Wednesday evening saw yours truly taking part in a Russo Japanese War naval action along with Messrs Fox and Huband. I had command of the Russian squadron whilst Mr Fox channeled his inner samurai to take charge of the Japanese as well as supplying the home made hexed cloth (very nice it is as well). Mr Huband provided the models - the Minifigs copies of the old BMC range - and acted as the umpire meaning that all I had to do was to drive the ships and roll the dice. The rules were Mr Huband’s slightly ‘pimped’ version of Bob Cordery’s Gridded Naval Wargames pre dreadnought rules.
The opposing fleets were made up as follows:
Russia
Sevastopol PB (Pre dreadnought Battleship) (flag)
Poltava PB
Potemkin PB
Dvenadsat Apostolov Old PB
Tri Sviatitelia Old PB
Rossiya AC (Armoured Cruiser)
Gromky DD (Destroyer)
Grozny DD
Japan
Shikishima PB (flag)
Kaga PB
Akagi PB
Asahi PB
Chitose PC (Protected Cruiser)
Ikazuchi DD
Inazuma DD
Oboro DD
Akebono DD
The two fleets approached each other from opposite corners of the table.
The Russian fleet deployed as follows: Tri Sviatitelia in the lead followed by Dvenadsat Apostolov, Sevastopol (flag), Poltava and Potemkin. The left hand column consists of the two destroyers - Grozny and Gromky - followed by the armoured cruiser, Rossiya.
The Japanese fleet deployed as follows: Shikishima (flag) leads Kaga, Akagi, Asahi with the protected cruiser Chitose bringing up the rear. The four destroyers, Ikazuchi, Inazuma, Oboro and Akebono are in line ahead, starboard of the main battle line.
I will not be able to describe the action in detail as I was otherwise occupied at the time, dealing with the oncoming Japanese. A brief synopsis of the unfolding action reads something like this.
The Russian battle line had the two old pre dreadnoughts in the van whilst the more modern types were following on - this was a deliberate choice as the ‘post of honour’ was designed to do two things. To start with, they were designed to be ‘shell magnets’ - aka bait - and in doing so would hopefully distract the attention away from the more modern elements of the Russian squadron following behind.
The Russians are coming! The Tri Sviatitelia steaming through a forest of Japanese shell splashes
The Tri Sviatitelia, at the head of the Russian line, came under heavy and accurate fire from the Japanese battleships as they saluted her in turn as they passed by. Meanwhile, the Japanese destroyers raced ahead of their battleships in order to engage the Russian line from the rear.
The Russians on the left - note the two older ships attempting to head the Japanese off and cross their ‘T’. The Japanese destroyers at the top of the picture are heading towards the rear of the Russian line but are some distance away.
The ill fated Japanese turn.
Asahi and Chitose succumbing to massed gunfire and torpedoes.
At this point things changed in a rather dramatic fashion. The Russian battle line began a turn in succession to cross the rear of the Japanese squadron. In doing so, the Tri Sviatitelia closed to fairly short range against the Japanese protected cruiser the Chitose and the battleship, Asahi. The two old battleships also had the support of the pair of destroyers - the Gromky and the Grozny - and the looming bulk of the powerful armoured cruiser, Rossiya, along with the battleship Sevastopol. Meanwhile, the Japanese line began a turn from line ahead to line abreast with the destroyers hurtling around the outside.
The firing at either end of the line was fast and furious. First the Chitose and then the Asahi - at the rear of the Japanese battle line - disappeared under a blizzard of gunfire and torpedoes with the destroyer Gromky paying the ultimate price. The Tri Sviatitelia was further battered but somehow managed to survive, albeit in a heavily damaged condition. Next in line, the Japanese Akagi, also came under a blistering fire as the Russians shifted their aim and was quickly in serious trouble.
At the rear of the Russian line, the Potemkin, Poltava and with the passing assistance of the Sevastopol, concentrated their fire against the Japanese flagship, the Shikishima. The withering deluge of heavy calibre artillery quickly reduced the Japanese battleship to a smoking wreck and she staggered out of line to escape her tormentors.
It was by no means one sided. The Sevastopol and the Potemkin suffered minor damage, the Poltava rather more so.
At this point the decision was taken to call it for a number of reasons. The Japanese flagship was limping away and on the verge of sinking. Asahi and the Chitose were sunk and the Akagi was heavily damaged (and flooding). The Kaga was undamaged, as were all the destroyers.
