Lessons Learned : The Ryukyu Kingdom disagreement.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Commentary : This is the type of battle that people will take the wrong lessons from. On both sides, old vessels are being used as expendable bait. The Japanese know the forces on the island are radioing situation reports, but as the Japanese force is bait, that's useful.  The Chinese thought their old armored cruiser safe behind it's nets, and left it anchored, dominating Jeju harbor.  This allowed the Japanese torpedo boats to find it in the dark.  Likewise, the Chinese know where there target is and can navigate there through their own waters on a mission they've preplanned. This will give observers an undue view of the ability to launch night attacks. 

Setting up to game this out, I somewhat wondered if the Chinese would be slaughtered. The AC should have gotten 2 kills- or 3..but all 3 hit one target, and it's ROF was limited due to old breechloaders. Surely the Japanese battleline and swarms of TBs would do more. However, the Japanese had sent the soft easy transports and freighters west...beyond the fleet. So a charge at the battleline was the next best chance of an impact. 

However, the Japanese are worse prepared for this type of fight than I realized. Both battles, the fact the defenders have old old guns, built in 1895, that means the technology was from the 1880s. Except the new Japanese 75mm QF installed in 1907, most of the fleet has old breechloaders. The later mountings also traversed faster, while the earlier ones expected a broadside to broadside slugfest. Worse, part of the early changes in Fire Control was to redesign mounts with gearing so they could be held on target (Continuous Aim), instead of fired on the roll.   This worked for mounts up to 9" or 10".  Expectations for combat ranges expanded from 1-3000m, to 6000-8000m, rangefinders became important.  The Japanese fleet, except the Capital ships, lacks any sort of fire control. Their ability to hit anything past 3000m or is very low in good conditions.

I have not had time to figure out 'sample' torpedoes for each tech, for this I am using what seems to be an appropriate 18" with a range of 5000 @35knts. The alternates are 3000 or 4000m. Since you don't want the foe to run away, you try to close a bit more. So both Japanese and Chinese are closing to under 4000m to fire. This means the Japanese fleet, looking for tiny speeding craft with a rapidly changing range, that never comes within their 'competence' area as  they come no closer than 3500m (2.3miles), with guns that are difficult hold on target, and no means of determining the true range or how far to lead the targets.  The result was a negative chance to hit.  For <4000yards I changed that to 1%.. which got a hit.

The Chinese expected the Japanese to strike near dusk and unload over night. Their movements starting on the first day had the expectation that they could launch a torpedo boat strike against an anchored force at night.  The Japanese have not cooperated, but stayed North of Cheju-Do, Further, the Japanese strike starting the war was launched in the middle of the night, and only reached it's target at 0200. This throws the expected timeline off for the Chinese Torpedo boats. They can not make it at the beginning of the predawn twilight as they wish, but they can make it by dawn, but barely, and ironically the fact the Japanese are north of Jebu is why they can reach at that point. Since there is a bit more light, I rolled for how far out they were spotted...and I guess the Japanese were busy.

Overall, what could have been a slaughter was instead wildly successful, with (again) far more torpedo hits rolled than the chance expected. I would not expect this to continue...and will be looking at torpedo hit chances as a matter of travel time, not just raw distance.

[Desertfox]

*grumbling* I have the worst luck when it comes to torpedoes. I was staying away from Busan to avoid this, but obviously not far enough away. I see an explosion in MTBs after news gets out. 

[snip]

I had already plotted to begin bridging the Channel and Adiradic with MTBs before this. Guess this means I can really ramp up the program with the scrap of lots of SRE cruisers.

[Kaiser Kirk]

*grumbling* I have the worst luck when it comes to torpedoes. I was staying away from Busan to avoid this, but obviously not far enough away. I see an explosion in MTBs after news gets out.

Actually you hit 4 instead of 2, so 100% extra.
They hit 15 instead of 9-10, so 50% extra.
But yeah, the dice gods are favoring the torpedo craft.

