VaS and crossing the enemy's 'T' suggestion

[BuShips]

I posted the following over at TMP, and I'll offer it up here to ponder. I don't think I'll get many problems with my proposed option of crossing the T here (and I do hope you like it!) but the second comment on my alternate use of the silhouette might require some deep thinking and I may well be wrong. Anyway, it seemed logical to me when I thought it over yesterday :lol: .

---

As far as the naval tactic of 'crossing the T', there is nothing that keeps you from maneuvering your ship into a position where either the enemy's bow or aft arc is masked from firing at you while you give him your 'full attention' with all of your guns. I agree that there should be some mention of the tactic and its importance, but those who are new to naval gaming will surely gleefully "discover" the tactic all over again when experimenting with their ships. Since the game design is meant toward fast-play, there is no masking of ships. I have come up with an easy option that I will place here for consideration and that is easy to add to the game. I would suggest an "exception the the rule" of no masked fire when the advanced rule of squadrons is used. Since ships must stick together at a separation of no more than 4" when that option is used, I would suggest that players consider the following as an offsetting 'punishment' to the otherwise advantaged use of squadrons allowing for better command and simultaneous movement and fire. When any ship or squadron maneuvers its ships into either a fore or stern arc of the opposing ship(s), any squadron units that could fire under normal circumstances are denied this oppotunity due to the forward units in the squadron masking the bearing arcs of fire. I'll include a diagram for a visual guide below. As to the exposed full silhouette firing bonus, I at first glance thought as you did. There is some point to be made that at least at short range using flat trajectory fire there should be an advantage in targetting a full silhouette. I do believe though at longer ranges the odds go down due to a more "3D" effect of high arcing and plunging fire having a better chance at missing this hull orientation. I am thinking of house-ruling a modification of the silhouette rule to give the targetting bonus to a full silhouette only at under the 20" range bracket. When a ship is over 20" and is showing an opposite profile however, I'll apply the bonus as I think there could be added chances of hits under those circumstances by 'climbing the ladder' on the target with long range shots. At long range the full profile silhouette dissapears as a targetting advantage and the two circumstances flip over on each other. At least that's how I see it, and have also included a chart for consideration. VaS has a place in bringing new gamers into the rich history of naval warfare. I consider it as a 'gateway drug', but one that has a good outcome :wink: .

 

[Oly]

Personally I found that really interesting So thanks for that.

However I think that I'll only be a relatively casual VaS gamer so am unlikely to implement it.

I hope that there's always space for those of us who might one day get together and just play with the rules as they are in the book.

 

[DM]

Actually there is a good argument for not having modifiers for target aspect at all, since the d6 system only allows variations of +/-17% to be accounted for, and in the grand scheme of things target aspect changes don't stack up to this kind of delta. also I recall reading an article in a journal somewhere on projected target areas of battleships under fire at different aspects amd ranges, taking typical salvo spreads, variations in crossing rates, target size, shell arrival angle etc. into account and the changes actually weren't all that dramatic.

 

[Joe_Dracos]

I personally agree with that point. Only a target abeam of you will give a fire control team any advantage. THis is simply because you see more of the ship and can more acurately put your fire into critical areas such as the Magazine.

 

[BuShips]

I'm more interested in any comments about my suggestion for crossing of the enemy T. I kind of liked how that might be slipped into the game and tucked inside of squadron usage. I knew there would be a lot of reaction to nitpicking the silhouette rule :wink: . I was reacting to a valid point raised on another forum that knew the advantage of what crossing the T does in a naval gunnery duel, and he combined that by correctly stating that he was stunned that an advantage was given to a ship at the bottom of the T (facing a large silhouette no less). So I gave it some thought and drew these two charts up. DM probably has the better statistical solution in just skipping the silhouette entirely, but "there I went" off on an overkill solution, lol. Still, I might give it some tests as it is really simpler to implement than it looks. If under 20" range, use the silhouette rule as written. If over 20" then flip the bonus to the reverse silhouette. If you think of it in the context of the HMS Hood running headlong at the Bismarck knowing that at long range it was susceptible to plunging fire and needed to get closer in order to then turn its side profile (and its rear guns) to face the Bismarck it sort of follows that plan. The plan almost worked too as the Hood blew just as it was unmasking its aft turrets and presenting its better-armored silhouette. Joe, there is quite a bit more to hitting a fast maneuvering ship, but Oly has a good point as well that sometimes you just play with the rules as written .

