I’ve come up with three basic scenarios.

The first assumes Admiral Cervera’s fleet runs the U.S.blockade and makes it to Havana.  From there, he can threaten the Florida Straits, U.S. East Coast and/or Puerto Rico.

The second anticipates Spain commits to reinforcing the Philippines,  with a U.S. counter move sending the Eastern Squadron to the Mediterranean, protected by the Covering Force.

Finally, that Spain purchases ships from Chile.  This possibility affected U.S. dispositions.  The Chilean ships were the O’Higgins, weeks away from completion in a British shipyard, as well as two ships already in service, the Esmeralda and Ministro Zenteno.  The latter two were situated in the Pacific, where they could sail to the Philippines, with the O’Higgins close to Spanish territorial waters.

While working my way through all of this, I came to realize this is really a series of Red vs.  Blue operational problems, with the Spanish-American War providing historical context.  The scenarios are more than counterfactual, as the underlying assumptions are so very significant, anticipating Spanish domestic and foreign policies resulting in a trained and maintained fleet, without the ambivalence and defeatism.

After scratching all of this out,  I took a detailed look at the scenarios accompanying the game.  They are good, well explained, and cover what happened several might-have-been.  There’s even a campaign game linking the scenarios with die-driven variables!

So, my afterthought is “Why Did I Do All Of This?”  Well, I guess it would be depth of knowledge and the ability to view the historical events not as a series of separate scenarios, but within a  broader scope.

At times, it’s good to rationalize.

Well, the seemingly indispensable 3×3 blue hexagonal grid never arrived.  Some Amazonian problem with delivery.  Very vague.  Frantic Google activity revealed no viable substitutes without paying too much.

Now unable to throw a reasonable amount of money at the problem, I was forced to think.  Reluctantly, I started grinding the gears.  DIY options involved a lot of work…No interest in that.  Further grinding resulted in a question; “Why do I have to use hexes?”

The ship counters are one inch long.  The rules call for movement by number of hexes.  Convert hexes to inches – or ship lengths.  How about changes of course?  Changes are effected by stern or bow pivots of 60 degrees.  Why not use a protractor until you can eyeball the pivot without help?

Now I just needed a blue surface.  You MUST fight naval battles on a blue surface.  It cannot be done any other way.  Believe me.

The solution was to use either an ocean gaming mat, or the DBA “table”.   My ocean mat is an early version of the type with a fleece texture.  OK for miniatures, but counters are clunky to move and just don’t look right. The DBA table has a surface color of blue,  intended for just this sort of thing, but typically covered with GeoHex tiles for land battles.

Having taken care of the tactical infra-structure, it was time to get on with the strategic and operational aspects of the project.  So, back to Trask’s history, and this time really focus on the Navy’s organization and plans.

For my purposes, the naval campaign takes place from early April through July.  I’ve bookended the campaign with the U.S. decision to organize and  implement a blockade of Cuba and the return to Spain of Admiral Camara’s fleet which had intended to attack Admiral Dewey’s forces in the Philippines.

The historical naval campaign….what a cluster!  Orders  from the Secretary of the Navy  to Key West changing on a daily, and sometimes hourly, basis.  Ships being shunted between fleets and missions.  Order and counter-order.  The Navy’s mission was four-fold:  Defend coastal cities  from Spanish attack, blockade Cuba, escort the expeditionary force forming in Tampa, and stop any Spanish efforts to reinforce Cuba.  Later, two other missions were discussed and almost implemented.  One was  to raid  coastal cities on the Iberian Peninsula and outlying islands.  The other was to counter any Spanish attempt to regain control of the Philippines.

Rather than construct a time-oriented orders of battles, it seemed best to use the basic organization which called for – eventually – four US entities.  Initially these were the North Atlantic Fleet and Flying Squadron.  The  Eastern Squadron and Covering Force were created later in the campaign, and comprised of units from the  two basic organizations.  Ships were also  periodically detached for patrol duties.  Again, rather than go through an attach and detach process during the course (turns) of the campaign, it seemed best – and easiest – to “pool” (no pun intended)  these primarily Auxiliary Cruisers into a group available for scouting duties.

The basic organization is:

North Atlantic Fleet (Admiral Sampson), Key West – Iowa, Indiana, Oregon (maybe delayed reflecting its redeployment to Caribbean), New York, Amphrite, Terror, New Orleans, Montgomery.

Flying Squadron (Admiral Schlee), Hampton Roads – Texas, Massachusetts, Brooklyn, Columbia, Minneapolis.

