"Von der Tann vs Indefatigable @ Jutland (Mahrholz transl.)" Topic

Here is the translation of Mahrholz's account of Von der Tann's engagement with Indefatigable at Jutland -
"After my relief, I went to my cabin to rest a bit after my watch. I took a book in hand, yet hardly had I begun to read when the signal "Clear for Action" sounded throughout the ship. I was on the bridge in a bound. Our cabins lay forward in Von der Tann, not far from the bridge. The first "Klarmeldungen" of the "Gefechtstellen" were already coming into the artillery control position. I made a short voice check on the telephones connecting myself with the range clock, "Peilscheibe", assistant observer, and third artillery officer in the aft artillery control position, and tested the fall of shot timer. Then I had time to make inquiries as to what was happening, but I did not find out much. The light cruisers had reported an encounter with the enemy. For the moment, only light forces had been observed, but after previous experiences they sought security behind the battle cruisers. With full power, the battle cruisers ran toward the reported position and soon our light forces could be seen on the horizon in battle with a yet invisible enemy. One could distinctly see the flashes of the salvos and splashes of the enemy shells. Soon the picture further clarified itself. Besides the cruisers engaged ahead, six smoke clouds came into view in the southwest. The apparent smoke clouds neared and were soon identified from the spotting top as battle cruisers.
Now it become serious, no longer a question of chasing light cruisers, but a do or die encounter of equal opponents. It dawned upon some that this was the commencement of a battle, but no one supposed that the entire English fleet was in the vicinity. This time it was quite different from earlier occasions. Our entire fleet stood only fifty sea miles astern of us and that gave a great feeling of strength and confidence. Each man on board wholeheartedly desired an encounter with the enemy. Many eager eyes gazed through their high-powered binoculars and telescopes to make out details. Soon the ships were also recognized from below as battle cruisers bearing down in two columns upon the German ships. While we still steered a northwest course, the English admiral formed his line on a southerly course, by so doing revealing an intention to cut off our battle cruisers from our rear support. Admiral Hipper followed this action, which gave him the best opportunity to draw the enemy force toward our main body in the south. Now both opponents were running abreast on diverging courses. Soon an additional squadron was sighted in the further distance, which later proved to be 5th Battle Squadron. With four ships of the Queen Elizabeth class, at that time the most formidable warships in the world, with an armament of 38cm caliber. It also made the English superiority more than double. But all the same there was no man on board who did not burn with desire to close with the enemy.

There was an enormous stress upon all feelings, which ached for release, and this pressure was only increased through the delay in the order to open fire. Long ago had I taken my post at the director-scope and directed my battery and ranging instruments upon the enemy; through the 15x magnification of my optics, I could clearly make out the enemy ships. "Fire to be distributed from the left" was called by the signals petty officer through the view slit and I slowly counted the line of opponents through my telescope. According to the rules, our ship, as the end ship in line, was to engage two opponents, since we would be pitted against the fifth and sixth enemy ships; but the medium artillery could not yet reach due to the great range, so I actually had to split my main battery, two turrets forward and two turrets aft. But that meant only two shots in each salvo and that did not appeal to me. So I decided to keep my battery together and first attend to one opponent and then the other. A wild decisiveness clutched at me to turn this decision into actuality. But now there was time and leisure to look upon the enemy through the telescope. Like unnatural monsters, the ships thrust through the water. I could clearly make out each action on the ships – the signal hoists and after that the rotation of the heavy turrets and the elevation of the gun barrels, which presented us with a view such as one had been accustomed to from many battle exercises, only then harmless twinkles had flashed from the muzzles.

The rangefinders continually metered ranges into the fire control apparatus and when I queried the rangefinder officer, he informed me beamingly that the measurements were excellent, the instruments correlating within 100 meters. So much the better for ranging in, I thought, but I still planned on an 8 hm fork to allow for the influence of the day over such an enormous distance. The range clock was set and connected to the gun-sight telegraph. With complete calm the "Seitenverschiebung" (deflection?) was calculated and corresponding orders were given to the guns so that fire could be opened at a moment's notice. One really had the feeling as with an important gunnery exercise – a long steady preparation without useless twisting and turning, which promoted good calculations and estimates. A long series of comparative measurements had to produce a good initial range. No haste or delay in the transmission of orders or at the guns created a good feeling in the heart of the gunner. The loading of the guns had long ago been ordered. In the turrets the gun crews had rammed home into the breeches the projectiles, upon which all sorts not very friendly greetings for the English had been chalked. 162 hm had just been calculated, when, like a deliverance -"F.D., Open Fire" sounded and in the same second the first salvo cracked out against the enemy. Simultaneously, one saw gun flashes from the guns on the opposing side and the rolling yellow-brown smoke clouds rise above the ships.

When our first salvo was out, I focused my entire energy in my eyes so that no movement of the enemy, no impact (fall of shot) of my battery might escape my attention. The center of the one-sixteenth graduated scale lay precisely beneath the middle stack of the battle cruiser "Indefatigable", whose name I admittedly did not know at the time; we were only able to recognize the class. I concentrated, as I had become accustomed by gunnery exercises, my chief interest in the forward part of the opponent, for at the bow any speed change is best detected and at the bridge any course change is best detected. Under certain circumstances the target may maneuver between the splashes of laterally missing projectiles, thereby making possible an observation of the fall of shot as "over"; this is why the bow of the opponent should be kept under especially sharp observation by the gunnery officer.

Simultaneously with the "quacking" of the fall of shot clock, four enormous fountains spurted up over there. The deflection was correct, with the impacts falling "over" acceptable in line with the after superstructure. "8 Down, 4 more Left, one Salvo" was my initial correction. During the flight of the salvo, I compared the range-finder measurement to that of the fire control predictor and found that they agreed precisely. With the validation of the measurement, I now awaited the fork and four tall water columns sprang up, for a moment obliterating from view the entire middle part of the target. All four were clearly discernable on the surface of the water and also short within an acceptable limit. "4 Up, one Salvo" and again, after the time of flight period, a salvo struck near the opponent – two impacts short, one long, the fourth unable to be seen and presumably a hit, for the "Listenfuhrer" confirmed to me that four shots had fallen in the salvo. Because the AP shells exploded in the interior of the opponent and the effect of a hit was only visible if its destructive effect expanded from the interior to the exterior of the target, I was wary about declaring a hit and held myself rigorously to the observational standard. But the young lieutenant in the spotting top felt it was a hit. "Straddle, Gut Schnell" was the order after the splashes. Now we shot salvoes at short intervals, often with more than one salvo in the air simultaneously.
The enemy was firing back at a slower rate, and we could clearly identify their muzzle flashes. Whoever was not occupied at that moment was able to track their fall of shot by the clock. But the enemy's shooting was poor due to his slow rate of fire. Possibly he was hamperedby lower visibility – in these hazy conditions our light paint paid off.

Blutarski Note – It is also possible that the rapid and accurate fire of Von der Tann during this period was interfering with Indefatigable's spotting. Another possibility, circumstantially suggested by the gunnery logs of the surviving BCF battle-cruisers, is that Indefatigable was ranging by double-salvoes, which could have created an impression of a slow rate of fire.

According to the observations of our light cruisers, the enemy's shots were all significantly over, such that at times the vessels behind us were endangered. Any confusion between our hits and the enemy's muzzle flashes could be ruled out since the latter was accompanied by yellowish/brownish smoke. In contrast, our hits were characterized by a bright glow only in the event that our armor-piercing shells failed to penetrate before exploding.
By now, the shooting of Von der Tann was very effective, and from time to time the enemy was completely hidden behind the splashes. "Indefatigable" seemed to cease fire and tried to get out of the firing line (line of fire?) by zig-zagging, but our good optics could detect any of its movements immediately. When the enemy veered off, I increased the range by 1 hm (100 meters) and decreased accordingly when he veered in. I moved the "Schieber" [?] slightly, in accordance with the direction of the bow's moves. During the flight of the salvo the new "calibration" (calculation?) for the "Anzeiger" was ordered, and immediately received the "Gang" [?] and "Schieber" for the new location of the enemy. At most times, the Schieber coincided with the "freihandig abgegriffen" [free-hand estimate?] value. Since the position constantly changed [Standortanderung?] we did not drag on the "Gang"[?]. The artillery communication officer worked splendidly, the "Aufsatztelegraph"[?] had the correct new [E.U.] after each turn of the enemy. There was no way out. Our battery stayed on the target and the quick succession of salvos was barely interrupted. I became impatient and ordered a personal command which I had developed during exercises, and which was not written in any gunnery instruction: "Faster!". This implied that the man at the "E Watch" [?] should strive for the maximum possible firing rate without awaiting the gun signal for readiness, and the salvoes went out in an incredible rush.
The deadly blow struck the enemy 14 minutes after opening fire. I looked through the "Richtungsweisersehrohr" [fire director telescope?] and was the arrival of a salvo, followed by a gigantic explosion in the aft turret. A bright sheet of flame shot out of the turret roof and expanded along the entire aft section. Debris whirled through the air, possibly fragments of the turret's roof. The next salvo hit the ship forward and finished it off. A monstrous black cloud rose into the air to twice the height of the topmast and masked the enemy completely – apparently we have hit an oil tank.

Blutarski Note – An odd reaction. But Mahrholz was one of the very first Germans to witness such a catastrophic event during the war.

We shot another salvo into the cloud, but most likely it missed since our opponent has already slopped below the waves. The observing officer assured me that the enemy has been sunk, but I still was skeptical since I knew how easily one can be mistaken at these distances, and how tempting it is to visualize one's wish. Only after the smoke was gone was I too convinced of the sinking and reported accordingly to the captain. News of our enemy's defeat spread quickly below decks and I heard many "Hoorays" in the headphones.

Although I didn't always understand all of the farfegnugen therms, an interesting account of what a gunnery officer was looking for and seeing during Jutland. Thanks for posting.

Gang in German can mean gear, passage, course, gangway, passageway, corridor. Wolfgang means "path of the wolf". In this case, it's probably the course.

Aufsatztelegraph is essay telegraph
Standortanderung is location or relocation
Schieber is slider, probably a device he's using for range keeping or target angle.
Anzeiger is indicator
Standortanderung is location change

Your example of rapid-fire after a straddle is one of the things I want to incorporate into the game.

