|
Post by bcoopactual on Nov 1, 2017 19:55:49 GMT -6
In my most recent game as the USA, it's Oct 1902 and I just finished researching the last of the 1902 Machinery, Armor and Hull techs. So It's time to build another class of armored cruiser because all of rivals have passed me in armored cruiser numbers and tonnage and I'm going to start seeing nasty-grams from the Navy League and Conservative newspapers about the "cruiser-gap" problem. However, unusually for me in a USA game, late in 1901 I got the report that an improved 11 inch (0) gun was now available. So I currently have 10 inch (0), 11 inch (0) and 12 inch (-1) guns available for my capital ships. I usually build a pretty standard Tennessee-class looking 10 inch-gunned armored cruiser about this time but because of the 11 inch gun upgrade I decided to try something new (for me) and this is the result. I also made a little Conway's/Jane's style write-up for it (doing it for all of my ships this game actually so the going is slooooow) although I'm not actually planning to lay down the first keel for another couple of turns to clear some construction overhead from my budget before I start these bad boys. M/A/H are the technology levels as seen in the research window when you click on it. Memphis-Class 14,000t 24kts M/A/H - 3/2/2 Memphis ACR-9 Keel laid - 1/03, Commissioned - Seattle ACR-10 Keel laid - 3/03, Commissioned - Charlotte ACR-11 Keel laid - 5/03, Commissioned - Missoula ACR-12 Keel laid - 7/03, Commissioned - Propulsion – 16 x Coal fired Yarrow boilers, 2 x VTE engines driving 2 screws Armament – 4 x 11 in/45 Mark 3 (2 FA 2), 16 x 4 in/50 Mark 6 Armor – Belt–6”, BE–2.5”, Deck–2”, DE–1”, CT–7.5”, Turret–7”, TT–2.5”, Sec–2.5” Description- Built to counter large, fast armored cruisers like the German Freya and Fürst Bismarck, British Europa, Spartiate and Sutlej-classes and the Russian Varyag, the Memphis-class generated much controversy both within the Navy and Congress but for different reasons. Initially, the design process went smoothly and the Memphis-class benefitted from several new technological developments. Significant weight savings were achieved through the use of high tensile steel in the hull while new face hardening techniques in the armor plate pioneered by Krupp provided superior protection for a given thickness of plate. American designers contracted with Yarrow Shipbuilders to provide more efficient boilers equipped with side drums to drive the huge triple expansion engines and achieve a design speed of 24 knots making them among the fastest cruisers in the world. Armor protection was improved over the Pittsburgh-class in the main belt, main deck, turrets and conning tower. While the propulsion machinery and armor layout was settled early with little debate, the armament proposals were subject to heated argument. Initial designs had the Memphis armed with four 10 inch guns with a secondary armament of sixteen 5 inch guns and eight 4 inch guns. That was essentially the same main armament and an evolutionary improvement in secondaries over the previous Pittsburgh-class. An alternative proposal that was eventually championed by Adm. Raleigh determined that the new 11 inch/45 Mark 3 also used on the Mississippi-class battleships could be used in twin turrets on a 14,000 ton cruiser hull without excessive stresses. The 11 inch gun would provide more than an inch of additional armor penetration at 8,000 yards and a minimum of 1,000 yards additional effective range over the 10 inch guns of the rival armored cruisers. The trade-off would require the secondary armament be reduced to sixteen of the new, excellent 4 in/50 Mark 6 guns. Conservative opinions on the General Board argued that gunnery accuracy was not sufficient to take advantage of the additional range and that the ship would be vulnerable to being overwhelmed by heavier broadsides at short range. They also expressed concern that the armor protection would be insufficient to protect the ships from their own 11 inch shells violating a traditional standard for American capital ships. Raleigh countered by arguing that gunfire direction technology was being heavily researched by all of the major navies and that effective battle ranges should increase significantly over the expected life of the ships. The 11 inch gun’s advantage over the 10 inch gun would only increase over that time as accuracy improved. Raleigh acknowledged that the armor protection failed to meet the traditional standard but correctly pointed out that the armor protection was sufficient against the standard 10 inch gun armament of other navy’s large armored cruisers and if foreign navies fielded larger gun armed cruisers they would be unlikely to be sufficiently armored as well due to the required weight unless they were prohibitively larger and more expensive. On the last point the admiral was proven both right and wrong. The battlecruisers that followed were significantly larger and more expensive but it was a cost that all of the major navies were willing to pay. Complete agreement was never achieved but Adm. Raleigh was able to convince enough of the members that the General Board approved and moved forward with the 11 inch armed design. Adm. Raleigh’s next challenge was persuading Congress to fund the ships. Largely due to the tremendous cost of the outsized triple-expansion engines needed to propel the ships at 24 knots, the expected price tag of each ship was $53.1 million, scarcely less expensive than the larger