-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Bafflegab - Glad you liked it, this one did spiral a little out of control (it was only supposed to be one paragraph)
caffran - The Royal Navy's designs will make an appearance in the next update, though definitely not the G-3. Looking at some of proposed the specs it would probably be more powerful than the new 15" KGVs, not something the Admiralty (or the Treasury!) would be keen on.
Sir Humphrey - Indeed, the 1047s were the ships the Scharnhorsts should have been, though not without their own problems. This time round, well it's not certain the Dutch will look to Germany for their new designs. As they expect to co-operate in the Far East with the Royal Navy in holding of the IJN a certain degree of commonality would be attractive, OTL there was nothing to use but TTL the British have a BC design of their own on offer....
gaiasabre11 - With the Italian navy rusting away on the sea bed I doubt France will be in any rush to build any tonnage soon, there are more urgent priorities than the fleet.
DonnieBaseball - On the welding it was a bit of everything, no real German technical problems just the technology wasn't there and there was no understanding of brittle failure (in cold weather like the North Atlantic a welded ship can fail badly but be fine in warm weather. This was a big problem with the US Liberty Ships in OTL)
Add in the large size of the ships, the vibration from high speed diesel engines and the requirement for a hardened layer of armour to 'decap' AP shells and there was always going to be problems.
That said welding could work, HMS Ark Royal was 60% welded but had no real structural problems as the key elements were riveted. Had the MA still had a decent understanding of structures they probably would have been capable of similar successful use of welding.
gaiasabre11 - The 'K' turrets were also offset for a mad scheme to allow them to shoot further forward. Not a good idea and not one they repeated on the follow up Leipzigs.
Praetonia - Hmm, the Graff Spee was lucky to face a 'B' County class, Exeter only had 6x8", had she been facing Cumberland (a proper 8x8" County class) instead of Exeter it would have been closer.
That said I'd agree I was a little harsh on the Deutschlands, they weren't outright failures but could have been so much better had they actually been designed as surface raiders. Say 10" guns and actually having armour over the fuel system would have radically changed the River Plate encounter.
Sir Humphrey - Beautiful!
Arilou - Anything to wind you up.
caffran - The Royal Navy's designs will make an appearance in the next update, though definitely not the G-3. Looking at some of proposed the specs it would probably be more powerful than the new 15" KGVs, not something the Admiralty (or the Treasury!) would be keen on.
Sir Humphrey - Indeed, the 1047s were the ships the Scharnhorsts should have been, though not without their own problems. This time round, well it's not certain the Dutch will look to Germany for their new designs. As they expect to co-operate in the Far East with the Royal Navy in holding of the IJN a certain degree of commonality would be attractive, OTL there was nothing to use but TTL the British have a BC design of their own on offer....
gaiasabre11 - With the Italian navy rusting away on the sea bed I doubt France will be in any rush to build any tonnage soon, there are more urgent priorities than the fleet.
DonnieBaseball - On the welding it was a bit of everything, no real German technical problems just the technology wasn't there and there was no understanding of brittle failure (in cold weather like the North Atlantic a welded ship can fail badly but be fine in warm weather. This was a big problem with the US Liberty Ships in OTL)
Add in the large size of the ships, the vibration from high speed diesel engines and the requirement for a hardened layer of armour to 'decap' AP shells and there was always going to be problems.
That said welding could work, HMS Ark Royal was 60% welded but had no real structural problems as the key elements were riveted. Had the MA still had a decent understanding of structures they probably would have been capable of similar successful use of welding.
gaiasabre11 - The 'K' turrets were also offset for a mad scheme to allow them to shoot further forward. Not a good idea and not one they repeated on the follow up Leipzigs.
Praetonia - Hmm, the Graff Spee was lucky to face a 'B' County class, Exeter only had 6x8", had she been facing Cumberland (a proper 8x8" County class) instead of Exeter it would have been closer.
That said I'd agree I was a little harsh on the Deutschlands, they weren't outright failures but could have been so much better had they actually been designed as surface raiders. Say 10" guns and actually having armour over the fuel system would have radically changed the River Plate encounter.
Sir Humphrey - Beautiful!
Arilou - Anything to wind you up.
- 1
That would've made them better at slugging with British cruisers, yes. Maybe even produced a victory in that particular encounter.