Wolfhag

Thanx, Red.
I really should buckle down and ID/translate the German technical terminology.

Re the "monstrous black cloud" and "oil tank" remarks by Mahrholz, if that was a result of what was described as a salvo hitting the ship forward, it might actually have involved an oil tank. IIRC the forward-most boiler room of the Indomitable Class ships was fitted for auxiliary oil firing and there may very well have been oil storage located close nearby. Another rabbit hole to explore.

B

Thanks very much, Wolfhag. That will give me a head start on my new project.

Your explanation of the meaning of the word "Schieber" makes perfect sense when one looks at the drawing of the WW1 era FC computer shown in Schmalenbach's "Die Geschichte der Deutschen Schiffsartillerie". It was apparently fairly easy to manually enter minor targeting adjustments "on the fly".

Mahrholz's gunnery team did first-class work on that occasion, engaging Indefatigable between approx 16,000 and 13,500 yds (with a fairly high initial range rate – Indefatigable was approaching nearly bows on at the start of the action) scoring an estimated five hits out of 52 x 28cm rounds expended over approximately 14 minutes. Damned good shooting.

B

You're welcome Blutarski. Let me know what you need. I have a cousin that is on active duty with the German Navy.

What I found interesting is that a course change could be detected and countered almost immediately. You can run but not hide.

It appears that the Germans kept up rapid-fire for up to two minutes and then had to stop because of losing the target amid multiple splashes and hard defensive maneuvering. It then had to start all over again getting the ranging data and building a plot.

Wolfhag

This account along with Derfflingers gunnery officer shows that it is a good thing the Brits out numbered the Germans by 3 to 2.

Wolfhag,
You are a man of many talents and resources. I will DEFINITELY keep your cousin in mind!

B

Blutarski,
Thanks. Great discussion.

My daughter-in-law is Ukrainian and a Russian Linguist expert that just graduated from DLI. I can get Russian stuff translated too.

I've got an offer on the house. I should be relocated by the end of September.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag wrote -
It appears that the Germans kept up rapid-fire for up to two minutes and then had to stop because of losing the target amid multiple splashes and hard defensive maneuvering. It then had to start all over again getting the ranging data and building a plot.

That is my take on it, based upon non Hase's commentary, backed up by British gunnery reports (Jutland Official Dispatches). Once a ship went into rapid fire, salvo spotting became pretty much impossible.

B

Once a ship went into rapid fire, salvo spotting became pretty much impossible.

Would that have the effect of increasing the range keeping error?

Wolfhag

Wolfhag wrote –
Once a ship went into rapid fire, salvo spotting became pretty much impossible.
Would that have the effect of increasing the range keeping error?

- – -

Short answer = yes. The next logical question that follows is then – Why, if the firing ship has the deflection + range + range rate in order? IMO, there are two factors in play that would upset the firing solution –

The target ship will be quite unlikely to remain passive while being straddled by a succession of accurate salvoes. It will typically take action (alter course or weave or salvo-chase) in order to (a) get out from underneath the beaten zone, and (b) invalidate the opponent's firing solution.

But, apart from deflection +range + range rate, there is a further important factor in play –the rate at which the range rate changes over time. Range rate only remains constant in a limited number of situations – to name two, for example:
> two ships at exactly the same speed on parallel courses.
> two ships on non-parallel courses, but maintaining steady mirror image relative bearings to one another.

I hope the logic/thinking is clear. In typical tactical situations, it is almost a certainty that the rate of change of range over time ("range rate") will itself be slowly changing. This is why we so often see reference made to "tuning" the range clock. The elaborate FC down in the Transmitting Station, however clever and complex, is completely reliant upon accurate data inputs in to produce accurate gunnery predictions. Unfortunately, range-finders were imprecise and, even more problematic, target ship inclination (angle between one's line of sight and target ship's actual heading) was EXTREMELY hard to measure accurately … the RN did not have a satisfactory inclination measuring device until the late ‘20s.

OK, I am digressing here. Getting back to the original question –

For the sake of argument, let's assume a really simple case: you and your target are at the same speed and steaming on parallel courses – i.e., range rate = 0. You get a straddle or two and immediately order rapid fire, which results in a half-dozen salvoes landing over the course of two minutes and raises a wall of shell splashes obscuring your view of the target.

Let's further assume that the opposing captain is no dope. He watches two salvoes straddle his ship and knows from training and experience what is likely to be coming his way. As soon as the second straddle lands around his ship, he orders a 30deg alteration of course away from you. Let's assume his battle-cruiser is making 24 knots. The first few rapid fire salvoes are almost certainly going to straddle before his ship can get onto the new heading – I think we are talking < one minute . Once the 30deg course alteration is achieved, his ship (@ 24 knots will be opening the range by –

[2400 yds] / [3 min] = 800 yds per minute;
[800 yds per minute] x [0.50] = 400 yds per minute.

400 yards will get his ship outside of the beaten zone in one minute, implying that three or perhaps four of those six rapid-fire salvoes will likely land in empty water.

After all the shell splashes subside (5-10 seconds after landing). Your spotting officer can once again see the target, but he cannot have confidence in any of the previous FC predictions and must start all over again spotting his fire onto the target.

I hope my presentation makes sense.

B

Blutarski,
I totally get it and agree.

My game concept of using the range estimation/range keeping of a target to determine accuracy is supposed to work the same way, with some abstractions of course. I made a table showing how much the range would change depending on the time, speed and course.

Regarding spotting the course change, I'm surprised the Von Der Tann was able to notice the course change so quickly by adding 100 yards to compensate.

I'd expect that the target ship would not be able to fire until it comes on a straight course again and then needs to develop a new range plot all over again just as the firing ship needs to do. Again, the initiative to shoot first goes to the quicker ship (OODA Loop timing to shoot).

The German method of range keeping using continuous ranging inputs from multiple rangefinders into the "averaging unit" sounds like a good way to keep range keeping updated as long as the target can be observed and eyesight holds up.

I think that even if you straddle a target your range keeping error should not be any better than 1%-2% of the range or less than +/-200 yards.

What I'm striving for in the game is that each ship has a range-keeping error that gets modified (larger) at the time of shooting depending on environmental and spotting factors. The salvo is fired and timed to land later based on its ToF.

When the salvo "lands" 10-25 seconds later the player rolls the dice to determine the chance of a straddle based on the salvo length and range keeping error which could be +/-200 to +/-1500 yards (the target is somewhere between that) or more. If the salvo straddles the target hits are determined by the number of rounds in the salvo, angle of descent, and target beam + danger space. If it misses the range keeping error would decrease simulating an adjustment, if the salvo was observed. I'm not claiming it a perfect representation of the real event, just what I like to simulate the action. There are other ways to do it too.

It replaces a lot of typical game abstractions and modifiers so are not that much more difficult. I've made the firing tables for most guns with the AOD and H/V penetration in 1000 yard increments and other charts that would be needed.

The discussion has helped clarify a few things, thanks.

Wolfhag

Hi Wolfhag,
I should have done a little bit better editing before posting my previous.

One other thought -
Depending upon how deep in the weeds you want to go, there is also MPI to be considered. Fall of shot patterns in any given salvo will often "disobey" expected statistical distribution rules. I'm not sure what degree of real world influence salvo MPI effect would have on game mechanics in the long run, but if you want to be eligible for the "Sacred Order of Rivet Counters, with Swords, Oak Leaves and Diamonds" it has just GOT to be included …..

LOL

B

Blutarski,
If you are using range keeping (in 100-yard increments) as the main accuracy factor it should be no problem plotting the MPI. All typical accuracy penalties will serve to increase the range-keeping error and not as a hit % modifier as in other games. There are various playable ways to handle it depending on the level you desire to balance playability. To each his own.

When it comes time to shoot, roll a D100 as a percentage of the error to determine where the MPI is. Odd numbers land short, even numbers land long. If the result is 50% or less of the salvo length you've straddled the target. Did I get that right?

If the danger space and beam was 120 yards a straddle would theoretically result in a 100% chance for 1 hit, a 20% chance for 2 hits, and an almost 0% chance of a 3rd hit.

So to get a straddle with a 400-yard salvo length with a range keeping error of +/-1000 yards you need to roll 20 or less for +/-200 yards. Of course, there are other ways to do it using a bell curve, single/double dispersion, etc. I'm keeping it simple. It's a game, not a scientific pursuit for pure historical accuracy.

Now determine how many hits from a 4 round salvo in a 400-yard sheaf against a ship with a beam of 30 yards and a Danger Space of 25 yards. Since a round is theoretically landing every 100 yards (which we all know it does not) there would be a 55% chance of 1 hit and almost 0% of a second hit. There are other simple and more accurate ways of doing this too.

Now I understand, this is not the absolutely perfect scientific and historical way to do it, that not my goal. My goal is to model naval gunnery problems in a game while giving a somewhat visual result.

Using the above example, if a 23 was rolled the result is the salvo MIP landed 230 yards short with the closest round landing about 30-50 yards short. I think that's pretty good for one die roll. You could determine the declination of the MPI too, depending on the target length. So a D100 roll of 1-5 might miss left or right but could have been a straddle. I'm using one die roll with observable results. That's about as simple as I can make it.

I think in large fleet actions using Hits Per Gun Per Minute would be the way to go.

To me "rivet counting" is spending more time on the detail while degrading playability. I've observed naval miniatures games at conventions and it looked like the catatonic ward at a nursing home with someone occasionally rolling the dice and someone else paging through the rules to write something down.

From the rule sets I've seen to get more detail they'll have many special rules and exceptions and die roll modifiers. I think my basic example is as accurate as any other gunnery rule and is pretty simple to execute.

Wolfhag

Hi Wolfhag,
Sorry for the silence. I absolutely do intend to respond fully to your above post. I'm seeking to present my thinking in an orderly and comprehensible manner. There is so much involved and I don't want to end up with a thicket of arithmetic.

Will advise ASAP

B

Blutarski,
I appreciate it, however, I think we've strayed off the main topic and lost people's interest. Maybe we should discuss it offline.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag,

You have not lost my interest. I'd be happy to hear what you include in your game rules.

OK, for the sake of orderliness, I'm going to present this in sections on a step-by-step basis. The following is some material I pulled from my files. I have similar data for 6-inch guns, which I will post later. If any questions, just ask.

