2 replies to this topic

[Ando Whitehead]

Dear All,I am new to naval wargaming and very new to GQIII WWII. The only other naval games I have played are using GQI with the GQII ammendments.Not having had my own copy of the rules until I downloaded them recently, I had self-rated a number of ships based on design files provided by our naval boffin and ratings from GQI/II. As a result I am requesting help with the logs for the Scharnhorst and Deutschland classes. I am a bit confused :unsure: but wanted to discuss some possible ammendments.With Scharnhorst class vessels, I had rated the vessel as BA - not the BB rating given in the GQIII logs. This was because:- it was rated as BA in the GQII ammendments to GQI;- In the GQ III rules, a BA ship is defined as one with 13"+ of belt armour, 5"+ of deck armour and built after 1930;- The Scharnhorst class had 13"+ of belt armour, had 6.3"-6.8" of deck armour counting both the armoured upper deck and third armoured main deck below it that surrounded the citadel. She was also built after 1930. - In keeping with German design philosophy and building ships to survive extensive damage at typical North Sea visibility ranges, the Scharnhorst had 68% of her entire length protected by the main belt. She also had a large number of internal subdivisons, with 21 internal compartments in total, 16 of which were protected by the citadel armour. These divisions were supported by thick bulkheads etc.- The main belt of the Scharnhorst was actually thicker than that of the Bismarck (classified as BA in GQIII), while the deck armour is comparable.Given that the class meets the criteria in the rules, was further supported by great internal compartmentalisation, and has a similar armour distribution and protection scheme the another BA ship, perhaps she should be reclassified to BA herself?? What do you all think? Or has the gumby struck again...?The second request for help/clarification is with the Deutschland class. These ships are CA vessels, and were composed of 3 ships in the class. The first 2 ships of the class came in at 11,700 tons standard displacement (the Deutschland & Admiral Scheer), while the Admiral Graf Spee came in at 12,100 tons standard displacement. At present, they are rated with 7 hull boxes. According to the hull boxes design file, this rates them as vessels of 8-11,000 tons standard displacement. As ships of 11700-12100 tons, we have been making the mistake of rating them as ships of 8 hull boxes.In part, this has been because we have also been looking at their opponents as well. Looking at the rules, we now realise these ratings are absolute rather than relative, but even so these comparisons are interesting. In terms of hull boxes, the Ajax at 6985 tons standard displacement and the Achilles at 7030 tons standard displacement are rated with 6 hull boxes, while the Exeter, at 8390 tons standard displacement is rated the same as the Admiral Graf Spee with 7 boxes, despite being only about 70% of the displacement of the Admiral Graf Spee. I guess the question I am asking here is are we wrong about this one as well?Please let me know what you all think. As I said, I am a bit of a gumby with these things and would really appreciate some guidance. All comments appreciated :laugh: Thanks,Andy.

[Lonnie Gill]

Andy,Good questions. When warships are classified into groups, there is always a tough determination to be made for those that are on the cusp or cross the boundaries of two definitions. This becomes more complex when there is the added complication of dueling sources reflecting differing data. You’ve picked two good cases here with your recommendations. Let me reply by describing how the determination of which group to use was made for these two classes.Scharnhorst class – Older sources list the belt armor as 350mm (13.78”), which would qualify for the lower end of the BA armor classification. Newer sources such as Dulin and Garzke (Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II page 182) and M. J. Whitley (German Capital Ships of World War Two), however, list the belt armor as 320mm (12.6”), which would be insufficient. Whitley further makes a specific point on page 38 of his German capital ships book that the main belt “…was 320mm KC armour (not 350mm as often quoted).” [Italics in original.] [BTW, GQ 1 and 2 date from the 1970s - I can't believe it's been that long - and GQ III reflects the enhanced data that has become available since.] Most sources concur that the armor scheme for this class was outdated, reminiscent of German WW I designs. Further, the weight increases that occurred after plans were drawn for equipment additions, etc. resulted in these ships riding low in the water with much of the protection submerged, decreasing its functional effectiveness. Even more telling was the fact that the boilers ended up being too tall for the lower deck armor, requiring a lightly armored “hump” that projected above both the deck and belt armor. As Richard Worth observed on page 46 of Fleets of World War II, this “… presented an invitation to Murphy’s law, as Scharnhorst discovered in her last battle.” Taken together, these issues resulted in the BB hull armor classification for these ships.Graf Spee class – Here the determination is less clear-cut. Like several other classes, which were originally reported to meet the 10,000 tons standard displacement Treaty limit, these ships were larger. I took the positions that their hull characteristics were generally similar to the USN Wichita (10,758 tons) and Cleveland (11,900 tons) classes in length, beam, compartmentalization and standard displacement. These more modern and better armored ships are listed with seven Hull boxes. The group with eight hull boxes, such as the Baltimore, Hipper, Myoko and Takao classes, all had considerably larger hull dimensions and displacements. Hence, the panzerschiffen were classified as seven Hull boxes, along with other cruisers somewhat exceeding the 10,000 ton limit such as the Algerie, Zara, Wichita and Cleveland classes.That said the Graf Spee or Deutschland class is clearly at the boundary between the two groups and one could take the other position. Let’s invite other gamers to provide their views on this. If a substantial majority agrees these ships should be raised to eight Hull boxes, I can post an adjusted Kriegsmarine Ship Log sheet on the ODGW site.LONNIE

[Ando Whitehead]

Thanks Lonnie,I love how this game system reflects history. Always an education to read about design decisions and compromises and how these impact on the real world. The write up of the Scharnhorst class is particularly interesting.Looking at the Graf Spee, compared with the other ships you name, I think the only option is to leave it as 7 hull boxes. I guess my main issue with it all was our River Plate refight where the Exeter has the same hull capacity even though the Graf Spee was almost half again as big - still makes sense though when you consider what each hull box represents for each cruiser - pretty much a difference of up to 4000 tons!Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions - much appreciated.Cheers,Andy.