British 13.5"/45 (34.3 cm) Mark V

C

Captain Blicero

Mongoose
Having played a half dozen games of AoD we have decided the British 13.5” gun is overrated in terms of range.
Comparing multiple print and online sources we have come to the conclusion that the 13.5”/45 Mark V has approximately 1.15 times the range of the German 28 cm/50 (11") SK L/50. Taking the AoD listed range of 28 inches for the 28cm/50 as accurate for a base-line, we have consequently adjusted the 13.5”/45 by the already stated ratio of 1.15 and altered the range of 36” to 32”. While four inches may not seem like much, it dramatically decreases the “sweet-spot” on the table where the British BC’s can hit their counterparts but the Germans cannot reply.

Never mind the fact that engaging at 23000 yds (The max range for the 13.5”/45 Mark V) never happened as far as I have read….

I personally cannot understand why the 13.5”/45 gets two Damage Dice either, but that is a matter for more research.

We are now looking at the 12"/45 (30.5 cm) Mark X (Mounted on Invincible and Indefatigable classes) and the 21 cm/45 (8.27") SK L/45 mounted on Blucher. According to many sources SMS Blucher could fire up to 20,000 yds at max elevation! This seems in line with what happened at Dogger Bank, where Blucher was responding to Lion within minutes…

All in all a great system, it’s just in our gamer natures to tweak!
[/i]
 
A couple of things to note.The anges used are based on effective ranges rather than maximum ranges, so issues such as fire control, doctrine etc. are wrapped up in there. Larger guns of the period were easily capable of being fired out to ranges clearly beyond the capabilities of their firecontrol systems. The "ground" scale is 1" to 500 yards, so the engagement ranges we are looking at are well below 20kyards. That said, I think Imay have UNDERSOLD the German 11" in terms of range - let me check and get back on that.

As to cut-off between 1DD and 2DD - the damaging potential of the 13.5" compared with smaller shells was significantly greater. There had to be a swap between 1DD and 2DD and this was the point at which it made most sense.

That said, tinker away. If you come up with a combination that works better for you then go for it (I've tinkered with most sets of rules that I own and use, so I don't see why anyone else should be any different) :)
 
First, I would like to say that one of the great pleasures of wargaming is being able to work with the game designer, refining systems and playing with new ideas. One cannot do the same with Billiards or Chess! A heart-felt thanks to you Mr. Manley, for writing a good game, and then going the extra measure of supporting the ideas on this and other forums!

Now on to the diatribe…

We had a suspicion that fire control doctrine and “effective” range were factored in, but it’s easier to find raw data on the max range of hardware than doctrinal analysis…That said, primary documents on fire control doctrine would be something I would love to read! If you could point me in the right direction I would be much obliged.

As far as my limited knowledge goes, I understand the Stereoscopic Zeiss range finders (particularly the large ones mounted later) were superior to the coincidence Barr and Stroud models on British ships. Of course the range finder is just one tool in finding a fire-solution. And I don’t think the Germans had anything like the proto-computers installed on (some) British ships, although the actual use and effectiveness of the Dreyer and other tables is questionable…

We initially thought that instead of decreasing the range of the 13.5” gun, we should increase the range of the 11”, but as is probably the case with most gamers, we have limited table space and shortening ranges worked out better.

The problem I have with the 2DD vs. 1DD is the increase in the chance of penetration and critical, I don’t think the British APC Mark IIa has TWICE the penetration power and subsequent critical chance of the German APC L/3. Perhaps a +1 Damage modifier would be more appropriate? Or inversely a -1 for the 11” shell? I can’t see 2DD ever being called for, except perhaps on the 15"/42 Mark I, or that Fisher-Madness on the HMS Furious…

Now, how about some Pre-dread rules to go with my new Old Glory 1/600 scale Japanese ships!
 
The 13.5" shell has around 160% of the weight of the 11" shell, so the 2DD seems not unreasonable (the 15" is about 230%).
Given that you have to round to the nearest dice, the numbers seem reasonable.
 
We had a suspicion that fire control doctrine and “effective” range were factored in, but it’s easier to find raw data on the max range of hardware than doctrinal analysis…That said, primary documents on fire control doctrine would be something I would love to read! If you could point me in the right direction I would be much obliged.
Click to expand...

I'm lucky in that I have good contacts in some of the historical branches of various navies and I occasionally get to see useful stuff. I'm also in regular discussion with some techical experts in pre-1945 naval gunnery (but alas they are a secretive group). Whilst its annoying that, as a result, I can't generlaly post reliable references I can say that I've bounced a whole load of ideas off of them and the result is whats in the tables. That said, John Brooks' "Dreadnought Gunnery" is an excellent read (and its written by a thoroughly nice chap!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Battlefield: Evolution -- Traveller
Replies
10
Views
4K
Armydillo978
A
Back
Top