PERFORMANCE OF BRITISH NAVAL GUNS AS REGARDS DISPERSION
No. 194/14
30 June1918

With reference to minute dated 5th June, 1918, File 63, addressed by the Rear Admiral Commanding, Sixth Battle Squadron to the Commander-in-Chief, Grand Fleet, asking for information concerning the performances of British Naval guns on actual firings at sea as regards dispersion, the spreads obtained by ships of the First Battle Squadron with main and secondary armament are annexed.

2. These spreads have been selected from full charge firings which have been reliably marked. The variations in the spread obtained by the same ship in different firings are remarkable, and can only be accounted for by cordite lot differences, or possibly by incorrect adjustments of the rammer cut off.

3. It is considered that the average spread as shewn in the attached tables is typical of that which may be expected under action conditions, when special precautions cannot be taken as regards all guns using the same lot of cordite at the same time.

MEAN SPREAD OF 15-INCH, 13.5-INCH AND 14-INCH GUNS OF SHIPS IN THE FIRST BATTLE SQUADRON

SHIP – – – – – – – – – – – DATE – – – – – MN RANGE – – MN SPRD (4 or 5 guns)
TYPE OF GUN – 15-INCH MK I
REVENGE – – – – – – 30.5.17 – – – – – – 22100 – – – – – – 154
REVENGE – – – – – – 24.6.18 – – – – – – 21000 – – – – – – 150-200 – – – (one 6 gun broadside spread 175)
RESOLUTION – – – -27.2.17 – – – – – – 10400 – – – – – – 300
RESOLUTION – – – -30.5.17 – – – – – – 22500 – – – – – – 200-300 – – – (occasional long spread up to 400)
RESOLUTION – – – -24.6.18 – – – – – – 21000 – – – – – -125-200 – – – (one 6-gun salvo spread 300)
RAMILLIES – – – – – -08.4.18 – – – – – – 17200 – – – – – – 340
RAMILLIES – – – – – -24.6.18 – – – – – – 21000 – – – – – – 175 – – – (two 8-gun broadsides averaging 250)
ROYAL SVRGN – – 30.5.17 – – – – – – 21250 – – – – – – 400 – – – (5 Lot Nos of cordite used)
ROYAL OAK – – – – -23.7.16 – – – – – – 16000 – – – – – – 180
ROYAL OAK – – – – -30.5.17 – – – – – – 20000 – – – – – – 400

TYPE OF GUN – 13.5-INCH MK V
EMP OF INDIA – – – 17.3.16 – – – – – – 17500 – – – – – – 430
EMP OF INDIA – – – 20.8.16 – – – – – – 16500 – – – – – – 300
BENBOW- – – – – – – 31.5.17 – – – – – – -17500 – – – – – – 200
MARLBOROUGH – Oct 1917 – – – – -18600 – – – – – – 282
MARLBOROUGH – May 1917 – – – – 11800 – – – – – – 260
MARLBOROUGH – Jun 1918 – – – – -20500 – – – – – – 287 – – – (one 10-gun salvo 440)
IRON DUKE – – – – – -24.12.14 – – – – -16000 – – – – – – 330
IRON DUKE – – – – – -24.12.14 – – – – -15500 – – – – – – 340
IRON DUKE – – – – – -19.04.15 – – – – -13500 – – – – – – 270 (individual)

IRON DUKE – – – – – -02.08.15 – – – – -16500 – – – – – – 240 – – – (individual)
IRON DUKE – – – – – -17.03.16 – – – – -16000 – – – – – – 450 – – – (director)
IRON DUKE – – – – – -23.10.16 – – – – -14000 – – – – – – 230 – – – (director)
IRON DUKE – – – – – -31.05.17 – – – – -17500 – – – – – – 325 – – – (director)
IRON DUKE – – – – – -17.06.18 – – – – -20000 – – – – – – 320 – – – (one 8-gun salvo 448)

TYPE OF GUN – 14-INCH MK I
CANADA- – – – – – – – 17.03.16 – – – – -14300 – – – – – – 150-200 – – – (director & individual)
CANADA- – – – – – – – 29.08.16 – – – – -18300 – – – – – – 100 – – – Director
CANADA- – – – – – – – 24.06.18 – – – – -17800 – – – – – – 215 – – – (director)

B

Blutarski,
Here is what I'm using for my British 15" gun chart. I think it somewhat matches up to what you posted as the historical results.

Slavo lengths are determined by:
Number of Ratio of Pattern
Guns Size to True Mean Dispersion

1 gun * 1.00, 2 guns * 1.69, 3 guns * 2.43, 4 guns * 2.89, 5 guns * 3.21, 6 guns * 3.47, 7 guns * 3.67, 8 guns * 3.85, 9 guns * 4.00, 10 guns * 4.13, 11 guns * 4.24, 12 guns * 4.34

So a 9 gun salvo has 4 times the dispersion of a single round.

The general upshot is that with perfect aiming at long ranges (20 kyds +) only a few percent of rounds hit, dropping to a fraction of 1% at 30 kyds if perfectly aimed. Improved FCS is basically impotent to improve this, as it's a matter of the ballistics inherent with such weapons.

There are a few ways to determine hits as I've mentioned above.

I came across this being used by coastal artillery:

It gives a good idea of the timing between salvos being fired and what is occurring. I'd imagine it would be a little different on ships.

Regarding simulating Rangekeeping in a game:
One way to think of it as a % of the actual range. You'd start with the rangefinder error of about 5% (+/-750 yards at 15,000 yards) and then ideally it gets smaller for each ranging shot/salvo. It should probably never get below +/-200 yards. Various actions like target/shooter maneuvering, poor sighting, etc could increase it. In a worst-case situation like observing into a setting or rising sun/glare, the error might be 10%-15% and stay that way if you can't observe the salvo results.

The other way would be as I mentioned in a previous post. Using a % you can compare it better to what happened historically.

So in the game I'm envisioning each ship/player performs their rangefinding and salvo results (record keeping) and determines their new rangekeeping error, the time of flight for their next salvo to land and record the future game time to determine the results.

Using a manually operated player game clock, the time is called off in 5-10 second intervals. When a ship's salvo "lands" the shooting player "stops the clock" to determine the results, his new rangekeeping error, and the timing of when his next salvo will land. The target player can at the same time give defensive course corrections which could interrupt their firing and increase the rangekeeping error for shooter and target.

Players can make course corrections at any time too. There are varying levl of detail to determine hits, penetrations, and damage not dependent on timing.

Wolfhag

Hi Wolfhag,
Sorry for the slow response.

You wrote –

Salvo lengths are determined by:
Number of Ratio of Pattern
Guns Size to True Mean Dispersion
1 gun * 1.00, 2 guns * 1.69, 3 guns * 2.43, 4 guns * 2.89, 5 guns * 3.21, 6 guns * 3.47, 7 guns * 3.67, 8 guns * 3.85, 9 guns * 4.00, 10 guns * 4.13, 11 guns * 4.24, 12 guns * 4.34
So a 9 gun salvo has 4 times the dispersion of a single round.
The general upshot is that with perfect aiming at long ranges (20 kyds +) only a few percent of rounds hit, dropping to a fraction of 1% at 30 kyds if perfectly aimed. Improved FCS is basically impotent to improve this, as it's a matter of the ballistics inherent with such weapons.
There are a few ways to determine hits as I've mentioned above.

Just to be careful with the terminology –
> I am good with the 1.00/1.69/2.43/2.89/3.21/3.47/3.67/3.85/4.00/4.13/4.24/4.24/4.34 statistically predicted relative values of dispersion versus number of shots in a salvo. I just want to make sure that what we are talking about at root is mean pattern spread, i.e. – that if "n" four shot salvoes of gun battery X fired at range Y deliver a mean spread of 300 yards, "n" eight shot salvoes of gun battery X, also fired at range Y, are statistically predicted to deliver a mean spread of – 3.85/2.89 x 300 = 400 yards.

From that point, it remains necessary to account for the increase in the basic mean dispersion value, which itself varies with range, ToF and angle of fall. Once again, the damned rabbit hole is always deeper than it first appears. I suspect that you are already well familiar with all this stuff; I'm just laying it out for the general record.
- – -
Regarding simulating Rangekeeping in a game:
One way to think of it as a % of the actual range. You'd start with the rangefinder error of about 5% (+/-750 yards at 15,000 yards) and then ideally it gets smaller for each ranging shot/salvo. It should probably never get below +/-200 yards. Various actions like target/shooter maneuvering, poor sighting, etc could increase it. In a worst-case situation like observing into a setting or rising sun/glare, the error might be 10%-15% and stay that way if you can't observe the salvo results.
The other way would be as I mentioned in a previous post. Using a % you can compare it better to what happened historically.

So in the game I'm envisioning each ship/player performs their rangefinding and salvo results (record keeping) and determines their new range-keeping error, the time of flight for their next salvo to land and record the future game time to determine the results.

Using a manually operated player game clock, the time is called off in 5-10 second intervals. When a ship's salvo "lands" the shooting player "stops the clock" to determine the results, his new range-keeping error, and the timing of when his next salvo will land. The target player can at the same time give defensive course corrections which could interrupt their firing and increase the range-keeping error for shooter and target.
Players can make course corrections at any time too. There are varying levl of detail to determine hits, penetrations, and damage not dependent on timing.

Clearly, you are looking to adapt your OODA "continuous clock" method to manage ship's gunnery. I believe that it can be made to work mechanically. Since I have not yet had the pleasure of playing your tactical tank warfare game, I am unable to understand or comment upon the player workload factor involved – i.e., how many ships a single player can easily manage when (apparently) he is obliged to track, record and manage a succession of numerically denominated ranges each turn. Maybe it will be quick and easy, but fear of the unknown is suggesting that it may get fairly complicated and time-consuming.

My own rules experimentations have focused on developing a gunnery method that would permit 5 or 6 players to play the "Run to the South" (with ALL the ships – BCs, BBs, CLs and DDs) to a satisfactory conclusion as a Saturday game. That (IMO) requires record-keeping, order writing, gunnery mechanics and damage effects determination to be streamlined to the maximum degree possible … without ending up with some sort of "Osprey-like game" (Deep down, I'm still a "rivet counter" at heart).