The lack of fire control for most of the fleet really killed you. The breachloaders just hurt the ROF, the FC was the difference between a small chance to hit with lots of shells, or no chance.
Except that 1% pity series I gave your TBs, all the hits were from the FC vessels.

You correctly stayed away from Busan, and did not let yourself get pinned down at Jebu.  A night attack against stationary ships and transports should have been worse.
The results are worse than expected, but it was for the Chinese as well. 

At this point I'm pleased that before starting this, I wrote up a Chinese Warprep document outlining their goals and plans. They had to wait an extra day, but they had a supply vessel with them to refuel from. I had a distance, times of events, and so could reasonably figure when they could choose to arrive. 
This  way I am not just pulling the Rabbit of Caerbannog out of the hat and throwing it you.

I had already plotted to begin bridging the Channel and Adiradic with MTBs before this. Guess this means I can really ramp up the program with the scrap of lots of SRE cruisers.

"Commentary : This is the type of battle that people will take the wrong lessons from....
Overall, what could have been a slaughter was instead wildly successful, with (again) far more torpedo hits rolled than the chance expected. I would not expect this to continue...


On the one hand, I'd be happy to skip the war.
On the other, I'd kinda like to have 1 battle in which the torpedo craft get mowed down like grass.
...which should be most daylight battles....
I also would like some time to figure out dangerspace better.
Theoretically, a high velocity 6" from a casement is firing from ~3m off the water. So long as it's shell is 0-5m off the water, it would hit anything in that line , removing RANGE as a consideration, and only being deflection.  I think that should be a real consideration...and was on the "figure out combat" to do list, but we seem to have gotten ahead of that.

Anyhow, more Thursday.

[snip]

Its mostly a matter of what those old cruisers get turned into. Roman naval thinking is starting to tip in the Jeune École camp anyway, and effective torpedo application is going to influence that process. But Roman naval trends pre-Ryukyu need not be discussed in detail here.

[Desertfox]

The lack of fire control for most of the fleet really killed you. The breachloaders just hurt the ROF, the FC was the difference between a small chance to hit with lots of shells, or no chance.
Except that 1% pity series I gave your TBs, all the hits were from the FC vessels.

I mean would FC really help the lone 3" gun on 300 ton TBs? I don't expect them to hit anything outside of point-blank range with or without FC.

You correctly stayed away from Busan, and did not let yourself get pinned down at Jebu.  A night attack against stationary ships and transports should have been worse.
The results are worse than expected, but it was for the Chinese as well. 

Yeah that's why I was planning for a day fight, didn't want to get caught in shallow waters at night. The Chinese just get extremely lucky to approach at the right time and angle to avoid detection with the Japanese ships easily silhouetted, and with them still in sailing formation. An hour later and the Japanese would have seen them far enough away to put 42-47 TBs in between. Sometimes luck just isn't on your side.

Time to start spamming these babies on all ships: http://www.victorianshipmodels.com/antitorpedoboatguns/Hotchkiss/hotchkiss53mmnav.html

[Kaiser Kirk]

On Fire Control : If you are relying on local spotting (aka mk1 eyeball) there is a large negative applied, and your effective range is 3000 yards max, which is not very useful when your opponent just barely comes within 4000m, things get worse when there are a ton of splashes from many vessels.  Basically without any way to gauge range, or try to range in, your gunners were taking a rough guess if that target was 2.45 miles away or 2.95miles away, and the answer in both range and deflection was changing at 14m/s.

Seekrieg has various modifiers from Radar down to fancy central direction, to simple local Rangefinders.  The ships with 1905 tech have a FC effectiveness  out to 6000 yards, and while they did not have time for spot and adjust, they could run off their local rangefinders - which eliminates the negative and gives a small positive.  That change shifted their overall 'chance to hit' from negative to positive.  British WW1 destroyers had fire control provisions, they were not as fancy as the capital ships, but they had a suite designed for them.

The sheer volume of fire difference between the 75mm QF and the 1895 BL 6" wound up being why the hits were all 75mm, though I expected 1 x 6".

