Last Ride of the High Seas Fleet: Battle of Texel 1918 (a Drachinifel What If)

[sideshowbob9]

It's hard to imagine what the most rigorous scientist would have done differently

Known there were far too many variables to construct any valid framework from which to gather any results from would be my first guess.

REAL militaries have been using wargames....

Of debatable utility. No plan survives contact with the enemy is an aphorism for a reason!

every military on the face of the planet has been wasting vast amounts of time and money on them for an awfully long time now

You walked right into that one! 

Seriously though, I am not saying wargaming is pointless. I am saying it is of limited (but non-zero) utility as a historical tool. I never mentioned it as a training aid. Although one would hope navies around the world are not currently training to fight dreadnoughts!

Nobody here, or in Drach's video, is trying to "re-write history", have any "impact on the historical record"

No, I know. That was more of a broader point about an anxiety I have rather than immediately applicable here. Suppose some kid comes on here in ten years time, doesn't get the context, is linked to a low-rez (by then) youtube video, assumes it is a historical re-play and gets the wrong end of the stick. Although we discuss what-ifs here, we also discuss actual history as a reference and it could be easy for someone (I'm specifically thinking of the less seasoned here) to conflate the two. It may not be probable but it is possible and it is something we can try to safeguard against. We are posting for posterity. Of course, if the internet is destroyed by nanobots in 2 years, you can say "see, nothing to worry about".

THIS IS A WHAT-IF SITE

It escaped my notice.

they ran nine wargames

I think it is a fair question if this particular what-if needed to be played out at all (certainly not nine times). I don't think it is a viable, worthwhile what-if exercise. The net result, as far as I am concerned, is obvious. You and others obviously disagree and are free to do so. As I said upthread, it would take a lot more than the stock HSF and improved morale to carry the day. That was a tacit attempt to start a conversation on what what-if would carry the day, or at least give the HSF a fighting chance. That would be of far more interest to me than this touted scenario.

Ever heard the phrase "history is written by the winners?"

Never. Who said that, then?


Serious question time. Must every comment on here be positive?

[Weaver]

REAL militaries have been using wargames....

Of debatable utility. No plan survives contact with the enemy is an aphorism for a reason!

Wargames generally involve people playing the part of enemies, funnily enough...

every military on the face of the planet has been wasting vast amounts of time and money on them for an awfully long time now

You walked right into that one! 

You walked right

No I didn't, I walked left!
(See what I did there?  )

Seriously though, I am not saying wargaming is pointless. I am saying it is of limited (but non-zero) utility as a historical tool. I never mentioned it as a training aid. Although one would hope navies around the world are not currently training to fight dreadnoughts!

Since the process of wargaming is much the same whether it's used as a historical tool or a training aid, I fail to see how you can draw a distinction between the two. Indeed, you could argue that historical wargaming is more likely to be accurate since the results of actual battles can inform the rules to make the outcomes more representative of reality, while modern training wargames are speculating about outcomes of modern weapons and situations that nobody's seen for real yet.

In any event, Drach's video isn't using it as a 'historical tool': it's using it as a 'credible speculation' tool.

Nobody here, or in Drach's video, is trying to "re-write history", have any "impact on the historical record"

No, I know. That was more of a broader point about an anxiety I have rather than immediately applicable here. Suppose some kid comes on here in ten years time, doesn't get the context, is linked to a low-rez (by then) youtube video, assumes it is a historical re-play and gets the wrong end of the stick. Although we discuss what-ifs here, we also discuss actual history as a reference and it could be easy for someone (I'm specifically thinking of the less seasoned here) to conflate the two. It may not be probable but it is possible and it is something we can try to safeguard against. We are posting for posterity. Of course, if the internet is destroyed by nanobots in 2 years, you can say "see, nothing to worry about".

This site is called "whatifmodellers".
The title of this thread describes it as a what if video.
My first post on the thread describes it as a what if video.
Drach explains that it's a what-if question that he's attempting to answer in the first 20 seconds of the video.
Drach repeatedly references what actually happened vs what might have happened throughout the video.

If this kid is dumb enough to get through all that and still get the wrong end of the stick, then I'd suggest they're beyond help.

they ran nine wargames

I think it is a fair question if this particular what-if needed to be played out at all (certainly not nine times). I don't think it is a viable, worthwhile what-if exercise. The net result, as far as I am concerned, is obvious. You and others obviously disagree and are free to do so. As I said upthread, it would take a lot more than the stock HSF and improved morale to carry the day. That was a tacit attempt to start a conversation on what what-if would carry the day, or at least give the HSF a fighting chance. That would be of far more interest to me than this touted scenario.