So … on the capital ship gunnery side, I've abandoned the idea of managing by exact ranges and boldly gone forth down the path of "likelihood to straddle", which is fundamentally governed by "SROF" (Spotted Rate of Fire). The range of a gun is divided into range bands; each range band has an SROF whole number value which denotes the number of salvoes that can be fired, spotted and adjusted within a time period of three minutes (one game turn). Various (but not many) modifiers (each either + or – 1) are applied to the basic SROF value and one D6 is then thrown against the net modified SROF value..

Example –
British 13.5-in gun Mk V firing a 1400lb 4crh projectile at 14,700yds = 23 sec ToF.
Salvo ToF of 23 sec + 15 sec to spot and adjust = 38 sec.
A turn of three minutes = 180 sec.
180 sec divided by 38 = SROF of 4.7, which is rounded off to 5

Throw 1D6:
Applicable Modifiers
-1 First fire at new target.
-1 Beyond effective range-finder limit.
-2 Range Rate (*see footnote below)
For a net D6 modifier of -4.

Throw 1D6, with possible results and consequences as follow –
1 – 4 </= 0 . . [ still "ranging"; -1 penalty next turn ]
2 – 4 </= 0 . .[ still "ranging"; -1 penalty next turn ]
3 – 4 </= 0 . .[ still "ranging"; -1 penalty next turn ]
4 – 4 </= 0 . .[ still "ranging"; -1 penalty next turn ]
5 – 4 = 1 . . . [ target "bracketed"; no ranging penalty next turn ]
6 – 4 = 2 . . . [ target "bracketed" + one straddle; no range-finder penalty next turn ]

Test for hits from straddle.

- – -

Footnote on "Range Rate" penalty
Firing ship (A) and target ship (B) check each other's relative bearing after movement and before gunnery (use conning towers as reference points and a simple bearing gauge placed next to side of measuring ship – Bow = 0deg; stern = 180deg.

Ship B within 00 – 45deg on ship A's broadside: range rate value = +2
Ship B within 45 – 75deg on ship A's broadside: range rate value = +1
Ship B within 75 – 105deg on ship A's broadside: range rate value = 0
Ship B within 105 – 135deg on ship A's broadside: range rate value = -1
Ship B within 135 – 180deg on ship A's broadside: range rate value = -2

Ship B then checks relative position of ship A in the same manner

Compare the respective "Range Rate" values determined by each ship's bearing measurement and determine a net value.
> If the net value is zero, the effective range rate penalty is zero
> If the net value is any other number, whether + or -, that number is applied as a negative range rate penalty.

With use of the gauges, the bearing measurements can be done quickly and simultaneously.

That's all for today. It's dinner time and I'm hungry.
Next installment on determining hits forthcoming shortly.

B

Regarding the footnote on "Range Rate" penalty:

Calculating range rate from relative bearings would seem to give an instantaneous value at the time of fire. I am using a similar algorithm.

Instantaneous range rate in nautical miles per minute:

Range Rate = (target speed * cos(target angle) – own speed * cos(relative bearing)) / 60

This method ignores the changes in range rate over the period of time that the firing is occurring (one minute in my case, three minutes in the example above). An alternate method would be to calculate range rate from the current and previous ranges. If there is no previous range available (e.g., due to a change of target), the maximum range rate penalty could be applied.

NCC1717,
Thanks, that's a little more than I'm using. I have a chart that helps me estimate it. I'll have to check it out with your formula to see how close it is.

The Range Rate and Range Keeping Error are rules that I still need the most work on.

Wolfhag

NCC1717 wrote –
Regarding the footnote on "Range Rate" penalty: Calculating range rate from relative bearings would seem to give an instantaneous value at the time of fire. I am using a similar algorithm.

Instantaneous range rate in nautical miles per minute:Range Rate = (target speed * cos(target angle) – own speed * cos(relative bearing)) / 60

This method ignores the changes in range rate over the period of time that the firing is occurring (one minute in my case, three minutes in the example above). An alternate method would be to calculate range rate from the current and previous ranges. If there is no previous range available (e.g., due to a change of target), the maximum range rate penalty could be applied.

Hi NCC1717,
I have explored both methods. Establishing a range rate penalty factor based upon difference in measured target range from Turn X to Turn X+1 is an elegant approach. But it requires accurate range measurements and recording/tracking of that range data from one turn to the next. This method works well and I would probably favor its use in a small action. But it tends (in my own experience at any rate) to bog down pace of play in the sort of larger scenarios ("Run to the South") I am seeking to put on the table.

By comparison, use of a relative bearing gauge is a "fire and forget" process; no recording and retention of range data from turn to turn in a gunnery log is required. Both firing ship and target ship can simultaneously gauge relative bearing – which has proven to be a time-saver. It also helps in determining special effects in connection with attack of vertical armor – i.e., British Jutland-era AP works OK against side armor if line of fire is within +/-15deg of target ship broadside. German AP works OK w/in 30deg, any AP striking angle >45deg faces large penetration reduction …. (devising a means of easily adjusting vertical AP performance in accord with angle of obliquity has been a BIG challenge!)

The relative bearing gauge also does double-duty for torpedo attacks, being marked around its arc to record torpedo fire azimuth.

FWIW.

B

Blutarski:

I agree with you that for a manual game, using bearings is a better solution, especially since it can be used for angle of incidence.

I have played some manual games where players keep a log of ranges and other firing data (e.g., Seekrieg 5), but often it is only necessary to have the range bracket (i.e., over 8K yards, under 10K). Range rate would require more precise values.

One question about the bearing method: how are the ship speeds figured in?

Thanks.

Hi NCC1717,
The effect of ships' speeds is the Achilles heel of the relative bearing approach to range rate. My solution is rather arbitrary -

A ship displaying any range rate value other than zero and moving at a speed =/> 30kts increases its range rate value by 1 (for example: a -1 becomes -2 or a +2 becomes a +3), and vice-versa for any ship moving at a speed </= 10kts.

I concede that it is not a PERFECT solution, but console myself in the sense that the rule is simple, easy to remember, involves no charts and fits with my intention of modelling gunnery/FC influences in a general but nevertheless valid way rather than burden the player with a numerically complex FC model full of charts, all perfectly quantified down to the last millimeter, which (IMO) most often ends up as a chrome-laden chimera.

It does bear saying that other factors influence the FC model. Radical turns will greatly screw up your shooting; spray, smoke, etc will cause problems as might well be expected.

My approach, at any rate. Thanks for showing interest/curiosity!

B

So … on the capital ship gunnery side, I've abandoned the idea of managing by exact ranges and boldly gone forth down the path of "likelihood to straddle", which is fundamentally governed by "SROF" (Spotted Rate of Fire). The range of a gun is divided into range bands; each range band has an SROF whole number value which denotes the number of salvos that can be fired, spotted, and adjusted within a time period of three minutes (one game turn). Various (but not many) modifiers (each either + or – 1) are applied to the basic SROF value and one D6 is then thrown against the net modified SROF value..

This sounds somewhat like Alnavco's SRM (Salvo Rate per Move) system which I played a lot and like as it kept track of ammo too. I like the idea of Hits Per Gun Per Minute system with certain modifiers but I for large battles but have not worked it out yet.

Example –
British 13.5-in gun Mk V firing a 1400lb 4crh projectile at 14,700yds = 23 sec ToF.
Salvo ToF of 23 sec + 15 sec to spot and adjust = 38 sec.
A turn of three minutes = 180 sec.
180 sec divided by 38 = SROF of 4.7, which is rounded off to 5

That's playable and accurate. The only downside is that one salvo can knock a ship out of commission or force it to take evasive action effectively taking it out of the firing line. If the first salvo in an exchange did either that is effectively 3-4 salvos he does not get off – that can be huge in a naval engagement. Many factors like smoke, haze, near misses, etc. can extend the amount of time.

Any rules using timing (ToF + spot and adjust) effectively makes the game a "Time Competitive" contest which is really pertinent in 1:1 naval or land combat. However, you then create artificial rules and die rolls to parse the action which is not Time Competitive. I tried the same system you are using but I found it was using each ship's individual OODA Firing Loop somewhat easier because it eliminated some rules and die rolls. I use the same "Virtual Movement" system as for land combat which makes torpedo combat easier and more accurate because you can determine the rate of movement and maneuvering in 5 or 10-second increments. However, determining the results of each salvo does not scale well for large battles.

It seems the big difference between our systems is that you are determining the results for multiple salvos, mine determines results on a salvo by salvo basis. Logically, mine should take much longer, especially in a large game, the devil is in the details of gunnery and damage rules.

You are using a D6 to determine a straddle and hits using a D6 with modifiers which is fine. However, the range rate penalty is going to vary over a 3 minute period and it's not going to accurately reflect the extreme evasive maneuvers a ship may take but I guess that's the tradeoff for a large game. Do your rules allow a ship to go into "Rapid Fire" after getting a straddle? That's another huge factor in naval warfare too.

I use a single die roll to determine a straddle without modifiers based on the Range Keeping Error and modifiers. I admit I haven't fleshed out the details on that yet. Hits are determined by comparing the ship danger space (modified by the angle) and the # rounds in a salvo and sheath size.

In the naval game, the clock timing system I use is in 5-second increments. Each increment is announced. If no rounds are scheduled to land and no orders to change the next 5-second increment is announced. When the time comes for the salvo to land you check what the ship's Control Room is using as the Range Keeping Error (spotting and environmental conditions) and target maneuvering during the ToF which will increase it. Closer ranges and slower speeds deliver a lesser error. Comparing the salvo length to the range keeping error determines a straddle.

A 400-yard salvo that straddles and is observed gives a new range-keeping error of +/-400 yards. A 400-yard salvo that misses on a +/-1000 yard error decreases it by the salvo length so it would now be +/-600 yards that the player would record but could increase depending on the target maneuvering.

So it's one die roll, with no modifiers to determine a straddle. A 400-yard salvo of 4 rounds is 1 round per 100 yards not taking into account the rounds clustering around the MPI of the salvo. If the ship's beam + angle aspect modifier is 60 yards and AOD danger space is 30 yards that's 90 yards Hitting Space versus a 100 yards space giving a 90% chance for one hit and 10% chance for a near miss. A 200-yard salvo of 4 rounds would be 1 round every 50 yards so 90 / 50 = 1.8 hits. That's one definite hit and a 80% chance of a second hit. If it misses it counts as a near miss which can cause concussion damage and increase spotting time.

