The Dreadnought Project Forum Index The Dreadnought Project
Naval History in the years 1890-1920
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Reg1sterReg1ster 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Jutland WIP.... need advice!
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Dreadnought Project Forum Index -> Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
jwduquette1



Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 90

PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 10:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Regarding the explosion of the Queen Mary photo above -- attached is the V.E. Tarrant Situation map from this time period of the battle. Again I don't know the exact relative positioning, but would guess the German BC line would fall within the arc I have depicted. Range was maybe 6 to 8 nautical miles. So range between the two BC lines as depicted within the Queen Mary photo would perhaps be a bit closer than when HMS Indefatigable exploded.

I assume the BC in front of the mushroom cloud is HMS Princess Royal(?) Of interest are the two water columns in front of Princess Royal as well as the amount of funnel smoke coming from Princess Royal.


_________________
SHUFTI CUSH
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tone
Site Admin


Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 479
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 12:27 pm    Post subject: Some data on the moment before Indefatigable blew up Reply with quote

Beatty was being fairly silent as regards recorded signals during this period (at least to his own BCs), but I found that shortly before the destruction of Indefatigable (perhaps 3 minutes), he issued a General order by flag and W/T to "Increase the Rate of Fire".

Going by memory, the preferred yardarm for this hoist would be the upper rightmost of the foremast (actually, it might be the truck of the foremast, but this would clearly be reserved for use by ensigns and the RA pendant -- I would think).

This signal (as made by Lion) would read as follows (top to bottom):

M
Church Pendant
6
5

The first two flags are the distinguishing signal for "all squadrons" (source: Flotilla Signal Book 1913 -- small chance this is incorrect, as this book was never placed in force. The best source is likely the 1908 SB, which I did not image as it was 500 pages and I sat in the corner shivering like a baby and drooling).

"65" is the signal for "Increase the rate of fire". This is almost certainly correct, as this is mentioned specifically in the GFBOs in force at Jutland in its section on Gunnery Orders. Indicative of the mistrust one might place in the wrong sources (as above) is that the 1913 SB which was never placed into service indicates 65 means "use your own discretion as to which enemy you attack"

Now... I'm not entirely sure that a simple imperative such as this "Increase the Rate of Fire" would be acknowledged by junior ships, or if its hoisting by them would have additional flags atop, or if it would be hauled down. BUT -- I think it safe to show the flags in transit to the yard, as this is ambiguous as to whether they are being raised or lowered.

If we trust New Zealand's track chart, she was just completing a 70 degree turn to starboard at 4pm, moments before the reported destruction of Indefatigable. This would have placed the enemy she was firing at approximately off her port beam, and she had 11,000 yards or so on the sights, with her target converging slightly (say 10 degrees).

I could do some more learning about the protocol for whether NZ would be hoisting the signal from Beatty, and with what, if any, preamble.

tone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
tone
Site Admin


Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 479
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 1:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jwduquette1 wrote:
Regarding the explosion of the Queen Mary photo above -- attached is the V.E. Tarrant Situation map from this time period of the battle.


I have never seen this image offered any real background info as to who captured it and from what ship. I believe it likely that it has been altered (in places, I have read that it is a composite, with the ship on the left Lion). I am not at all certain that it is a German photo -- it may have been taken from a RN destroyer.

I'd love to learn more solid data on where this image was taken from, and whether it is a true likeness or some composite to create the richest image.

tone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Horsa



Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Posts: 32
Location: England

PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just seen this thread.

I love this render you have done ,Mark. :D You say it is early days but already it has an evocative feel about it. I hope this is one of many.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jwduquette1



Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 90

PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 5:12 pm    Post subject: Re: Some data on the moment before Indefatigable blew up Reply with quote

tone wrote:
If we trust New Zealand's track chart, she was just completing a 70 degree turn to starboard at 4pm, moments before the reported destruction of Indefatigable. This would have placed the enemy she was firing at approximately off her port beam, and she had 11,000 yards or so on the sights, with her target converging slightly (say 10 degrees).


Interesting. So it sounds like the Tarrant Situational Map is in error -- or the New Zealand was firing far short of Moltke?
_________________
SHUFTI CUSH
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jwduquette1



Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 90

PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 5:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I found this on an Imperial War Museum web Page on Jutland. Explosion of the Queen Mary. It does look like the photo I posted earlier is perhaps a composite -- with the image below making up the right piece of the enhanced picture. I had assumed -- probably wrongly -- that the German text implied it had been taken from the deck of a German BC. But I suppose in retrospect that makes little sense.



http://www.iwm.org.uk/upload/package/26/jutland/intro.htm
_________________
SHUFTI CUSH
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jwduquette1



Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 90

PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 5:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tone wrote:
jwduquette1 wrote:
Regarding the explosion of the Queen Mary photo above -- attached is the V.E. Tarrant Situation map from this time period of the battle.


I have never seen this image offered any real background info as to who captured it and from what ship. I believe it likely that it has been altered (in places, I have read that it is a composite, with the ship on the left Lion). I am not at all certain that it is a German photo -- it may have been taken from a RN destroyer.