 

[DM]

The "crossing the T" rule could well be useful in a WW1 setting, where linear tactics are much more prevalent. I'll have a think about this today. The silhouette one I'm less convinced about. Hood's manoeuvring during her final battle was, IMHO, more about closing the range to offset plunging fire effects than affecting the enemy's probability of hitting - pointing towards the enemyy allowed Hood to cross the vulnerable zone at the highest rate before turning broadside on to expose the aft battery (a manoeuvre that she very nearly completed). Hence I'd tend towards keeping thsi part of the rules "as is".

 

[BuShips]

The "crossing the T" rule could well be useful in a WW1 setting, where linear tactics are much more prevalent. I'll have a think about this today. The silhouette one I'm less convinced about. Hood's manoeuvring during her final battle was, IMHO, more about closing the range to offset plunging fire effects than affecting the enemy's probability of hitting - pointing towards the enemyy allowed Hood to cross the vulnerable zone at the highest rate before turning broadside on to expose the aft battery (a manoeuvre that she very nearly completed). Hence I'd tend towards keeping thsi part of the rules "as is".

In a way you are making my point. I agree that the vulnerability of the Hood was in being under plunging fire, and while this rule doesn't shift the armor factor at long range to deck piercing (now there's a thought- :? ) it does at least in a very generic way increase the odds of a hit while facing a closing or running profile. It is a bit bothersome to know that the game rewards being at the bottom of the T with a higher hit potential. At least when I gave it some thought I tried to build in a reason that firing a flat projectile would be better at a full silhouette than firing an arching path that could allow overs and unders (by the way that's a perfect straddle as you know and what is sought after by gunnery officers). Even with a perfect straddle, not all projectiles will hit. If you study at least the Pacific fleets and tactics in WW2 you will find a great many times that in cruising and in battles the single line ahead was in common use. Crossing the T wasn't a dinosaur tactic. Although they might not be completely true to history, just take a look at the VaS rulebook for examples galore of single line ahead formations (not that you are arguing against there common use). Just think of me "helping" you think about it today :wink: .

The single line-ahead formation was used, abused and ignored but mostly was used. The battles of Savo Island, Cape Esperance (the US unwittingly crossed the Japanese T), Tassafaronga (where a line-ahead formation became a Long Lance shooting gallery), Kula Gulf (more torpedo bait), Kolombangara, Vella Gulf, Vella Lavella, Empress Augusta Bay, Cape St. George, etc. Food for thought, heh.

 

[DM]

Now I never said that linear tactics weren't used, just that they were more prevalent in WW1, especially wrt very large formations. Another aspect to remember is that ships of the earlier era produced large amounts of smoke which their (oil firing) successors didn't do to the same extent. Your proposed rule above would do well in simulating the efefcts of this without the need to track smoke generation in detail (as in some other rules - tedious but the effect is the same).

My point regarding Hood was in support of the extant rule in VAS that alows ships firing at Long Range and Extreme range to gain a +1 on their Damage Dice. Hood doesn't have an armoured deck so this is bad news for her, hence closing the range is a "Good Thing". The downside is that she can only fire her forward guns. That is the real killer of having one's T crossed by a broadside-presenting enemy. They are firing twice as many bricks at you as you are at them.

 

[Poi]

This picture scares me.

"Yes, I shall into your massed guns. And sink at you."

