336 replies to this topic

[healey36]

Alnavco http://alnavco.com/ has been a great source for decades!

Thanks for the link. I bought stuff from them by mail 30-40 years ago...didn't realize they were still around.

[W. Clark]

I'll ask my friend, Robert. Robert is an avid collector of 1:1250 ranging from Pre-dreadnought up to modern and has many sources including scratch built. I'm assuming you are interested in mostly WWI, but he can help with just about any period as he does anything from age of sail on.

 

WMC

[simanton]

Thanks for the link. I bought stuff from them by mail 30-40 years ago...didn't realize they were still around.

Yes, indeed!  And of course you can order online.  And they do carry those gorgeous Navis/Neptun models!

[simanton]

I'll ask my friend, Robert. Robert is an avid collector of 1:1250 ranging from Pre-dreadnought up to modern and has many sources including scratch built. I'm assuming you are interested in mostly WWI, but he can help with just about any period as he does anything from age of sail on.

 

WMC

I am definitely both world wars.  I could be called 1890 to 1950.

[W. Clark]

Yes, that is one of the sources he uses.

 

WMC

[healey36]

Yes, indeed!  And of course you can order online.  And they do carry those gorgeous Navis/Neptun models!

A look through the Superior catalog at Alnavco brought back a lot of memories. The stuff seems pretty competitively priced too, as compared to some of the higher-end 1/2400 models. 

 

Ugh...

[simanton]

I have been a customer since 1969, and have never been disappointed!

[healey36]

I got my copy of Silverstone's U. S. Warships of World War II from Alnavco in 1972, so I was right behind you.

[healey36]

My son bought me a copy of Historical Battlelines for the holidays, so I guess we'll poke at that a bit until the FAI game-group's stamina returns, lol. This will be different...

[healey36]

After some input from the scattered members of the ad hoc game group, I've come to the conclusion that I need to shed (or at least dial back) my obsession with campaigning. My approach seems too detailed, too complex, and too time-consuming for most. Perhaps North Sea Campaign and its methods deserves another look.

 

My recollection is the next Scheer initiative went off in February 1918. We'll look at that and if it seems "palpable", we'll just write it up and get it on the table without concern for events before or after. That said, destroyer actions are not the chosen fare of most, so it might be time to drag the battlecruisers back out.

[W. Clark]

I'm always up for cruisers in either war. And I have tried to add DDs in my WWI what-if scenarios like Utsire Island but have never hit a balance with them IMHO. Their addition always seems to make or break the balance of a scenario with break being the outcome in my attempts so far. I don't have that problem in my What-if WWII scenarios, so I not sure why it goes that way in WWI. My best guess is that German coal fired DDs smoke the place up too much by just their numbers alone. You put a couple of German flotillas out there and that is a lot of coal smoke in a small space and in a short time. And then they start laying smoke on purpose. It's almost a wonder that we all don't go home after the game in "black face" from that much coal smoke on the table. And there is the fact that I almost never use British DDs in WWI scenarios unless it is a fleet sortie as my normal scenarios envision a German sortie to escort ships trying to get home to Germany and Brit DDs don't have the endurance for what very well might be an opened ended sortie across the breath of the North Sea. 

 

You run WWI convoys. given that almost all the MM would be coal fired, do you use the visibility reduction modifier for coal smoke?

 

WMC

[healey36]

Lol, a bit of a mixed bag; we do think about it when weather conditions are conducive. Typically the MMs are plodding along at 8-10 knots tops, so presumably not a ghastly amount of smoke to be concerned about. However, when they ramp it up, it's nearly always in conjunction with the order to disperse and head for safe haven, so there might be an initial cloud I suppose, but the population is quickly diluted with ships moving off in many directions. In some plays, we've seen a herding effect where the MMs tend to disperse all in the same relative direction, moving away from the perceived threat. Presumably then one might have an issue, but to be honest, it's not been a focus. I've left that to the controller, and it's something he hasn't rightly or wrongly emphasized. 

