WWI-Jutland and fallout of possible HSF victory.

[CaptHawkeye]

Still don't feel attacking the Falklands was advisable. Not after he had kicked the hornet's nest at Coronel. Anyway, as one ship, and with good command, Blucher might be able to avoid enough attention to warrant a big search for her. Destroyers and Cruisers are not going to hunt an Armored Cruiser far enough into the Atlantic, and Blucher has the advantage of being the best ship ever built of an obsolete class of warship. So other ACs would not present a good option to hunt it with.

On the other hand, the British revealed themselves to be extremely tenacious, almost obsessive, about squashing German merchant raiders after Coronel. With no escort Blucher would present an attractive target to British submarines and Destroyers operating at night as well. Blucher *has* to transition the North Sea between raids after all. Anyway, I just think it might be a better job for such a jobless ship than trying to make it play Battlecruiser.

[Sea Skimmer]

Yeah but only after Coronel had been such a disaster. Prior to that the British didn't take the threat of merchant raiding by armored cruisers seriously. Which Spee used to his advantage right up until he got stupid and attacked the Falklands.

The British took the threat serious as soon as it appeared Spee was not in the middle of nowhere in the South Pacific. Thus the dispatch of HMS Defense and HMS Campus to reinforce the South Atlantic squadron. The problem was Admiral Craddock did not have clear orders that it was acceptable to wait for both these ships, or decline action by using Campus, and in the tradition of the Royal Navy he sought battle as quickly as possible.

Keep in mind the British and French already had multiple active raiders in the Indian Ocean and North Atlantic to worry about at the time, plus all the cruisers in German waters that might breakout, plus the need to blockade multiple German colonies. The hunt for SMS Emden alone was using up around fifty major ships, but Emden was actually sinking lots of stuff and disrupting the entire Indian Ocean and troop convoy movements. In contrast prior to Coronel the worst Spee's big cruisers had been able to do was sink one French gunboat.

Blucher would have burned shitloads of fuel and not really accomplished anything a light cruiser wouldn't. Armored cruisers as raiders didn't really work by 1914, they were too slow to avoid being shadowed by a smaller enemy ship. The radio kind of crippled the whole idea of using major surface raiders for any length of time. Raiding with a mixed squadron made sense, but then you fall back into the need to actually challenge control of the sea, or else you'll be defeated soon enough as Spee so easily was. If Spee didn't attack the Falklands he would have just been sunk further North. Half his ammo was gone already, he had limited fuel, and it was the only soft target for thousands of miles.

[CaptHawkeye]

Then Blucher probably would have been better off as an escort for the High Seas Fleet than left with the Scouting Force. The British used a lot of ACs in the Grand Fleet and if anything Blucher could tango with them. Can't think of much else you could do with such a ship. The Baltic maybe?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

EDIT: Zeon, that is an interesting idea. Not sure how good it is due to the higher fuel costs though - Skimmer can probably say more.

Actually German battlecruisers were more hydrodynamically efficient at cruising speed than German battleships because of their 4-shaft arrangement versus the standard 3-shaft arrangement of the battleships. They would eat coal alive at higher speeds of course but at the same cruising speed, training the fleet and so on would actually cost less. (three shaft ships are just generally a terrible idea, if you can't go to two, keep the design at four).

[Dominarch's Hope]

So it could be a mild range extender?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

So it could be a mild range extender?

Not if the turbines were optimized for being somewhat more efficient at high speed. I know they weren't geared but there are still ways of doing this and I don't know what the design cruising speed of the Schlachtkreuzers was, as opposed to what they typically operated at when accompanying the HSF.

[Dominarch's Hope]

I just figured if its less expensive on coal that means it uses less per hour, aside from burst, and so with matching speeds, using less coal per time unit means a longer range thanks to the coal lasting longer.

Assuming speed and storage capacity were the same.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I just figured if its less expensive on coal that means it uses less per hour, aside from burst, and so with matching speeds, using less coal per time unit means a longer range thanks to the coal lasting longer.

Assuming speed and storage capacity were the same.

That is assuming the boiler-turbine-screw power generation and transfer cycle is optimized to the same maximum efficiency range. That is a very simple assumption, because there can be "power bands" where the turbines function most efficiently, the same for the boilers, especially since also it is hard to light boilers so you can't have some cold when steaming in wartime, and finally of course the screws are also optimized to a particular speed.

[Dominarch's Hope]

Yes, but I was assuming that all things equal, that a less costly ship to operate in terms of coal usage, assuming equal storage capacity and similar turbines, would have a longer range.


Its a little pointless though, for Germany.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yes, but you've controlled for too many variables by setting all those limits.

[Dominarch's Hope]

Yeah. Thats the point of controlling for variables. To control for them. But in reality, if the turbines are the same, then even if each individual on consumes slightly less due to efficiency of this or that, you still have an extra one.

[Sea Skimmer]

Then Blucher probably would have been better off as an escort for the High Seas Fleet than left with the Scouting Force. The British used a lot of ACs in the Grand Fleet and if anything Blucher could tango with them. Can't think of much else you could do with such a ship. The Baltic maybe?

Yes she could have been used alongside the other armored cruisers of the HSF in an independent screening unit, as was how the British armored cruisers were used. Indeed in 1914 and parts of 1915 the HSF did operate with its other armored cruisers in accompaniment, but Blucher was always with the scouting group. I don't know why, it seems stupid in all respects, but the Germans may always have viewed her as just a way to soak up British gunfire and avoid the battlecruisers being ganged up on so heavily.

