Originally Posted By Lee Elmendorf (28 FEB 2012 4:54am)

Do we need this update if we are already at 1.0.3b?

Yes.. v1.1 includes updates and fixes that were not part of v1.03b (beta)

Guess I'm dense then as the install failed.  I don't have to uninstall all the previous patches to install 1.10 do I?

"Main file updating failed, operation canceled!"

"Main file data integrity (CRC) error."

As noted on our download page, you need to re-install v1.0 to update to v1.1.

http://forums.navalwarfare.net/showthread.php?2328-INFORMATION-AND-DOWNLOADS-THREAD&p=49083#post49083

Thanks

Originally Posted By Nefaro (27 FEB 2012 3:34pm)

Originally Posted By Sir Slash (27 FEB 2012 11:10am)

Sorry for the emotion. I was just reacting to the Gneisau blowing-up after a turret hit from the Monmouth, Coronel battle. Won a minor vic after Scharnhorst picked up the slack.

 

You can generally come back from a setback like that, with the German side.  

 

There seems to be some subtle ideal engagement ranges for each side, depending on their heavies. While the Germans generally have a bit lighter guns on comparable ships, they also have a small national accuracy bonus so they can do alright engaging out at very far ranges because their British targets also generally have lighter armor and the penetrations are easier to get (theoretically).  I've found that moving the British closer (to about 10-11 kyds) can get regular penetrations and cause more crits, but they're gonna get hit even more than the German side there, on average, so hope for some luck and bring more guns to the fight if you do so.  That's for the heavies anyway.

 

 

 

 

Very true.  In the game the RN needs to close to get German ships to blow up.  I'm not sure how realistic this is, but it is comforting.  Alternatively, you can just push the RN crew ratings up and possibly get a better balance (though again since crew rating seem to represent such things as fire control systems and flash-tight doors on magazines -- I'm not sure how realistic it is).

Still it is an intriguing game system and you get a lot of results for relatively small adjustments of parameters such as crew quality so that's interesting and fun.

Originally Posted By MengJiaoRedux (28 FEB 2012 7:32am)

 

 

Very true.  In the game the RN needs to close to get German ships to blow up.

 

 

 

 

LOL!

Well, those Brit ships are good at blowing up.  That's for sure!

Just hope you keep enough alive long enough to do some real damage.

Originally Posted By Nefaro (28 FEB 2012 7:55am)

Originally Posted By MengJiaoRedux (28 FEB 2012 7:32am)

 

 

Very true.  In the game the RN needs to close to get German ships to blow up.

 

 

 

 

 

LOL!

 

Well, those Brit ships are good at blowing up.  That's for sure!

 

Just hope you keep enough alive long enough to do some real damage.

 

 

Yes.  In reality the moment when Invincible got under 9000 yds and hit the Lutzow causing damage that later

caused the Lutzow to sink was the moment when Invincible blew up.  So you takes your chances.

I haven't gotten past 1914 in the game scenarios (I've done Scarborough twice.   Once with the unmodifed Scenario and Once with the RN crew quality pushed up -- with RN crews improved, not even running away as fast as possible can save the Pre-dreadnoughts of the High Seas Fleet) so I don't know how things go in 1916, but in 1914 getting close seems to work okay for the RN.

If you're concerned with british turret explosions, you may want to read Norman Friedman's Battleship Gunnery book.

In his research he found a report that Jellicoe wrote after Jutland.

It turned out that to get the most out of their guns, the british gunnery officers were ignoring the safety rules and keeping three or more ready rounds and propellant in the turrets.

Any penetration was very likely to set off the british explosives, thus setting off a massive secondary explosion, which force overwhelmed the flash doors and protections, leading to the BC losses at Jutland.

The gun crews knew that the first hit was the critical hit, in the mind of the opposing captain.  To get that first hit, they wanted to fire very fast, hence the unauthorised stowage of multiple rounds within the turret.

The USN took such situations so seriously that the Alaska class gun turret (WW2) was designed for 3 RPM maximum ROF - but due to all of the safety interlocks designed into the turret system the ROF was reduced to around 2.3-2.5 RPM. Considering the Alaska was the first completed BC ever built for the USN that speaks volumes for the level of consideration that was taken into account for turret safety measures - even at the deliberate cost of reduced ROF.

Overall.. it mattered little in terms of "first round hit" as it took time to "spot" the salvos so as not to waste ammunition. On average ,the ROF was not increased enough to make any real difference of scoring a so called 'critical hit' especially considering the reliability issues with the RN large calibre shells and the odds of hitting a real critical spot on an enemy ship to start with, plus it helps to even hit the target at all! (Average hit rate for the RN during Jutland was only around 2-3%) When you add it all up it was definitely not worth risking your entire ship for a fraction of a fraction of a percent of scoring a worthy hit on an enemy warship - especially an armored warship. This is not even counting the fact that many hits scored during the battle did minimal or superficial damage - for both sides. The whole idea of bypassing safety measures for loading large calibre guns was arguably, IMHO, one of the most costly mistakes in the history of the RN.