On arrival time :  Not actually luck - planning.  The Chinese have been observing where your fleet is and sending regular radio messages- I've noted they radio every 15 minutes.  Walter refitted the 1895 DDs with radios. So one of the things I had to do was figure out if the Chinese could get from the anchorage I picked at the beginning, to the general area where your fleet would be.  there on 3/4 or less power (can't run recip at 100% for very long, figured 3/4 was the max for a couple hours).
The answer was actually no - they wanted to be there an hour earlier when the predawn would give them a huge advantage, but that was not possible.  The best they could do would put them there around Dawn..and they were a couple minutes late.

[Desertfox]

I just feel like 300t TBs just are not good gun platforms, even with FC if the boat hits a wave at the wrong time, they will miss. British WWI destroyers at around 750-1000t is probably the smallest ships where I can see FC starting to make a difference. They still are not good gun platforms but they do have a big mass advantage over the TBs.

I do wonder if anyone ever tried to do a 75mm gatling/rotating cannon, maybe adding some shotgun style shells into the mix.

Dawn is still a terrible time, trying to find a small ship looking into the darkness while your eyes are still trying to adjust... I feel like the Macedonian left wing at Cynoscephalae. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cynoscephalae

BTW is it possible to split off the post-battle discussions into a "Lessons Learned" thread? That way everyone can discuss without cluttering this one up too much.

[Kaiser Kirk]

You are correct in that they would not be great platforms.

It doesn't happen to be worked into Seekrieg that way, the game is not perfect, really meant for cruiser-battleships, but it's pretty solid. I do need to reread the entire rules, it's been a long time.
Since I haven't had time to research/design changes, I'm trying to make minimal and consistent calls. For example, our range tech is governing when FC modifiers start being used.
Once gun combat starts, I'll work with the ships hull height to see if it's a main belt/upperbelt/outside the belt hit. That way how "we" armor our vessels matters more than a default "belt".
Heck- consider the QE class, 13" belt...for 1.2m  While Revenge had 13" for 3-4m, much more comprehensive.

I am quite unhappy with how well the torpedoes are hitting. I'd like to assign them a starting negative when launched from fast moving small craft, but I'm also concerned about the rates exceeding what subs seem to have managed.
I also think casement guns - low on the water- shooting flat- should have a bonus for the ships heading at them.

Some of that would get better with 1905 gun mountings, as gearing was introduced, so as the ship rolled/pitched/yawed you could more or less keep the gun on target. That worked up to 9-10".

I tinkered with Logi's ballistic's tool last night and it looks like a difference of 1/2 of a degree in elevation is the difference between the shell landing at 4000m, and at 3000m.

[Kaiser Kirk]

A couple of notes, there's a lovely website that allows you to enter in heights for the observer and target.

         Distance seen from:                
                        
                                                         "A Turret" - 8m   "Mast Top(33m)"      Peak of Cheju-Do (1800m)   
                        
   Coal Smoke (66m)                                     22.4nm      28.4nm                     103nm   
                        
   Oil smoke (48m)                                       19.9nm      25.9nm                       101nm   
                        
   Mast tops (33m)                                     17.5nm      23.4nm                      98nm   
                        
   Superstructure~ 2x freeboard (12m)         12.8nm      18.4nm                      94nm   
                        
   Waterline                                            5.8nm      11.7nm                      87nm   
                        
         Visibility modifiers from a Seekrieg Chart               
         will reduce this               

Placing coal smoke at 2x mast height, and oil at 1.5x is just a call. I know it can be seen before masts, I know coal can be seen from further away. Beyond that...

[Kaiser Kirk]

The 0500 and 0530 maps are not meant to be the standard presentation.

Repeat : I don't want to do this each time.

Before starting the shooting phase,  I wrote up the Chinese goals and plans.
What you have is two sides essentially trying to ambush each other.

So this isn't a standard search and react situation which could be generalized,
but rather one where the particular movements mattered in who saw what when,
as each side had plans depending on certain things.