I'm trying to keep Range Keeping simple. I don't see it as a function of measuring the range all the time. My gun charts are in 2000 yard increments so the range is not always changing that much in between salvos. I do have a chart that shows how far the distance is increased depending on time, speed, and differences. So if the player has a Range Keeping Error of +/-800 yards that chart increases the 800 yards at the time of firing. The shooting player never really knows exactly what the error is unless he straddles and the large error generated by both sides making course changes can really decrease accuracy. It sounds similar to yours but with an extra step. I don't think there is any way to accurately portray it and make it playable.

Since I'm determining the action with individual salvos it allows the target player to "chasing salvos" making a course change immediately after the salvo falls. Smoke and near misses can degrade salvo spotting increasing the amount of time to get off the next salvo.

In a larger game, I can see where it's hard to include these factors. My satisfaction in a naval game is simulating the gunnery problems, hits/damage, and damage control so I play mostly smaller scenarios. I'm calling the game "Rivetheads". Seas of War has a good balance between gunnery details and playability for Range Keeping.

For secondary guns, I use a different system that determines how many hits using a binomial table.

German AP works OK w/in 30deg, any AP striking angle >45deg faces large penetration reduction

Is that the vertical and horizontal compound angle?

I'd be interested in how you portray the opening stages of a battle from the first sighting (OTH smoke) to opening the first ranging shots.

Wolfhag

This sounds somewhat like Alnavco's SRM (Salvo Rate per Move) system which I played a lot and like as it kept track of ammo too. I like the idea of Hits Per Gun Per Minute system with certain modifiers but I for large battles but have not worked it out yet.

I never did play the Alnavco ("Seapower"?) rules (although I have a copy lurking somewhere in my file cabinet). Our club played an offshoot of Fletcher Pratt's naval wargame rules re-written by Arnold Hendricks. We then migrated to GQ-I&II – which, to say the least, was quite a different experience.

- – -

That's (the British 13.5-in ballistic data) playable and accurate. The only downside is that one salvo can knock a ship out of commission or force it to take evasive action effectively taking it out of the firing line. If the first salvo in an exchange did either that is effectively 3-4 salvos he does not get off – that can be huge in a naval engagement. Many factors like smoke, haze, near misses, etc. can extend the amount of time.

My internal play-testing and a couple of evaluation games have only produced a sudden knock-out blow as a consequence of magazine (cordite) explosion. The ugliest example was a scenario involving Troubridge's 1st Cruiser Squadron matched up against Goeben. A penetrating hit upon a gun turret or casemate would result in a magazine explosion on a D6 score of 1; two ACs were lost in that way. A third AC had her speed crippled by successive machinery hits. The British player called it quits at that point. That was over a number of turns = about 45 minutes historical time. But the biggest influencing factor (as I saw it) was a total vulnerability of the British cruisers to 11-in gunfire after they had been allowed (suckered) by Goeben's player to close to the inner edge of Goeben's 9.2-in immunity zone. Goeben's guns shot up the British cruisers, but her armor was what won the game. This result was achieved over about 45 minutes of historical game time.

I take your point about accounting for evasive action by the target. In my previous post, I failed to fully describe the requirements to get into "rapid fire".

In the gunnery process, the SROF is multiplied by a D6 score modified for FC conditions; the result is divided by 10 to get a "net score". For an SROF of 5 and an FC penalty of -3 (-1 did not at least achieve a bracket last turn; -1 beyond effective range-finding distance; -1 for range rate) the following range of results would apply –

D6 net score – Result
1 – 3 = 0 – – – – Still "ranging"; -1 on next turn of fire.
2 – 3 = 0 – – – – Still "ranging"; -1 on next turn of fire.
3 – 3 = 0 – – – – Still "ranging"; -1 on next turn of fire.
4 – 3 = 1 – – – – Target "bracketed"; range found; range-finder penalty removed next turn.
5 – 3 = 2 – – – – Bracket + one Straddle; as above; test for hits.
6 – 3 = 3 – – – – Bracket + two (or perhaps more) straddles removes all FC penalties

Two or more straddles in one turn of fire removes all negative FC penalties for the next turn of fire (range and range rate assumed to have been established for the moment) and confers a "rapid fire" bonus for the following gunnery turn (+1 British and German heavy guns; +2 British secondaries; +3 German secondaries). (The conservative bonus relates to the period of rapid fire normally being materially less than the 3-minute duration of a game turn)

The range of possible D6 net score results under "rapid fire" is –
1 + 1 = 2 x SROF 5 divided by 10 = 1 straddle
2 + 1 = 3 x SROF 5 divided by 10 = 1.5 = 2 straddles
3 + 1 = 4 x SROF 5 divided by 10 = 2 straddles
4 + 1 = 5 x SROF 5 divided by 10 = 2.5 = 3 straddles
5 + 1 = 6 x SROF 5 divided by 10 = 3 straddles
6 + 1 = 7 x SROF 5 divided by 10 = 3.5 = 4 straddles

for an average of 2.5 straddles in a turn of rapid fire. Rapid fire lasts for one turn of fire only, with gunnery on the following turn starting again from the beginning on the assumption that both range and range rate have been lost as a result of target evasive maneuver. The number of straddles achieved by the D6 throw is assumed to randomly reflect the efficacy/success of target's evasive efforts.

Note – a straddle does not absolutely guarantee a hit upon the target

Anyways ….. that has been my approach to gunnery mechanics. My goal is to place the players in the position of commanders responsible for both maneuvering and fighting a sub-division or division of capital ships (i.e. 2-4 ships) without placing an excessive computational gunnery burden upon them ….. 1D6 per ship to check for straddles; if straddle(s) achieved, 1D6 per straddle to check for possible hits.

- – -

Any rules using timing (ToF + spot and adjust) effectively makes the game a "Time Competitive" contest which is really pertinent in 1:1 naval or land combat. However, you then create artificial rules and die rolls to parse the action which is not Time Competitive. I tried the same system you are using but I found it was using each ship's individual OODA Firing Loop somewhat easier because it eliminated some rules and die rolls. I use the same "Virtual Movement" system as for land combat which makes torpedo combat easier and more accurate because you can determine the rate of movement and maneuvering in 5 or 10-second increments. However, determining the results of each salvo does not scale well for large battles.

It seems the big difference between our systems is that you are determining the results for multiple salvos, mine determines results on a salvo by salvo basis. Logically, mine should take much longer, especially in a large game, the devil is in the details of gunnery and damage rules.

I look forward to trying out your approach out once you get settled. I agree about the scale of engagement that the OODA approach can effectively support, but I want to see your game mechanics in action.

- – -

You are using a D6 to determine a straddle and hits using a D6 with modifiers which is fine. However, the range rate penalty is going to vary over a 3 minute period and it's not going to accurately reflect the extreme evasive maneuvers a ship may take but I guess that's the tradeoff for a large game.

From my experimentation, I have come to the conclusion that range rate does not tend to change dramatically unless the target ship make a radical course alteration. Such a turn by the target ship would result in a further FC penalty to the firing ship. I was trying to keep examples simple, but the "rabbit hole" factor always seems to arise.

- – -

Do your rules allow a ship to go into "Rapid Fire" after getting a straddle? That's another huge factor in naval warfare too.

Yes, as belatedly described above.

- – -

I use a single die roll to determine a straddle without modifiers based on the Range Keeping Error and modifiers. I admit I haven't fleshed out the details on that yet. Hits are determined by comparing the ship danger space (modified by the angle) and the # rounds in a salvo and sheath size.

Modelling salvo characteristics and hit likelihood for various combinations of FC system, gun type, range, angle of fall and target class … in a SIMPLE manner … has arguably been the most difficult part of this project for me.

- – -

In the naval game, the clock timing system I use is in 5-second increments. Each increment is announced. If no rounds are scheduled to land and no orders to change the next 5-second increment is announced. When the time comes for the salvo to land you check what the ship's Control Room is using as the Range Keeping Error (spotting and environmental conditions) and target maneuvering during the ToF which will increase it. Closer ranges and slower speeds deliver a lesser error. Comparing the salvo length to the range keeping error determines a straddle.

A 400-yard salvo that straddles and is observed gives a new range-keeping error of +/-400 yards. A 400-yard salvo that misses on a +/-1000 yard error decreases it by the salvo length so it would now be +/-600 yards that the player would record but could increase depending on the target maneuvering.

So it's one die roll, with no modifiers to determine a straddle. A 400-yard salvo of 4 rounds is 1 round per 100 yards not taking into account the rounds clustering around the MPI of the salvo. If the ship's beam + angle aspect modifier is 60 yards and AOD danger space is 30 yards that's 90 yards Hitting Space versus a 100 yards space giving a 90% chance for one hit and 10% chance for a near miss. A 200-yard salvo of 4 rounds would be 1 round every 50 yards so 90 / 50 = 1.8 hits. That's one definite hit and a 80% chance of a second hit. If it misses it counts as a near miss which can cause concussion damage and increase spotting time.

I need to see the above "in action" to better understand the mechanics described.

I'm trying to keep Range Keeping simple. I don't see it as a function of measuring the range all the time. My gun charts are in 2000 yard increments so the range is not always changing that much in between salvos. I do have a chart that shows how far the distance is increased depending on time, speed, and differences. So if the player has a Range Keeping Error of +/-800 yards that chart increases the 800 yards at the time of firing. The shooting player never really knows exactly what the error is unless he straddles and the large error generated by both sides making course changes can really decrease accuracy. It sounds similar to yours but with an extra step. I don't think there is any way to accurately portray it and make it playable.

I very much tend to agree. Complicated mechanics is the mortal enemy of playability.

- – -

Since I'm determining the action with individual salvos it allows the target player to "chasing salvos" making a course change immediately after the salvo falls. Smoke and near misses can degrade salvo spotting increasing the amount of time to get off the next salvo. In a larger game, I can see where it's hard to include these factors.

Agreed – in my case, I have left efficacy of evasive maneuvers over a longer turn time to be adjudicated by the random factor of the dice.

- – -

My satisfaction in a naval game is simulating the gunnery problems, hits/damage, and damage control so I play mostly smaller scenarios. I'm calling the game "Rivetheads". Seas of War has a good balance between gunnery details and playability for Range Keeping.

