"Help me balance the forces for this scenario" Topic

I am looking at collecting some 1:1250 for use with GQ3 for gaming at the club. I was thinking of this basic scenario.

A merchantman has come to halt with an engine failure.. It contains vital fuel for the British and so the Admiralty has decided to send a Fleet Ocean Tug out to retreive the stricken ship. I want an escort of a destroyer or two and a minesweeper. The danger for the RN is there a lurking raider out there somewhere. I was thinking about a Pocket Battleship or a Hipper. What ships would be good to make sure the game is balanced?
I plan to be the Fleet Tug skipper and have the other guys play the escorts and the Germans. Anyone have some advice?

cheers

Jason

Add a light cruiser to the Brits to give them a chance against a German heavy cruiser. Or you could substitute the German CA for an armed merchant raider.

What about for the Germans instead of a Cruiser a Minelayer and a Uboat? Then for the Brits Minesweeper and a Destroyer….would that make an interesting game?

You might get a very interesting game using four or so German torpedo boats (really more of a DE type ship) of the Wolf/Mowe type against a pair of Brit G&H class or possibly one G and one Tribal versus 3-5 Wolf class.

As much as I like cruisers, I would skip them with this scenario.

If a Fleet Tug was being sent, then the range from the Uk, or Canada, would be very limited, as they wouldn't tend to be sent very long distances. This would mean that the scenario would be relatively close to the UK or Canadian, or Icelandic coasts. Therefore the close proximity of a German Cruiser or Pocket Battleship is most unlikely. Furthermore, the chances of such a complete engine failure, deep sea, is most unlikely, especially if its cargo is so vital. Engine failure from what? Ships don't just break down!

Its just a scenario not a historical set piece….maybe the rough seas saw the ship throw a screw…..not really caring on the historical accuracy I just want a scenario thats fun and balanced….

I'm sorry that you saw my comments as so negative. My feeling was that somebody that was so clearly interested in WW2 Naval Wargaming must surely also be interested enough in maritime matters to have an idea as to what might have caused such a break down of such an importatant ship, with such an important cargo. I'm not sure what you mean by " the rough seas saw the ship throw a screw"?

Given the limited deployment range of the UK deep-ocean tugs, the scenario proposed by Mckinstry would probably be more interesting than having a Cruiser show up and drop a broadside on the disabled merchie, instantly winning the game for the Krauts.

It really takes a lot to immobilize a ship, but a failed weld or bolt in the Steam-lines would do the job (assuming a steam-ship). Steam-line ruptures are horrible accidents, usually resulting in the death of everyone in the engineroom. It's the only thing I can think of off the top of my head that would immobilize a ship like you want.

The problem is, an unpowered ship on the surface is at the mercy of the waves, and will very quickly get pounded into destruction (or just rolled, turn turtle, and sink).

I think the best bet for your interesting game is the Wolfe DEs versus 2 brit DDs.

On a purely technical viewpoint, it depends partly whether it's a steam turbine ship (unlikely) or TE. If a steam line fails in a merchant ship ER, I doubt very much whether the ER will be wiped out, especially if it is a TE engine. The boiler would be shut down, the problem traced, the steam line repaired, and the ship will get under way again. Similarly with a turbine ship, I doubt if the ER would be wiped out. The steam line failure may be harder to repair, given the relatively higher pressure, but the same repar procedure would take place and the ship would be under way again in a few hours. Even if the whole watch were wiped out, which would be most unlikely, there would still be two other watches to do the repair and get the ship under way. As far as the destruction of the ship is concerned, it would depend on the sea state.

I was basing my comments on my experience in subs, where a steamline rupture results in the sounding of the 'dead nukes' alarm (that's honestly what it sounds like), and the death of roughly 1/3 to 1/4 of the engineering crew. Too much water (5000 gal/40,000lbs) in the secondary loop, carrying an awful lot of thermal energy.

(TE engines are reciprocating steam engines, right?) A reciprocating steam engine *might* not operate under such high pressures, but it would still be a critical failure that could immobilize the ship for a good period of time.