Aside from the Dvenadsat Apostolov, all the Russian ships had sustained damage, especially the Tri Sviatitelia that would have to retire. As the Russians only had a single destroyer left - the damaged Grozny - a pursuit of the remaining Japanese ships in the face of an aggressive destroyer screen would be fraught with difficulties. Reluctantly, the Russians abandoned any thoughts of a pursuit and so the Japanese limped away.
Thoughts and Observations
It was a lot of fun to play - the rules worked very nicely and with plenty of the all important period ‘feel’ - and has certainly bump started my pre dreadnought thoughts!
The two standouts from the action were the timing of the Japanese formation change and the concentrated Russian gunfire.
The former - changing formation in range of the enemy - is generally considered NOT to be a good idea and so was duly punished by the Russian concentration of fire against either end of the Japanese line. Mr Fox generously admitted that this was a mistake on his part but he was unfortunate in that the Russian fire was horribly effective and in retrospect maybe too much so. After email exchanges with Messrs Fox, Huband and Cordery, a simple amendment to the firing should serve to reduce the effect of this by penalising ships firing at the same target after the first.
The Japanese destroyers were well placed to tackle the rear of the Russian battle line but for the destruction that had been wreaked on their own heavy units. Their close support in screening the battleships meant that any offensive action would have to be abandoned.
Once again my thanks to Messrs Fox and Huband for the vastly entertaining game and the pictures and of course, Bob Cordery for his original rules found in the Gridded Naval Wargame (suitably, in true Portable Wargame aficionado fashion, tweaked by Mr Huband).
21 comments:
This looks as if it was a great battle … and I am very pleased that you used a tweaked version of my rules! Perhaps Nick’s version would be a great contribution to the next PW Compendium.
Those models from BMC/Minifigs were wonderfully generic (and robust) and ideal for this sort of wargaming.
I look forward to seeing further battle reports.
All the best,
Bob
David:
What a battle! Kudos for the Russian victory. When reading the effects of concentrated fire, the thought also occurred to me that identifying fall of shot would be something of a consideration. But I read somewhere that was always a bit of a problem with the several calibres of large guns carried by pre-Dreadnoughts anyhow. Given the French proclivity for multiple calibres sticking out in all directions, it must have been a nightmare for them, come a real action. My own inclination would be to leave things as they are.
Another approach when multiple ships shoot at one target, is to pro-rate the gunfire of all ships, based on the one shooting at the longest range. I standardised Bob's gunfire stats upon four guns firing - the broadside carried by two twin turrets. So such a rule would slot fairly easily into my adaptation - so long as, in the heat of the action, one remembers it!
This is a nicely sized action, don't you think: plenty of action, lots happening, but manageable.
Cheers,
Ion
Fine looking game there David and a bit of a reverse of history, with the Russians in the ascendency! I've just finished some reading on the Battle of Leyte Gulf in WWII, where the Japanese used coloured shells to know which ships splashes were which, to help adjust range and aim etc. So it seems right to have a penalty for all firing at the same target, as who would know which splashes or hits belonged to which ship?
Looks and sounds like a great game, Dave.
Rather splendid 👍
Hi Bob,
It was enormous fun and made a welcome change from the ironclads and umpiring! Nick’s version is a bit of a work in progress but I reckon he could be persuaded - and I will persuade him!
The models work well for this kind of game being large enough to have table ‘presence’ but small enough to look right in terms of ranges etc. They also have the advantage of fitting in a single grid area.
I am sure the collection will see action again at some point.
All the best,
DC
Hi Ion,
It was a lovely sized action in terms of ship manners and I know you have fought many of a similar size - which have been equally as much fun!
We have a temporary solution - as yet untested - to lessen the effect of concentrated fire from multiple firing ships which will not stop it from happening but should dilute things a little. Basically, each extra ship loses a D6 when firing after the first. I like your idea but as you say, remembering it in the heat of the action may be problematic!
You are right about the French ships. Years ago I had a large 1:3000th scale French pre dreadnought navy (that also expanded into WW1) and firing from some of their ships was certainly an interesting experience!
All the best,
DC
Thank Steve J - it was a lot of fun. Identifying who fired what was a problem for sure and this was further complicated by multiple calibres causing shell splashes of varying sizes.
I was not aware of the Japanese coloured smoke idea but then my knowledge of Leyte Gulf is limited.
Something else for me to read then!
All the best,
DC
Hi Ray,
I hope all is well with you and the new Maison Rousell! The game was huge fun, tense, exciting, played with good company and in a good spirit. The Russians were quite fortunate as if the Japanese destroyers had gotten into action the outcome could have been very different.
All the best,
DC
Hi Jim,
That it was for sure!
