Naval Campaign Game 4, Rendezvous

[Ken]

https://yarkshiregamer.blogspot.com/2018/07/2018-naval-campaign-game-4-rendezvous.html

Dear Fellow Naval Gamer,

Here we have the 4th episode of our 2018 Naval Campaign for your perusal.

More of a straight up fight this time after the mind games of the previous three games, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau have fallen on a Convoy of Transports just as the escorts are in a change over rendezvous, twice as many escorts and a roving Battlegroup including a small carrier. Things get interesting.

Lots of pictures and full set up notes and AAR on the blog post.

Regards Ken
The Yarkshire Gamer

Http://yarkshiregamer.blogspot.co.uk

[DM]

Hmm, what rules were you using there? S&G should have been toasted in that engagement. Renown herself did a good job of chasing them off by herself during the Norwegian campaign.

[kyoteblue]

Thanks for posting!

[Ken]

Hi Dave,

Rules are my own, well into their third decade so I have some degree of confidence in them.

I would be reluctant to draw any conclusions from the Renown encounter, it was in the dark in a snow storm. Luck plays a tremendous part in any Naval Battle as I am sure you know. Yes you can skilfully place your salvo to straddle the target but in doing so you can’t aim to say take out a turret, your shell’s land where they land. After a number of largely ineffective salvos Renown took out the Fire Control of the Gneisenau forcing Scharnhorst to make smoke and cover her sister, then Scharnhorsts radar failed. In those conditions with that luck Renown saw off both ships, on a Clear calm sea I think it would be a very different result.

Renown 6 x 15″ guns ROF 2 per minute, 12 shells a minute

Scharnhorst and Gneisenau 18 x 11.1″ guns ROF 3.5 per minute, 63 shells

Now I know ROF isn’t everything but that’s a massive difference.

Added to that although there is a big disparity in shell weight, the more modern German Gun has a much greater range (even with the mid war trajectory improvement on Renown) and comparable penetration (around 290mm at 20,000 yards).

Renown has true Battlecruiser armour, 9in belt and turrets after the inter war upgrade, depending on sources Scharnhorst has roughly 14in belt and turret armour so there must be a big old sweet spot in ideal conditions where Renown is in big trouble.

Now in our refight, Barham was stuck two on one at a relatively close range, in our game luck (in the guise of dice rolls) meant that Barham lost the use of three of her turrets in quick succession, she could have taken three relatively harmless deck or superstructure hits and it would have been a very different. Renown and Repulse were at their maximum range so they could only use front guns at long range and had relatively little effect.

So that’s my reasoning.

Regards Ken

Http://yarkshiregamer.blogspot.co.uk

[DM]

I’m not sure that range is much of a discriminator here since both the German and British guns in play here hold the record for the longest surface to surface gun hit in WW2. So I would expect the performance at range to be similar. ROF  would be limited to some extent by range as well due to time of flight and visual corrections, although I guess one way in which ROF could be an issue would be in how quickly each ship’s magazines would start to run dry. Are you keeping track of ammunition usage in the campaign? If you are then top marks as its an aspect that is often overlooked 🙂

There is a sweet spot for S&G, but as I recall it coincides to some degree with the similar 15″ sweet spot for deck penetration on the sisters. and it was a hit like this from DoY’s 14″ that did for Scharnhorst (that and the “hump” arrangement of the deck armour over the machinery spaces.

I guess a trio of lucky turret hits on Barham would rather put the mockers on the day though 🙂

[Ken]

Cheers Dave, it’s good to have your thoughts on this.

Our little group have been Navaling for 30 years or so and we have all been surprised by how well S & G have performed in this Campaign, I have gone back and checked all the data I used for the ships and largely they are correct. Our British guns are under performing slightly but that was mostly due to the volume of information avaliable when I sorted the British ships out last 25 years or so ago. We are relatively new to the German Fleet, only really looking into them in detail in last year’s Baltic Campaign and this years Op Berlin Campaign so their data is as fresh as a daisy. I was surprised at the comparable penetration values with the 11″ German guns and the 15″ British ones.

Whilst I take on board your ROF point, even on a 1 shell at a time the 18 guns of S and G is three times the 6 of Renown, the British were very lucky that day.

They did suffer as in the Renown encounter with some bad luck and the loss of Scharnhorst at North Cape can largely IMO be put down to her radar being put out of action with almost the first salvos, leaving her almost blind in poor weather.

There are compromises with any set of rules and I try to make our games as realistic as I can without turning them into a stats fest, a few in our group are not hard core Naval and want a good game at the end of the day, but luck as I mentioned in my post above is such a massive factor in Naval Warfare and especially in Naval gaming. You can straddle a ship 10 times and get no hits of note whilst your opponent can get a lucky hit and take your fire control out or explode your magazine.

That to me is the joy of Naval Wargaming, the variability, we have played The Run to the South many times and sometimes the British Battlecruisers don’t blow up, it’s not because the rules are wrong its because on that day the Germans didn’t hit the right spot.

Regards the shell count it’s a negative I’m afraid. I play Campaigns now as a series of linked Scenarios rather than tracking fuel usage etc, I tried the full detail, plot every search pattern Campaign and people just get bored and the Campaign dies. Having individual scenarios the consequences of which effect the following games is far better method and all our players really enjoy it.

 

Regards Ken

The Yarkshire Gamer

Http://yarkshiregamer.blogspot.co.uk

[madman]

Ken wrote:

Regards the shell count it’s a negative I’m afraid. I play Campaigns now as a series of linked Scenarios rather than tracking fuel usage etc, I tried the full detail, plot every search pattern Campaign and people just get bored and the Campaign dies. Having individual scenarios the consequences of which effect the following games is far better method and all our players really enjoy it. Regards Ken The Yarkshire Gamer

 

Very good advice. If you are gaming with interested but not obsessed players getting a lot of good linked scenarios to keep the enjoyment up without grinding the attraction away in the name of detail during a campaign is definitely the way to go. I will have to remember that when and if I start my North Africa campaign using Campaign for North Africa (spi) as a scenario generator! What could go wrong?

[Author]

Posts