Look forward to taking your rules for a spin.
- – -

"German AP works OK w/in 30deg, any AP striking angle >45deg faces large penetration reduction"
Is that the vertical and horizontal compound angle?"

Vertical side armor penetration was computed on a compound basis – vertical angle of fall combined with 30deg line of fire obliquity. Barbettes are dealt with differently.

- – -

I'd be interested in how you portray the opening stages of a battle from the first sighting (OTH smoke) to opening the first ranging shots.

I confess that I don't have an easy "off the shelf" answer for this. I would tend towards running the approach as a simultaneous real-time campaign map exercise, with the game organizer acting as God and in separate contact with each commander, dispensing bits of information about range and nature/situation of opponent as apropos, acting upon their orders until someone decides to open fire.

B

Blutarski,

Anyways ….. that has been my approach to gunnery mechanics. My goal is to place the players in the position of commanders responsible for both maneuvering and fighting a sub-division or division of capital ships (i.e. 2-4 ships) without placing an excessive computational gunnery burden upon them ….. 1D6 per ship to check for straddles; if straddle(s) achieved, 1D6 per straddle to check for possible hits.

I've concentrated more on the gunnery aspect of the game determining the results on a salvo by salvo basis. I'd be interested in seeing your command and maneuvering rules.

The OODA Loop concept is normally confusing to people once they hear it as they seem to overly complicate the process. I think we are so ingrained to think that more detail makes a more complicated game.

From my experimentation, I have come to the conclusion that range rate does not tend to change dramatically unless the target ship make a radical course alteration. Such a turn by the target ship would result in a further FC penalty to the firing ship. I was trying to keep examples simple, but the "rabbit hole" factor always seems to arise.

I'd agree here too. However, a small changing rate does make the final range keeping error a little more variable. The player should not know exactly what it is.

Using single salvos does allow players to make that radical course change in more of a real time game environment (immediately after he's straddled) or allow the shooter to immediately go into rapid fire. That's the kind of stuff I want to simulate. Extreme maneuvers would most likely negate his current firing solution and preclude any return fire until he straightened his course. Something like this can change the course of a battle and there is always the chance of the rudder getting jammed.

Modelling salvo characteristics and hit likelihood for various combinations of FC system, gun type, range, angle of fall and target class … in a SIMPLE manner … has arguably been the most difficult part of this project for me.

Seas of War has a pretty simple method and allows the player to fire a short (less chance of a straddle but more hits) or long salvo (greater chance of a straddle but fewer hits). He also reflects the difference between British and German rangefinders. When you fire, you determine the number of factors/points and salvo type with a die roll. He also has a descent angle modifier. You could simplify it even more.

I'm not sure how much detail you go into for hit location or damage, probably not a lot for larger games. Using my salvo plotting table one die roll determine the MPI of the salvo. Then using the shells AOD I can determine which section is hit, the hull/deck hit location, near misses, barbette hits, superstructure, stacks, underwater hits, hits on conning towers, turret face/roof, belt armor, masts, etc. without a die roll. It takes about 5 seconds and is all visual. It works for torpedo boats to the largest battleships.

Another way would be to determine the hit % chance and roll on a binomial table. This is what I use for auto-cannons and secondary batteries on ships.

I need to see the above "in action" to better understand the mechanics described.

It's really just 3rd grade math. Using the salvo plotting board delivers the results visually with no math.

I look at the opening stage of a battle as both sides spotting each other almost simultaneously. Maybe first spotting the smoke while the ship itself is over the horizon. Players can send a squadron of light cruisers to investigate and start deploying. Because of the German coin rangefinders they can start ranging on the British smoke giving them a slight advantage (is that correct).

Now it's a race to get off the first ranging shots to straddle first – shoot first, straddle first. Accurate rangefinding is a function of spotting, RF methods and time. I think that historically the Germans had an advantage in the opening phase. As the ships are maneuvering both sides select how many minutes they'll spend for the initial ranging shot. The longer they take the more accurate their ranging shot will be. They really don't know until they shoot how accurate their initial range taking was. However, that may allow your opponent to open fire first. It's a historic Risk-Reward Decision the player makes. I think Campbell's book on Jutland goes into detail on this.

It'll be great when we can get together. You are one of the most knowledgeable people I know on the subject.

Wolfhag

I'd be interested in seeing your command and maneuvering rules.

I use 1:6000 ship models (Figurehead). The five models of the ships of Hipper's 1AG, laid out nose-to-tail in column, if we allow for the W/Ls of each ship plus a close order minimum interval of 500m between ships = 3,256yds. Actual measurement on the table = 8.625in. 8.625in divided by 3.256 = 2.649in per 1,000yds, which gives about a 95pct accurate ground scale 2.5in per 1,000yds and 1/4in per knot when combined with a time scale of 3 historical minutes per turn. This confers several advantages for my 6'8" x 9' game table –

1 – Time/speed/range distortions are pretty much eliminated when the ground scale in relationship to the models in use permits the models to more or less occupy the same relative spaces and distances relative to one another as their real-life historical peers. Very important, IMO.

2 – Normal maximum gun range of ~20,000yds (even the RN's official1918 range tables did not tabulate ballistic data beyond 20,000yds) and even an absolute maximum WW1 ship's gun range of 24,000yds can easily be accommodated across the 80in short dimension of my gaming table. Gunnery ranges can be measured with a 5ft stick instead of a tape measure – much quicker and easier than a tape measure – and I can have separate sticks for each important gun, showing the important data on each of the four sides of the square stick.

3 – At 24kts speed (6in per turn), a ship would require 18 game turns (54min of historical time to sail the 9ft length. Using movable sea tiles atop the table, I won't run out of table space for most actions.

- – -

Re maneuvering, the afore-mentioned "nose-to-tail" column denotes a column of warships in divisional or squadron tactical formation at regulation close-order intervals. Ships operating in an "open order" column may still qualify as a formation if within one base-length of their next ahead or next astern.

Turn gauges of 1,000yds and 600yds

- – -

Signal communication mechanics are generally based upon the following document – gwpda.org/naval/kiddnc24.htm

I assume that a ship straddled or hit by an opponent of broadly equal class is under "effective fire".

A column ordered to "follow the leader", will do so without special maneuver orders. But any change of formation speed must be signaled in the conventional way

Speed of a formation in close order may not exceed 2 knots less than the maximum speed of its slowest ship, unless the slowest ship is the flagship leading the formation.
Any ship unable to keep up with the formation speed for any reason must withdraw from the battle area under the escort of at least one DD. Alternatively, formation speed may be reduced to accommodate the damaged ship.

Once ordered, any increase or decrease in formation speed, however great, is restricted to 1 knot per turn if in close order or 2 knots if in open order.

For any other sort of maneuver order, If the flagship was not under effective fire last turn, the chit is placed face up at the start of the movement phase and acted upon that turn; if the flagship is under effective fire, the chit I placed face down at the start of the movement phase and activated by flipping it up at the start of the movement phase of the following turn.

All of this is off the top of my head, because I have been spending way too much time on the gunnery side of things and have not yet written out other aspects of the rulesin proper legalese.

- – -

The OODA Loop concept is normally confusing to people once they hear it as they seem to overly complicate the process. I think we are so ingrained to think that more detail makes a more complicated game.

I understand the basics – Observe, Orient, Decide, Act – perfectly intuitive. It's the game mechanics that implement and oversee the process among several players simultaneously that I'm interested in. I get the basics of the running "clock" process that you have described; I am interested to see how it handles, say, the inputs of, say, five players.

- – -

I'd agree here too (i.e. rate of change of range rate). However, a small changing rate does make the final range keeping error a little more variable. The player should not know exactly what it is.

What you say is true. I am relying upon the variable D6 scores to provide the uncertainty within a controlled range of possible outcomes, where the greater the progressive sequence of good results the better the ultimate outcome. Getting a salvo MPI spot on to the waterline of the target is pure luck; getting some part of the 50pct zone to overlap the target (i.e. within 50-100yds) is IMO the skillful part.

- – -

Using single salvos does allow players to make that radical course change in more of a real time game environment (immediately after he's straddled) or allow the shooter to immediately go into rapid fire. That's the kind of stuff I want to simulate. Extreme maneuvers would most likely negate his current firing solution and preclude any return fire until he straightened his course. Something like this can change the course of a battle and there is always the chance of the rudder getting jammed.

Figuratively speaking, your are looking through a scope at 28x, whereas I'm looking at about 15x. ;-)

- – -

Seas of War has a pretty simple method and allows the player to fire a short (less chance of a straddle but more hits) or long salvo (greater chance of a straddle but fewer hits).

AIUI, control of pattern length was only an option (for the RN at any rate) with director-controlled ships, but I don't claim to be fully versed in the fine art of it all. However, at the small pattern end of things, a great deal generally depended upon the accuracy of the calibration of the gun battery and it ammunition (more rabbit hole stuff). Look at the salvo pattern spread versus range info I posted earlier; there are some weirdly variable results and you can find similar problems cropping up with the WW2 RN as well.

Along the same vein, I think things like German "Forking Groups" (Gabelgruppe auf Deutsch) and double-salvoes and the later 1916 Spotting rule ladder methods deserve inclusion within the game mechanics on some basis.

- – -

He also reflects the difference between British and German rangefinders.

Bless him.

- – -

When you fire, you determine the number of factors/points and salvo type with a die roll. He also has a descent angle modifier. You could simplify it even more.

I'm not sure how much detail you go into for hit location or damage, probably not a lot for larger games. Using my salvo plotting table one die roll determine the MPI of the salvo. Then using the shells AOD I can determine which section is hit, the hull/deck hit location, near misses, barbette hits, superstructure, stacks, underwater hits, hits on conning towers, turret face/roof, belt armor, masts, etc. without a die roll. It takes about 5 seconds and is all visual. It works for torpedo boats to the largest battleships.

As presently configured, each gun chart features Angle of Fall bands – Point Blank, Falling, Steep, Vertical. How many bands will depend upon the max angle of fall of the gun in question. The Angle of Fall band also functions as the vertical entry point when rolling for hit location on the ship chart and dictates the likelihood of what the projectile may hit – hull side, deck, superstructure, etc.

