Sense of motion

I have seen examples where clever modellers have created an illusion of rotation of planes' propellers by using perspex circles, photo-etched discs or blurred circles printed on sheets of acetate.

Trouble is, the material that they use is far too thick for 1/700 planes. Then I stumbled on one where a fellow had used discs cut from 'crinkly' plastic. This could work, but what to use? I considered cutting discs with a hole punch from some book covering plastic that I have, but I reckon it will be too floppy.

Then, a eureka moment.

My wife has a new lego kit with several plastic bags containing the pieces for each step. The plastic is thin enough to use on the small planes, but stiff enough to remain rigid and has a bit of 'crinkle', which should add to the illusion of motion.

Worth a go.

Ready for take-off: an undercoated Aichi E13A 'Jake' floatplane beside the undercoated Shokaku. Three streaks of diluted Payne's grey paint sufficed to create blurred propellers.

The disc is a bit wobbly from the front, when zoomed in by the camera, but it's not detectable by the naked eye.

I am happy enough with this n=1 example and will try it on some more planes soon. The disc is perhaps a bit big, so I could trim it by hand, since an imperfect circle shouldn't be noticeable at the scale. I won't bother for planes of this size or bigger, but may be need to for smaller planes like the Zeros.

Micro Ships

Space may be big, but what about them oceans?!

There is a lot of water out there, as the Gall Peters projection shows so well. (https://map-projections.net/single-view/gall-peters)

I am a land-lubber. I have been known to sail, as a young fella, but that was brogging around on a little cata-meringue (catamaran). This helps me to 'get' sailing ships, but in the miniature world, terrestrial or nautical, I have rarely progressed past the early 19th century. Considering modern (20thC) nautical stuff in detail is all new money.

Man. The ships are BIG. The distances enormous. In round terms, you have a 200–250 m long capital ship brogging around at 30-odd knots (nearly 60 km per hour) with battles commonly waged over tens of degrees of latitude. The relatively small Battle of the Coral Sea (Battle for Australia) occurred over an area roughly 10 degrees square. That's 60 x 60 nmi, or 1 000 000 km^2. No wonder I am having trouble working out how I might try to fit it on my 4 x 2 m^2 table!

This was rammed home to me with our recent re-fight of the Battle of Denmark Strait. This occurred over a relatively small area; 'only' around 14 x 14 mmi (625 km^2). No wonder that, with 1/6000 scale ships, we required the entire floor space of Julian's wargame room and still had to use the 'organ-grinder' method; moving the ships back to the 'start' side of the room, a couple of times.

Of course, with such huge distances, a full battle needs to include movement on a map. I am happy to do that, but we wargamers like the visual. It's the biggest part of the hobby, representing actions in miniature. So I'd really like to have a scale that enables me to put ships on the table as soon as possible. I'm seeking a 2 mm equivalent for second world war naval actions.

What I want, I think, is some 1/10 000 scale ships. Trouble is, as far as I can tell, no-one makes such a thing. No worries. I love home-made stuff for wargames, so I have had a go at making some of my own.

Fortunately, there are loads of diagrams of these ships. I saved a few, put them in EazyDraw, my drawing program, scaled them. That was pretty straight forward. What about 'building' them? I printed Shokaku, Furutaka and Kinugasa, cut them out and took them over to my shed to have a go at constructing them. I printed the ships on paper for this preliminary test.I expected that I'll need to use light card, but you never know.

I don't want light, paper models, so thought that I'd add a small nail as ballast. I was going to add some putty and attach the paper sides to the resulting 'hull', but then thought that the nail might be enough. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

1/10000 Shokaku from above. Not too bad.

She looks a bit beaten up in the profile view! I should have removed the head of the nail and added the putty as planned.

Despite my mistakes, I was happy enough with this little test, limited to Shokaku. As expected, paper is too flimsy, so I'll print the 'outline' of the ships on light card. I'll take the head off the nail (😊), or dispense with it entirely and will fill the hull space, sans or avec nail, with putty.

What about planes?

I considered making them as well, then calculated the size. A wingspan of around a millimetre and fuselage of less than a millimetre. Perhaps not. Instead I'll settle for a 2-D version.