I'd love to learn more solid data on where this image was taken from, and whether it is a true likeness or some composite to create the richest image.

tone


Comparison of the original image I posted on page-1 of Queen Mary Exploding…



This is the imperial War Museum Image (as a negative) imposed over the top of the image with the German text…


_________________
SHUFTI CUSH
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mabrown



Joined: 25 Sep 2006
Posts: 30
Location: Australia

PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 12:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tone wrote:
I'd think none of the details of those ships could be discerned even at the close range you show them in this render. I bet you could show them from another angle, and swap in a 200 poly Titanic model and no one would ever know!

tone


Having read all the threads, I'm leaning towards pushing them quite a bit further back which will make them even less able to be distinguished.

jeff wrote:
Perspective and range estimation from photos is sort of interesting.


It certainly is. Wonderful collection of photos, info and discussion. I've got a lot to think about. I'm also going to have to learn some of the terms used. Other things, like the positioning of the sun are of obvious interest to me too although I may end up ignoring reality there... inappropriate lighting can seriously wreck an image :(

Just out of curiosity, I'm going to do a quick render (probably in trueSpace rather than my chosen renderer) using correct scale and distances and perhaps from different angles, just to see how it *should* look. Could be interesting.

tone wrote:
This signal (as made by Lion) would read as follows (top to bottom):

M
Church Pendant
6
5

The first two flags are the distinguishing signal for "all squadrons" (source: Flotilla Signal Book 1913 -- small chance this is incorrect, as this book was never placed in force. The best source is likely the 1908 SB, which I did not image as it was 500 pages and I sat in the corner shivering like a baby and drooling).


That is excellent. Thanks Tone. I found a place on the web which uses the 1913 SB as a reference for these flags in .gif format ....

http://www.fotw.net/flags/xf~rhs3.html

tone wrote:
"65" is the signal for "Increase the rate of fire". This is almost certainly correct, as this is mentioned specifically in the GFBOs in force at Jutland in its section on Gunnery Orders. Indicative of the mistrust one might place in the wrong sources (as above) is that the 1913 SB which was never placed into service indicates 65 means "use your own discretion as to which enemy you attack"


I read that owing to a "mixup of signals" Derflinger was left unengaged for some time at the start of the battle. I wonder if the offending ships misunderstood that signal and chose their own targets instead of increasing their rate of fire. Is it at all possible that one or more of these ships was using the wrong signal book?

tone wrote:
If we trust New Zealand's track chart, she was just completing a 70 degree turn to starboard at 4pm, moments before the reported destruction of Indefatigable. This would have placed the enemy she was firing at approximately off her port beam, and she had 11,000 yards or so on the sights, with her target converging slightly (say 10 degrees).


Please excuse my total ignorance of the way big fleets maneuver here Tone. Would Indefatigable have been matching New Zealand's movements (following in her wake) or would each ship have a certain autonomy of movement within the overall instructions of the flagship? Where did you get NZ's track chart Tone? Do you have these for the other ships and would it be possible to reproduce a detailed map using these which is better than the really general ones on the rest of the web?

Love the discussion. You guys are very knowledgeable!

Mark
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mabrown



Joined: 25 Sep 2006
Posts: 30
Location: Australia

PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 1:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Horsa wrote:
Just seen this thread.

I love this render you have done ,Mark. :D You say it is early days but already it has an evocative feel about it. I hope this is one of many.


Thanks so much Horsa. I would love to do more of this sort of thing. It has taken a long time to get to the stage where I'm at least reasonably comfortable doing this sort of image. Got a lot still to learn though and many things I would do differently if I had access to more professional software (particularly post-process effects.)

I'm also pretty slow at modelling things. I'm amazed at how fast others do this stuff, creating whole fleets of ship models. I've been working on the Australia for a long time :oops:

There are some Australian battles I'd love to do: Sydney Vs Emden, The Battle of Cape Spada, the loss of Sydney 2 at the hands of the Kormoran, The Battle of Savo Island (loss of HMAS Canberra) and The Battle of the Sunda Straight (loss of HMAS Perth and USS Houston.) Also would like to do lots more WW1 stuff. So little time :(

Mark
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
tone
Site Admin


Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 479
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 8:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mabrown wrote:
[Other things, like the positioning of the sun are of obvious interest to me too although I may end up ignoring reality there... inappropriate lighting can seriously wreck an image


I liked this observation, but would note that the British might well have concluded that inappropriate lighting can seriously wreck a battle!

tone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
tone
Site Admin


Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 479
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 8:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mabrown wrote:

tone wrote:
"65" is the signal for "Increase the rate of fire". This is almost certainly correct, as this is mentioned specifically in the GFBOs in force at Jutland in its section on Gunnery Orders. Indicative of the mistrust one might place in the wrong sources (as above) is that the 1913 SB which was never placed into service indicates 65 means "use your own discretion as to which enemy you attack"


I read that owing to a "mixup of signals" Derflinger was left unengaged for some time at the start of the battle. I wonder if the offending ships misunderstood that signal and chose their own targets instead of increasing their rate of fire. Is it at all possible that one or more of these ships was using the wrong signal book?


