My only comment is that the increased command limits for land commanders were Allenby's idea. Perhaps next time he's here he could argue in its favour? 
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
IIRC the problem was the propellant being so highly unstable that a hit in the magazine would touch it off, plus the admiralty rules regarding the opening and closing of the magazine doors, storage of shells and propellant were disregarded in the interests of faster gunnery. Items called flash guards (which completely sealed the doors in the barbettes) were also removed, again contrary to regulation, plus the British attitude toward warfare was, shall we say, uneven.
I am not sure whether I agree with you when you say propellant and ammo was stored everywhere there was space. It sounds like you're talking about the Hood disaster, which many think was caused by stowing highly explosive UP (rocket) ammunition on deck. This is unlikely to have been the cause of that disaster, nor those of Invincible, Inflexible and Queen Mary.
What probably did it were direct plunging fire hits to the Turrets or Barbettes, lighting off unstable cordite that was perhaps in quantities greater than it should have been. But I think the instability of the propellant was more to blame than the disregarding of the rules. The Germans probably broke a few as well, yet despite being holed, and holed and holed, Derfflinger, von der Tann, and Moltke survived. IMO the major difference was the Cordite.
The British gunnery 'system' was not inferior by the way. Though it is true the accuracy of British gun crews was very uneven, and Zeiss range finders were highly superior to British range finders, the British had a tremendous advantage in gun laying. Director Firing. The Germans fired their guns gun by gun. The British fired their broadside on the command of the director, all at once. This system was highly superior, and accounted for the British accuracy actually improving from the beginning of the battle to the end... Whereas the Germans had very good accuracy initially, but rather poor accuracy towards the end.
Regardless many British shells though they hit exploded upon impact, or failed to explode. The German shells, though compared to WWII shells or modern shells were pretty awful, still were vastly superior to the British shells. i.e. They pierced armour and exploded.
This is largely due to a difference in testing. The British did not do a lot of gunnery tests against armour. They did do a bit of gunnery practice, but not again against armour. Against target boats.
Krupp tested their guns in every concievable way and their shell designs were the product of that testing. They had firing ranges attended by the Kaiser and the General Staff who took the display of every new gun seriously. The Germans took gunnery seriously as a whole, unlike than the British, who though individual commanders like Roger Keyes and Percy Scott might value gunnery in an obsessive way, they didn't have the resources of a Krupp.
Last edited:
"Storing ammunition everywhere there was space" is probably a deliberate exaggeration. The British problem was that the gun crews in Beatty's Battlecruiser Force were encouraged to keep shells in the turrets as well as the magazines, so they could sustain a higher rate of fire. In peacetime training exercises when nobody was shooting back, this policy worked fine...
There was a difference in the propellant too, as smosquito says - German propellant tended to catch fire when hit by enemy fire, British propellant exploded violently destroying the ship.
Regarding tech team skill levels, though, I thinkhe's got it the wrong way round. Saying that Scheer and Hipper don't deserve such high skill levels is one thing; but the real question is does Germany deserve to have naval tech teams with much lower skill levels?
If you don't believe that German naval technology and doctrine was significantly inferior to that of other countries, then Germany needs highly skilled naval tech teams. The question then becomes, what should they be called, if you disagree with using Scheer and Hipper as the names?
The British problem was that the gun crews in Beatty's Battlecruiser Force were encouraged to keep shells in the turrets as well as the magazines, so they could sustain a higher rate of fire. In peacetime training exercises when nobody was shooting back, this policy worked fine...There was a difference in the propellant too, as smosquito says - German propellant tended to catch fire when hit by enemy fire, British propellant exploded violently destroying the ship.
Regarding tech team skill levels, though, I think
If you don't believe that German naval technology and doctrine was significantly inferior to that of other countries, then Germany needs highly skilled naval tech teams. The question then becomes, what should they be called, if you disagree with using Scheer and Hipper as the names?
Perfectly good question, to which I don't have a really good answer: re should Germany have good naval tech teams. I think their decent admirals were Tirpitz, though this is more in the ship design and production area, and von Ingenohl, whose major contribution was not launching his ships on a "deathride of the battlecruisers".
i.e. he recognised the truths of the situation.
I don't think Germany should be inferior in submarine handling doctrines (quite the opposite) ... yet I do think they lack a bit from the British in surface doctrines.
Jellicoe, Fisher and indeed Churchill, were better than their German counterparts at strategy and tactics and ship handling. The ships were not up to the job it is true, but they were used in a better way.
There was at no time any chance Germany could have invaded Britain, and this is beacuse the Royal Navy, though very uneven and sometimes filled with placeholding fools, was essentially what it was in the Napoleonic wars. More powerful, and more competent than the enemy.
i.e. he recognised the truths of the situation.
I don't think Germany should be inferior in submarine handling doctrines (quite the opposite) ... yet I do think they lack a bit from the British in surface doctrines.
Jellicoe, Fisher and indeed Churchill, were better than their German counterparts at strategy and tactics and ship handling. The ships were not up to the job it is true, but they were used in a better way.
There was at no time any chance Germany could have invaded Britain, and this is beacuse the Royal Navy, though very uneven and sometimes filled with placeholding fools, was essentially what it was in the Napoleonic wars. More powerful, and more competent than the enemy.
Last edited:
I think von Ingenohl is perhaps unfairly maligned. In December 1914 he very nearly pulled off the same kind of trap that Sheer was attempting in 1916 - only to abandon it at the last moment in the mistaken belief that he was about to engage the entire Grand Fleet rather than a section of it. I think that could probably be classed as prudent rather than cautious. It was when he was replaced by the truly cautious (and by Zenker's account, inept) Pohl that the High Seas Fleet became essentially decorative.
StephenT said:My only comment is that the increased command limits for land commanders were Allenby's idea. Perhaps next time he's here he could argue in its favour?
Did I really argue for this? I cannot remember.
Well, I cannot admit that I care a jot - make whatever change you all regard as best.
I've noticed that after France get it's "Mobilization" Events it has got more divisions than Germany. In my handsoff game with Albania France has 136 divisions while Germany has 104 divisions. Maybe it's better to give France only MP in the Mobilization events like for Germany or give Germany divisions in the Mobilization events.
Last edited:
Allenby said:However, I have done quite a bit of work on 1897, which I was certain would not be given much attention.
How is the 1897 campaign coming? This is somthing I'm REALLY interested in and eager to see in a more completed form. So many possabilities here.