Mississippi-class battleships ($54.3 million each) they would serve beside. Looming war with Germany aided his efforts however and Raleigh, after many briefings and several late, personal meetings, was able to convince Congress that the need to protect American merchant shipping from potential fast, large armored cruisers made them worth the expense. Central rangefinders were installed for fire control as part of the original design and 160 rounds were carried for each main gun. However, prior to commissioning, the ships had the newly approved Central Firing fire control installed. [Reserved. Insert comments about performance in-service] The debate over Adm. Raleigh’s super-cruisers didn’t end with the ships’ careers. A historical debate has continued for some time over their designation as armored cruisers. They were officially on the Navy rolls as Armored Cruiser Nos. 9-12. Many historians argue that they were actually the first prototype of the battlecruiser. A heavily armed warship with battleship caliber weapons combined with fast speed that carried less armor than a battleship and was designed to run down and sink other cruisers. Other historians counter that the ships were actually just heavily armed cruisers that shared design and construction features with previous armored cruisers. They also point out that the Memphis-class doesn’t share much in the way of design philosophy with future American battlecruisers starting with the Lexington-class. Later American battlecruisers were more likely to sacrifice some number of gun mounts compared to contemporary battleships to provide weight and space for faster propulsion while maintaining similar armor protection to their battleship cousins. [OOC - as seen above, the game does officially classify the ships as battlecruisers but it shouldn't make much difference gameplay wise. Also, regarding price, the 11 inch version is actually just slightly less expensive than the 10 inch armed version so I saved an insignificant amount going with the battlecruiser version.] [Edit - One unintended consequence of building the ship as a battlecruiser instead of an armored cruiser is that the construction is going to take 29 months instead of 24. So it will be cheaper per month for the same price but I have to wait 5 extra months to commission the ship. That kinda sucks.]
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Nov 1, 2017 20:21:36 GMT -6
That is both a pure Jacky Fisher BC and also the smallest one I have ever seen designed in RTW.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Nov 1, 2017 20:38:46 GMT -6
Ha, HMS Imperceptibles. In my mind, I think of them as armored cruisers still. I'm looking forward to see how they do in combat. I am concerned about the low early game accuracy and being beaten down by heavier secondary armament. I'm also curious to see how the AI responds since I don't think any nation has researched 3 centerline turrets yet.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Nov 1, 2017 20:39:54 GMT -6
That's a very engaging write up Coop. I'd read your whole almanac if you stick to it. Maybe a mini AAR?...
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Nov 1, 2017 20:45:16 GMT -6
That's the plan. Most ships won't have such an interesting story behind them though. The 11 inch (0) gun upgrade was a interesting spanner in the works for my typical USA game. It will be a while before I get done at this rate, lol.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Nov 2, 2017 1:24:13 GMT -6
Could I ask you why such heavy deck armor protection? For my experience even capital ship guns of 12" take time too have penetration power through 1.5" deck armour. And even if they have this power the hit chance is very unlikely because of great range. For 10" guns its out of question fot long time. In my most recent game as the USA, it's Oct 1902 and I just finished researching the last of the 1902 Machinery, Armor and Hull techs. So It's time to build another class of armored cruiser because all of rivals have passed mebme in armored cruiser numbers and tonnage and I'm going to start seeing nasty-grams from the Navy League and Conservative newspapers about the "cruiser-gap" problem. View Attachment However, unusually for me in a USA game, late in 1901 I got the report that an improved 11 inch (0) gun was now available. So I currently have 10 inch (0), 11 inch (0) and 12 inch (-1) guns available for my capital ships. I usually build a pretty standard Tennessee-class looking 10 inch-gunned armored cruiser about this time but because of the 11 inch gun upgrade I decided to try something new (for me) and this is the result. I also made a little Conway's/Jane's style write-up for it (doing it for all of my ships this game actually so the going is slooooow) although I'm not actually planning to lay down the first keel for another couple of turns to clear some construction overhead from my budget before I start these bad boys. M/A/H are the technology levels as seen in the research window when you click on it. View AttachmentMemphis-Class 14,000t 24kts M/A/H - 3/2/2 Memphis ACR-9 Keel laid - 1/03, Commissioned - Seattle ACR-10 Keel laid - 3/03, Commissioned - Charlotte ACR-11 Keel laid - 5/03, Commissioned - Missoula ACR-12 Keel laid - 7/03, Commissioned - Propulsion – 16 x Coal fired Yarrow boilers, 2 x VTE engines driving 2 screws Armament – 4 x 11 in/45 Mark 3 (2 FA 2), 16 x 4 in/50 Mark 6 Armor – Belt–6”, BE–2.5”, Deck–2”, DE–1”, CT–7.5”, Turret–7”, TT–2.5”, Sec–2.5” ...