All the best,
DC
[1] This game has some similarities with the actual Battle of the Yellow Sea (10 Aug 1904), and what's significant is that the Russian heavy guns were rather slow-firing. To take some Baltic Fleet examples, the three "Poltava" class pre-dreadnoughts needed 120-150 seconds between the aimed rounds of their 12-inch guns; the newer "Tsesarevich" and "Retvizan" probably took 90 seconds with the same type of guns; while the "Peresviet" class’ (and Russian coast defence ships’) 10-inch/45 guns were designed to fire every 45 seconds but only managed to do so every 80. At her first gunnery trials, the new Black Sea battleship "Potemkin’s" 12-inch/40s took over four minutes between rounds! From 1906 a new breech-block was introduced, and older guns were modified; the rate of fire for 12-inch/40s rose from one round every 90 seconds (at best), to one round every 45 to 50 seconds.
[2] Other navies in (e.g.) the 1890s also had very slow-firing guns. E.g. in 1897 the captain of the obsolete French battleship "Amiral Duperré observed that his ship’s heavy guns (13.4-inch/21s), could only fire every 7 to 15 minutes. In 1895 the 14.5-inch/28.5s of the old battleship "Formidable" fired only every 7 minutes 50 seconds, and even after modification in 1903 still took 3⅓ minutes between shots. In 1896 the new, and very powerful, 13.4-inch/42 guns on the pre-dreadnought "Brennus" could only fire a round every four minutes.
[3] Of course, the very slowness of fire meant that ships firing at the same target were *less* likely to confuse each others' fall of shot with their own.
[1] Up to and including the Russo-Japanese War, all Russian capital ships had very slow-firing heavy guns. To take some Baltic examples, the three "Poltava" class pre-dreadnoughts needed 120-150 seconds between the aimed rounds of their 12-inch/40 guns; the newer "Tsesarevich" and "Retvizan" probably took 90 seconds with the same guns; while the "Peresviet" class’ (and Russian coast defence ships’) 10-inch/45s were designed to fire every 45 seconds but only managed to do so every 80. At her first gunnery trials, the new Black Sea battleship "Potemkin’s" 12-inch/40s took over 4 minutes between rounds! From 1906 a new breech-block was introduced and older guns were modified; the rate of fire for 12-inch/40s rose from one round every 90 seconds (at best), to one round every 45-50 seconds.
[2] Other navies’ heavy guns too could be slow; e.g. in 1897 the captain of the obsolete French battleship "Amiral Duperré" noted that his ship’s heavy guns (13.4-inch/21s), could only fire every 7 to 15 minutes. In 1895 the 14.5-inch/ 28.5s of the old battleship "Formidable" fired only every 7 min.s 50 sec.s, and even after modification in 1903 still took 3⅓ minutes between shots. In 1896 the newer, and very powerful, 13.4-inch/42s on the pre-dreadnought "Brennus" could only fire a round every four minutes.
[3] One likely consequence of such slow-firing heavy artillery was that it would be easier for a ship to distinguish the fall of her own shot, from that of a friendly ship firing ont eh same target.
Hi Toby E (in response to both comments),
Wow! That is a lot to take in and is certainly well beyond my level of knowledge of the war and the two opposing navies (soon to be addressed with a modest expansion to the library!). At this stage my only question would be where did you get that level of detail from?
Certainly something to think about - both as to rates of fire and the whole fall of shot issue.
Thank you for sharing this.
All the best,
DC
So, I am not clear for the reason to penalize other ships firing on the same target during the same turn. I can sort of see from a game mechanic standpoint, but the historical reasoning behind it. Maybe its in the previous comments and I missed it???
Chris,
In real life was a problem with identifying fall of shot when several ships were firing at the same target. As a result, accuracy was reduced. Navies tried different methods to ‘cure’ the problem including putting dye or some sort of coloured marker in shells so that the water splashes from different ships could be identified. Needless to say, this was only partially successful.
All the best,
Bob
[1] NID’s account of the Black Sea Fleet’s weaknesses in 1902-1903 are summarised in Matthew Seligmann's article “Britain’s great security mirage: the Royal Navy and the Franco-Russian naval threat, 1898-1906”; see also Arthur Marder's excellent book, "British naval policy," pages 406, 431 and 437-438. Rates of fire of Russian guns are from Stephen McLaughlin's outstanding book "Russian and Soviet battleships" (Naval Institute Press, 2003; e.g. pages 119, 160 and 178). For French ships, see e.g. Stephen Roberts' book "French warships in the Age of Steam," pages 49, 52 and 191; and Philippe Caresse's article “The French battleship Brennus,” pages 30-31.
[2] Incidentally, I think Stephen McLaughlin will be publishing a book on Russian cruisers before too long.