I'm not going to restate my opinions on balance for a fun game, they haven't changed.

A merchant ship's engine room is, of course, much, much bigger than a submarine's.
Yes, TE (Triple Expansion)Engines are reciprocating steam engines, and are operating under considerable pressure, although not as high as steam turbine. The ship might be immobilised by a significant steam leak, but it would depend where. A steam ship would have several boilers, so the failed steam line could be from any one of the boilers, or at the engine itself. Even if the steam leak was in the engine itself it wouldn't necessarily mean immobilisation, or if the ship was immobilised, that it would necessarily be long term. In any case the ship's engineers would be expected to effect the necessary repairs themselves, at least of sufficient effectiveness to get the ship to port. This would be an expectation, not merely an optimistic hope! The Engineers would have the training, the knowledge and practical experience, and the necessary equipment to do so. My father told me of a TE engine where the main engine block cracked, causing a considerable loss of steam pressure, as one could imagine. A temporary repair was effected by wrapping the engine in wire rope and tightening it using bottle screws lent by the Mate. This held the Engine together long enough and tight enough to get the ship back to the UK from the Persian Gulf, not merely to the nearest port. A Diesel Engine could be completely stripped down by the ship's own Engineers and rebuilt; the ship would carry the necessary spares. Commercial pressures would demand that Merchant Ships be able to carry out their own repairs rather than relying on enormously expensive dockyards; expensive both in terms of actual cost, and in terms of time not trading. Immobilisation in these instances would be hours, rather than days. In the case of a steam engine, some of those hours would be taken in waiting for the engine to cool down.

Anything that can go wrong at sea usually will at the wrong time!! A bearing going would cause a breakdown that would need to be fixed at sea--and if thats not possible then a tow would need to be done--The tug could be deployed from a passing convoy…Despite the seeming uneaveness of a big cruiser or pocket battleship against a brace of destroyers it would actually be fair--Both destroyers may be destroyed in a wealter of shells but they would have enough of a chance to significantly damage a raider to put an end to its cruise--For example Hipper got quite damaged by HMS Glowworm as did S&G when dispatching the Glorious and her 2 destroyers…

A bearing would not "go"! The shaft bearings would be checked every half hour by the Junior Engineer of the watch. If one began to overheat the bearing would be especially checked; if it continued to overheat the engine would be stopped and the bearing would be replaced. The main engine would similarly be monitored; that is the point of having engineers on watch, to prevent such breakdowns!
There again, if a significant engine failure DID occur, repairs would be carried out by the ship's engineers. That's what they were there for, my understanding is that tugs were there for emergencies caused by enemy action, ie damage that was beyond repair because of enemy action. For example bomb or torpedo damage that bent a shaft, or unseated an engine. In these cases the ship's damage is beyond the ability of it's own engineers to repair and will need a drydock, or dockyard. However, a breakdown would not fall into that category of damage.

Thanks choun for just contradicting yourself--"The bearing wouldn't go but it could break down causing the engine to be stopped….." LOL
Repairs at sea would try to be done but there is always a good chance that something could prevent a successful repair--Ie bad weather, lack of parts etc etc also maybe underlying damage caused by enemy action that was not discovered until things went wrong??..And if a nearby convoy felt the ship important enough to dispatch help then it is entirely possible that a tug could be deployed(they were used as escorts)..And then an enemy raider turns up which could ruin everyones day!!

I suggest that you read what I wrote. I clearly said that a bearing wouldn't just go. I also said that if a bearing was overheating, and therefore becoming a problem, the engine would be stopped in order to change the bearing. I think that this was quite clear? Can you explain the contradiction to me? as I can't see one.
I've already explained that the ship would be stocked with all of the parts necessary, in order that the ship would not be immobilised, because it would make economic sense to do so. The engineers would also be trained and experienced and skilled in repairs at sea, so "bad weather, lack of parts etc" would not be a relevant argument.