|
|
|
Post by eserchie on Nov 2, 2017 2:25:52 GMT -6
Could I ask you why such heavy deck armor protection? For my experience even capital ship guns of 12" take time too have penetration power through 1.5" deck armour. And even if they have this power the hit chance is very unlikely because of great range. For 10" guns its out of question fot long time. Probably for splinter damage considerations. less than 2" and you can take extra damage from HE shells, which will be fired by all the small guns, and by enemy cruisers at range.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Nov 2, 2017 4:37:44 GMT -6
Could I ask you why such heavy deck armor protection? For my experience even capital ship guns of 12" take time too have penetration power through 1.5" deck armour. And even if they have this power the hit chance is very unlikely because of great range. For 10" guns its out of question fot long time. Feel free to ask questions. I was probably being overly conservative. But if I start them in January 1903 they will be commissioned starting in January June 1905 (I didn't realize when typed this that it would be using the BC build time frame of 29 months) at the earliest. Also, I don't use accelerated construction. I usually scrap my legacy fleet after the end of any war that occurs in 1912-1914 but these I'll probably use until roughly 1920 as colonial ships. By then, 1-1.5 inches of protection will be totally inadequate on the deck. 2 inches deck armor won't work against modern ships in 1920 but against older ships which they will hopefully encounter in the colonies the 2 inch deck armor should still provide some protection. So, it's just an attempt at future proofing but I could certainly understand why people might choose to use that weight for something else and just scrap them earlier or take the risk of losing them towards the end of their service life. eserchie , splinter protection for uptakes and such is actually provided for by the Belt Extended armor but you had the right idea because that is why the BE value is 2.5 to protect from splinters that could affect speed. Usually for battleships and battlecruisers I will make BE about one-fourth of the value of the main belt but I don't go below 2.5 inches just for splinter protection. [Edit - dorn , I just checked and if I lowered the deck armor to 1.5 inches I could have actually used the original secondary armament (16x5", 8x4") with the 11 inch main guns. Hmmm, makes me think you might be right and I'm being overly protective of my capital ships. Then again, I don't want to have to re-write all of that so I'll probably leave it, lol. It wasn't part of my original reasoning (and probably should have been) but one thing I just thought of is that since the ships use the Sloping Deck armor scheme that two inches of deck armor can also help protect against penetrations of the belt armor so the extra weight isn't entirely wasted just waiting for fire control to provide accurate plunging fire. ]
|
|
|
Post by Dinnbach on Nov 3, 2017 20:50:57 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Nov 11, 2017 14:05:59 GMT -6
These are a family of relatively inexpensive (~8.5M/ship or ~480k/month for 18 months) cruisers I built as an experiment in raiding cruiser design in a 20% research game which I feel performed quite well. They didn't see much action, and when they did they usually ran, but on several occasions they sank intercepting 4000-5000t light or second-class cruisers. They all had long range and reliable engines, and the eight Jaipur- and eight Vadodara-class cruisers proved themselves serious threats to the overseas trade of India's enemies through the entire period from 1900 to the January 1926 end of the game; I chose not to continue that game, but I suspect that these would have continued to be effective, though the other powers were starting to build ships fast enough that I was somewhat concerned that even the Bhopla's 28kn speed might not be any more than adequate going forwards. A Jaipur takes 18 months to build at 472k/month (before modifiers) in 1899, which is 36k/month (about 600k/ship) more than my previous experiment in early light surface raiders - a 4x1x4" 25kn 2100t cruiser with long range and reliable engines - and I'm not certain that I