Battle Scenario 4: Battle off the Bosphorus 10 May 1915
The Goeben makes another return this scenario this time facing a more numerous Russian fleet with a wider array of oppoenent types. However, the Goeben seems almost impervious for a few reasons:
- It starts the scenario with initiative and has a leader that improves its chances for keeping initiative in turns 2-4
- The Russian are forced into two groups that negate any speed advantage it should have had from its fast, torpedo laden Bespokoiny-class destroyers
- The Russian fleet is a combination of battleships to old and slow to close on the Goeben and/or too underpowered to damage the German battlecrusier unless they were one hex away for a torpedo strike (which they are highly unlikely to reach within four rounds)
Is this come kind of joke?
With initiative and its opponents limited to 1s speed, Goeben simply kept its distance at three hexes and pummeled the Russians. In turns one through three, Goeben kept the initiative and was able to unleash 72 unanswered salvos from its primary guns! By the end of turn two both the Evstafi and Ioann Zlatoust were sunk producing 68 victory points for the Germans. By the end of turn three Panteleimon was severely damaged. Saddled with slow moving ships in each group, the Russian simply couldn’t close the range to make an attack.
The Russians finally won initiative in turn 4. Pantelimon was sunk by Goeben early in the round. This was the only 1s speed ship in group two, so now the remaining light cruisers in the group could move at their full 1 speed. The sad part is, neither CL, Kagul and Pamiat Mekuriya, had guns that could damage Goeben. Only their torpedoes would be of use but they could never expect to get in range within the time limits of the scenario.
In the remaining impulses, Goeben sunk Kagul. That was the end of turn four and the scenario per the Battle Scenario rules.
In the end, the dice rolled count was something like 105-0 in favor of the Goeben. Final victory point count . . . 107-0. This scenario is a bit of a head scratcher. Either I am missing something or perhaps this was meant to demonstrate some historical reality. Leave a comment if I’ve done something wrong or missing some point.