Choun this is all in a perfect world--Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world and during wartime parts and people were in short supply worn out or otherwise not performing at 100%…Not all ships at sea are the Royal Yacht Brittannia!!!
As for the bearing 'going' obviously being spotted before it actually broke down rather than actually breaking doesn't make much difference--The ship still needs to stop and the engineers still need to TRY and repair it..

A merchie's engineroom is more than 30 feet wide and 100 feet long?

Don't mistake the WW2 image of a submarine (single deck, less than 27 feet abeam) with a modern US nuc boat. 7000 tons submerged displacement and 360 feet long overall makes for a big engineroom.

Nonetheless, there are situations that can result in a loss of propulsion. A steamline rupture or a spun bearing in the main engine(s) will certainly suffice. Ships suffer loss-of-propulsion accidents every so often, that's why they make tugs.

=====
This situation is really an engineered scenario to put a German commerce raider into place to threaten an escorted merchie for a fun night's gaming. Why are we over-thinking this?

Yes. A Merchant ship's engine room would be as wide as the ship's beam. If the beam was 40' the E/R would be 40' across. The height would be from the bottom plates to the boat deck, 60', or 80', depending on the ship's size, with skylights, of course, then going up into the funnel. So, even if there was an escape of steam, it wouldn't be into a sealed enclosed space. Length would again depend upon the size of the ship. Strick's "Armanistan", for example, torpedoed in 1940, of 6805 grt had an E/R of about 100' or so in length. She wasn't especially big as a general cargo ship.

"Furthermore, the chances of such a complete engine failure, deep sea, is most unlikely, especially if its cargo is so vital. Engine failure from what? Ships don't just break down!"

Many WW2 ships were going to sea with hardly ANY experienced crewmen other than the captain. Often men from shore jobs were recruited in the expectation they could perform a similar one at sea.
The Canadian Fort and Park classes, and the American Liberty and Victory ships, were far too numerous for the number of experienced crew available. Quite often even most of the bridge crew were cadets. In once case an Escort kept complaining to a particular ship that it was always out of station and not keeping up correctly. The captain replied that HE was the only one with sea going experience and he had to rest sometimes!
If you search the WW2 merchant ships sites on the www you will find dozens of instances of ships being in difficulty. Not because they were poorly built, but because the crew were so inexperienced. On the merchant sailors site there are at least a couple of stories told by men who's first sight of the sea was when they joined their ship as a cadet. I have researched those sites and many books dealing with merchant ships during WW2. The same story comes across time and time again. Lack of experienced man power.

Without experienced man power the things you are saying, can be not done, not done correctly, and so on. And with so few experienced men to teach them and to supervise them, its only to be expected that things will go wrong due to these new crewmen.

Fleet Tugs.
During the early part of WW2 the recovery of damaged ships at sea still rested with the merchant companies which had always engaged in salvage.

As the war progressed the demand for salvage tugs naturally grew. As a result many purpose built Fleet Tugs were built and were given defensive armament. The US designation was
AT(R)and many US types were naval manned. The (R) stood for rescue. The UK used some naval manned tugs and others remained in commercial hands. Most of these were ocean going vessels capable of long distance towing.

To satisfy the urgent demand for salvage at sea the Allies distributed their naval and rescue tugs across a wide range of ports. This enabled them to be as close as possible when called on. When convoy battles were underway some of these tugs would put to sea in order to be quickly available to assist damaged vessels. If they waited in port until they were called it would take far too long. In some cases a damaged ship may have an escort standing by to assist with ASW cover when the tug arrived.