 

[BuShips]

Now I never said that linear tactics weren't used, just that they were more prevalent in WW1, especially wrt very large formations.

Yes, but by using that pychology you were more likely to agree with me on some of my points, lol. :wink: The way I've always thought of line tactics was to limit friendly fire from close ships while at the same time bringing the most weapons to bear upon a foe (as long as you had him to your sides). While the actual blind arc would be tighter than my use of the front fire arc, it could be said that smoke from forward ships assists this effect (thanks!). :wink: I'm not so sure that line-ahead formations were used any less in WW2 than WW1, and that was my only real point in my comments above (stated more seriously than before).

My point regarding Hood was in support of the extant rule in VAS that alows ships firing at Long Range and Extreme range to gain a +1 on their Damage Dice. Hood doesn't have an armoured deck so this is bad news for her, hence closing the range is a "Good Thing".

I missed that little area in the rules by only browsing the high points . Yes, that does do well to help damage and goes a long way in countering my detailed silhouette rule. Still, if my premise of varied profiles possibly assisting in helping acheive hits were combined with the +1 to damage dice it would only help move games along and give incentive to close the range. I'm sure my little rule suggestion will scare Hood players, of that I'm confidant! :lol:

The downside is that she can only fire her forward guns. That is the real killer of having one's T crossed by a broadside-presenting enemy. They are firing twice as many bricks at you as you are at them.

That's my main point in making the Crossing of the T rule. The ships that are ahead of a squadron member are going to at least partially block forward turrets from firing forward just like the ship's central superstucture is going to mask the rear turrets from firing forward (and the reverse logic the same for the aft arcs/turrets). You agree on this and there is no counter point to be made by others. I understand at the same time that the game is designed to not be big on details (slow-playing) but this rule slips crossing of the T where it does the most good- in squadron usage. I can live with single ships of the same side not blocking (or absorbing into their hulls!) friendly ship's fire, as the US player in refighting the First Naval Battle of Guadalcanal will find to their glee (US friendly fire did nearly as much damage to its own ships as the enemy did historically). My desire in making the rule was to shoe-horn a 'T' rule in the game while giving something to offset the triple advantage of squadron play- high command score, and simultaneous movement and fire. Thus squadron use becomes the blade that can cut both ways as I'd like to present the rule as.

 

[BuShips]

This picture scares me.

"Yes, I shall into your massed guns. And sink at you."

As well it should! MUAhahahaha!!! :lol:

 

[cpl_nobb]

crossing the T was a tactic used when ships had a fixed firing platform. so crossing the enemies line would create a strategic position. but when ships started to have revolving turrets and guns then crossing the T has become outdated and worthless as a naval tactic. this could be quite easily explain if you had put the firing arcs in your fantastic diagram. the blue ships line would have all of its guns to bear on the red ships line. while the red ships would have a limited number of guns to fireback with... so unlike the days of fixed firing platforms the red line would suffer terrible fire as it tries to cross from ALL of the blue ships.

plus in this rule system you cannot split your fire of your main arnament and if you ignored the squadron firing rule. when red finally crosses it would only be able to shoot at one of the blue ships as it crosses between the blue ships..so the advantage gained just isn't worth it..it would be a disaster for the red ships to even attempted it....

as for linear formations being primarily ww1..well they were still heavily used in ww2...plus when i get my finger out i will post a more updated version of crossing the T, which doesn't really cross the line but is a good example of linear formation tactics.

as for the sillhouette suggestion. these rules are extremely basic and i guess all that info your trying to suggest is all accounted for in the target factor of the ship plus the large sillhouette modifier. myself i play ww1 naval and it uses 5 size target classes combined with 8 target aspect ratios. but that is a more in depth rule system.