In the Baltic was was a good countermeasure to the big Russian armored cruiser Rurik, while plainly superior to any other Russian cruiser. The problem is the Russians were hyper aggressive with submarines, surface raids and mine laying in the western Baltic in 1914-1915, sinking several German warships and many merchants, so generally the Germans were reluctant to commit major forces to battle in that area.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I said hydrodynamic efficiencies favoured a 4-shaft installation, DH, and I meant it. If you want to understand why, I can recommend some excellent schools for you to study at. Suffice to say I am not the only person holding this position. So your sarcastic flipback at me is completely ignoring what I said.

Economics of scale in an equivalent horsepower installation do not favour three larger turbines because the three-shaft arrangement is very poor in hydrodynamic terms.

As for your little flipback, you controlled for too many variables to draw a useful conclusion. And yet you then drew a conclusion from it anyway, by making an assumption. And getting it wrong.

[Dominarch's Hope]

So you meant that for the same horsepower, the four turbine would less expensive in terms of fuel. Thus, with the same amount of fuel and same overall ship hull, the four turbine will go further on the same load of fuel.


Is that it? Or is it somehow more efficient while getting the same range out of the same amount of fuel?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Is that it? Or is it somehow more efficient while getting the same range out of the same amount of fuel?

Potentially, yes, because the drive system could be optimized to obtain its best efficiency at a higher speed.

[Dominarch's Hope]

Then its not cheaper to operate, as you stated. Its, in fact, no different.


If it is optimised for the same effective speed, then my assumption right.

[Esquire]

You do realize that efficiency isn't measured solely in speed, right? Perhaps the four-shaft arrangement requires less maintenance due to reduced workload per shaft, or some other thing - without an exhaustive study, I can't be sure, but the Duchess clearly has made that exhaustive study and can be. Logic only works with correct premises, which neither you nor I have.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Then its not cheaper to operate, as you stated. Its, in fact, no different.


If it is optimised for the same effective speed, then my assumption right.

You're a truculent little shit, aren't you?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

For those people here who are not trolling morons, I assume everyone realizes that if your boilers, turbines, shaft arrangements, screws, etc, are designed for a cruising speed of 15kts and you are running at 15kts, a 4-shaft ship will be more fuel efficient than a 3-shaft ship for the same horsepower and displacement driven and otherwise general hull form (except for the changes made between the two shaft arrangements, obviously).

Now this is what DH thought, but DH is being a little shit and ignoring the point I was trying to make, that the battle fleet may be optimized to cruise at 10kts and the battlecruisers to cruise at 15kts, and then you may not have an advantage with a 4-shaft arrangement when cruising at 10kts with battlecruisers. Because I don't know what the design cruising speeds for optimal efficiency were and don't have the time or interest to look them up, I was trying to make the point that we don't precisely know whether or not the range would be greater at a given speed and that the comparison is accordingly pointless, because among other things a high cruising speed is selected regardless of range, for other factors such as survivability in strategic operations, and the amount of coal carried is also eminently variable, for example you could reduce your cruising horsepower with a 4-shaft arrangement which would let you adjust your coal up by reducing machinery volume.

Anyhow, the problem was that our little idiot DH wanted an exact easy hit count style comparison to a problem where there isn't one, and I was unwilling to give it to him, because I am not going to humour people who try to reduce history to "this battleship's broadside does 5D6 of damage" in an at least somewhat historical discussion. All the information for DH to derive any such conclusion was there, just not in a convenient and easy to swallow baby-food formula, and I wasn't going to slice and dice it for him like his mother.

[Dominarch's Hope]

If they end up using the same amount of fuel per hour and only go the same distance, they arent any cheaper to operate in regards to fuel in any way.


In fact, they would be more expensive thanks to an extra engine to maintain.


In fact, you are presupposing they dont optimize them downwards to get maximum fuel efficiency at cruise, even if they didnt, having an extra engine means less room for fuel. Youre being ridiculous. Completely ridiculous.



You said they were more efficient. Period.

Im saying that, everything else being equal, that means they should be able to go further on the same amount of fuel.

Even though its basically impossible for everything else to BE equal, that has little to do with my statement.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

DH, I was SAYING THAT the entire time, just with the added point: But it is irrelevant because without knowing this additional factor it isn't a functional basis for comparison in real life. The fact that you do not understand that what you're talking about is completely useless in the real world and that was my point all along suggests you're either really dumb, or just trolling.

Also, do you seriously think that a 20,000 horsepower steam turbine installation is the same size as a 15,000 horsepower steam turbine installation?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Are you going to respond or are you just going to hide now?

[Dominarch's Hope]

Then you have been bitching at me over nothing. Basically.

Oh and, I am apparently not allowed sleep or anything that might distract me from the computer....

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Not when you're this much of a moron. I have been bitching at you over your being stupid, nothing more, nothing less.

[Dominarch's Hope]

I havent been stupid at all in this thread, youve just been nitpicky mad over the weirdest stuff.


I in fact said "controlling for all other variables" for that reason. You then inserted new variables and made up more shit tobjustify some sort of objection.


At no point in the original supposition was I taking everything in. I was deliberately ignoring it to handwave it away from the statement, so as to purposely avert nitpicky crap. You then made completely random assertions which had nothing to do with mine.



Lets just say everything else has been made equal. Four smaller engines making the same power as the bigger three, and no, they arent tuned for efficiency at higher speed, and yes, somehow they take up the same space and weigh no more or less than the three engine configuration. Lets also assume the shape of the hull hasnt been altered in any significant way othet than to make the engine switch.



Therefore, thr ship weighs the same, has the same shape and power output, and the same reserves of fuel, and the engines arent (this is were your durring came in)tuned for a different efficiency at the same travel speed.


Everything else has been engineered for equality. Save for the four engines instead of the three.


The four engines are more efficient, and thus work less for the same speed. And thus, use less oil for the same rate of travel.


This gives them more range at cruising speed. Because of course it does.