Scouting Pool – Harvard, Yale, St. Louis, Minneapolis, St. Paul.

Reinforcements To Philippines – Monterey, Monachock.

One option discussed by leadership was to form an Eastern Squadron, with the mission of  countering Spain’s attempt dispatch ships to contest Admiral Dewey’s control of Manila Bay.

The Eastern Squadron included the following ships:  Oregon, Massachusetts, Newark, Yosemite, Yankee, Dixie.

The Eastern Squadron was to be assisted by a  Covering Force.  This force was to engage any Spanish effort to attack the Eastern Squadron as it passed by Spain until it was east of Gibraltar.

The Covering Force included: New York, Brooklyn, Iowa, Indiana, Texas, New Orleans, Badger, Yankee, Mayflower.

Putting together Spain’s fleet organization was simple.  Just go with the historical composition of Admirals Cervera’s and Camara’s fleets.  But, with the intriguing possibility  of Spain succeeding with their plans to purchase one if not three Chilean ships – O’Higgins, Esmerelda and Ministro Zenteno.  Spain’s conduct of the naval operations was marked by the same level of vacillation and indecision as U.S. operations.

Enough for now.  Ole Miss vs Miss State coming on.  Can’t miss another episode of “Lane Kiffin’s Ego.”

Way back in March I posted about a Great War At Sea (GWAS) project involving Chile and Argentina.

That one is now on a backburner, with my new emphasis on the “what ifs” of the Spanish-American War.  As usual, the move from South America to the Caribbean did not involve a straight line.  Instead the initial detour was to “Plan Black”, a possible United States-Germany confrontation.  This, in turn, was an offshoot of a by-chance read about the international squabble(s) over Guam and the Philippines in which Germany was an active participant.

Plan Black was a bust, since the GWAS scenarios are set during the Dreadnought Era, and I wanted something turn-of-the-twentieth-century.  Looking for a path of least resistance, I dug into GWAS’s 1898, The Spanish-American War,  module.  This opened up some immediate possibilities.

Fortunately, I own a copy of David Trask’s “The War With Spain In 1898”.  This one volume history covers the naval aspects in some detail, going far beyond the usual coverage which is typically limited to the battles of Manila Bay and Santiago De Cuba.

The game’s scenarios cover some hypothetical situations, but I was interested in a campaign that assumed (and this is quite an assumption) that Spain had not neglected its fleet for ten years, and was a far better match for the United States “New Navy”.  This is where Trask’s book was so helpful.

But, things ground to a halt when I decided to use the alternate Dreadnought tactical rules.  These require a roughly 3 ft x 3 ft hexagonal grid sheet, and I don’t have one.

Amazon should be delivering a blue hexagonal grid sheet any day now.  Everything else is ready to go.

And, I will get to Chile vs. Argentina. Sometime.

Yes, another one.  Function of lassitude (February) as well as South American cruise (March).

The cruise started in Valparaiso, Chile, then along the coast of Chile, around Cape Horn, ending in Buenos Aires.  It was a lot of fun.  The only exception was the badly executed tour of the Falkland battlefields.

The itinerary included cruising the fiords of Patagonia as well as the Beagle Channel and Straits of Magellan.

Our on-land adventures left me with the impression that there is no love lost between Argentina and Chile.

This got me thinking about the South American naval rivalries/races of the late 19th and early 20th century.

Right after returning home, I dug out my copy of Avalanche Press’ “Cone of Fire” module for their Great War At Sea series.  A quick glance at the scenario booklet seemed to indicate there were no scenarios covering a turn-of-the-twentieth century hypothetical encounter.

So, I consulted some sources I have here at home, as well as searching on-line.  Lots of information to process.  This article provided  a helpful summary.  This article provides a wider perspective.

I decided to build a scenario using “Operation Soberania” as a guide.  This is the 1978 Argentinian plan to occupy contested islands in Patagonia.  Same operational situation, just later in the 20th century.

Of course, after all of this,  a second reading of the booklet revealed specific scenarios including  force compositions.  My excuse for missing these is the scenarios are not presented in chronological sequence.  Weak.

Still, the “unnecessary” research was time well spent.  I have a better overall knowledge of the topic.

I’m tempted to link the naval action with  ground combat on the contested islands using the old “Rifle and Sabre” rules for late 19th century.  Counters represent 100+/- soldiers and artillery batteries. Might be fun.

Well, as always,  the trick is to get it on the table.