This IS NOT the standard.
I do not want to moderate these as a 'Gotcha' where you have to do/say/think of precisely the right things.

In this case, both sides are trying something, which depends on what exactly the Other side does.

This is why I've been stepping through this slowly. I'm using Google earth to map positions.
There is going to be little errors on my part, but I figure they will average out between the sides.

What it boils down to is, Fox put units in more or less the right place, that's a big deal, and worth doing a little extra work to figure out.
Had he been off a little, I'd still give him the discovery. 
Had he been off by 10nm +... not in this case, as the Chinese vessel..or vessels, only pass briefly through the edge of that search 'bubble' as it is.



A more standard is the Makassar amphibious force :
The Chinese expected it to go invade Okinawa. It didn't go that direction.
I made the decision the Chinese Cruiser would be easy to loose in the night.
MUCH easier to 'game out'

[Kaiser Kirk]

Just as a general note

In this particular case, I am having to determine pursuits and interceptions.
Which leads me to realize I don't want to have reason to do this often.

- reading over the years has informed me that reciprocating engines were not reliable enough for full speed except in bursts.
Also, coal ash would accumulate on the grates "clinker" and have to be cleaned, for which time that boiler would be out of service.

As such I place a 1 hour "safe" time on Reciprocating engines at max speed.
Also, 4 hours at 100% power before cleaning coal, and 6 hours for oil-sprayed coal (more complete combustion=less ash).

However, if a ship keeps at 75% power or less, then you can take 1/4 boilers 'off line' to clean, and won't overstress your engines.
So I'm pretending reciprocating ships can steam at 75% power indefinitely.

I am sure I am wrong...but not horribly wrong.

And it gives me a basis for the figures.

[maddox]

Keeping a coal stoked ship at 100% or higher (could and has been done) for an hour will result in dead or heat stroked stokers. Unless the ship is specialy designed for that situation or has more replacement stokers than economical . (the fast liners were such ships, and some light cruisers)

One of the big reasons for the adaptation of oil is the replacement of stokers with heated fuel lines and pumps. Those don't care about heatstroke of fatigue. The other reason is cost. Paying  good stokers for the whole lifetime of the ship, compared to the cost of oil fuel setups. 
Volume and energy density was an added benefit.

( 1910 pumps in bronze and cast iron are good for temps up to 160°C if temperature changes are managed.
I myself have worked on 1950 pumps with temperature ratings up to 250°C without any special materials. I do have to admit, the asbestos cord seals made me nervous when replacing those with pure carbon woven cord glands)

[Kaiser Kirk]

Keeping a coal stoked ship at 100% or higher (could and has been done) for an hour will result in dead or heat stroked stokers. Unless the ship is specialy designed for that situation or has more replacement stokers than economical . (the fast liners were such ships, and some light cruisers)

Good information.

I'm inclined to think warships could be assumed to be staffed for an hour 'combat time'.   Perhaps figure 'scout cruisers' for an hour and a half.
But Coal or Reciprocating - 1 hour max speed. ?

[maddox]

One thing warships in combat situations wil do is to put the 3 (or 4) shifts of men in action at the same time. 
This will result in a shipscrew exhausted/depleted after the action, but for normal engagements, you can assume they can switch stokers enough to keep 100% power during that engagement.

Of course, if a commander keeps the crew at full readiness during days in anticipation of a conflict....

Reliability of reciprocrating engines at full power.  I guess, that each hour sustained after the first will increase the chance of something breaking. In a lot of cases, this will be annoying but not inhibiting (steam venting from a worked lose flange, an oil scupper breaking off, unlubed valve sticking and needing some persuation to get unstuck, things like that). 
But , a broken crankpin/shaft/piston is an instant recepy for a dead engine that needs an overhaul or even replacement.   Or even worse. Boiler explosions, shafts running out of races/glands, rudders faining under the constant stress.   It can get VERY bad in a short time in this kind of situation.

Doesn't have Seekrieg that in the rules already?