- – -

Another way would be to determine the hit % chance and roll on a binomial table. This is what I use for auto-cannons and secondary batteries on ships.

Too scare to get that close … ;-)

- – -

Using the salvo plotting board delivers the results visually with no math.

Another feature I'm interested to see in action.

- – -

I look at the opening stage of a battle as both sides spotting each other almost simultaneously. Maybe first spotting the smoke while the ship itself is over the horizon. Players can send a squadron of light cruisers to investigate and start deploying.

Smoke on the horizon would, to me, signify very good visibility conditions. When I work on my WW1 naval rules, I mentally live in the North Sea, where average visibility is ~7 sea miles year round. The first battle of Heligoland Bight and Coronel were fought in visibility as low as 7-8,000yds – an opponent could (and did in the event) suddenly pop up in front of your face at handshake distance. The Scarborough Raid occurred under similar visibility conditions. Then the Falklands, Dogger Bank and Jutland opened with superb visibility. You just never know.

- – -

Because of the German coin rangefinders they can start ranging on the British smoke giving them a slight advantage (is that correct).

German ships were fitted with stereoscopic range-finders, whose use of visual 3-D congruity permit ranging upon amorphous objects like smoke clouds. But ranging upon smoke clouds implies a ship still below the horizon, which in turn implies a very great intervening distance (20 miles?). I doubt that any sort of useful reading (for gunnery purposes) would have been achievable. The Germans liked their range-finding system – multiple (like 6-7) range-finders automatically feeding continuous range readings into a mechanical range-averaging device ("Mittlungs Apparat") – up to 20,000 meters.

- – -

Now it's a race to get off the first ranging shots to straddle first – shoot first, straddle first. Accurate rangefinding is a function of spotting, RF methods and time. I think that historically the Germans had an advantage in the opening phase. As the ships are maneuvering both sides select how many minutes they'll spend for the initial ranging shot. The longer they take the more accurate their ranging shot will be. They really don't know until they shoot how accurate their initial range taking was. However, that may allow your opponent to open fire first. It's a historic Risk-Reward Decision the player makes. I think Campbell's book on Jutland goes into detail on this.

One factor that influenced events at this stage was the question of risk versus reward versus available ammunition supply. At Dogger Bank, Beatty first started ranging on Bluecher at about 20,000yds and he did hit her once before he passed her by in pursuit of Hipper's retreating BCs. But in the course of the battle the British found it very difficult to consistently score hits and Beatty and Chatfield (Beatty's gunnery chief) concluded after the fight that they simply did not carry enough ammunition or time to achieve decisive results (barring a golden BB). As a result, the following year at Jutland, Beatty purposely withheld his fire (despite having a 2-3,000yd range advantage), only opening fire after Hipper had first opened the festivities at about 16,000yds; Beatty thereupon also immediately sought to close the range which got down below 14,000yds at one point before the effective German fire forced Beatty to back off.

Definitely look forward to getting together.

B

Blutarski,

I realize you are discussing manual game rules, but I hope you do not mind my putting my oar in the water….

I'm also using 1/6000 Figurehead models, but with a ground scale of 1 inch to 500 yards. For most scenarios I use the standard Grand Fleet spacing of 500 yards, stem to stem, with an additional cable between divisions. There is nothing preventing my using 500 meters for the German units (547 yards) but I have not bothered to due so in the past. I have used 600 yards for the 5th BS, based on my interpretation of the signals in Brooks. For larger ships like Lexingtons or G3/N3 I have used intervals of up to 1000 yards.

As you can see from the photo, my AG-I does not fit in the 5 inch space, but the code keeps positions as if it did.

I had assumed the German spacing was also stem to stem, but your example seems to indicate 500 meters stern to stem. Is there a source for that?

NCC1717 wrote –
I realize you are discussing manual game rules, but I hope you do not mind my putting my oar in the water….

You are more than welcome to join in on any discussion as far as I'm concerned.

- – -

I'm also using 1/6000 Figurehead models, but with a ground scale of 1 inch to 500 yards.

Your photo of the ship models is very interesting. I bought my ships about twenty years ago from the original Figurehead operation (located in a village outside of York, England – he literally was casting his models in a tiny garden shed behind his home). The capital ships came with very narrow bases which included a small "ID Tag" at the stern where a brief ship identification code could be added. My ship bases seem to be a bit longer than those in your photo; for example, my model of Von der Tann on its base is 1.5in long and 6mm wide; Lutzow is 1.75in I was surprised by the difference. Did you make your own bases?

- – -

For most scenarios I use the standard Grand Fleet spacing of 500 yards, stem to stem, with an additional cable between divisions. There is nothing preventing my using 500 meters for the German units (547 yards) but I have not bothered to do so in the past. I have used 600 yards for the 5th BS, based on my interpretation of the signals in Brooks. For larger ships like Lexingtons or G3/N3 I have used intervals of up to 1000 yards.

I absolutely take your point about the 500yd stem-to-stem interval. It certainly was in effect when the GF was in cruising formation at Jutland (where the interval between 4 ship divisional columns cruising abreast was 2,000yds) as shown in the map No.31 diagram in Corbett's Naval Operations, showing the GF deployment into line at Jutland. That is 500yds per ship. But I have long wondered exactly how firm that figure was (especially with respect to formation speed). For example, if you look into the appendix of signals in the Jutland Despatches, you can see the following sequence of signals (which is probably what John Brooks was referring to) -

2.20 – Fm Galatea: "Enemy in sight."

2.33 – Fm S.O. BCF: "Raise steam for full speed and report when ready to proceed."

2.35 – Fm S.O. 5BS: "Length of line is 12 cables instead of nine. Take up appointed station."

2.40 – Fm S.O. 5BS: "Alter course in succession to S.S.E. Speed 22 knots."

3.03 – Fm S.O. 5BS: "Ships in column to be 3-1/2 cables apart."

I was faced with a conundrum. Is the 500yd stem-to-stem interval distance valid at all times and in all cases? Apparently not. The 3-1/2 cable interval ordered by Evan-Thomas = 700yds (unless Evan-Thomas was understood to be speaking on a "stem-to-stem" basis – we cannot know). Not really knowing the underlying logic behind intervals (although I strongly suspect it has to do with formation speed), I opted to straddle the issue and use an average of 500yds, which has also allowed me to adopt my preferred distance scale for tabletop play.

I had assumed the German spacing was also stem to stem, but your example seems to indicate 500 meters stern to stem. Is there a source for that?

I believe so, but I do not recall off the top of my head what reference book I found it in – and I have about 300 reference books and documents to look through. My guess is either Staff or Groos or possibly Epkenhans. I will try to find it.

B

Blutarski,

Regarding the signals from S.O. 5BS, those are what I mentioned above and interpreted to mean 5BS was using an interval of 600 yards stem to stem, (time 2.35, 9 cables the desired length of a line of 4 ships). At time 3.03 it was ordered changed to 700 yards (3 1/2 cables).

I suspect that the interval could be changed at the discretion of the OTC and that the intervals used increased with the sizes of the ships. If the 500 yard value was the only one used by the Grand Fleet, I think that it would have been mentioned in the GFBO.

Brooks, page 145, references "General Signal Book 1915", which might give some info if I could get it. If the signals specified the interval in units of cables or 1/2 cables (as in those of 5BS), that might restrict the intervals to 100 yard increments.

"The Russo-Japanese War 1904-1905 British Naval Attache Reports" page 149, mentions 400 yards for the RJW.

I have a portion of a WW2 USN document that says the 1938-42 BATDIV standard was 700 yards and the 1943-45 'fast battleship' two-ship division standard was 1000 yards.

You may have misread my comment:
"I had assumed the German spacing was also stem to stem, but your example seems to indicate 500 meters STERN to STEM. Is there a source for that?"
In this font it is hard to tell STEM from STERN in lower case. I have sources for 500m, but was concerned you were using 500m PLUS the wl length.

I also got bases as you describe with my Figurehead ships and have hundreds of them that need to be recycled. I didn't want to add to the scale length issue by using a base with an ID tab on the end. My bases are described here:
link

Blutarski,
Regarding visibility, I can appreciate poor visibility at sea from living on the coast of northern California. If a ship pops into view do you determine if it is at the 1-3 minute? Would it matter in your game?

As presently configured, each gun chart features Angle of Fall bands – Point Blank, Falling, Steep, Vertical. How many bands will depend upon the max angle of fall of the gun in question. The Angle of Fall band also functions as the vertical entry point when rolling for hit location on the ship chart and dictates the likelihood of what the projectile may hit – hull side, deck, superstructure, etc.

I'd guess your Angle of Fall represents 5, 10, 20 and 30 degrees. Looking on my 15" British gun chart on July 20 I have it in 5 degree and 2000-yard increments (about 1nm). I too use a 6-foot stick that measures 1800m for land combat and 6,000 yards for naval. I'll use my 1:6000 scale ship models or counters from GWAS. I use one foot = 1000 yards on my wooden floor dining room. I put each 3-5 ship formation on a rectangular clear sheet so they are more easily moved. Formations of light cruisers and DD's on a larger sheet. I only have to get down on one knee or use a younger person to do the movement. Looking over the game it gives a good scale as if you were up about 10,000 feet.

Regarding long range fire. By my calculations a 10% range error at 20,000 yards is +/-2,000 yards. Firing a 4-round salvo in a 500-yard sheaf gives about a 15% chance of a straddle with about a 50% chance for one hit. Definitely not worth expending the ammo.

In our game the secondary batteries engage the torpedo boats. They can only engage one target at a time. The DD's close the range zig zagging but then need to move straight for 30 seconds to get a range solution to fire their torpedoes. It can get interesting when a flotilla makes their attack.

Along the same vein, I think things like German "Forking Groups" (Gabelgruppe auf Deutsch) and double-salvoes and the later 1916 Spotting rule ladder methods deserve inclusion within the game mechanics on some basis.

I'll make a short video of how the plotting table works, that will show how it works. I'll send it to you.

Definition: A cable length or length of cable is a nautical unit of measure equal to one tenth of a nautical mile or 185m. There are some other definitions that differ slightly.