My Great uncle who was a merchant navy Captain during the war always used to tell the story about the US mate who was asked for the Azimuth and replied" I'll check with the stores"…LOL

I suppose it depends on the ship's flag. The British, Polish, Norwegian, French, Dutch, Belgian, Danish and Greek Merchant Navies weren't in that situation as far as I know. Other countries, who had to expand very quickly may have been. The Canadians and the Americans especially, especially since the Americans had lost so many of their experienced crews in the U-Boats' "Happy Time" on the US Coast.
Most Merchant ships were not the new, war built ships, and for most of the early part of the war at sea, the new ships were not yet operating, so the supposed shortages of trained manpower to which you refer only became an issue later on in the war. Because of the depression, many Merchant seamen had gone ashore in the 1930's, so there was a very large pool of trained seamen, both deck and Engine Room, available, both crew and Officers, for at least the first few years of the war. My Great Uncle was a Mining Engineer in Malaya, but was able to take a laid up ship out of Singapore as Second Engineer as the Japanese approached, because of his prior Merchant Navy training, qualifications and experience. Some Merchant ships Engine Rooms in the mid 30's, for example, were manned entirely by Engineers with Chief Engineers tickets, such was the shortage of work. With such a "reserve army" of skilled workers, the skills shortage that you describe didn't exist in the general picture that you describe.

Mal where you state "Quite often even most of the bridge crew were cadets. In once case an Escort kept complaining to a particular ship that it was always out of station and not keeping up correctly. The captain replied that HE was the only one with sea going experience and he had to rest sometimes!" I''d like to see what flag the ship was.

I'm interested that you find this worth quoting:
"On the merchant sailors site there are at least a couple of stories told by men who's first sight of the sea was when they joined their ship as a cadet."
How do you think Cadets were trained? What do you think Cadets were? I was lucky in that my father was involved in that world, so I knew my way around a ship before I joined my first one. Most other Cadets that I met had never been on a ship before their first voyage. If these Cadets were American or Canadian and from inland States, where were they going to get their first sight of the sea from, if not from their first ship?
British Cadets still had to do their full Board of Trade requirement of seatime before they could keep a watch, the war didn't change that!
You seem to express a rather simplistic view that, because you have evidence that SOME ships had inexperienced crews, they all did. I must admmit that I'm basing some of my views on personal knowledge rather than just reading books alone, and given my, and my family background in the area, I may be a bit biased…..

"I''d like to see what flag the ship was."

American. A Liberty Ship. I think the book is ESCORT COMMANDER by Gretton. The lack of experience on American ships in particular is mentioned in several other sources including one recent book on the Malta run. Among these sources there are also many grumbles about the inexperienced crews being panicked by the sight of aircraft and as a result shooting up some of their own side. It was particularly common on the convoys to Russia where a lot of newly built ships took their first cargoes to Reykjavik and joined convoys to Russia from there. For many the first military aircraft they had ever seen, was when one flew by, so it is understandable that they would not be able to recognize types. It was so prevalent that I have allowed for it to happen in my second convoy book "Arctic Storm".

Yes, many of the Cadets did come from inland states. In more peaceful times they would probably have been given some training time on a real ship. But at the rate Liberty Ships were sliding down the ways, this proved impossible. Hence many had their first experience when they arrived on ship from a land based training school. Only two nights ago I was watching a TV documentary and an old veteran told how the first time he had ever seen a real ship, was when he arrived at the wharf to join USS Enterprise. So it would seem even the USN had to put up with very green sailors.

Of course that was hardly limited to the Merchant Navy. The Allied navies were having great problems keeping up with the rate of production. Some ships were kept deliberately manned by pre-war regulars. An example are the various pre-war built ASW Sloops. And where possible the war built Sloops of the Black Swan type had the first call on regulars. But by late 1944 even those were having to accept a certain amount of thinning of their regulars, with war hostilities ratings. The reason for keeping regular crews ont those ships was because they often acted as support vessels and tended to be leaders of escort groups, or at least important elements of an otherwise war hostilities escort group.

The Canadian navy in particular had extreme problems with manning their ships. There are numerous books and references to that. Admiral Horten famously described them as being more dangerous than the U Boats, after spending time at sea on a convoy, to see for himself how things were going. Its hardly surprising considering that by 1942 there were more officers in the Canadian Navy, than there had been men in total, pre war. The regulars were very thinnly spread. This also produced other problems as the Canadian built radars were difficult to use, but having anyone in an escort group who knew how to actually repair or service one was near impossible. Thus we can expect that the Canadian Merchant fleet, which also grew to an unimagined size, must have had great problems finding crew.

