Hunt the Kaiser's Cruisers

[Sailor Steve]

Von Spee represents a whole bunch of scenarios I've always wanted to game on the tabletop; and you mention several of the reasons why.

1) I wanted to game Coronel with Canopus present, just to find out if the speculations were true (and they probably were). Of course it would have to be realistic: For Spee the conditions are daylight, while for Craddock it's a night fight.

2) I wanted to game Coronel in broad daylight and calm seas, with and without Canopus.

3) What indeed if Spee had had the prescience to attack Beatty's battlecruisers while they were coaling.

Of course if Spee had resisted the temptation to raid the Falklands he would have been sailing home safely to Germany while the British hunted fruitlessly in the Pacific.

As for the "rising smoke", Spee also had the disadvantage of not being there himself - he only had the panicked report of his second-in-command after the latter had been shelled by Canopus. "Tripod masts! Heavy shells!"

[Mush Martin]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Von Spee represents a whole bunch of scenarios I've always wanted to game on the tabletop; and you mention several of the reasons why.

1) I wanted to game Coronel with Canopus present, just to find out if the speculations were true (and they probably were). Of course it would have to be realistic: For Spee the conditions are daylight, while for Craddock it's a night fight.

2) I wanted to game Coronel in broad daylight and calm seas, with and without Canopus.

3) What indeed if Spee had had the prescience to attack Beatty's battlecruisers while they were coaling.

Of course if Spee had resisted the temptation to raid the Falklands he would have been sailing home safely to Germany while the British hunted fruitlessly in the Pacific.

As for the "rising smoke", Spee also had the disadvantage of not being there himself - he only had the panicked report of his second-in-command after the latter had been shelled by Canopus. "Tripod masts! Heavy shells!"

I dont Believe it I Have you at last.
thats uhm Sturdee steve.:rotfl:

[Sailor Steve]

Dang! Posting off the top of my head! Of course it was Doveton Sturdee. I'm not going to change it now, because that would be cheating.

Let's see if anybody else reads that far and corrects me without looking to see you've already done so.
:rotfl:

[Mush Martin]

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: Sorry dude you dont trip over your feet too often

[Reece]

VCR set TarJak!

[Sailor Steve]

Well, when I take time to look things up it takes me forever and a day to actually write something. When I just jump in and start typing I'm just like the next...well, no, actually I'm much worse than the next guy.
:rotfl:

I think that Doveton Sturdee has been badly treated by history and when I watched this doc (it showed here in Canada earlier this year), it did nothing to address that. Many of the perceptions and initial source material for Coronel and the Falklands comes from Churchill and he was in full CYA damage control mode to disguise how his micromanagement of Admiralty operations (as during the hunt for Goeben) contributed to the disaster. He then took full credit for the Falklands victory though and his antipathy to Sturdee is solidly in the public record.

One could argue that Sir Doveton gave the RN one of it's finest victories ever, destroying 80% of von Spee's force and his supply tail with trifling losses. He expended ammunition rather than lives, fought the battle exactly the way that Jacky Fisher envisioned Battlecruisers to be most effective and left his subordinates unrestricted by excessive signalling. Considering the adoration of David Beatty for the Dogger Bank and the opening phases of Jutland, Sturdee's victory is a model of machine age surface combat, one that he gets very little credit for in my opinion.
Good Hunting

[TarJak]

So having seen this doco is it any good?

I've seen a few WWI docos screened recently and some have been very lacking in factual information and have either skimmed over or completely ignored some of the salient facts relating to the subject. Does this doco do that or are there clear biases in the commentary?