> On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Phillip E. Pournelle wrote:
> record of a DD or smaller ships sinking a capital ship.
That's because they were terrified of torpedo attacks, and took a lot of
precautions to avoid them. The threat was real.... I think however that a far
more likely reason that the DD was so popular is subs, which tend not to crop
up in many FT games....
> Their real function was that of deterrant: "If you close, you'll get
True - but I don't think they were that pessamistic. A good spread of
torps would sink a BB or at least slow her to a point that the DD's and
acompanying ships could escape.
In a message dated 97-04-02 10:02:14 EST, you write:
<< One questions here, what would people classify a pocket battleship as
???
BC or CA or something else??? >>
How about the ubiquitous mass 36 cruiser? As good or better than a comparable
capital ship on the other sound of the "boundary" in armament, and cheaper to
build. Remarkably similar the reality of the pocket battleship.
-- John I.
> On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, M Hodgson wrote:
> True - but I don't think they were that pessamistic. A good spread of
The problem is getting within torp range. If both ships are closing, it's
easy. But sane BB captains try to maintain range, which means the DDs are
closing only at relative 5-10 knots. And the BB can open fire over 30km
away...
> (6x11", 8x6") However having crippled Exeter, her only real threat,
There are *numerous* accounts of that battle, and no one agrees quite why Graf
Spee chose to disengage. The threat of torpedo attack is possible, but falls
in the "they chickened out" category. Graf Spee had taken very
little damage and she was only slightly slower than the British CLs that
had already taken fire.
> One questions here, what would people classify a pocket battleship as
Well, the American "large cruiser" classification CB fits best.
Non-anglo
navies often didn't have the good sense fit their ships in the same
classifications. Jane's calls them "CA of an exceptionally powerful type". By
Naval Treaty terms of the era, they're capital ships since they mount over 8"
guns. The Germans *did* build them on the battlecruiser principle. It depends
on whose classification system you subscribe to.
> In a message dated 97-04-02 10:02:14 EST, you write:
Sounds good. In reality, they were originally rated as "Armoured Ships" and
were re-rated as heavy cruisers during WW2. Size-wise, they were fairly
similar to the "Hipper" class, and were overtaken by e.g. US "Salem" CAs and
the assorted "Large Cruisers" (CB) built (e.g. "Alaska") or planned
(e.g.
IJN "B65") during the war. Just remember to make it slow!
Personally, I like the late pre-dreadnought 1st Class Cruisers, e.g.
"Shannon" and "Rurik".
Cheers,
> Sounds good. In reality, they were originally rated as "Armoured
CAs and
> the assorted "Large Cruisers" (CB) built (e.g. "Alaska") or planned
What do you mean by overtaken??? Bear in mind than the German pocket
battleships were built to stay within a very constricting treaty and were some
10 years before the Salem class.... It is not really a fair comparison to
compare a 21000 ton ship launched in 1945, with a 12000 ton ship launched
For there time they were revolutionary, and the 26kts-28kts a pocket
battleship could manage is not slow by anymeans. It was on this princible that
they were designed... To fast for anything that could shoot them, and heavily
enough armed and armoured to cope with lighter, faster aggressors.
The key to this was 11" guns and reasonable armour. Something that even the
more modern US cruisers you mention would have been pushed to cope with.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the Salem class was still on 8" guns, which
would damage Graff Spee, yes.... but would they do it faster than
her 11" could dish the damage out to you. You only have 5-7 kts closure
and Graff Spee gets to start firing first.... Maybe I should run a
hypothetical 'what if' and see:)
-Michael
> What do you mean by overtaken ??? Bear in mind than the German
That's what I meant by overtaken... (and I should have said "slow for a
cruiser"). They were also a LONG way outside the Treaty limits, more like
14000 tons than the grudgingly-admitted 12000.
> For there time they were revolutionary, and the 26kts-28kts a pocket
guns,
> which would damage Graff Spee, yes.... but would they do it faster than
Go to it! That's more than half the fun! (My prediction would be Alaska
crushes the Graf Spee like a bug, and is never hit herself, while Salem beats
GS and suffers moderate to heavy damage...) Interestingly, in the 1930s the
naval wargames pioneer was criticised when, in a hypothetical battle, 3 RN
cruisers beat a pocket battleship!
BTW, this isn't really off topic for FT if you think of the tactical
considerations. The Graf Spee can't win a stern chase (3x11" against 6x8" with
very rapid fire) so she might as well try to get her fore turret into action.
Salem then has to decide whether to charge in to close the range as fast as
possible, or more slowly to get HER aft turret into action. It is generally
agreed, by the way, that the Graf Spee was not especially well handled in the
River Plate action.
Cheers,
> That's what I meant by overtaken... (and I should have said "slow for
^^^^^
I'd like to know your source of information for this estimate, as I am
attempting to write some rules for WW2 navel engagements myself, and
constantly run across the problem of inconsistent data. So far I have the
Graff Spee weighing in at 10500 - 16000 tones, but the figure of 12,100
is most often quoted, and by what I have generally come to regard as the most
reliable sources...
> Go to it! That's more than half the fun! (My prediction would be
Hey they won.... kinda....:)
> BTW, this isn't really off topic for FT if you think of the tactical
It is
> [quoted text omitted]
I'm not sure about your analysis there. First Graf Spee is firing first, and
may well cause sufficient damage, before the 8" guns get close enough to fire
to remove the threat. Second is the much quoted "rapid fire". In practice, due
to amunition limmitations, gunners often waited for thier previous shots to
fall, in order to spot from it for the next shot. In this case, it doesn't
make any differance how fast your guns 'could'
fire....
Close the range a bit more and GS could have a fair crack at a torpedo attack
herself. Agreed it isn't ideal with the chasing ship being a small profile
target, but the closure is > 70 kts....
This BTW is real interesting in FT (just to try to bring the subject a little
closer to home). I have been trying for a while to simulate the effect of
aspect and speed on missile and torpedo hits, as to hit a ship
pointing directly toward/away from you is a darn site harder than a nice
juicey broadside.
> generally agreed, by the way, that the Graf Spee was not especially
Agreed.... Using every set of navel rules I have found since GS wins the
engagement, but suffers moderate/light damage. If GS attacks and
finishes targets, she easily outclasses her opponents. But that's the fog of
war for you, something that is near impossible to recreate in a wargame.
Langsdorf clearly believed he was outmatched, or that reinforcements were on
their way, and tried to preserve his ship. This is what wargammers cannot
grasp.... Any wargamer would have kept shooting till all the guns were out and
then make best speed for a ram:)
I'd love to hear any contributions as to how to disuade players from this
willful destruction of property, without regard for life.
-Entropy
> M Hodgson wrote:
> One questions here, what would people classify a pocket battleship as
One of my favourite scenarios for ST:TNS:FT is the CA Exeter escorted by
> At 03:04 PM 4/2/97 +0100, M Hodgson wrote:
> One questions here, what would people classify a pocket battleship as
That's a tough one. I'd probably classify it as a CA for hull space and damage
purposes, but I'd add a house rule that gave it three default fire controls,
three damage control parties, and allow it to carry AA megabatteries. In
short, classify it as a capital ship built on a cruiser hull.