I use 200 yards. I read one account that the fewer ships the longer the spacing can be. IIRC the distance between BB's was 1-2 cables. So, if a BB is 200 yards long then there is 200 yards (1 cable) in front and behind as space if using one cable length. So, a line of 4 BB's would take up a length of about 1200 yards. That's how I'd figure it but I haven't checked if that is historically correct. It works well for the figures I use.

Wolfhag

Blutarski,

P.S. regarding the formation intervals:

Corbett (as you mentioned), Tarrant (page 138: 500*(24-1) = 11,500 yards = 5 Ύ miles), the Naval Staff Appreciation (page 83: "…opened his columns…" and Editor's note below) all give a division distance of 2000 yards, consistent with divisions of four ships at 500 yard intervals. None of them include the extra cable required by the GFBO, Section VI.(a):

"When the line of battle is formed, the distance between the leading ship of one division and the rear ship of the preceding division is to be one cable more than the distance apart of the ships in column."

It would seem to me that the ‘maneuvering distance' between division columns abreast in the pre-deployment formation should also include this extra cable. Otherwise the trailing divisions would need to slow down after a 90 degree turn into line as at Jutland. Of course, in the actual deployment, slowing the fleet speed from 17 to 14 knots made such a big mess that this detail would have been trivial.

Hi NCC1717,
LOL – You've really ruined my day!.

Close examination of my Figurehead models has shown that – Lutzow (@ 690ft length) and Moltke (@ 612ft length) both sit upon bases 1.75in long, while Barham (@644ft length) and Von der Tann (@563ft length both sit upon a base 1.5in long. Short of rebasing all my ships, there is no hope of achieving any real "exactitude" in formation intervals across the board; I will have to make do, as I don't want to increase the ground scale beyond 2.5in = 1,000yds.

Ironically, the four models of Barham, Malaya, Valiant and Warspite, all sitting upon bases of 1.5in length, make up a column length of 6.0in … which equals ~600yds per ship. The five German BCs, with a column length of ~8.5in, take up ~620m per ship. Not perfect, but I think I can live with it.

- – -

It makes sense to me that, over time, formation intervals grew in response to the growing size of ships. I also believe that intervals would have been adjusted in accordance with formation speed.

I'm going to poke around in my library and see if I can turn up more on this topic.

B

P.S. regarding the formation intervals:
Corbett (as you mentioned), Tarrant (page 138: 500*(24-1) = 11,500 yards = 5 Ύ miles), the Naval Staff Appreciation (page 83: "…opened his columns…" and Editor's note below) all give a division distance of 2000 yards, consistent with divisions of four ships at 500 yard intervals. None of them include the extra cable required by the GFBO, Section VI.(a):
"When the line of battle is formed, the distance between the leading ship of one division and the rear ship of the preceding division is to be one cable more than the distance apart of the ships in column."
It would seem to me that the ‘maneuvering distance' between division columns abreast in the pre-deployment formation should also include this extra cable. Otherwise the trailing divisions would need to slow down after a 90 degree turn into line as at Jutland. Of course, in the actual deployment, slowing the fleet speed from 17 to 14 knots made such a big mess that this detail would have been trivial.

Interestingly, the Jutland Despatches signal log (Appendix II) notes the following signal made by Jellicoe –

3.16 – C-in-C > General, by Flags: "Columns to be one mile apart."

- which indeed suggests that he was accommodating 2,000yds per division when deploying into battle-line. But I could visualize that the extra cable interval between divisions could have been obtained some judicious speed management by following divisions after completion of the second 90deg turn. It would only (theoretically speaking) be a matter of a few minutes to allow the division ahead to open up an additional cable length.

B

Blutarski,

I had seen that signal in the dispatches and figured it was the source for Corbett, Tarrant etc. The diagrams from Harper and Marder also show 1 mile between division columns at the time of deployment, but they may have been drawn using the Iron Duke positions and the signals, rather than from division lead ship positions.

As far as stretching the interval after deployment, I was thinking that the problem would get worse the farther back a division was, and the 6th division in this case would need to lose five cables of distance. On the other hand, the GFBO section I mentioned also says:

"Whilst forming the line, the commander of the van column is to increase speed up to within one knot of the maximum speed available, the increase being greatest when the angle between the original and new courses is small, but a speed of eighteen knots is not ordinarily to be exceeded."

That could have made it easier to stretch the line out.

Wolfhag wrote -
Regarding visibility, I can appreciate poor visibility at sea from living on the coast of northern California. If a ship pops into view do you determine if it is at the 1-3 minute? Would it matter in your game?

Weather State & Visibility are determined after order chits, etc for the turn are selected, but before movement. A playing card is turned before movement; if a face card appears, weather state and visibility are checked (but may not necessarily change)

- – -

B wrote – As presently configured, each gun chart features Angle of Fall bands – Point Blank, Falling, Steep, Vertical. How many bands will depend upon the max angle of fall of the gun in question. The Angle of Fall band also functions as the vertical entry point when rolling for hit location on the ship chart and dictates the likelihood of what the projectile may hit – hull side, deck, superstructure, etc.

I'd guess your Angle of Fall represents 5, 10, 20 and 30 degrees. Looking on my 15" British gun chart on July 20 I have it in 5 degree and 2000-yard increments (about 1nm).

I use -
PB = Point Blank = Angle of Fall </= 11.5 degrees (Ratio 6:1)
FA = Falling = Angle of Fall </= 21.5 degrees (Ratio 3:1)
PL = Plunging = Angle of Fall </= 33.5 degrees (Ratio 2:1)
VT = Vertical = Angle of Fall > 33.5 degrees (Ratio 1:1)

I know it sounds foolishly arbitrary, but the logic breaks down as follows in terms of determining hit location in the vertical. The "ratios" expressed above represent the relative likelihood of a shot hitting the vertical side of a 10ft x 10ft square versus hitting the top of the square.

Assume a target rectangle 30ft in height and 90ft width (broadly representing the machinery spaces of a ship's hull –
> In the Point Blank zone, there will be (3 x 6) 18 hits upon the side for every (9 x 1) 9 upon the horizontal deck.
> In the Falling Shot zone, there will be (3 x 3) 9 hits upon the side for every (9 x 1) 9 hits upon the horizontal deck.
> In the Plunging zone, there will be (3 x 2) 6 hits upon the side for every (9 x 1) 9 hits upon the horizontal deck.
> In the Vertical zone, there will be (3 x 1) 3 hits upon the side for every (9 x 1) 9 hits upon the horizontal deck.

The V versus H ratio expressed for any given fall of shot zone represents the approximate average of that value within the band of that particular zone. For example, the 1:1 ratio for the Vertical fall of shot zone actually relates to an angle of fall of 45deg, which I chose as the mid-point ratio value between 33.5deg and 60deg (where 60deg is defined as the absolute approximate max for a gun with 45deg maximum elevation. The value of 33.5deg was selected because ir represented the trigonometric cross-over point between 2:1 and 1:1 (i.e. 1.5:1). All this is cooked into the ship chart; no one is doing any trig. I concede that it is somewhat arbitrary, but 90pct of "the business" is done in the Falling shot zone, which is consistent with historical accounts: For a 13.5in gun, an angle of fall of 11.5 degrees = 13,700yds; and angle of fall of 21,5deg = 19,700yds; median angle of fall (15deg) = 16,000yds. Close enough for government work. FWIW.

- – -

I too use a 6-foot stick that measures 1800m for land combat and 6,000 yards for naval. I'll use my 1:6000 scale ship models or counters from GWAS.

I started using gunnery sticks in connection with my Age of Sail rules and found that it sped up play dramatically. The ground scale of my WW1 naval rules is such that a 60-inch stick will = 24,000yds.

- – -

I use one foot = 1000 yards on my wooden floor dining room. I put each 3-5 ship formation on a rectangular clear sheet so they are more easily moved. Formations of light cruisers and DD's on a larger sheet. I only have to get down on one knee or use a younger person to do the movement. Looking over the game it gives a good scale as if you were up about 10,000 feet.

LOL – None of my friends were interested in playing on the floor once we hit our fifties. That was the big reason why I ditched 1:2400 scale and went to 1:6000, which can accommodate a decent sized action on a large tabletop.

More later.

B

I see how the gunnery system works. If you get passable historical results it doesn't really matter the rules or mechanics used. I take the same approach.

I see naval games being played all the time at conventions, I'm not sure of the rules they use. The models were way too large for the table and it didn't look like the players were having much fun.

The ones I've played the most are Seapower and Cordite & Steel.

We only played small naval engagements so taking a knee on the floor or having my son do it was no problem. One of the ways they determine if us old guys need to go into an assisted living place is if you can get up off the floor by yourself. Google an exercise called "Turkish Getup". Fortunately all of my structural system is still original equipment but still a little worn out.

Wolfhag

"If you get passable historical results it doesn't really matter the rules or mechanics used."

I generally agree re mechanics. The challenge has always been to identify exactly what "historical results" really means in terms of naval gunnery. I don't think that many people really have looked into the issue terribly deeply. A lot of attention is paid to the theoretical performance of the shiny mechanical fire control computers and range-finders and all too often (IMO) unwarranted assumptions are made. The actual after-action summaries contained in the wartime Grand Fleet Gunnery and Torpedo Memoranda tell a greatly different story – that fire was normally opened with no measured ranges and no track plot, relying instead on guessed ranges and target inclinations; that even in gunnery practices only one in ten opening salvoes would achieve a straddle, that in actual combat achieving a straddle within the first two or three minutes of firing was considered excellent shooting; that good spotting was considered by far the most important component of good gunnery; that ranging errors up to 2,000 yards were common at long (>20k yds) ranges.

The other interesting component was the difference in effectiveness between old-fashioned bracketing fire versus the new double-salvo laddering fire method adopted by the GF post-Jutland; it really improved gunnery results materially.

When I get a chance, I will extract some of the British after-action commentary and share it here. It makes for interesting reading.

BTW, I can still watch TV on the floor, blessed with loose limbs ….. ;-)

B

The other interesting component was the difference in effectiveness between old-fashioned bracketing fire versus the new double-salvo laddering fire method adopted by the GF post-Jutland; it really improved gunnery results materially.

Here is what I'm attempting to portray in a playable manner:
link

Wolfhag

Hi Wolfhag,
Check your personal email

B

Thanks, I only had excerpts of that. I guess if I designed a naval game it would be called "Naval Gunnery Officer". Sounds good to me.

Wolfhag