Three versions of a Shōtai of Vals on three test backgrounds. They will be around 5 mm square.

Which background? I think I prefer the cloud photo. What do you people reckon?

I am happy with the potential of these ships and planes. At 1/7 000 my table represents a mere 2.8 x 1.4 km^2. At 1/6000 this becomes 24 x 12 km^2. With 1/10 000 I am up to 40 x 20 km^2. If I allow a single ship, or perhaps three placed in base to base contact, to represent a task force, this area could be five to ten times the size.

So, we can move from map to these small models once fleets are detected (or if known in a straight re-fight), to larger, 1/6000 models for surface actions, to the 'giant' (1/700) for the detailed attacks on a carrier. Noice.

Sink the Bismarck! Or, Denmark Strait, straight

Bismarck fires 'those shells as big as trees' from a broadside of her 'guns as big as steers'.

On Sunday, Julian and I got together chez lui for a refight of the Battle of Denmark Strait (24th May 1941). He wanted to use the game as a first, direct test of "General Quarters", "Seekrieg" and "Stations Manned and Ready". A big aim for the day, especially since we'd not been able to do sufficient 'homework' beforehand; he had been diverted by real life and I only had "Stations Manned and Ready" and summary documents of the other two to look at beforehand. Nevertheless, we got through about half of it, sorta, had a marvellous time, learned a lot about the rules, with regards to our specifications, and the historic action.

We used the excellent, detailed map from The Battleship Bismarck by Ulrich Elfrath and Bodo Herzog on Don Hollway's Pursuit of Bismarck website. Other information came from José M. Rico's brilliant The Battleship Bismarck website and the HMS Hood Association.

General Quarters Third Edition

"General Quarters" were first. We used the more detailed version with each turn representing three minutes. We disposed of the nominal sea scale that is in the rules in favour of a natural scale of 1:6000 to match Julian's ships.

0535: Bismarck (right) following behind the cruiser Prinz Eugen.

0535: HMS Hood (right) leading HMS Prince of Wales. Those with good eyesight and even better knowledge will notice the stand-in for Prince of Wales.

Didn't Julian do a marvellous job of painting these tiny models?👍

0538: Hood and Prince of Wales have turned to starboard to steam towards the Germans ships. 

Prinz Eugen and Bismarck continued their course.

0541: The British ships, only able to fire with A & B turrets, missed (Hood shown here). The two distant German ships are at the top of photo, honestly, trust me, 😀; this is what 25-odd kilometres looks like.

0544: Hood (in photo) and Prince of Wales missed again.

0547: The British continued to try to reduce the range, blazing away as they went, all misses. In this photo the light blue of the bases of the German ships are just visible.

0553: Bismarck fired a broadside, damaging Hood's hull.

The British have closed to a little over 18 000 yards (~16.6 km). Now the German ships are visible at the top of the photo. No hits.

0556 Closer again, but no hits.

0559: THE Moment. The British ships have made their turn to port.... Bismarck fired and missed. The British ships were able to fire with all turrets, but missed again!

0602: Prince of Wales scored a hit! Damage to Bismarck's hull. Bismarck missed again.

0605: Final broadsides of the action; Hood hit Bismarck's hull (JF note: slowing Hood's speed did not impact this, despite my expectations). Bismarck scored two hits on Hood; to her hull and a critical hit on her rudder limiting her to moving straight ahead.

That was the end of turn 11 and we called it there, the Germans slipping off to the west. It had been a really enjoyable re-fight.

"General Quarters" are a good set of rules. They would be excellent for a club night, but lack the detail and nuance that we are seeking. The stylised ship's charts look good, are really clever and easy to use. The riskiness of the decision to 'charge' at the Bismarck, limiting the firepower of the British ships, was clearly evident. In this version, they were able to turn without the disastrous shot on Hood as she presented her broadside to the German battleship. Unfortunately though, the reason for this was all down to the roll of a D12.