[3] In connection with Bob Cordery's comment below, my impression is that coloured dye in shells is something that began in the inter-War period. It's mentioned in e.g. one or more of John Jordan's books on French warships.
Ah...okay, makes sense now! Would this still be an issue during World War II?
Toby E,
Perhaps I’m confusing the use of dye with the reports that splashes sometimes appeared to be coloured yellow due to the explosive used.
All the best,
Bob
Chris,
It was … and I understand that the Missouri-class were each allocated different colours.
All the best,
Bob
It occurs to me that a very simple approach might be to halve the effects dice for all additional ships firing at the same target. So, if two ships, each with a four-gun primary broadside shooting at HMS Whatnott with (say) a 4-dice roll at 4 hexes range, the first ship gets 4 dice; the second gets 2 only: 6 dice in all.
It might also be worth considering halving the dice for a ship's secondary armaments firing at the same target the primaries are shooting at. It becomes clear I'll have to think this one through, to see what effects they have! (Let's see: The Little Great War about to break out, Ruberia is planning to invade the Norromandian Coast of Azuria - supported by the Grand Fleet, against a very likely intervention from the Azurian Oceanic Fleet. Could be a biggish naval action in the making there!)
On the matter of rates of fire. I gather that the Turkish naval gunners pre-WW1 were British trained. One infers that whilst their drill was brisk and speedy, their aim was truly dismal: couldn't hit a thing. Their Greek adversaries, more deliberate in their gunnery, were far more apt to shove their projectiles aboard the enemy vessels, hence their success in action. Some of this I have read, some I've inferred from that reading. May need confirmation or debunking, perhaps?
Cheers,
Ion
[1] As WW1 approached, the Russian Black Sea Fleet realised that the Ottomans might bring a dreadnought or two into service (namely, two such ships building in Britain, one of which had originally been ordered for Brazil), before the Black Sea Fleet's own first dreadnought entered service. At that point, the Russians had four 12-inch gunned pre-dreadnoughts in service in the Black Sea (Sviatoi Evstafi, Ioann Zlatoust, Panteleimon [the former Potemkin] and Tri Svatitelia), plus the 10-inch gunned Rostislav.* The 12-inch ships' guns were constructed to elevate up to 35 degrees (Evstafi and Ioann), or were modified to allow elevation to 25 or 35 degrees (Panteleimon, Tri Sviatitelia), which with the most modern shells enabled them to fire up to 26,600 yds (at 35 deg.) or 23,000 yds (at 25). This outranged the guns being fitted to the dreadnoughts being built in Britain for the Turks, and also comfortably outranged the 11-inch/50 guns on SMS Goeben, which the Ottomans notionally bought in 1914 (and which could fire up to 19,470 yds). The Germans eventually increased the possible elevation of Goeben's guns to 22.5 degrees, but only in 1917, and even then they were sti loutranged by the Russians.
[2][ The Russians also devised a system whereby the fire of three 12-inch gunned pre-dreadnoughts would be co-ordinated. When sailing in line ahead, the three ships' guns would all fire to the range specified by the middle ship of the group, the data being shared via ship-to-ship radio messages. This method of combining the fire of three ships was employed in two engagements between the Russian fleet and Goeben (Cape Sarych in Nov. 1914, and off the Bosphorus in May 1915), though (especially as the first engagement was only a few minutes in length) it's not clear if it was especially helpful.
[3] More details about the Black Sea Fleet's combination of pre-dreadnoughts' fire can be found in Stephen McLaughlin's article about the Cape Sarych skirmish in "Warship 2002-2002". The engagement off the Bosphorus in May 1915 is described in my article in "Warship 2024".
[4] In practice, of course, in August 1914, rightly suspecting that the Ottomans were about to join WW1 on the Geman side, Britain seized the two dreadnoughts building for the Ottomans, and these ships entered RN services as HMS Agincourt and HM Erin.
[5] Given the long range -- for the time -- at which the Battle of the Yellow Sea took place in 1904, it's not surprising that both the Russians and the Japanese had by 1914 been designing ships where the guns had much greater elevation, and thus maximum range, than had been common before 1904. The greatest contrast is with most French pre-1914 ships, which seemed to have been designed on the assumption that it would not be necessary to engage beyond 12-13,000 yards.
* The maximum elevation of Rostislav's guns does not seem to have been increased, perhaps due to the greater priority of other work, or perhaps because (as, by 1914, her main guns were no longer standard equipment, and had different ballistic characteristics) she could not useully combine her 10-inch guns' firing with that of the 12-inch gunned ships.
Post a Comment