Remember that by 1944 the Royal Navy was paying off some of the older battleships and more worn out destroyers because of manpower shortages. Therefore we can expect that the same thing applied to the Merchant Navy.

One of my friends, now passed away, commanded HMS ARRAN during part of the battle of the Atlantic. She was a war built Anti Submarine Trawler of the Isles class. His crew were a mix of nationalities within the British Empire. He used to say that in order to issue a command, he would have to pass it to one of the crew who understood English. That was then passed along in his language to others, who finally translated it for the majority who were Indian Lascars. He made sure that everyone, regardless of language, understood certain important commands. But he said for general duty it was just not possible to do anything except use the translation system.

He also said that ships that went to Freetown or Capetown would often pick up a large number of Lascars and various other nationalities, then send most of their English speaking crew back to the UK to take over other ships. He took a completely English crew to Freetown, but returned with the strange mixture above mentioned. It is also obvious from the accounts of survivors that this sort of this sort of thing was common to merchant ships too, because of the numer mentioned as being picked up.

"My Great Uncle was a Mining Engineer in Malaya, but was able to take a laid up ship out of Singapore as Second Engineer as the Japanese approached, because of his prior Merchant Navy training, qualifications and experience."

And there can be little doubt that he would have been considered a valuable person in 1942, when the massive ship building programs were getting underway. I would also suspect that his ship would have had a large contingent of Asian seamen on board. I have read in the past that getting experienced seamen out of Singapore was a high priority.

I recently enjoyed some correspondence in Swedish, from one of my research helpers, which detailed the service of his Uncle. Men such as him wandered the entire globe and he seems to have seen some sort of service in just about every stretch of water that could float a ship. He was even sunk off northern Australia, yet took part in convoys to Murmansk too!

Another thing I read in recent times, I believe when researching the Canadian built Park and Fort class ships, was that they not only used coal fuel because it was readily available, but because there were plenty of Lascars available as stokers, if the ships made a trip to the Indian Ocean area. Of course coal powered ships required a larger crew, but this seems to have been considered OK because the stokers were mostly only required to be trained as labourers in the role of shovelling coal.

I dont know if that implies it was easier to find that sort of engine room crew or not. But it was apparently taken into consideration during the planning phases.

British Merchant ships trading to the Middle East and Far East had always used Asian crews, and continued to do so, right up to the demise of the British Merchant Navy. Aden and the Yemen was often a source of Firemen (The MN term, Stoker was RN) and Trimmers (the people who got the coal out of the bunkers for the Firemen to fire the boilers with), as they would be used to the heat of the Engine Room of a Steam Ship. They invariably had much larger crews than the equivalent european crew.

British Cadets were also trained almost solely at sea. That form of "on the job" training continued until the late 60's, when they began to spend more time at Nautical Colleges and Marine Schools, as part of their training, rather than as a run up to their examinations for Second Mates. All watch keeping Engineers, however, had to have served their time as engine fitters, usually in shipyards, before they could sail as a Junior Engineer (with Junior Officer status) as an assistant watchkeeper, ranking as "Junior Engineer", or 5th, 6th, 7th or whatever, depending on the size of the ship and how many Junior Engineers there were, and their seniority. learning the specific job of a marine engineer under the supervision of an experienced Engineer. Once they'd gained sufficient experience, and were regarded as worthy enough, they'd be promoted to 4th Engineer, the most junior watchkeeping rank, keeping the 8-12 watch, then to 3rd Engineer, as their experience and expertise grew, and ultimately, once they'd passed their Certificate of Competency, they could sail as 2nd Engineer. Hence the old rhyme:
"The working class can kiss my arse, I've got my Second's job at last".
With the ultimate seagoing goal of Chief Eng. having passed that Certificate, or "ticket".
The steam engines in the Park and Fort classes were also very simple to run and maintain, which made them easier for less than well experienced E/R staff to run.
However, until 1943 I would suggest, most of the ships in the N.Atlantic would be older ones, and, apart from the American and Canadian vessels, they would have had experienced and well trained Officers at least. As far as maintenance and repair of Merchant ships' engines are concerned, that work is done, unlike in the RN, by the Engineers (E/R Officers), not by the E/R crew, who would be there to pass spanners and clean up, as their role was essentially that of unskilled labourers.