feel that the heavier armament is worth the added cost or the lost knot if all you're looking for is a light surface raider, but on the other hand the Jaipurs are sufficiently well-armed that they can plausibly defeat heavier cruisers and can effectively double as light fleet escorts whereas the 4x1x4" 25kn cruisers could only plausibly defeat heavier cruisers under very favorable conditions and are too lightly armed to be much more effective than a destroyer in the light fleet escort role and aren't so much faster than the Jaipurs as to be all that much better as light fleet scout cruisers. Some similarly-expensive variations on the Jaipur class which can be done in 1899 that I have not tried: - 2x2x7" with a 6x4" secondary battery - 10x1x6" w/o secondary or tertiary battery - 14x1x5" w/o secondary or tertiary battery - 14x1x4" with 8x3" secondary battery
|
|
|
Post by kamuka on Dec 12, 2017 16:26:38 GMT -6
Launched in 1907 the sisters Hertha and Freya proved to be immensely important assets. They sunk dozens of enemy cruisers in wars against russia, france and italy and even paired up to sink a 32k ton BC which was the pride of the french fleet at that time. Their deeds justified replacing their engines to take them from their 23kn design speed to 28kn. While Hertha was sunk by an unfortunate torpedo hit in a fight with several russian cruisers and destroyers, Freya is still on active duty in 1926. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Dec 12, 2017 17:05:03 GMT -6
Launched in 1907 the sisters Hertha and Freya proved to be immensely important assets. They sunk dozens of enemy cruisers in wars against russia, france and italy and even paired up to sink a 32k ton BC which was the pride of the french fleet at that time. Their deeds justified replacing their engines to take them from their 23kn design speed to 28kn. While Hertha was sunk by an unfortunate torpedo hit in a fight with several russian cruisers and destroyers, Freya is still on active duty in 1926. Nice ships. They have cross deck fire? What about TPS? I wonder if the loss of Hertha was contributed by carrying 3 inch guns for anti-destroyer protection. After about 1912, torpedo ranges start to exceed the range of 3 inch guns so destroyers would probably be able to launch before the 3 inch guns could start scoring hits. I assume that you will use a similar design in the future. It might be worth it to check to see how many 4 inch guns can fit in the same tonnage as those 3 inch guns.
|
|
|
Post by kamuka on Dec 12, 2017 17:42:56 GMT -6
Launched in 1907 the sisters Hertha and Freya proved to be immensely important assets. They sunk dozens of enemy cruisers in wars against russia, france and italy and even paired up to sink a 32k ton BC which was the pride of the french fleet at that time. Their deeds justified replacing their engines to take them from their 23kn design speed to 28kn. While Hertha was sunk by an unfortunate torpedo hit in a fight with several russian cruisers and destroyers, Freya is still on active duty in 1926. Nice ships. They have cross deck fire? What about TPS? I wonder if the loss of Hertha was contributed by carrying 3 inch guns for anti-destroyer protection. After about 1912, torpedo ranges start to exceed the range of 3 inch guns so destroyers would probably be able to launch before the 3 inch guns could start scoring hits. I assume that you will use a similar design in the future. It might be worth it to check to see how many 4 inch guns can fit in the same tonnage as those 3 inch guns. Yeah, they have cross deck fire. No torp protection. I always seem to get that way too late... Absolutely agree on the 3" guns. I never used them before, but wanted to give them a try, so basically every class had a lot of 3" guns. They shred things at close range, but their range really starts to fall off only a few years into the game. The design felt rather cheating as i also build no BCs, so AI also build very few (there are only 4 BCs which are faster in the world in 1926). Building very large cruiser killer cruisers trivializes cruiser engagements, which make up a huge portion of your fights. They even proved useful in fleet fights. The rear turrets are not superfiring btw. I might give very small BCs a try in the next game, tho.
