Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests

Really?????? Mk2

This fascinating series is a combination of historical seafaring, swashbuckling adventure, and high technological science-fiction. Join us in a discussion!
Re: Really?????? Mk2
Post by Bluesqueak   » Sat Aug 25, 2018 11:08 am

Bluesqueak
Captain of the List

Posts: 434
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2016 3:04 pm

Vinea wrote:
Dilandu wrote:
Currently, I couldn't see how even a single deck penetration might be achieved this way.


No penetrations are required for a mission kill if you set the ship on fire and blow up the unarmored portions of the deck. Most shallow penetrations aren’t going to be critical anyway unless it’s a magazine or engine. Mostly you want to put non-critical stuff like the ships laundry and other stuff to absorb damage.

With respect to angle guns, it depends on what the church was fielding. A 24 pounder howitzer isn’t going to penetrate 1” plate any more than a 32 pounder Congreve. If you don’t think a 300 lb Congreve with an 8” payload will penetrate then neither will an 8” mortar.

When you design a warship it’s always a balancing act to maximize the immunity zone against the most likely threats, carry enough guns that are big enough and still have enough speed and range. I might not have bothered with 1” worth of deck armor and armored lighter overall for higher speed given the steam engines are likely not very efficient yet. If there was no need to worry about QF guns I might have opted for a armor lay down like a protected cruiser vs late 19th century pre-dread armor design.

If my main batteries out range the most common angle guns fielded by the church army I’m not going to spend a lot of effort defending against them when the coastal batteries and ship batteries aren’t generally the higher angle mortars and howitzers.

Bombardment rockets? It’s such a wierd scenario I wouldn’t have considered them either. I’d have gone with less armor overall than historical for more tactical speed or strategic range since by the time I’m facing armored steam ships built by the church I’m going to have dreadnoughts style ships coming off my slips. Time doesn’t favor the Church and the tech disparity will only grow even without electricity or radio.

I’m more likely to lose a battle because I’m late because I needed to stop for coal (or plain couldn’t get there) or let a fleet get away because I’m a knot too slow than end up facing a bunch of heavy bombardment rockets that the Church didn’t have when I was designing the ship.

Even if that turns out to be wrong it’s an easily understandable why a ship designer might scrimp on deck armor and not some criminally stupid decision. Hell, I’d have spent more effort on mine/torpedo defense than worry about plunging fire the Church doesn’t have or likely good enough rangefinders and ROF to make it effective even if it did.


The earlier attack on Rhaigair Bay makes it clear that HMS Eraystor is well-armoured against shot and shell. But even so, one of her gunners is killed because he's in contact with the casement armour.

The description of HMS Eraystor's death makes it clear that it's the roaring furnace created by the rockets, not their penetrative power, that causes the destruction of both HMS Eraystor and HMS Riverbend.


He saw at least two fireballs, though, and the forward half of the ironclad's funnel simply disappeared in a rolling wave of destruction


There's then a description of HMS Riverbend, and there it is clearly explained that:

propellant charges for her 6-inch guns began exploding as they cooked off in the flames


Then back to HMS Eraystor:
her entire forward superstructure - everything forward of her crumpled funnel - was a solid mass of flame. Her navigation bridge was simply gone, ripped away, leaving only a few support girders to show where it once had been, and her conning tower had become a chimney, the flue of hell's own furnace. Flames roaring ferociously up that chimney leapt mast-head-high, and the ship was clearly out of control with no living hand upon the helm.... she steamed directly into the field of seabombs.


So - what's penetrated is the superstructure, the navigation bridge and the conning tower. We don't get any description of exploding charges (which might have added to the flames or even been what destroyed the navigation bridge), but Gahryth Shumayt is concentrating on Riverbend's struggle to survive. Eraystor is doomed; everyone on deck is burning to death or already dead and any survivors below are trapped, with no way out except through the flames. The coup de grace comes from the larger seabombs, not the rockets.

