"Nimitz: Battle of the Denmark Strait" Topic

"The Battle of the Denmark Strait has a special place in the Royal Navy's, indeed the UK's history, as it was the engagement in which the then iconic pride of the RN, HMS Hood, was lost. The Hood, a thin skinned battlecruiser, particularly lacking in top deck armour, should have been subject to a major refit and upgrade to its protection since its WW1 days, but the pressure on our capital ships was such that there was no choice but to send her, and her half completed consort Prince of Wales, up against the Bismarck…"

Sparkerīs Wargaming Blog

link

Armand

Played this scenario several times using Nimitz and found 1). The rules are excellent for what I want in gaming which is a fast playing and historically representative game. 2). in the case of the Denmark Strait a lot comes down to who scores the first hits. Yes, Hood is not well armored but a bit of luck on the dice for the British and things go sour for the opposing team very quickly.

Always wondered why the two British heavy cruisers did not take part. As it was, the Germany heavy cruiser that sunk the Hood.

Were the RN cruisers part of the screening and chase force or part of the Hood and PoW force?

I always understood that they were the screen and burned up a lot of fuel chasing them and following them.

Are the Nimitz rules geared for big ships, or would they work for a fight between destroyers?

Grelber

The heavy cruisers played no part in that fight as their job was to shadow the Germans, and the quick demise of the hood preempted a later intervention.

@ Grelber
Nimitz can handle DDs quite well. I used these rules in a Cape Esperance game, and certainly the smaller ships made themselves felt.

Thanks Foxbat, thought my memory might have been off.

Thanks

Armand

No Prinz Eugen did not sink Hood, and the "thin deck armor" characterization of HMS Hood is an over-simplification.

A lot of the traditional writing about the Denmark Strait battle is off. Anyone interested in more accurate info should check out the old Jurens Warship International article (available online for free: link) or this book: link

MH

Thanks a lot, hinds. I'd never read the witnesses testimonies, nor seen these sketches. Fascinating read!
I'm reposting the link, the one in your post doesn't seem to work.

link

And the 2001 exploration of Hood's wreck – 10 years afterthe article – found that indeed, Hood's rudder was turned to port, validating the likely penetration by a 15" shell.

link

Thanks also…

Armand

Nice report! I like the Nimitz rules a lot, but my area of interest is the naval actions around Guadalcanal in 1942. This is a bit of a problem since the actions were all fought at night. Nimitz does have rules for night actions, but they are a bit simplistic and then there is the problem of both sides having perfect intelligence about the locations of the the ships – friend and enemy- which was very definitely NOT the case in the real battles.

ScottWashburn, I have gamed Cape Esperance with Nimitz. I found the rules worked well for night engagements.

link

Though these seemed to play no role in my game, the threat of the Long Lances was a major factor in my handling of the US side, and Nimitz, IMO, renders them extremely well. Firing at night illuminates your ship and allows a DD, still concealed by darkness, to stealthily torpedo you from beyond the 12" detection range.

Yes, I designed a pretty good scenario for Savo Island and it worked out well, although I had to include some special rules that pretty much guaranteed the destruction of the first Allied cruiser force in the opening part of the game. But I keep coming back to the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal (Callahan and Scott's cruiser/DD force against the two Japanese battleships at point blank range) and wonder how I could simulate the confusion that dominated that fight?

The Bismarck sunk the Hood…

Armand

Scott, there is nothing in the rules themselves that can simulate that confusion, or, IMO, in any other rules set. Confusion is a part of many naval battles, that is really hard to simulate. When you compare the opposing forces in a lot of battles (I'll keep to the dreadnought age, ample enough stuff there), you can only wonder… Early Jutland and the RN disaster while Beatty had a crushing superioity over Hipper, or the lost victory at Dogger Bank. Savo itself, where the US side had at least parity with the IJN. Or 1st Guadalcanal indeed.
The obvious solution, iMO, is to go for some scenario-specific house rules. This is where the historical savvy you're displaying in your last post will be helpful. If I may point to some general guidelines, the critical stage is how forces deploy. At 1st Guadalcanal, Callaghan's failure to act fast enough, despite radar reports, prevented him from crossing the Japanese T and engaged his forces in a melee (IMO, not the most disadvantageous option given the IJN superiority). One possible way to get this result would be to have both sides draw a sketch of their ships positions relative to each other, plot their advance on a map, compare the maps and place the ships on the table in their current disposition once visual contact (IIRC, 12" at night in Nimitz), has been established. This might work, but since these are but my 1st thoughts, it needs to be improved .

I found that in cases where there's no victory option for one side the best you can do is preprogram that side and have all players play the other side, with the player doing the most damage and taking the least winning the game. Savo Island is one example, Surigao Strait another.