|
|
|
Post by cabusha on Dec 16, 2017 14:52:36 GMT -6
Today I want to share with you the Battlecruiser Chastity. The ship that saved France and easily the most successful ship I've ever fielded. Commissioned in 1908, the Chastity was the first modern capital ship built by the French navy and was the flagship of the fleet for sixteen years. Severe budget concerns scrapped the second ship, leaving her the sole example of the class. Designed for a maximum speed of 24 knots, the ship failed miserably to reach such speeds (21 knots) and was reclassified as a fast BB. A refit in 1921 brought her to 23 knots, upgraded her turrets with a newer 12" armament, refit her secondary armament and upgraded fire control systems. The Chastity launched in the middle of the first German war. French ports had been blockaded for nearly a year, with most of the French fleet's cruiser fleet dedicated to colonial protection. She joined the pre-dreadnought Lucious and early CA Gueydon as the only capital ships in the North Atlantic. Working together, the three ships successfully engaged the main German fleet and sunk both of Germany's heavy cruisers, breaking the blockade. Later the Chasity and Gueydon would hunt down and sink one of Germany's two battleships. Germany resorted to raiding tactics for the rest of the war, and the French blockage of their main ports eventually forced them to the negotiating table. Germany was so beaten that all colonial assets were handed to France. Chastity would continue to serve with valor in the Second German War a year later, a short engagement with Germany again blockaded into submission. The opening salvo of the 1917 War with Italy nearly broke the French fleet. Ambushed at night, a surprise attack by Italian torpedo destroyers sunk the ancient B. Lucious with two torpedo strikes. A third torpedo found home in Chastity's belt, crippling the ship to a mere 15 knots maximum and flooding the lower decks. As Italian battleships closed, the Chastity's captain saw a gap in the attacking fleet and pushed the ship through, disappearing into the night and saving the ship. For four months the Italian fleet had full control of the Mediterranean while the Chastity sat in dry dock. Upon returning to the sea, she was joined by Italy's first true Battleship, the Dreadnought. Together with the aging Gueydon, Chastity again saved France, breaking the Italian blockade and going on to exact revenge for the lost Lucious. Post war Italy surrendered all non-Mediterranean assets to France. Delays in the construction of the new LEX class Battlecruiser kept the aging Chastity in service. War again found its way to France's shore, with Austria Hungary's war mongers declaring in 1925. To the surprise of the French navy, Austria had stolen the venerable Chastity's design and built their own, the BC Lissa (1915, 29,300 tons) was a near identical clone, with the BC Karnten (1921) an upsized version at 35,500 tons. Quickly dubbed "The terrible two", the symbols of French and Austrian Battlecruiser technology clashed over and over again, sending each other's ships to harbor for repairs. With the Austrian BC's high speed of 27-28 knots, neither of France's battleships (Dreadnought and Agamemnon) could engage them, leaving the fight to Chastity. Finally, May 5, 1926, disaster struck. Again the Chastity was engaged by The Terrible Two and a penetrating hit into her forward magazine detonated the ship, sending her and all hands to the bottom of the sea. One month later the modern battlecruiser LEX launched. The French people called for blood and in a daring move, the LEX, Dreadnought, and Agamemnon attacked the Austrian coast, engaging The Terrible Two and the Zrinya class Battleship. Again the Two managed to slip into the safety of harbor, but not before taking extensive damage. The Zrinya wasn't so lucky, with the Agamemnon and Dreadnought blocking the north and the LEX cutting off escape from the south. The Zrinya was sent to the bottom of the ocean. May of 1927, the LEX would engage both the Karnten and Lissa in a gunnery duel. Rather than wait for the Agamemnon and Dreadnought for support, the LEX burned full steam ahead, pursuing the two Austrian battlecruisers relentlessly. Gun fire from her fearsome 13" battery pummeled the Karnten, and in a fitting twist of fate, a 13" shell penetrated the Austrian battlecruiser, detonating her as she did the Chastity a year before. The war with Hungary continues but the legacy of the Chastity lives on. The LEX's sister ship has been named the ChasityII, and will be joining the war effort shortly.