Thanks.

One could argue, too, that had Beatty not left the fast battleships of the 5th battle squadron behind during the "run to the south", that the British BC's might have taken fewer hits, Derfflinger would have been engaged and Indefatigible might have been saved.

Jutland is endlessly fascinating to me... 

Slick, have you read Andrew Gordon's "Rules of the Game"?  Great book.

I find it interesteing that the British built 16 BCs and between WW1 and WW2, they lost 25% of them.  The Germans theoretically lost none.  "("credit for the numbers to someone on NWS boards and Conways)

I know the British BCs went in harm's way a lot more, but still interesting.  

Also, it wasn't just different charge handling that was risky.  It was the fact they did it in ships that were more lightly armored than BBs and were taking BB hits.  Combine those and I am surprised the British didn't lose more BCs in WW1.

I just posted a short article regarding the concept of BCs.. 

http://forums.navalwarfare.net/showthread.php?2456-WW1-naval-topics-by-the-NWS-Team&p=49756#post49756

Thanks.

All so very interesting. It highlights my total ignorance of naval warfare. BB, DD,CV,BC mean nothing to me at all,just letters. If I buy this game I'd have to do some severe homework.

Im finding the "Castles of steel" audiobook fascinating and great for the long drives to and from work.  It really helps make some of the (for me) lesser known battles in SAI make sense. 

2chris:

Nice little piece.

@DCosta:

What do you mean "if you buy"?

Originally Posted By Bismarck (28 FEB 2012 5:44pm)

Slick, have you read Andrew Gordon's "Rules of the Game"?  Great book.

No sir, I have not. I'll have to check it out. 

Most of what I know about Jutland I got from Massie's "Castles of Steel" and Keegan's "The Price of Admiralty". 

The great thing about Gordon's book is that he traces the British problems back to unresolved tech and doctrine debates beginning in the Victorian age.

For a blow-by-blow, read Jutland: An Analysis of the Fighting [Paperback]

Originally Posted By DCosta (28 FEB 2012 7:58pm)

All so very interesting. It highlights my total ignorance of naval warfare. BB, DD,CV,BC mean nothing to me at all,just letters. If I buy this game I'd have to do some severe homework.

BB = Battleship

DD = Destroyer

CV = Aircraft Carrier 

BC = Battlecruiser 

In its basic form, a battlecruiser is a blend of a cruiser and battleship. A battleship will be heavily armored with large calibre guns - a battlecruiser would have reduced armor and/or smaller (or fewer) guns or both. A typical requirement for most any BC was at least 24+ knots of maximum speed, which by the end of WW1 ranged around 30+ knots to WW2 speeds of 32-33+ knots. A BC was designed to dominate over cruisers and destroyers but not go head to head with a full fledge battleship in a one on one fight.

I would note that some capital ships were called "battleships" by their respective countries even though they would not have compared to any battleship of the time period, often it was more for political purposes then actual naval combat attributes. A good example of "artifical upgrading" is the Scharnhorst class. Heavily armored, fast, but with only 11" guns which were mostly only really effective against cruisers even though they fired a heavier shell then the Duetschland class of "Pocket Battleships" which were nothing more then heavy cruisers with 6x11" guns (that fired lighter shells) used for raiding. Other examples include the Cavour and Doria BCs (the Italians called them battleships, but they were far inferior to the more powerful and much more heavily armored Littorios) of the RM and the Kongos of the IJN (called by some battleships, others battlecruisers, however they had inferior armor protection compared to battleships but reasonable firepower with 8x14" guns).

The Alaska class, the case of classing a warship of lesser value then its abilities, was a true anomoly for the 1940s. They were the first BC type of warship ever completed for the USN, and arguably the most lethal variant of a BC ever designed with very powerful 12" guns that could fire "super-heavy" shells, good armor protection, and extremely fast at 32-33+ knots. The controversy, for some, over this class was the lack of a TPS (torpedo protection system or "bulges, which was never a requirement of a BC that I have ever read about) and the fact the USN prefered to call them a "large cruiser" or CB. To me, that was utterly silly as they were far more powerful then any heavy cruiser ever built and the Des Moines (the most powerful heavy cruiser ever designed) was more adequate for the rank of "large cruiser" - if there ever was one. The Alaskas were, as part of their design concept, were intended to counter suspected IJN "super-cruisers" - which was not a role intended, IMHO, for a "large cruiser". But, that of course is my personal opinion regarding that class of warship. I even had the honor to talk to one of the first crewman to serve on the Alaska class - and the crew clearly felt they were far more powerful then just a "large cruiser".

Thanks.

Thanks.

Originally Posted By thewood (28 FEB 2012 5:44pm)

I find it interesteing that the British built 16 BCs and between WW1 and WW2, they lost 25% of them.  The Germans theoretically lost none.  "("credit for the numbers to someone on NWS boards and Conways)

 

I know the British BCs went in harm's way a lot more, but still interesting.  

