, you can't see anything and sometimes you can't hear anything. How do I know? My father was on Lunga Point and his descriptions about how dark it was, was very enlightening.
I am hope this information is useful in the next version of the game.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jul 27, 2017 19:51:28 GMT -6
My father was on Lunga Point and his descriptions about how dark it was, was very enlightening. really?
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Jul 27, 2017 20:19:51 GMT -6
rimbecano - we could have an interesting discussion about First Guadalcanal sometime; I think serious critical discussion of it is often derailed by Admiral Callaghan's good character and death in battle. Personally I think it was a demonstration of shocking incompetence from the theater commander down to Callaghan, not exceeded by Savo Island or Pearl Harbor. I'm not a great fan of Callaghan, the treatment of first Guadalcanal that I've read that was friendliest to Callaghan is Morrison's. Everything else has been sharply critical at best, excoriating at worst.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Jul 27, 2017 21:14:49 GMT -6
rimbecano - we could have an interesting discussion about First Guadalcanal sometime; I think serious critical discussion of it is often derailed by Admiral Callaghan's good character and death in battle. Personally I think it was a demonstration of shocking incompetence from the theater commander down to Callaghan, not exceeded by Savo Island or Pearl Harbor. I'm not a great fan of Callaghan, the treatment of first Guadalcanal that I've read that was friendliest to Callaghan is Morrison's. Everything else has been sharply critical at best, excoriating at worst. I'm trying to remember what I read that had at its climax the victory of the "technical" Captain who understood radar and the USS Washington. Was it Eagle Against the Sun?... I'll have to rummage... - but it too nearly beatified Callaghan.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Jul 27, 2017 21:23:59 GMT -6
Probably like Towsons lighthouse from the siege of Fort Erie. One can only imagine the difficulty in implementing any command and control while under that sort of bombardment. I doubt anyone on that ship updated the log throughout. This is a very humanizing point. It was some poor guy's job to stand by the log, and I bet during those 8 minutes before the decks were awash he never climbed out from under the plotting table. director , well you see I had given the flag steering orders, so how the 6th Cruiser Squadron maneuvered to comply was entirely up to them. I would probably not have suggested such ranges, but if their formation suddenly found a ship 3x larger than them on their beam, I would probably rather they just start shooting anyway. :] Now what would be great is if there had actually been a chance that San Marco and Lombardia could have hit one another had they fired a bit high at the Austrian ship between them- but I don't believe this is possible in the RTW targeting scheme.
|
|