|
|
|
Post by hughesengles on Dec 19, 2017 11:58:54 GMT -6
After choosing "Very Large" fleet, historical resources and manual legacy build, I chose to stick as closely to the historic classes as possible. This resulted in the Wittelsbach class pre-dreadnought battleship. Germany was lucky enough to start with 0 quality 10 inch guns (standing in for the historic 24cm/9.4 inch main guns), 0 quality 6 inch guns (standing in for 15cm/5.9 inch secondaries), and I chose to round down to 3 inch guns (standing in for 8.8cm/3.5 inch) tertiaries as these were of 1 quality. Armor, displacement and speed was roughly similar as well, at least according to the wikipedia article I was going off of. One unavoidable discrepancy was that in real life, four of the six inch secondaries were placed in single turrets amidships, and the rest in casemates. It would be a nice feature to be able to split up the type of secondaries and tertiaries in RTW 2. Various refits, from simple hull scraping/barrel relining to two successive fire control upgrades, dropped the speed down to 16 knots, I have no idea why as I did not manually lower speed, and there was a good amount of spare displacement to cram plotting tables into. Original speed was only obtained after a complete replacement of boilers, and then only for the namesake of the class, as the rest were needed too urgently in a war with France. Speaking of service history... Germany's first two wars were with Russia, at the time a cagey and very well armed foe. Numerous fleet battles were fought to boarding distances in violent storms in the dead of night. Crucially, however, according to intelligence reports our 10 inch and 3 inch guns were superior to those of the Russians; our battleships were slightly better armored; and, oddly enough, it was the theft of fire control technology that revealed they were at least one step behind there as well. Due in part to these factors, and despite what in hindsight was negligence in insisting on drastic reforms on gunnery and night fighting training (remedied during the second war), Germany came out ahead both times: frustratingly shy of obtaining concessions in the Baltic. Several lessons were learned: one, armor piercing shells and fire control both needed improvement if ironclads of the future were to have any chance of defeating each other at range. Two, fleet tactics changed to reflect the necessity of copious screening and scouting forces: destroyers, to screen capital ships, harass and divert heavier enemy vessels, and ward off enemy destroyers; fast light cruisers, to provide distant and widely spaced scouts (crucial in allowing the capital ships to build steam and the flagship to obtain situational awareness and give orders); and finally the new and untested battlecruiser, which would both scout as well as use its incredible speed and firepower to direct the course of battle against enemy battleships by maneuver. Three, protection against torpedoes as well as increased attention to flooding abatement and damage control were of the highest priority - ordered by the Kaiser himself after the loss of the Wittelsbach class Wettin to what proved to be uncontrollable flooding due to a close range torpedo hit - as of late 1916 Germany's only loss of a battleship. Ships of this class proved themselves in the Baltic, but they became legends in the Bay of Biscay, on a light and breezy morning in the summer of 1916. Admiral Tirpitz had ordered the Home Fleet to battle, despite intelligence that the enemy, though with two battleships less, planned on steaming out with five modern battlecruisers. Faith in the proven Schlieffen heavy cruisers, almost as well armed and armored as a pre-dreadnought and quite a bit faster at 24 knots, and a drastic superiority in destroyers were the deciding factors, and the die was cast. All of the tactical lessons of the Baltic campaigns were capitalized on. A force of light cruisers and two Moltke class battlecruisers (with the heaviest guns and armor in the fleet and a speed of 28 knots, one knot over designed) detected the enemy scouts, one light and one heavy cruiser, and the overwhelming firepower of the Moltke's sent them limping to the rear of the enemy line. The French fleet, with its tentacles cut off, failed to detect that two divisions of battleships had been diverted Northwest at maximum speed, while the rest of the fleet sailed Northeast as if nothing had happened (the BC's however at flank speed, in order to set their side of the pincer). The Wittelsbach lagged far behind due to a 6 knot differential in speed, and their crews, though out of practice (every ship in the class having been mothballed for years prior, and reactivated only months before this battle) were eager for battle and worried they would be left out as a footnote in history. However, as the French fleet - crucially, bereft of battlecruisers - confidently sailed into our trap, the lead ship of the Braunschweig class B (along with the heavy Schlieffen class ACs) closed distance despite enduring withering and eventually crippling fire from the forward guns of five pre-dreadnoughts and ordered a flotilla attack which disrupted the enemy formation. The divisions to the Northwest had already crippled a lagging French battleship and their destroyer escorts were attempting, and currently failing, to finish it off (perversely, a hit on its rudder had made it able to dodge literally dozens of torpedoes, though it would eventually succumb). Meanwhile, the Moltkes, previously out of sight, steamed into range and caused mass confusion by cutting off what the French commander had assumed was his avenue of retreat towards his home coast. At this crucial juncture, the four Wittelsbach class ships closed into range and the French were completely boxed in. Opening fire with HE shells at long and then intermediate range (due to recent tactical changes spurred by increasingly impenetrable armor on enemy capital ships), the director equipped Wittelsbachs raked the enemy battleships superstructures, secondaries, and unarmored sections of hull with a rain of steel. This proved decisive, as the French fleet slowed to the point where, qualitatively, the now much faster (less a few heavily damaged Braunschweigs) could increase range, cross T's, and enjoy live fire gunnery practice. Meanwhile, destroyers closed in and circled like an army of piranhas, wildly firing torpedoes. Every French capital ship at sea was destroyed by 3 in the afternoon. The war was over next month, the French suing for peace and losing Tunisia and Algeria. The Wittelsbach ships were placed in mothballs once more. They were perhaps, at this juncture, truly and completely outclassed - but the German people could not bring herself to simply scrap these legendary vessels.
|
|