one thing i will say about these rule systems is that extreme range only applies to anything firing over 30" away and long when at 20" away. unfortunatley for example a british tribal destroyer firing it guns at 12" IS firing at extreme range and its shells are falling from a high trajectory into the ships deck. but i guess its too basic a rule system to fully go to town on everything. but there should be a banding system such as the first 10% of a guns range is extreme, the next 15% is long range, the next 50% is medium range range and the last 25% is short range.
so the tribals guns would be ver 11" extreme range, over 9" but up to 11" long range, over 4" up to 9" medium range and up to 4" short range.

happy reading
nobby

 

[BuShips]

cpl_nobb, I appreciate the contribution, but here are a few points to consider. The turret didn't alter the tactic or even threaten its demise. Absolutely, I'll agree that the tactic was invented in the wooden ship age where the ships were best situated into a "line of battle" formation. Crossing the T had its birth as a consequence of misplacing one's formation into a disadvantaged position of the enemy being ahead or behind to enfilade or rake the 'head' or the 'tail' of the inferior position. Consider the history now for just a minute of the word "battleship". This term was not used in the days of wooden warships but rather came into use in the days of iron ships and turrets. The word itself is a contraction of the phrase "line of battle"; thus a ship large enough to be placed in the line of battle was a "line of battle ship" which became "battleship". In my example the red ships following the red leader will have their forward turrets masked by the ships that are in front of them, unless they wish to fire through their own units. As I said earlier, in reality this is a much narrower arc of blockage than the forward arc is in the game, but this is not meant to be a detailed game of slow-play and great attention to detail. It's meant to be fast-play fun and sort of an introduction game to naval simulation on the tabletop. At long and extreme range the higher firing arc of the projectiles would probably be able to clear the ships ahead and bear (using radar fire control only maybe) on the enemy line. At a distance of under 20" the red force would only be able to bear the fore arc of the lead ship at a blue force that could bear its full attention. By the same token (as you pointed out I believe) the blue force would only be able to target the lead red ship. This is not a bad thing for the blue force, as the lead enemy ship would be smothered in salvoes of concentrated fire. As it is quickly crippled or sunk (as stated in the squadron rules) it becomes unattached from its squadron and the next red ship becomes the single target of the entire blue line. This is precisely what is intended by the tactic of crossing the T, to bring the highest concentration of power upon an enemy that cannot reply in kind. If the blue force in my example is close enough to have any ships outside of any of the red ship's forward arc, then they can be fired upon. Even considering the silhouette rule's usage, this at least will bear more guns on target than the target can bear in return. The great majority of naval surface engagements used line tactics and the participants always desired to place themselves into this superior tactical position over an enemy line. Regardless of the age the ship was fighting in, whether the ships had only fixed broadsides and a few carronades forward or employed guns mounted in rotating turrets, ships forming into a line knew the advantages and the disadvantages that doing so brought. Like I said, it was a blade that cut both ways :wink: . A singular ship with its T crossed in the age of fighting sails had only several carronades to answer an enemy's broadside, but even a steel turreted warship so crossed only had its forward guns bearing, a 2:1 disadvantage even then. Now if a friendly ship is placed in line between even those limited guns, they become masked by the friendly ship that's in "harm's way" (now at least he is getting the full attention of the enemy instead of your ship). If he then falls staggering out of line, then you get "noticed".

Here are some snips out of online WW2 battle narratives-

Taken from a narrative of the Battle of Cape Esperance:
"The Japanese force was taken largely by surprise. However, the Japanese vessels quickly realized that Scott had crossed their 'T', and executed individual turns to port and starboard to clear the area. The flagship Aoba was hit hard early on, and Admiral Goto was mortally wounded in the opening moments. Seeing the Aoba in distress, the captain of Furutaka swerved to interpose his vessel between the American force and the flagship. It was to prove her undoing, as she was buried in an avalanche of 6" fire. Destroyer Fubuki, sailing in the van, was also quickly gunned into submission. The Japanese fled as best they could back up The Slot, with the Americans breaking off the pursuit at 0245."