As Vinea says, it seemingly didn't occur to the Charisians that the Temple would manage to turn signal rockets into an effective weapon. As the Temple discovered throughout the war, you can't plan to protect against weapons you don't know exist. For once, with rockets, that principle bit Charis on the backside.
Top
Re: Really?????? Mk2
Post by Silverwall   » Sun Aug 26, 2018 1:54 am

Silverwall
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 388
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 12:53 am

What I don't get is why the ships are in range anyway, range is based on historical evidence 2000 yards or so maybe up to 2500 yards or one nautical mile. This is spitting distance from the shore for a ship of the period so why are they so close to shore that they can be hit?

My reading of the bombardment of Alexandria (1882) is that closing to this range was considered suicidally short range for ships performing shore bombardment.
Top
Re: Really?????? Mk2
Post by Dilandu   » Sun Aug 26, 2018 2:05 am

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2538
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 1:44 pm
Location: Russia

Silverwall wrote:What I don't get is why the ships are in range anyway, range is based on historical evidence 2000 yards or so maybe up to 2500 yards or one nautical mile. This is spitting distance from the shore for a ship of the period so why are they so close to shore that they can be hit?

My reading of the bombardment of Alexandria (1882) is that closing to this range was considered suicidally short range for ships performing shore bombardment.


Because for "some" reasons, Charisian Navy pumped enormous resources into superbattleships they didn't even need, but make no effort in building gunboats or any kind of lighter steam-powered units. Or even steam tugs for their galleons. Most of naval messes of the last book is the direct examples of using the wrong ships for a missions for that they weren't optimal.
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top
Re: Really?????? Mk2
Post by Annachie   » Sun Aug 26, 2018 9:08 am

Annachie
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3099
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:36 pm

Why would they need gunboats?

Weren't steam tugs one of the first things they built?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are so going to die. :p ~~~~ runsforcelery
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
still not dead. :)
Top
Re: Really?????? Mk2
Post by Dilandu   » Sun Aug 26, 2018 9:34 am

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2538
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 1:44 pm
Location: Russia

Annachie wrote:Why would they need gunboats?

Weren't steam tugs one of the first things they built?


Because gunboats are small, capable of operating in shallow coastal waters, and due to small size almost invulnerable for pre-QF rifles. They are ideal crafts for coastal support operations and battling the fortifications. RFC for some reason assumed that fortifications could be keveled by long-range gunfire; it does NOT correspond with historical experience.
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top
Re: Really?????? Mk2
Post by Vinea   » Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:16 pm

Vinea
Lieutenant (Junior Grade)

Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 3:47 pm

Dilandu wrote:
Because gunboats are small, capable of operating in shallow coastal waters, and due to small size almost invulnerable for pre-QF rifles. They are ideal crafts for coastal support operations and battling the fortifications. RFC for some reason assumed that fortifications could be keveled by long-range gunfire; it does NOT correspond with historical experience.


They were successful in the Crimean campaign because there really wasn’t a Russian naval threat. And the Baltic is a limited theater that doesn’t necessarily apply to where the Charisian Navy was operating. Gunboats don’t do well against frigates so if there is a naval threat or doubt about naval superiority you wouldn’t build many. The situation of the RN vs Russia ln Empire was different from Charis and the Church.

Moving on in history, Union monitors didn’t do that well against fortifications (mostly fought to inconclusive results) and aren’t particularly seaworthy.

Spanish American War saw monitors and warships used together in bombardment. Not just shallow draft monitors and only in the caribbean. Manila Bay had 2 gunboats but the primary combatants were the protected cruisers..

Personally, I consider myself fair to middling regarding naval and warfare history (given the right periods anyway) and I wouldn’t care to assume RFC doesn’t know about something as significant as the Crimean war even if it wasn’t that big of a naval conflict.
Top
Re: Really?????? Mk2
Post by Randomiser   » Mon Aug 27, 2018 9:20 am

Randomiser
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1452
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 2:41 pm
Location: Scotland

Silverwall wrote:What I don't get is why the ships are in range anyway, range is based on historical evidence 2000 yards or so maybe up to 2500 yards or one nautical mile. This is spitting distance from the shore for a ship of the period so why are they so close to shore that they can be hit?

My reading of the bombardment of Alexandria (1882) is that closing to this range was considered suicidally short range for ships performing shore bombardment.