Well, you're entitled to your opinon. Drach mentions (if you watch the video) that the reason he did it is because people keep asking him about it in Q&As. He also managed to persuade at least half-a-dozen people at his naval wargames club to play it out nine times. I think those two things point to the fact that a significant number of people with an interest in naval history DO think it's an interesting and worthwhile exercise.

Furthermore, the fact that in real life, the German high command green-lit the plan and tried to go through with it MUST make it of interest to historians, for whom the natural next step is to analyse what would have happened next if they'd got the fleet to sail. If the conclusion is that it was 90% likely to result in a massacre, then that tells you something real and useful about the mind-set of the high command and the motivations of the mutineers.

Ever heard the phrase "history is written by the winners?"

Never. Who said that, then?

You surprise me: I've been hearing/reading it my whole life. Who said it first seems to be, ironically enough, a matter of disagreement amongst historians, but it's been used repeatedly, and almost always to make the same point, namely that the "historical record" is, always and inevitably, a story, and stories are almost always written from a perspective, and for a purpose.

Here's George Orwell using it to make exactly that point in 1944: http://alexpeak.com/twr/hiwbtw/

Serious question time. Must every comment on here be positive?

No, as long as they aren't rude or abusive. I simply disagree with the basis of your negative comment.

[NARSES2]

Lets call this a draw lads, it's getting into areas of discussion that are not really for this site ?

And as such I'll resist making the post I was going to.

[sideshowbob9]

Weaver, 2 points, 1: I have heard of the phrase before, I was riffing on the fact that it's accreditation is unknown. 2: I would argue going out into the field with equipment, such as F-5s, is an exercise, as distinct from a wargame, which is an office affair but YMMV.

Narses2, I think discussing what-if scenarios is exactly what this site is about. I don't think this debate has gotten particularly nasty or anything. I have just spent some time drawing up 2 little micro-stories that I think illustrate my point that fleet battles are inherently complex creatures. Too complex to be accurately simulated. Having invested time and energy in them, I will post them over in alternate history. After I have posted them, I will bow out as you say. You and the other moderators may then do what you will.

[Weaver]

Sideshowbob9: with respect to your two points:

1. The phrase's unknown origin is irrelevent. Everybody knows what it means, and continues to use it because it expresses a fundamental truth.

2. Going out into the field with equipment and 'using' it, but without doing anything actually lethal or destructive, is a very artificial exercise which requires rules, referees and imperfect simulations every bit as much as a wargame does. In effect, it's paintballing or LARPing on a giant scale.

Chris: one of the few things I agree with Bob on is that this debate hasn't become nasty or offensive. I've deliberately avoided using several arguments that I felt would lower the tone, and I imagine he's done the same. However, you're the boss, so I'll leave it here if you wish.

[sideshowbob9]

1. It was a joke, a riff, a witty comment, dead-pan! The fact it is so old and so fundamental that it is unattributed was part of the never-heard-of-it joke. Quite literally every student of history has heard of it. I tried to meet what I read as condescension with jocularity. Tried and failed.

2. You keep mentioning military training (whether you call it "wargaming", "exercises", "manoeuvres", "Myrtle" or "the other Spanish guitar" is a semantic point). I have been involved in supplying simulators and other training aids to a small number of armed forces in my up-and-down career. I know well of it's importance, you are preaching to the choir! "Wargaming" the military training aid is not "wargaming" the tabletop pastime. Conflating the two is your right but I very much distinguish the two.

3. We seem to have reached an impasse on this so it is quite right that we wind it up hereabouts. I have very much enjoyed it and Weaver has made some great points.

4. I really want to emphasise how much I appreciate a bit of moderator leeway and that we can make closing remarks as it were. My part has ended naturally and nothing has been left to rankle or fester. Thank you!

[NARSES2]

No it hadn't become nasty and I don't think I said it had ? Indeed it is an example of a good nature'd, well argued debate

I just felt it had become a discussion between the pair of you which would be best carried out using the PM system ? However if you feel others are interested then carry on. The danger of this type of debate is that however well argued and polite they remain they are in danger of going around in circles ?

Thanks to the pair of you for making your "closing speeches" 

Chris

[Weaver]

Okay I'm not going to respond to yet more points raised or the closing remarks will go on longer than the debate.

What I would do is urge anyone mystified by all this to actually watch the video and then make up their own minds. A lot of what's been said seems to stem from assumptions about it that have been made pre-emptively, but which relate to issues which Drach actually acknowledges and responds to therein.

Here's the link again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrTeYcRXDEw

EDIT - crossed posts with NARSES2's last post, but I don't feel inclined to change this one.