Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Hits Away! Shells and Torpedoes in 1:2400

Discussion in 'Modelling' started by SymphonicPoet, Dec 17, 2013.

  1. SymphonicPoet

    SymphonicPoet Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    701
    Likes Received:
    130
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    These aren't my best work ever, and most of the models are old, but the shell and torpedo splashes are new. Also quite large. The shell splashes were purchased commercially, but I think they were probably pirate castings, so I will neglect to mention where I got them. Neither do I wish to cast slander, nor do I wish to send unearned business. At the very least know that the castings were rotten and I wouldn't recommend them anyway.

    The torpedo and fire markers, however . . .

    Those are all mine. All are really little more than cotton balls spread out, peeled open, and painted a little. The torpedo markers also have weights int he bottom. These are from an AAR that I wrote in my blog. The battle was a tactical victory for the ABDCOM forces (no, I didn't forget the second A. Just assumed they're not in the war yet), but the strategic cost will probably have been too high, depending on how things come out. Eh, it was a learning experience. Great game, anyway. Fun bunch of players.
     
    Otto and ULITHI like this.
  2. TiredOldSoldier

    TiredOldSoldier Ace

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    452
    Very nice pictures and even nicer AAR but a bit surprised at the results, My money would be on the Japanese for a 1941 night action against ABDCOM if the PoW radar failed and the Japanese got to fire torpedoes first especially against ships slowed by mine damage..
    Any BB closing in on a Japanese large CA with their heavy torpedo broadsides is looking for trouble.
    [NITPICK]
    how did HMS Repulse "grow" an additional turret ? massive pounding by ten 14" and eight 15" wickers riflles ???. And what on earth was IJN Ise doing with a fast squadron? shouldn't that be Hiei ?.
    [/NITPICK] sorry couldn't resist :evillaugh:
     
  3. SymphonicPoet

    SymphonicPoet Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    701
    Likes Received:
    130
    You are quite correct. Repulse has only six fifteens. I was having . . . well . . . why on earth would any battleship have such a meager broadside? That's a cruiser setup, right? Oh . . . wait . . . never mind. 'San overgrown cruiser with rather large guns. It all makes sense now.

    Nitpick away, my friend. Ise was int he fleet because I wanted to use that particular model. No good tactical excuse for it. It was all a stretch. A fair part of the scenario was simply me arbitrarily deciding stuff for a roughly balanced but loosely justifiable learning game. I wanted the Brits to have an edge in material, but not so much of one as force Z vs. two Kongos. I toyed with using Nagato, but I figured she was less likely to be spared for the duty and my Ise is just prettier. In reality there was no good reason for the Brits to fall back to the south side of the strait to begin with, but it worked well for the game.

    As to PoW's radar, it was not my impression that it was integrated into the fire control system in 1941, making it something of a non-issue. Until you have an integrated centimetric set in your FC it's really just a spotting feature; useful, far from blind-fire. You'll still have to measure the fall of shot with visual equipment, which still leaves Japan with something of an advantage. (Japan did generally spot first, as I gave them a better spotting range and less of a shooting penalty.)

    I think Japan got into trouble because the player blundered into torpedo range of destroyers the minefield had largely left unaffected. I made one mine roll against destroyers, two against cruisers, and four against battleships and battlecruisers. This was a largely arbitrary assumption on my part as I was not aware of any built in rule. Just sort of worked it out on mass, beam, and gut instinct. Gave them the same effect as a typical 21" torpedo. (And allowed torpedo protection to blunt that effect, if present.) Made the roles once, thinking the field was linear. (And I gave the allies a clue, by leaving the minelayers on the table steaming away from the minefield at the beginning of the game. Though with no identification on them. Just two small "pickets.") Anyway, the minefield simply wasn't powerful enough. It slowed a few ships a little and lit one or two superficial fires. It blew one destroyer in half. But PoW was still making twenty knots on the other side, if I recall correctly. (Fifteen to twenty.) And once the Japanese plowed head-on into allied torpedoes they weren't really outrunning the Brits. (I think the game doesn't penalize bow-on max-range torpedo shots remotely enough. Just too easy to get hits.)

    But anyway, adjustments can be made next time, or maybe a different system will provide more convincing results.

    Thank you for your corrections and suggestions. I actually very much appreciate them.
     
  4. TiredOldSoldier

    TiredOldSoldier Ace

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    452
    Looking at the lineup of the forces on DoW I always wondered what would have happened had the 22 air flotilla missed Force Z. On paper the two British ships outgun the 2 Japanese battlecruisers and the 14" are unlikely to get penetration agaist PoW's armour, though the thin skinned Repulse is a different story. But IMO the massive 24" torpedo salvo, and at an unexpected range, the IJN ships can deliver more than even up the odds, a couple of 24" fish will cripple almost any ship.
    What rules are you using ?
     
  5. SymphonicPoet

    SymphonicPoet Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    701
    Likes Received:
    130
    Victory at Sea. They're . . . imperfect at best. But they do give a noticeable advantage to Japanese torpedoes, if correctly used. The problem was that the Japanese player never got his fish near PoW or Repulse. He would have, in time, but not until he himself charged through his own minefield and took some losses of his own.