 

Also, it wasn't just different charge handling that was risky.  It was the fact they did it in ships that were more lightly armored than BBs and were taking BB hits.  Combine those and I am surprised the British didn't lose more BCs in WW1.

I guess the 16 include those then converted to carriers?

Yes, an awful loss rate.

The "theoretically lost none" puzzles me though - surely the Lützow is a combat loss? Plus others thoroughly bashed up - Seydlitz and Derfflinger in 1916 (not losses mind you).

I just received this book yesterday:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Grand-Fleet-Development-1906-1922/dp/184832085X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1330499606&sr=8-1

So far, looks very good. I'm off on a ferry tonight across the North Sea (indeed will go past Dogger Bank) so this book and "Castles of Steel"(again) will be apt reading.

@Warship.. Thanks for the info. It's trying to visualise them, aswell. What order of size and lethality would they all go in, anychnace you can do a list of all abreviations\actual type and in lethalioty\size order? The only one I know what it looks liek and it's purpose is an Aircraft carrier.

@Bismark..When I buy

Originally Posted By DCosta (29 FEB 2012 1:23am)

@Warship.. Thanks for the info. It's trying to visualise them, aswell. What order of size and lethality would they all go in, anychnace you can do a list of all abreviations\actual type and in lethalioty\size order? The only one I know what it looks liek and it's purpose is an Aircraft carrier.

 

@Bismark..When I buy

 

Here ya go, from the big guns to the small (as pertains to WWI anyway because as time went on more types were added and designations changes, of course):

*BB - Battleship (aka Dreadnought)

*BC - Battlecruiser (light armor, near-dreadnought size guns, fast, meant as heavy scout & strike force for main BB fleets)

*B - Old Battleship (pre-Dreadnoughts with fewer big guns and slow, often lighter armor too)

*AC (aka CA) - Armored Cruiser (in-between ships - not the lighter faster forces but not one of the biggies either.  Meant to be heavily armed scouts and to add extra firepower to overseas light forces when needed) (later redesignated CA - heavy cruiser- before WWII so sometimes referred to as CA also)

*CL - Light Cruiser (mainly used as scouts & raiders, sometimes to reinforce destroyer squadrons. Very lightly armored but pretty fast)

*DD - Destroyer (unarmored, fast, unarmored, few & small guns.  Main armament against bigger ships is it's torpedoes and squadrons were used as the lightest of light raiders, patrol, etc.  In fleet actions, they were ideally used for low-visibility torpedo attacks against the enemy's line, such as during night-time.   Also used to screen your own line, and protect against the same type of torpedo attacks from enemy destroyers.)

*AMC - Armed Merchant Cruiser (Just big civilian ships with guns mounted on them.  Usually used as shipping raiders in WWI.  Often a liability in a fight between warships due to no armor, relatively slow speed, and poor damage control & construction).

*SS - Submarine (Good 'ole Diesel-Electric sub)

There are smaller, more unusual stuff like armed tugs, minesweepers (MS), and whatnot but you won't see much of that stuff in fleet battles as they were more for what you'd consider police duty (stopping merchies & searching them for blockade) or utility stuff (such as the MS).

Originally Posted By thewood (28 FEB 2012 5:44pm)

I find it interesteing that the British built 16 BCs and between WW1 and WW2, they lost 25% of them.  The Germans theoretically lost none.  "("credit for the numbers to someone on NWS boards and Conways)

 

I know the British BCs went in harm's way a lot more, but still interesting.  

 

Also, it wasn't just different charge handling that was risky.  It was the fact they did it in ships that were more lightly armored than BBs and were taking BB hits.  Combine those and I am surprised the British didn't lose more BCs in WW1.

Actually they lost 5 BC's (3 at Jutland, Hood, Repulse). Loss rate is 31.25%. If you are only talking about surface action, then I stand corrected.

Cheers

Bruce

Nefaro, Thankyou very good of you Sir.

I have gone and ordered Castles of Steel from Amazon. 

Originally Posted By Besilarius (28 FEB 2012 4:44pm)

If you're concerned with british turret explosions, you may want to read Norman Friedman's Battleship Gunnery book.

In his research he found a report that Jellicoe wrote after Jutland.

It turned out that to get the most out of their guns, the british gunnery officers were ignoring the safety rules and keeping three or more ready rounds and propellant in the turrets.

Any penetration was very likely to set off the british explosives, thus setting off a massive secondary explosion, which force overwhelmed the flash doors and protections, leading to the BC losses at Jutland.

The gun crews knew that the first hit was the critical hit, in the mind of the opposing captain.  To get that first hit, they wanted to fire very fast, hence the unauthorised stowage of multiple rounds within the turret.

But, as Campbell points out in Jutland: an analysis, if the charges were German charges they could be stacked up and still not cause a total ship-sinking blast.  German Turrets were penetrated about as often and they had magazine/flash fires about as often, but their charges did not go off quite as fast as RN charges so while they would lose the turret and the magazine in a huge fire, the ship would not blow up.  I strongly suspect it is as simple as that.