Key to us in a wargame is not simply getting the 'right' result, but achieving it through a sensible, reasonable and, hopefully, edifying path. This aspect was lacking for us. There is no nuance. The barest of modifiers, which change the row of a table and the number of rolls and/or results leading to a hit. The several salvoes that would be fired over a three-minute period from a turret are reduced to the roll of a die. No impact of the number of shells, angle of guns, speed of ship, sea conditions, skill of the crew, fire control systems, location of the hit, duds, shells passing through without exploding... Simply how the die falls. If a hit is scored, damage is simply a roll on the D12. Most limited of all is the over-simplification of armour. Ordnance has a penetration 'level', expressed in terms of the highest class of ship that it will penetrate (e.g. BB, battleship) and this is compared with the target. If that of the ordnance is equal or higher, you are 'in'! This is not adjusted at all for the location of impact of the shot, so a ship is a ship, same armour all over.

Seekrieg 5

Next we turned to "Seekrieg". These seemed more up our street.

The modifiers are there, greater nuance and specificity. Much more detail, more involved, more cumbersome, slower. Reasons why they would not appeal to many had us really excited. This means that they are not something to use after a quick skim, especially going back and forth through the pdf version of the rules from Wargame Vault.

We went through a 'thought' exercise, to see how the first shots in the game we had just played would have gone. It seemed likely that there was a better chance of hitting—although in our 'jumping around', we could not determine how sea state, a key modifier, was converted into a factor. The sea state at Denmark Strait was 'challenging', since the battle occurred in rough seas. Our interest was piqued, excitement generated, but we need to read through them carefully and in their entirety before attempting an outing with them. Confident that such time invested will reward in spades, we put them aside.

Stations Manned and Ready 2nd Edition

We expected that attempting to play out an action with three sets of rules was an ocean too far. We underestimated this by about 50%. It was too late to try the action with "Stations Manned and Ready".

These rules are deliberately intended to enable people to play a large action in a reasonable amount of time. Alan Butler and Andrew Finch state that the rules place game over a simulation. Too much is simplified to this end, for my taste; six-minutes per turn, initiative for movement, command radius determined by command value, planes treated as air groups, firing by ‘battery’, saving throws, an impact power of hits that is applied to the ship’s structure and test for critical damage. All seem to be clever, well thought through and no doubt interesting mechanics, but not the level of detail that I am seeking. Second World War naval is one of the few periods for which I am after a skirmish style, each ship is a cherished individual, each turret accounted for, each shell, each plane launched from a carrier, each torpedo tracked as the enemy carrier (or perhaps other ship) tries desperately to manoeuvre to avoid being hit....

So, I have already ruled these out these. Julian is of the same bias, but still wants to put them to a test, for completion and to do them justice. He will re-fight the action solo, using "Stations Manned and Ready", at a later date.

Some details

Rules

General Quarters Third Edition (2006). Old Dominion GameWorks. https://www.odgw.com/products/generalquarters3/gq3.html

Seekrieg 5 (2004). Seekrieg https://www.seekrieg.com/Seekrieg5IntroPage.htm

Stations Manned and Ready 2nd Edition (2013). A and A Game Engineering. Out of Print. Summary on Board Game Geek 

Ships

1/6000 scale Figurehead Ships.

Meanwhile, in the shipyards...

My construction of 1/700 ships is going along steadily.

Four Japanese carriers constructed. L to R Shokaku, Junyo, Taiho and Shinano.

HMAS Australia, first base coat applied, in front of the carriers

I have now completed four carriers, two light cruisers and the heavy cruiser 'stralia. This week I plan/hope to complete the remaining three Japanese carriers that I have and the three US ones the week after. After that, painting (and paint some figures 😁).

I'm not a scale modeller (as you can tell) so don't want the same detail with the ships as I do with the rules (haha). These 1/700 scale models provide more than enough as far as I am concerned. Putting them together, along with checking information about each is a wonderful, edifying process in itself. Shinano is a classic case in point. The gorgeous lines of the hull showing her intended construction as a sister to Yamato. The 'tacked on' nature of the modifications to make her a carrier, particularly the mounts for the anti-aircraft guns. The resulting absolute beast of a vessel, yet only capable of carrying 47 aircraft!

