S.M.S. Kronprinz Erzherzog Rudolf was a ‘turreted ironclad’ (Turmschiffe) commissioned in 1889, and in Austro-Hungarian service on and off until around February 1918. The main armament was three 305 mm guns mounted individually in barbettes.
This drawing is from “Austro-Hungarian Battleships in World War One,” by Zvonimir Freivogel:
A group in British Columbia recently ran an interesting naval game using the Steel Fleets rules (facebook link). Although it was a few years beyond what my code is designed for, most of the ships involved were from WW1. I have attempted to recreate the game’s initial conditions and early movements. Since the French had some ex-German ships and the Italians had some ex-Austro-Hungarian ships, the nationalities for those ships were overridden so that French or Italian shells and propellants were used.
Winds East at 10 knots. Sea state 2. Visibility increasing from 16,400 to 20,800 yards over the first 10 minutes.
Computer code (described here)
Admiralty Floating Docks AFD4 and AFD5 were completed in 1912 to handle ships of up to 32,000 tons. AFD4 was at Sheerness in 1912 and Jarrow in 1915. AFD5 was at Invergordon from 1914 through 1919.
Having recently made significant modifications to the game code, I used the ‘Run to the South’ phase of Jutland as a test case. Course changes, speeds and formations were followed as closely as practical, given that inputs are only changed every five minutes. The primary source was the signals information in Brooks, although plots from Marder, Campbell, Tarrant and the Naval Staff Appreciation were also used. See the list of references below.
In some cases the game code was unable to reproduce formation changes as they seem to have occurred historically. Two examples follow.
Example 1:
When the IAG (First Scouting Group) turned from their initial northwesterly course at 2:27pm GMT, Brooks Table 5.4 gives these signals:
2.27 Turn together to port to WSW
2.30 Follow in wake of SO’s ship
2.43 Turn together to starboard to WSW
and states in the text that after 2.27 Hipper “seems to have headed SW for a time in line ahead.” This is consistent with Map 2 of the Harper Report and with Figure 11 in Tarrant.
Excerpt from Harper Map 2 (times shown are Central European Time):
It is not clear to me how the steaming order of the unit was maintained through the approximately 200 degree turn. Perhaps the trailing ships slowed, with the last ship slowing the most. The game code made a complete hash of the maneuver, but since the IAG was not in combat the disorder did not matter.
Excerpt from game plot for IAG
I find it interesting that Marder (map 4) and Campbell (Chart 1) have a different plot for the IAG in this period, with no movement in the southwesterly direction at all.
Excerpt from Marder Vol III Map 4 (times shown are Central European Time):
Example 2:
When the 1BCS and 2BCS (battle cruiser squadrons) turn east in response to the sighting of the IAG, the 2BCS is stationed 3 miles ENE of the 1BCS. Brooks Table 5.9 gives these signals:
3.30 Alter course leading ships together the rest in succession to E, 25 knots
3.34 (to 2BCS) Prolong the line by taking station astern
Brooks criticizes Beattly since “… the two weakly armoured battlecruisers were thrust forward three miles closer to the enemy and with no prospect of getting into line with Lion and the 1BCS without some violent maneuvering.” The game code had no serious problem putting the 2BCS in line behind the 1BCS, although with the increase in ordered speed to 25 knots, the 26 knot Indefatigable class ships lagged a few hundred yards behind after their speed loss in the turns. The game code reduces acceleration significantly as a ship nears its maximum speed.
Excerpt from game plot for BCS:
The rest of the exercise played out as expected, up to the point where the High Seas Fleet would have been sighted. The Lion lost a gun, the Derfflinger lost a turret, the Tiger blew up, the 5BS started engaging the IAG and the IAG avoided a torpedo attack.
References:
Brooks, John, “The Battle of Jutland,” 2016.
Campbell, John, “Jutland An Analysis of the Fighting,” 1986.
Marder, Arthur J., “From the Dreadnought to Scapa Flow,” 1978.
Schleihauf, William, “Jutland The Naval Staff Appreciation,” 2016.
Tarrant, V. E., “Jutland The German Perspective,” 1995.
Winds WSW at 12 knots. Sea state 3. Visibility 23,000 yards.
Player reports
Battlecruiser Force
Aufklarung Gruppe
Plots
80-145 minutes (without light cruiser plots)
All
Computer code (described here)
The Foudre was a French seaplane carrier, converted from an 1896 torpedo boat tender in 1911. This 1/6000 scale model is an approximation based on photos. Also shown is a German Navy dirigible and a generic game marker for a deployed seaplane (or other scouting aircraft). The seaplane is oversize for 1/6000, but is as small as I was able to carve.
This scenario was designed to examine the tactical employment of several planned battleship and battle cruiser designs. See this post for the designs of the Austro-Hungarian Porject V and VI classes.
Winds WSW at 5 knots. Sea state 3. Visibility 12 NM.
Player reports
British-French
Austro-Hungarian
Plots
0-25 minutes
25-45 minutes
All
Computer code (described here)
With the A-H battle cruisers wrecked and the best A-H battleships damaged and in disarray, we called the game. The scenario was unbalanced, due in part to the powerful G3 and N3 classes and the weak (four gun) primary armament of the A-H battle cruiser class. We have yet to come to any conclusions about how to effectively employ divisions with differing speeds.
These are eight scout cruisers completed in 1905 and modeled in 1/6000 scale.
From Conway’s All the World’s Fighting Ships 1860-1905, pages 84-85:
“These eight cruisers were intended to work in company with destroyers as scouts, to lead torpedo attacks and to back up their flotillas when attacked by enemy destroyers. The Admiralty provided a broad specification …. for a 25kt ship, with a 1-1/2 inch protective deck or equivalent side armour, shallow draught … 10-12pdr, 8-3pdr and 2TT. …[This] resulted in four sub-classes … that varied substantially in form, machinery and structure. … During 1911/12 they were rearmed with 9-4in guns.”
This is a US design from 1912, modeled in 1/6000 scale.
Displacement 30,000 tons
Waterline length 780 feet
Six 14 inch guns
Sixteen 6 inch guns
Eight 21 inch submerged torpedo tubes
Oil fired, 27 knots
This scenario was inspired by the Russian attack on a convoy of iron ore sailing from Sweden to Germany described in “After Jutland“, Chapter 6, pages 90-91. The Russian attack group of destroyers has a close cover force of cruisers and a distant cover force of dreadnoughts. The Germans expect the operation and counter with their own cruiser and dreadnought supporting forces.
Winds WSW at 5 knots. Sea state 2. Visibility 6 NM.
Plots
0-25 minutes
25-50 minutes
50-75 minutes
All
Computer code (described here)
With only two Russian dreadnoughts left to face six relatively intact German dreadnoughts, we called the game. The convoy and most of the German cruisers had been destroyed, but the loss of the Russians dreadnoughts was a high price to pay for meeting the mission objective.
This is a Dutch dreadnought design from 1913, modeled in 1/6000 scale. Various designs were proposed from 1912 through 1914, as described in Warship International No. 4, 1988, No. 1, 1989 and No. 4, 1989. The 1913 quadruple turret design was chosen because it differed the most from contemporary German designs.
Normal displacement 20,700 tons
Length 169.2 meters
Eight 34.3cm L/45 in quadruple turrets
Sixteen 15cm L/50in casemates
Oil fired, 22-23 knots
The names were taken from late 19th Century Dutch cruisers.