An interesting hypothesis, but almost certainly incorrect. IIRC, the mistaken targeting was a logical error of interpretation of which ships were to be doubled upon when there were more shooters than targets (or that one shooter did not see all targets). Stringent version controls were undertaken on all signal books, requiring all old copies to be handed in upon receipt of a new edition. The 1913 books were finalized but never really printed in bulk, I'd think. Any possible error would have been discovered many times over, and the discovery of the presence of multiple versions on any ship would have likely prompted a housecleaning and investigation.

Quote:

tone wrote:
If we trust New Zealand's track chart, she was just completing a 70 degree turn to starboard at 4pm, moments before the reported destruction of Indefatigable. This would have placed the enemy she was firing at approximately off her port beam, and she had 11,000 yards or so on the sights, with her target converging slightly (say 10 degrees).


Please excuse my total ignorance of the way big fleets maneuver here Tone. Would Indefatigable have been matching New Zealand's movements (following in her wake) or would each ship have a certain autonomy of movement within the overall instructions of the flagship? Where did you get NZ's track chart Tone? Do you have these for the other ships and would it be possible to reproduce a detailed map using these which is better than the really general ones on the rest of the web?


The track chart I mention is from the Jutland Despatches... plate 31. This is a wonderful resource, containing several fairly detailed gunnery diaries of the action as recorded on one ship or the other.

Indefatigable would have largely been in the wake of NZ, but not necessarily right in the wake. I could look up her following distance (I think).

As Andrew Gordon (please tell me you've read Rules of the Game! If not, I suggest it is the next purchase you should make as it is fantastic) points out, trying to reconcile the track charts of any two sources in this battle is an invitation to madness. You can try to do it here and there, but on a wide scale you'll find gross differences. This sort of record keeping was never primary in its priority level.

A better guide, with caveats, is for the few ships that handed in a detailed answer to Jellicoe's call for ships to turn in their range plots. Few ships actually did this, either claiming that they destroyed theirs (!!!???) or that no useful plot was recorded. However, some supplied a tabular response that indicated the ranges on the sights on a minute-by-minute basis with firing bearings. This might be taken as a rough guide as to where the given target was, but of course its utility is rooted in the unknown endpoint : where were these shells really falling?

I love this stuff, as well, as you might guess. When I see really good data in the Despatches, it breaks my heart that few responses match that quality. One tease is that throughout, the notation "* * *" is used as an elision marker to designate material either regarded as secret technical minutiae or matters regarding personnel and having no significance on the battle. However, John Brooks supplied a few spot checks on these, and they really don't contain much useful detail that cannot be guessed from the text.

tone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
maxyang



Joined: 31 Oct 2004
Posts: 100
Location: Shanghai, China

PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 1:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Woo! That is a lot of discussion here. Hope my little words are not buried by the splash. :)

Back to the rendering, I noticed the awning stanchions are still standing on the ships. They did add details to the rendering to break the flatness. However, in the real world situation, they should be lowered, since they are in way of gun training. Without those stanchions, you could add smokes and big splashes. The water columns do look a little thin I realized.

I have got no chance trying the tools you mentioned yet, but definitely I will. Thanks Mark. Keep the good working.

Max
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
tone
Site Admin


Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 479
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm guilty of diving into discussion without commenting on how nice the rendering looks as it is. Good job!

In addition to most optional things (stovepipes, etc) being flattened, it was customary to unfurl punctured hoses on the deck and have the decks under a constant spray of water to ward off fires.

tone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
mabrown



Joined: 25 Sep 2006
Posts: 30
Location: Australia

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2007 3:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

maxyang wrote:
I noticed the awning stanchions are still standing on the ships. They did add details to the rendering to break the flatness. However, in the real world situation, they should be lowered, since they are in way of gun training. Without those stanchions, you could add smokes and big splashes. The water columns do look a little thin I realized.


Hi Max!

Thanks for the info. When I next render this I will fix the awning stanchions. I hadn't even considered those. I still find smoke etc very difficult to do as Kerkythea, being a pure renderer, doesn't have such effects and I can't think of any way to do them other than in a paint package, which is a real drag.

BTW, how are your excellent models progressing. Have you had any success putting them on water?

Mark
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mabrown



Joined: 25 Sep 2006
Posts: 30
Location: Australia

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2007 3:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tone wrote:
I'm guilty of diving into discussion without commenting on how nice the rendering looks as it is. Good job!

In addition to most optional things (stovepipes, etc) being flattened, it was customary to unfurl punctured hoses on the deck and have the decks under a constant spray of water to ward off fires.

tone


Thanks for the kind words Tone.

You are a wealth of info regarding all the little details for these fascinating ships :shock:

Mark
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Dreadnought Project Forum Index -> Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group