Between us we have, built or to build, all of the early US carriers and a mix of some of the early, mid and late Japanese ones. I am targeting the rest of the early Japanese carriers (Kaga, Horyu, Soryu; Julian has Akagi), plus Zuiho (or Shoho), Ryuho, Unryu, Chitose and Clamidya, I mean, Chiyoda—a little joke that I keep having with myself. Cracks me up every time. Later we'll determine how many of the US Essex class and light carriers, plus escort/support vessels (for both sides) that we'll 'need'.

In the meantime, we'll be trying out sections of battles to continue testing rules, which will help guide us in what is needed when we try an entire, historic battle. To this end we have decided to make our next the attack on Shokaku at the Battle of the Coral Sea on 8th May 1942...

I may need to clear some space on my table before the game.

War of Spanish Succession Naval @ 1/4800

Last Sunday (27th April that is), I headed to Julian's for another day of wonderful boating. This time it was a test run using his recently acquired and painted 1/4800th ships for actions of the early 18thC, War of Spanish Succession in particular.

We had intended to try out the rules 'General at Sea' (circa 2003), but a read through highlighted several deficits in relation to the way we want to represent these actions.

In the introduction, the author states, “In developing these rules I have drawn on lessons from the more recent spate of land rules that have used brigades as the basic unit and have applied them to naval warfare.” This was ominous.

Reading on, “Each stand represents between 3–4 rated vessels or 4–6 galleys.” Oh dear. This is a completely arbitrary grouping of ships; besides the fact that we definitely want a set that uses ships at 1:1.

It continues. Stands have a combat value based on the ships in the group. Not too bad, I guess, but a level of abstraction that we do not need?

Command and control is by command points. You guessed it, different types of manoeuvres cost different numbers of points. The speed of said manoeuvres is determined by aspect to the wind (yippee, some nautical flavour at last).

Combat “…reflects firing of guns, and at close range, both firing and boarding.” What?!

So, Julian made the executive decision that we'd use the tried and true "Grand Fleet Actions in the Age of Sail" and see what they produce in comparison to Napoleonic naval. He had been seeking an alternative set of rules simply to have a difference for a different period. Perhaps that difference could be obtained with the same 'horse'?

The actions of this period were MASSIVE, hundreds of ships per side, so for this test Julian set up a substantial, small action with five squadrons at sea.

Two squadrons of Danish at top, two of English in the centre and one of French lower left of photo. Positions after four moves. Wind coming from the right (West), so the English were initially running close to the wind, but would have the wind advantage for the entire action.

By turn 8, the Danish (right) and English squadrons had contacted. French a long way off.

First broadside. I mis-timed my attempt to cross the Danish line, so poor little 'Hampshire' copped it, losing some guns/crew (one gunnery factor).

The action developed, Rooke's lead squadron running down the Danish port, while Hopsonn took his squadron to their starboard.

Broadsides a plenty! Several Danish ships came under fire from two opponents.  The 'Droning Lvisa' tested for morale, but her remaining, brave crew did not strike, despite substantial damage and loss of crew-mates.

The fleets drew apart, save for a few parting shots (which we did not bother to calculate).

Another view of the same. Being too far away and at a disadvantage with the wind, the French fleet (top right) arrived after the action had ended. Likely a good thing for them as their small ships would not have fared well.

It was a fine little action, a good work out for the rules and enjoyable to boot!

"Grand Fleet Actions..." came through again. Sufficient 'nautical bits' to make them worthwhile using, picking up the difference 'tween the smaller, less well armed ships of this period and those of the later century/Napoleonic era and easily able to work through an action of 11 turns with 23 ships in just a few hours [we spent much of the time discussing, musing, checking details of ships, actions and commanders]. After three turns of intense exchange of broadsides the ships were damaged, but none had struck and most were still 'going concerns'. Had this been a Napoleonic action, several ships would have been dismasted, likely at least two struck and generally more damage and mayhem.

Another wonderful day and game. Thanks so much Julian and to you both for your always marvellous hospitality.

About the game

Rules: Grand Fleet Actions in the Age of Sail, edition 2.1, 2013

Nominal scale: turns represent ~10 minutes, ground scale 1/4800 (1 mm to 4.8 m)

Ships: 1/4800 scale Tumbling Dice

Next up, a Second World War surface action, perhaps testing a few sets and even a couple of actions? I will find out more on the 18th!