Actually one of the things that shows how times have changed is that when considering the larger crew of 'Asiatics' it was not thought to be a problem because they could occupy the same living space as a lesser number of white crew. That sort of thing would never be allowed today.
Its also noticable when researching older books that they will often list the passengers as a certain number of Europeans and then a much larger number of Asiatics. The presumption being that the latter did not require the same comfort.
This sort of thing also applied to the poor Irish migrants crammed on some ships as 'steerage'passengers. It was the cause of many deaths in the early WW1 sinkings.
To the best of my memory the 'steerage' passenger space was not dropped until after WW2.
A friend of mine who served some time in cruise ships, quipped that now days they just call them all 'tourists' and cram them in anyway!!!

"Steerage" passengers are often thought of as stereotypically Irish. Occasionally they were. Most of the steerage passengers on the Titanic, for example, were English. There were only about 180 Irish passengers on the Titanic altogether. One wouldn't have thought so to watch the film! but that wouldn't have appealed to the Americans quite as much. On transatlantic crossings the steerage passengers were of all european nationalities, dependent of course on where they embarked. The steerage passengers on passages to the antipodes were mostly British, ie Scots and English.
In the far East, you'd also have "Deck Passengers", ie passengers carried without formal accomodation.

Further to my comments in previous posts, Merchant ships would also carry the means to manufacture spares. The E/R workshop was effectively a light engineering shop, withs lathes, milling machines, a forge and other light engineering equipment. There would be a chain lift trolley mounted above the Engine that could lift several tons, enabling them to remove cylinders, or pistons, if necessary. The Engineers, as time served engine fitters, i.e. men trained to make engines, and the parts for engines, would be able to affect most repairs to the ship's engines. Only severe damage caused by bombs etc. would be beyond them. As I've mentioned elsewhere, shipowners wouldn't want ships to be immobilised in a dockyard if their own people could do the repairs, so Merchant ships were, and are, supplied with sufficient spares to make them as self-sufficient as practicable.

Lion in the Stars, whilst it wasn't a "modern US Nuke boat", I did a passage as a junior watchkeeping officer on HMS Superb in the early 80's in my then capacity as a Sub-Lieutenant RNR (List 1), which was a 5000 tonne nuclear powered boat, so I have some idea of what a relatively modern submarine's E/R is like. It was considerable more compact and "full" than that of a Merchant ship! Space in a submarine is at a lot more of a premium!

Just to give a bit of "meat to the bones" as it were, my father's cousin was 2nd Engineer on Strick's "Tabaristan" when it was torpedoed in 1941.
link
He was awarded the OBE for his actions at the time. He was subsequently promoted to Chief Engineer, and in this capacity was on the same company's "Arabistan" when she was sunk by the "Michel" and was the sole survivor.
link
He was handed over by the "Michel" to the Japanese and was repatriated at the end of the war. He destroyed everything Japanese in his house. He then, of course, went back to sea.

If we are wargaming the war at sea in the Second World War, it is worth remembering that the Merchant ships had crews, and weren't just there to add interest to games later. They suffered far higher casualty rates than the Royal Navy, or the US Navy, or the Army, or the RAF. Cadets and Deck Boys could be at sea at 15, because they were "non-combatants"!

My grandad wasn't a great fan of the japanese after WW2 either--Unfortunately he spent most of his career as a Master Mariner on japanese owned merchant ships……The only trouble he ever had with his Pakistani or Far Eastern crew was when they were having technical problems on the St Lawrence in winter!! They really didn't like the cold!!…..
Chouan I think the Merchant Navy had the second highest allied death rate for any service--Only Bomber Command had higher (50%+)