"Water splashes on optics during sea fights" Topic
5 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please don't make fun of others' membernames.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the WWII Naval Discussion Message Board Back to the Early 20th Century Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestWorld War One World War Two at Sea
Featured Link
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile ArticleThe tramp steamer that dreams are made of!
Featured Book Review
|
emckinney | 11 Jun 2021 1:02 p.m. PST |
"Leutnant Prinz von Hohenzollern recalled: In the beginning the Englishman shot badly. Seven or eight salvoes went over, and four or five were short. The short salvoes were a great hindrance to our observation, as the splashes continually came over the ship, obscuring our glasses, and rendering good observation very difficult." --THE LAST CRUISE OF A GERMAN RAIDER: The Destruction of SMS Emden, by Wes Olson Is this something that happened in other battles? Where larger ships less affected because their optics were high and there were fewer splashes from large guns due to their lower rate of fire? Or were the splashes from larger shells so immense that they caused just as many problems? Perhaps it was a frequent problem, but no one else bothered to mention it? |
Blutarski | 11 Jun 2021 3:12 p.m. PST |
It was without question a common complaint and was by no means confined to shell splashes alone. High speed, lee position in a gunnery engagement, head winds, head seas, rough seas – either alone or jointly – commonly washed out both range-finders and gunlayer sights. British complaints about this problem were reported by multiple ships that fought at Dogger Bank. Inflexible noted the problem at the Falklands. At least one German ship, fighting from the lee position in the Run to the South, commented upon a spray problem at Jutland. HMS Renown, who fought her Feb 1940 action versus Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in gale force conditions, reported all her turret range-finders completely washed out by heavy seas coming over the bow and her aloft DCT range-finder hopelessly blinded by wind-borne spray. Prince of Wales' Denmark Strait action report also mentioned all her turret range-finders washed out by seas taken over her bows – leaving her to rely solely upon her small 15-foot range-finder of the aloft DCT. You are spot on with regard to the huge shell splashes of heavy caliber projectiles. They could inundate a ship's upperworks if they happened to collapse upon it. FWIW, B |
emckinney | 11 Jun 2021 11:04 p.m. PST |
Well, that's another justification for rules either penalizing the fire of a ship that's being fired on, or a bonus if the firing ship is free on incoming shells. |
codiver | 12 Jun 2021 7:57 a.m. PST |
In GQ3.3, high seas effects battleship and cruiser shooting at Force 7 "near gale" conditions. GQ3.3 also has an optional rule 1.5.13 Not Engaged which gives a bonus to ships that are, as you might deduce, not engaged by enemy ships. The rule explanation mentions not having to do normal evasive "chasing the salvos" course changes while under fire, but could obviously include spray from incoming splashes as well. |
Blutarski | 12 Jun 2021 8:02 p.m. PST |
emckinney wrote - "Well, that's another justification for rules either penalizing the fire of a ship that's being fired on, or a bonus if the firing ship is free on incoming shells." Spot on. One of the major dicta of the GF gunnery instructions was that no opposing ship was to be left unfired upon. An unengaged ship was perceived to enjoy a palpable gunnery advantage. On the other hand, a ship under concentrated fire of several opponents (LION at Dogger Bank, for example) was under a considerable disadvantage. B |
|