 

In a decent sized engagement, say 20000 yards square (really not all that big), you're talking an area of some 140 square miles. Deploying smoke tends to be a fairly local phenomena, so we try to manage it that way. You can't blanket the entire convoy in soot, at least it doesn't seem historically or even technically feasible. One of the things I've learned from working with a number of heritage steam railroads is that a locomotive, properly fired, generates very little smoke when operated optimally. The railfans hate that as they want great belching clouds of smoke and ash for their photos, but to an experienced operator, that's nearly always indicative of highly inefficient combustion. I would presume that was, to some extent, true of the triple-expansion engines and furnaces of the typical MM. Fuel use was a key metric for ships' masters by line management; minimizing the amount consumed was an straight addition to the bottom line on each voyage. Of course, faced with the potential loss of the ship, they would likely burn anything combustible.

 

In recent scenarios, the later German destroyers were all oil-fired, but those old River-class boats of the RN were coal-fired. Later RN classes like the Admiralty M-class were oil-fired. 

 

My personal assessment - successful use of smoke needs to be measured somewhat subjectively (which is probably what the controller here is trying to do). Historical accounts seem to often run along the lines of "HMS Tiddles attempted to lay smoke", so I have some level of skepticism over the ability to deploy it and then its ultimate effectiveness. I'm not uncomfortable largely ignoring it, but I suppose a reread of the rules might be in order. 

[W. Clark]

My understanding of the rule is that if 10 or more coal fired ships are steaming at a speed that exceeds the yellow hull box on their ship logs then the rules conditions, weather permitting are met. That IMHO means that if you have a bunch of 11 knot MM steaming at 10 knots and their yellow shaded box is 9 knots then they are smoking the place up. My 1st and 2nd cruiser Squadrons really hate that as it plays merry hell with their ability to hit at any distance. Not as much as their lack of FC, but when combined it really limits their gunnery. The German CAs on the other hand with their FC seem to have it in hand. I believe the standard is the 10 ships plus in an area 10,000 yard diameter and it taking 5 turns at which time there is a general reduction in visibility of 1,000 yards and its 2,000 yards if the wind force is 2 or less. I realize that Lonnie probably was thinking of Jutland when he wrote the rule, but he does restrict the coal smoke rule warships alone in the RAW.

 

I believe that all RN DDs from the Tribals on are oil fired.

 

7.10.1 Coal Smoke Black Coal fired ships steaming at speeds higher than that listed in the yellow shaded Hull box on their Ship Logs produce thick funnel smoke that creates the following problems: • Visibility The thick black smoke from more than ten coalfired ships steaming within a 10ooo yd diameter reduces the maximum visibility in the entire tactical area by 1ooo yds every fifth Game Turn. Reduces 2ooo yds in Force 2. • Gunnery A firing ship must shift UP one row on her GUNFIRE CRT when her LoF passes through any part of the smoke interference zone downwind of a high speed coal fired ship. This is equivalent to the Coal Smoke area on the reverse of the Ship Turn Indicator and Gyro Angle area at its base. Locate the Downwind arrow at the stern of a 1:2400 miniature [rear of a 1:6000 miniature base] and WW I Surface Operations GENERAL QUARTERS III 7 - 17 Fleet Action Imminent align the Coal Smoke side downwind. Coal fired ships also adjust UP one row when firing through their own funnel smoke. Interference extends an additional Coal

 

WMC

[healey36]

I was looking at this last night and I guess this (smoke) is an area where the designer and I diverge conceptually. I wouldn't argue that it's impossible, just highly unlikely. In all of the reading I've done and photographs I've viewed, I haven't seen either anecdotal or photographic evidence of WWI or WWII convoys motoring along obscured by their own smoke. 

 

Convoy NH89 (Courtesy of Naval History and Heritage Command)

 

I offer this as one example; here's a photo of a WWI convoy (NH89) crossing the Atlantic. We've got 30+ ships here, well within an area of 10000 square yards (this photo, likely much less, perhaps 2500-3500 yards), and virtually no smoke (other than that one guy on the far left). Wakes would indicate they are moving along at a decent clip, and sea/breeze conditions would appear to be good. Granted these are likely ideal conditions, but I would expect a decent amount of exhaust given  the premise presented in the rules. Nothing here, IMHO, that would obscure visibility or present a problem for gunnery (perhaps a bit of haze, but I'm confident that's not smoke).