Meanwhile, I have succumbed completely and have unleashed my latent and long-held interest in carrier actions of the Pacific/north-east Indian Oceans.

Unpainted ships on a white ocean. Shokaku in the foreground, supported by Yahagi to her port and Kiso to starboard (not the greatest choices for supporting ships but, devotees close your eyes, I'll happily utilise them as generic light cruisers). At the rear, HMAS Australia, adapted from the kit of HMS Kent. Next builds in boxes in the background. The splashes of paint are some undercoat slapped on (literally) for those areas that would be difficult to access once built and to provide some 'stickiness' so that main guns can turn (which seems to have worked).

I have really enjoyed making these kits, the first ships that I have built in some 45 years, and am looking forward to the others. I used to make a lot of kits as a young fella (mainly planes of the Second World War, plus a few jets, the odd ship). Five years ago I made my first planes in years (First World War models) and enjoyed it immensely. I have not got back to paint these nor to build the others that I purchased back then, but am spurred on to do so; once this spate of ships are completed. That will be a little while.

Even though I am focussing on the carriers, plus, perhaps, a few destroyers, they have already 'exploded' in number. Another six are on the way this week. There won't be any more until kits for the early Japanese carriers are re-stocked (scheduled for August). I have four of them and four of the remaining later war carriers in mind(!). That will mean that, between us, we'll have the Japanese covered, as well as the early US, but leaves the numerous Essex-class plus several US light carriers. (Julian is focussing on surface ships, but is also looking at the Med. and Atlantic!). All in good time and after we have honed rules/a system to re-fight the actions, using 1/700 for the 'zoomed in' bits and Julian's 1/6000 for a larger representation.

Sink Lady Lex!

No, not a game of the 1942 Battle of the Coral Sea but an extracted scenario based on the attack on an isolated USS Lexington by carrier-based aircraft of the Imperial Japanese Navy. 

Game 1: USS Lexington seconds before being attacked by five Nakajima B5N ‘Kate’ torpedo bombers (to port and starboard) and three Aichi D3A ‘Val’ dive bombers coming from aft.

Battle of the Coral Sea infographic from Naval History Heritage and Command

Julian devised it as a test game, or games, of three potential sets of rules to allow us to stage refights of such actions as those dramatic days of 4–8 May '42.

The concept is simple. Movements of fleets, searches, launching of planes occur off-board while air attacks, air to air, surface actions (if any), even landings on islands are conducted on the tabletop. Our test of "Scramble!" showed us that Julian has found a set suitable for any air to air combat that we may wish to represent. Yesterdays mission: (hopefully) to determine the same for air to surface actions. Stephen joined Julian and me for the day's fun.

First candidate, "World War Two Naval Wargame Rules" by R A Ellard and J E Hammond.

I immediately warmed to theses since they were published in 1977 by Davco Publications so had a similar layout, vintage and approach as Action Under Sail.

'Lady Lex' opened up with her anti-aircraft batteries, the first step in the air to surface section of the rules.

The 'Kate's launched their torpedos.

Good shooting by Stephen destroyed one ‘Kate’,

...and damaged another.

'Boom!' One of the five torpedos strikes home.

The Lexington's anti-aircraft fire missed the three 'Val's, but they in turn missed the carrier. My dice rolling had been below par, so I was satisfied with a net of one hit to the carrier for 1.5 planes lost, although Stephen managed to stop the flooding within two turns. More importantly, it took a little bit to work through the rules, but after this single action we were comfortable with them, so they were the 'ones to beat'.

Second candidate, "Stations Manned and Ready II" by by Andrew Finch and Alan Butler

We were hopeful for these since we already have "Grand Fleet Actions in the Age of Sail", from the same 'stable', as a go-to set to recreate large fleet actions with tall ships in a single session ("Action Under Sail" being for such actions played over a longer period and with more devoted 'sailors in miniature'). Not so on this occasion.

They are of the same ilk as "Grand Fleet Actions..." so would be ideal if you want to represent a World War II naval battle on a single table or few tables and play it out in that manner, but lacked the detail for the approach that we want to take. We may have a go with them at a later stage should we wish to try a more standard tabletop game, but they were not the horse for the current course.