    The ABDCOM started in four divisions: RN heavies, Dutch lights, RN DDs, Dutch DDs. The heavies were in the easternmost division with the remaining divisions to the west in the order listed. The IJN mined the western half of the strait. (I left it up to the player which half he wanted mined and placed his MLs there heading away north as a clue.) The IJN player, quite sensibly, set up on the opposite side, but I think he charged too quickly. This had the nice effect of driving the Brits into the mines, but it left hist destroyers out of position and involved in a stern chase. I like his line abreast. It gave him the opportunity to shift into line ahead either east or west as the situation developed, but once he let the Brits get north of his destroyers without torpedoing their leading units his game became very difficult very fast. His cruisers and capital ships were still further north, so he turned them north of the island and attempted to cut the ABDCOM forces off, but he didn't have enough time to do it. And while his cruisers did indeed have torpedoes they could have used, it's mighty hard to fire 'em over the bow and he had his T-crossed at the time and found himself under heavy, concentrated fire. The British units alone might have sufficed at that point. (BB, CC, 3xDD w/ torpedoes unfired), three additional DD and a CL vs. BB, CC and 2xCA leaves the Japanese in a real pickle.

    Frankly, given how everyone played I begin to think it came out about like it should have. The minefield really did slow ABDCOM down. Nothing bigger than a tin can got through unscathed. And the Japanese could have simply parked across ABDCOM's T. If ABDCOM doesn't run the strait Japan wins the game. Very close to the Suriago Strait problem, but in reverse.
     
  6. TiredOldSoldier

    TiredOldSoldier Ace

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    452
    Played a few games with NavWar 1/3000 ships ..... Looks like Surigao in reverse to me as well, and committing unsupported CA by the Japanese is not a great idea, the Type 93 has a range not that dissimilar than naval guns in a night scenario without radar control, never liked the heavy torpedo armament of the Haguro and later classes (secondary explosions from unfired fish contributed to the loss of at least a pair of them), but since they had them they should have fired them as soon as possible, which is why I wondered about the rulebook considering the big effects the allied torpedoes had.
     
  7. Carronade

    Carronade Ace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    2,730
    Likes Received:
    572
    Renown and Repulse were one of Jackie Fisher's pet projects, and one of his criteria was that he wanted to get them built inside a year. Heavy guns and turrets are the longest-lead items for capital ships, and the design was based on the number of turrets expected to be available in that time frame.

    Fisher had become convinced that gunpower and range were dominant factors, which seems ironic since his great innovation with the Dreadnought had been to increase the number of main battery guns; he didn't step up from four 12" to four 13.5 or 15", he increased the number of guns to ten, and eight in his battle cruiser. Numbers of guns had become even more critical with the development of director firing; eight guns were now considered the minimum for effective gunfire control. R&R were the only capital ships of the dreadnought era/20th century with a six-gun main armament.

    They didn't make Fisher's one-year deadline, but the hasty construction left the ships with enough problems that they spent considerable time back in the yard, earning them the nicknames Refit and Repair.
     
  8. SymphonicPoet

    SymphonicPoet Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    701
    Likes Received:
    130
    ^TiredOldSoldier

    Yes, the sheer volume of torpedoes still aboard Japanese ships was . . . stunning. Bad placement. Divided forces. Oops. The Japanese commander is a friend and I hate to run him down. God knows I've made my own blunders. I think he and I need to sit down and do a little debrief. Maybe we'll both learn something. Analyzing the thing has certainly enlightened me. Of course it might be better to just let it lie. Tough call. I want to stay friends, but I worry that if no one ever shows him anything he'll come to hate naval wargaming. (I've seen him get frustrated and give up on other games for similar reasons.) I feel like I should help, but egos can be such fragile and troublesome things.

    ^Carronade

    I wonder if Fisher had something special in mind for R & R a la Courageous et al.
     
  9. TiredOldSoldier

    TiredOldSoldier Ace

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    452
    IMO R&R with their 6" armour were cruiser killers and a step towards the Courageous "large light cruisers", Fisher's original idea was for them to have only two turrets. The external similarities with HMS Hood, that was much closer to a fast battleship than a WW1 battlecruiser, are misleading.
     
  10. SymphonicPoet

    SymphonicPoet Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    701
    Likes Received:
    130
    I've always felt so. R & R give the appearance of pocket Hoods, but have the internals of fast Invincibles. (Was there ever a less aptly named ship?)
     
  11. Carronade

    Carronade Ace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    2,730
    Likes Received:
    572
    R & R were getting back to Fisher's ideal, including Invincible-scale 6" armor. One motivation for them was the success of the Invincibles at the Falklands. Fisher's next proposal, Incomparable, would have been a scaled-up Renown with six 20" guns, again valuing gun size over numbers.

    The "large light cruisers" like Glorious went even further; besides Fisher's ideas they were influenced by the Baltic project, requiring shallow draft, and by the government's reluctance to fund further capital ships. "Large light cruiser" was actually not a bad description. There were at the time no set size or gun caliber limits on what constituted a cruiser, and their armor was on light cruiser scale.

    The name Hood could commemorate several British admirals, but the most recent one was Horace Hood, lost in the explosion of the ironically named Invincible.
     
  12. SymphonicPoet

    SymphonicPoet Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    701
    Likes Received:
    130
    I'd always assumed it was the named after Samuel Hood, but the timing does make one wonder. I had no idea there were so many Admirals Hood (at least five, it seems.) I begin to think half the Admiralty may have been named Hood at one time or another.
     
  13. ULITHI

    ULITHI Ace

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,869
    Likes Received:
    381
    Location:
    Albuquerque, New Mexico
    Very nice work there SymphonicPoet!!! Well done!!!
     
  14. SymphonicPoet

    SymphonicPoet Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    701
    Likes Received:
    130
    Thank you sir. It's a pleasure, I assure you. And it was fun running a game finally. It's an experience I hope to repeat from time to time.
     

Share This Page