 

Now, under stress, maybe the photo would be somewhat different...maybe. This is a pretty tightly-packed group, probably similar to what we've had on the table (although nothing involving these kinds of numbers). If one was going to generate a vast amount of smoke, a formation such as this would seem ideal. Yet I come back to the notion that if every ship in view was to produce smoke similar to the guy on the far left, could that present a sufficient problem to visibility? I still have my doubts.

[Kenny Noe]

Cool pic!!  Thanks Healey!

[W. Clark]

Great pic. Am I mistaken or does there seem to a bit of haze there and could that be from the smoke they are generating? My only personal experience with gunnery is with tanks and that would seem to be apples to oranges on the face of it. But (and there is always a but) I can remember ground fog that was dispersing but still negatively affecting trying to sight a target being similar to that haze. Now, I'm talking much shorter ranges (1 to 2,000 yards or so) than occur in naval fights, but (still another but) the targets were even smaller. I'm inclined to the opinion that haze like that will not help and might very well be a hindrance to hitting what you are shooting at. And the greater the distance the more it becomes a problem for accurate shooting. Just an opinion, but if you have experience in this or other knowledge, I would love to hear your opinion as I believe my experience is not directly connected to our topic.

 

WMC

[healey36]

Yup, photographic haze is noted; it looks like morning mist or lifting fog to me, or possibly just symptomatic of aerial photography of the day. In this case, it doesn't seem like a great hindrance on visibility, except possibly at the longest of ranges.

 

Ground fog/mist can occasionally blot out visibility even at the shortest of ranges. I'm sure we've all had experiences with driving in fog where visibility isn't much beyond the leading edge of the hood/bonnet. That can be pretty unsettling. Most of my experiences on the water have been on the Chesapeake and some of its larger tributaries. When its foggy, you stay home. It's just too dangerous.

 

I have had one really bad experience along the Atlantic coast (open sea) where I learned a number of things, one being that there's something more terrifying than sailing in dense fog, and that's sailing in dense fog at night, without lights and without instruments (other than a compass). I won't go into all of the details, just suffice it to say it was a religious experience.

 

With regards to haze on the water, it can be a problem to the naked eye, especially on warm humid days. However, good optical equipment, in my experience, mitigates much of that effect. Height also makes a big difference, so being up on the masthead helps a bit. Even the lightest of rain will significantly reduce visibility, but not as bad as fog. 

 

I have no real experience in gunnery, other than pistols and a 12-bore. Having spent some time goose-hunting on Maryland's Eastern Shore, along with some local quail and pheasant hunting, I have some sense of the principles of ranging and deflection shooting (and clay pigeons make for a fun afternoon, despite my ineptness). 

 

The biggest thing I've ever participated in firing was an ACW-era 3-inch ordnance rifle. I live about 25 miles southeast of Gettysburg, and legend has it that the sound of cannon fire could be heard here at the time of the battle, After playing with the 3-inch for an afternoon, I'm inclined to believe it. One was painfully loud, a hundred must have been deafening.

[Kenny Noe]

I live approx 12 miles from Cedar Creek Battlefield near Middletown VA.  Every Oct reenactors replay that battle.  The cannons are on a reduced charge and I still hear them clearly!

[W. Clark]

Oh, I believe that. One of the traits necessary for a tanker is the ability to quickly learn to sleep through nights of incessant cannon fire during a battalion's/squadron's annual tank gunnery. In my time it was either 105mm or 152mm going off every couple of minutes from dark to dawn as the unit ran its crews through the night course for tables VII and VIII. Keep in mind that a M551 (Sheridan), the common vehicle for armored cavalry at the time was firing a 6" gun/launcher that picked its second road wheels (of a 20 ton tank w/mine kit) off the ground 22 inches every time it fired a "practice" "low pressure" conventional round and intervals of silence while they fixed whatever had gone wrong were blessed indeed. I remember in Korea, hearing I Corps arty firing all night and I was miles away with innumerable ridges between Camp Stanton and where they were firing. You must learn to ignore the boom or you sleep is doomed; am I poet or what?

 

WMC

[healey36]

Poet and don't know it.

 

Always liked the looks of the Sheridan, but often wondered about the effectiveness of the Shillelagh.