Snippets from other battles:
"His attempt to cross the Japanese 'T' instead placed his ships on a collision course with the enemy. By the time fighting commenced at 0148, the range between the leading elements of each force had closed to a ludicrous 1000 yards."

"Aboard Callaghan's ships, notice had been received from Helena regarding the presence of enemy vessels bearing roughly 315 degrees from Cushing, the lead destroyer. Callaghan initiated a northward turn, aimed at crossing Abe's "T", but his maneuver came too late: collision was imminent."

More from the Battle of Cape Esperance (some interesting choices of words and phrases that I happen to like on this one, lol):
"On the night of 11-12 October 1942, off Cape Esperance on northern Guadalcanal, this task force intercepted a Japanese squadron of three heavy cruisers and two destroyers commanded by Rear Admiral Goto. The Japanese were completely surprised, having become accustomed to sailing in these waters completely unopposed. Their guns were trained fore-and-aft, and Scott's force succeeded (largely by sheer luck) in "crossing the T" - a classic manoeuvre which enabled them to concentrate all their fire on each enemy ship in turn, while the fire of the Japanese ships was masked by the ships ahead of them in column."

This lengthy comment is not so much aimed at you as it is to add to the general discussion. You just helped to bring me to add this to my previous comments. I will not force you to change your opinions, but I sure would like to convince you to change them for yourself :wink: .

Welcome to the Forum, by the way .

 

[Der Kommandant]

plus in this rule system you cannot split your fire of your main arnament

what do you mean by this? if i have an A B X and Y turret i can shoot at 4 different targets if i want. what the rule of no splitting fire means is you cannot split an individual turret AD.

 

[holden88]

One of our house rules is that if your line of fire crosses through another ship of the same size as the target (friendly or enemy) then you suffer a further -1 to hit. So if your T is crossed then not only will your firpower be limited to just your forward firing armament, but all of your ships behind the first will also be less accurate.

I know that the ship models are way bigger than they actually should be, but it's a very simple rule that adds a lot of tactics to the game (it also further rewards crossing the T).

 

[cpl_nobb]

sry to disappont you but all of those battles you have quoted are from the same battle...and if you read some of the reports of the aftermath you may find what they thought of the tactics and the outcome....plus that was a night engagement.

blimey you mean you can really fire all 4 turrets at different targets? i feel sry for the gunnery officer...still in ww1 mode i guess....i must re-read it sometime when my minis turn up.

once again for crossing the "T"...i still think that it doesn't exist in the form you are thinking of...its more of getting your line into a better firing position so you have the advantage of more ships firing.

i think you missed my point or i have presented it wrong...all of the blue ships can fire at any of the red ships they wish to with all of thier mounts and torpedos..not just at the lead red ship..where as the red ships can only fire thier forward mounts...so blue has the advantage of firepower at any ship on the red line it wants to.

happy reading
nobby.

p.s thats what a battleship is then :wink:

 

[BuShips]

sry to disappont you but all of those battles you have quoted are from the same battle...and if you read some of the reports of the aftermath you may find what they thought of the tactics and the outcome....plus that was a night engagement.

blimey you mean you can really fire all 4 turrets at different targets? i feel sry for the gunnery officer...still in ww1 mode i guess....i must re-read it sometime when my minis turn up.

once again for crossing the "T"...i still think that it doesn't exist in the form you are thinking of...its more of getting your line into a better firing position so you have the advantage of more ships firing.

i think you missed my point or i have presented it wrong...all of the blue ships can fire at any of the red ships they wish to with all of thier mounts and torpedos..not just at the lead red ship..where as the red ships can only fire thier forward mounts...so blue has the advantage of firepower at any ship on the red line it wants to.

happy reading
nobby.

p.s thats what a battleship is then :wink:

Again, glad to see you here. As far as the random quotes, the ones listed as Cape Esperance of course were from Cape Esperance (October 11, 1942) :wink:. The other two were from the First Naval Battle of Guadalcanal (November 13, 1942). An example of using a line-ahead formation not to one's self advantage would be Tassafarronga. Japanese Type 93 "Long Lance" fired at a nice line of US cruisers-

"Waiting in Ironbottom sound was a dramatically superior US force of 4 heavy cruisers, a light cruiser, and six destroyers. Unfortunately for the Americans this night, Tanaka's lookouts were very alert, and managed to detect the ambush before it happened. Once again, the linear battle tactics of the Americans cost them, as the Japanese destroyers wheeled, fired torpedoes, and 'ran for the exits'. The Americans got in enough gunfire to scupper Takanami (which had moved to screen her sisters from the Americans). And then the Long Lances hit. The end result was one US heavy cruiser sunk, and three more incapacitated."

In the Battle of Surigao Strait (October 24-25, 1944)-

"Waiting for them was a battlegroup under Admiral Jesse Oldendorf. The heavyweight component of this task force was six old American battleships, five of whom had been at Pearl Harbor. Not only did they outnumber the Japanese battleships six to two, but five of the six American BBs sported either 10cm or 3cm fire control radar systems. Furthermore, the American force had assumed a position across the Strait which capped the enemy 'T'. The result was a crushing advantage in firepower effectiveness."

We may not be "synchronizing" on all boilers here :wink: but yes, it is indeed "getting your line into a better firing position so you have the advantage of more ships firing." As far as historic events in the real world, if you were at the top of a perfect T you would be concentrating all of your fire at the lead ship indeed. Victory at Sea allows fire at any ships in the enemy line, so this is a departure made for ease of play and I'm not sure I would mess with that. It's enough to limit the fire of the inferior ship line in a T position and allow the superior force to choose the targets it wants. I'm not sure if this next graphic will help or just add to the "fog of wargame" :lol:

I made this to supplement the other one and before I read your reply. Part of what it says is that while the blue force can shoot with full capability the red force is limited in its replies. As far as WW2 gun directors splitting fire, they were more advanced than WW1 by quite a bit because in addition to local control they could be tied in together for combined salvoes. Others did a good job of helping out with an explanation that the game doesn't allow an individual turret to split its fire.

 

[BuShips]

I've modified the previous graphic example to use as a generic guide to the term of "Crossing the T", without tossing in any "controversial" suggestions of changing the game of VaS from the way it was released. The only comment I would add that relates to current rules play is that the rules as they are now without any LOS restrictions allows the superior "top" position of ships to target any ship in an inferior position, which is ahistorical to fact. Of course, a player is not restricted from firing all of his weapons at the lead ship, either :wink: . This whole line of thought of mine started with a rather rude critique on another forum that the game gave no special advantage to a successful 'T' while in fact at the same time rewarding the inferior tactical position by giving it a better shot at the crossing enemy ship. I've done a very large amount of reading naval history from a varied number of sources over a great many years, and this tactic was considered no small thing to dismiss. Like I have said before, I have no problem with the game as-is really, as even in not mentioning the term or its usage it is attainable by the player in the game of Victory at Sea whether he is a "shellback" of naval history or a brand new "pollywog" that "invents" it in-game and says "Golly, look what I just did to your ships!" :wink:. Maybe Mongoose will rethink LOS and incorporate it into a future version of the rules, but if they do they would be missing a rich opportunity if they didn't add a page out of Mahan and give a lesson on concentration of forces, a term that exemplifies "Victory at Sea".

 

[BuShips]

Although it is a necessary condensed-view artwork, the cover of Victory at Sea provides a superb example of the tactic, and of its potential consequences :shock:.

Does this look familiar to anyone that has studied the alphabet? :wink:

 

[jfox61]

Der Kommandant is wrong on being able to split his turrets fire. Page 8 of the rules underr splitting fire clearly states that on AA and secondary can split fire. Other than that each weapon system may only fire at 1 target