Third candidate, "War at Sea World War II Naval Rules" by an author whose name I did not note and cannot find online, so apologies to him.

I read the appropriate section of these while Julian was working through the mechanics of  "Stations Manned and Ready II". Initially I thought that they would exceed "World War Two Naval Wargame Rules", then was frustrated trying to find how to do an attack with torpedos, eventually working out that it was in an earlier section of ship to ship (ship-borne torpedos), so we plunged in...

We swapped roles. Stephen took the attacking Japanese and I tried my hand at running Lexington's defences.

An Aichi D3A ‘Val’ coming in to attack (Stephen's photo).

It was interesting. Although five years newer than "World War Two Naval Wargame Rules", these were more difficult to work through, required much back and forth through the pages and looking up of information that was needed for the calculations, e.g. the rate of fire of anti-aircraft guns, that was not provided with the rules. We got there in the end.

Stephen performed much better than I had. Two successful torpedo strikes (amidships and to the bow), plus two hits from the dive bombers to the rear of the flight deck. Flooding galore and likely a command to abandon ship and scuttle the old lady.

This artistic representation of the actual action by K. Nakamura looks pretty similar (public download from Naval History and Heritage Command, original "Property of Air Force Historical Division -Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio")

So, "War at Sea World War II Naval Rules" produced the result closest to the historical attack.

The Lexington was less fortunate. Larger and less manoeuvrable than the Yorktown, the carrier was pinned by a well coordinated attack by six aircraft, three converging from either bow. At 11.20 am she was hit twice on the port side, forward and amidships. Dive-bombing was less successful, only two light bombs hitting the ship although near misses buckled her hull plates. (https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/encyclopedia/coral_sea/doc)

Despite this outcome in their favour they came a clear second as they were much more cumbersome to use. The chances of a hit were little different from "World War Two Naval Wargame Rules"; if I had rolled what Stephen did I would have achieved the same result. This is pleasing given the verisimilitude of the outcome. Importantly, we could envisage coming back to Ellard and Hammond's rules in six months and being able to pick them up again quickly. "War at Sea World War II Naval Rules" would not be a easy, for no better simulation or experience as a game—save for the added 'excitement' of a test for duds in a torpedo attack (which is included in the chance to hit in Ellard and Hammond's set).

So "World War Two Naval Wargame Rules" were the clear winner.

Another great game and day exploring a representation of history on the tabletop. Thanks so much for putting on the game Julian, to you and Gowri for your wonderful hospitality and to Stephen for making the trek out to join us.

I have resisted the urge to have a go at World War Two carrier actions myself, and am fortunate that I am able to help Julian to scratch that itch for the two of us, and Stephen as well. He has done it now though.

Julian: I am keen as ever to have a go at recreating Coral Sea, Midway and Eastern Solomons on the table top, so will assist you in any way possible to make it happen! 😀

Game Equipment

Ship and planes, 1/700 plastic kits.

Rules

Ellard RA & Hammond JE (1977) World War Two Naval Wargame Rules. Davco Productions. Skytrex reprint 1983 https://skytrex.com/products/copy-of-wwi-wargames-rules-roger-edward-bigg

Finch A & Butler A (2016). Stations Manned and Ready II. Naval Wargames Rules for the period 1885 to 1945 using ships and aircraft. A and A Game Engineering. http://www.aandagames.co.uk/smr2.html

War at Sea World War II Naval Rules (1982)

Further information

Australian War Memorial 'Battle of the Coral Sea, 4-8 May 1942' https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/encyclopedia/coral_sea/doc

Eyre, DC. Aeropedia. The Encyclopedia of Aircraft in Australia and New Zealand https://aeropedia.com.au/

Naval Historical Society of Australia 'The Battle of the Coral Sea' https://navyhistory.au/the-battle-of-the-coral-sea/

Naval History and Heritage Command 'Battle of the Coral Sea Combat Narratives' (reproduction of declassified U. S. Confidential and British Secret documents) https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/b/battle-of-the-coral-sea-combat-narrative.html

The National World War II Museum 'The Battle of Coral Sea: A Retrospective' https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/battle-coral-sea-retrospective