IIRC they were trying to force passage through a relatively narrow channel with fortifications on both sides, in order to get to within bombardment range of the harbour and city without risking their one and only battleship. The route chosen was considered the best of their few poor options. The Dohlarans had been expecting the ICN to come for them for quite a while and hadn't been sitting on their hands while waiting. Surprise! Surprise! The main Dohlaran Naval base was in a very defensible and well defended area.
Top
Re: Really?????? Mk2
Post by Randomiser   » Mon Aug 27, 2018 9:26 am

Randomiser
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1452
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 2:41 pm
Location: Scotland

Dilandu wrote:
Annachie wrote:Why would they need gunboats?

Weren't steam tugs one of the first things they built?


Because gunboats are small, capable of operating in shallow coastal waters, and due to small size almost invulnerable for pre-QF rifles. They are ideal crafts for coastal support operations and battling the fortifications. RFC for some reason assumed that fortifications could be keveled by long-range gunfire; it does NOT correspond with historical experience.


I don't know much about naval warfare or its history. What size and armament are we talking about as 'gunboats'? What would be their typical operating radius or endurance on coal-powered steam? I am thinking that where they were needed was a very long deep-water voyage from the EOC and wondering if it would have been practical to get them there?
Top
Re: Really?????? Mk2
Post by Bluesqueak   » Mon Aug 27, 2018 10:03 am

Bluesqueak
Captain of the List

Posts: 434
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2016 3:04 pm

Randomiser wrote:
Dilandu wrote:
Because gunboats are small, capable of operating in shallow coastal waters, and due to small size almost invulnerable for pre-QF rifles. They are ideal crafts for coastal support operations and battling the fortifications. RFC for some reason assumed that fortifications could be keveled by long-range gunfire; it does NOT correspond with historical experience.


I don't know much about naval warfare or its history. What size and armament are we talking about as 'gunboats'? What would be their typical operating radius or endurance on coal-powered steam? I am thinking that where they were needed was a very long deep-water voyage from the EOC and wondering if it would have been practical to get them there?


Personally, I'd say the Dahak class and the angle-gun bombardment ships are the gunboats. Then the City class become a longer legged version - but still need a sequence of coaling stations to travel the distances required. Actual historical gunboats usually had a support structure providing coal, or still carried sails where they couldn't expect that support structure.

Dilandu seems to be thinking of USS Monitor style gunboats, which are generally called monitors. Merlin and the Inner Circle appear to have paid considerable attention to the faults of that design, because the main problem with using it to attack fortifications was its inability to elevate its guns high enough. They work on that problem even before they build steamships.

In fact, there are many, many historical examples of ships defeating land based defences; mostly WW2 onwards. In WW1 the ships defeated the land based guns in the Dardenelles campaign, but the mines defeated the ships. Does that remind you of anything? ;)
Top
Re: Really?????? Mk2
Post by Dilandu   » Mon Aug 27, 2018 10:38 am

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2538
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 1:44 pm
Location: Russia

Bluesqueak wrote:Personally, I'd say the Dahak class and the angle-gun bombardment ships are the gunboats.


No. They are bombardment-ships; highly specific type of mortar-carrying warships, used for coastal fortification ballistic bombardments.

https://golloscdn.com/21120/Prod/247411 ... -02_12.JPG

Basically the example.



Dilandu seems to be thinking of USS Monitor style gunboats, which are generally called monitors.


Er... no.

I'm thinking about the classic unarmored gunboats:

Image


Merlin and the Inner Circle appear to have paid considerable attention to the faults of that design, because the main problem with using it to attack fortifications was its inability to elevate its guns high enough. They work on that problem even before they build steamships.


This was a turret design flaw, not some principal flaw.

In fact, there are many, many historical examples of ships defeating land based defences; mostly WW2 onwards. In WW1 the ships defeated the land based guns in the Dardenelles campaign, but the mines defeated the ships. Does that remind you of anything?


Not exactly. In Dardanelles campaign, naval bombardment were essentially unable to suppress coastal guns despite the number of heavy guns used. Churchill made really stupid mistake; he extrapolated the effect of HOWITZERS against Belgian forts on the naval GUNS against Ottoman forts. And this mistake proven to be fatal. The long-range gunfire simply wasn't accurate enough to hit the individual gun emplacements, and the close-range gunfire was unable to send shells over guns breastworks.
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top

Return to Safehold