I think the biggest problem was probably the whole doctrine. Germany had limited resources, and had to fight a commerce war. It doesn't matter that much how big your ship is when you're shooting merchantmen, and it doesn't matter as much as you might think when you're fighting the RN, either, because ultimately they can always bring overwhelming force to bear. The best choice would be to do what the RN did - build lots of small cruisers to genuine treaty limits. Not being found is the best protection, and if you lose a few, it doesn't mean the end of all your surface operations, as it did for the KM IRL.
The Soviets in fact tried to go down this path in the Sverdlov class after the war, of which 30 would have been built. This understandably frightened Britain somewhat, and would have been the apotheosis of the WWII surface raider doctrine. Naturally, being the Soviets, they were about 20 years out of date, and in a world that everyone could now see would be dominated by missiles and carrier air power, Britain simply designed the Blackburn Bucanneer...
The Japanese, on the other hand, went down the German path too, with most of their ships, in fact, and for all their effectiveness in paper fights against other cruisers and in torpedo runs in line battles, this almost never actually happened. In the commerce role these 'fleet cruisers' tended to be hunted down quickly, and in the fleet escort role became useless spectators in the carrier fights.
For Britain, battlecruisers make more sense. They allow the easy overwhelming of any potential surface raider caught, at a speed at which they can catch them and run them down. Used as they were at the Falklands rather than at Jutland, they could be useful. Of course, by this point, technology is beginning to allow 30kt fully armoured battleships, and the distinction itself is beginning to fade.
Last edited:
- 1
Thats the same thinking I was having. Whats the point in having raiders which can outpower british cruisers if they are not allowed to get into fights with them to avoid damage, and having them so slow so that RN can zerg its smaller cruisers on it.
More light cruisers, powerfull enough to sink armed merchantmen and fast enough to theoretically run away from everything else would made much more sense. And loosing one would not be such a loss.
More light cruisers, powerfull enough to sink armed merchantmen and fast enough to theoretically run away from everything else would made much more sense. And loosing one would not be such a loss.
Last edited:
- 1
I've long held the belief that the main beneficiary of the German surface fleet was Japan--the German fleet-in-being effectively killed any move to the Far East. What did Germany directly get from its surface fleet? A really negligible amount of tonnage sunk and the cancellation of a few convoys to Russia.
[The Italians benefited similarly, or could have if they'd been able/willing to employ their fleet more aggressively.]
[The Italians benefited similarly, or could have if they'd been able/willing to employ their fleet more aggressively.]
- 1
Lovely post, Pippy. Thrills the heart, it does. I am interested to see where the changed times leads Dutch ship building and I eagerly await the RN naval plans.
Vann
Vann
- 1
El Pip said:
True, that's why I'm not expecting to see any Richelieu-class BB laid down for France in your AAR until 1939~1940 or something.
This reminds me of SMS Emden.
- 1
Praetonia - I'd agree the German problem was doctrine, specifically they didn't have one. The Navy really did get no strategic direction from Hitler and when it did it was wrong (no war with Britain for instance) or ludicrously ambitious (Plan Z was never going to happen).
The big question "What is the German Navy for?" was never honestly answered by the Nazis so it's hardly surprising everything from doctrine to ship design was always a bit ropey. If commerce raiding was the actual aim of the fleet then going all out for U-boats with aerial recon support was the way to go not surface raiders.
That said a big U-boat build up would have got an unholy reaction from Britain, the mid-1930s 40 boat target spooked the RN I dread to think what a 100+ wolf pack plan would have provoked
Carlstadt Boy - My impression is that German ships were political gestures first, warships a very distant second. Everything from tonnage to guns was dictated by foreign or domestic politics.
Personally I'm not even sure light cruisers are the way to go, auxiliary cruisers and U-boats would accomplish the commerce war far more effectively. Keep a few heavy units for 'fleet in being' work to tie down the RN in the North Sea and reduce the size of any hunting groups.
DonnieBaseball - Very true, while a great deal of modern RN units were tied down covering a fleet in being I'm not sure it did Germany any strategic good. I suppose a lot of high level effort was put into sinking the Tirpitz, but again that effort would probably just have been sent to the Far East so no real benefit to Germany.
Again it all comes back to 'Why build a fleet?' and there was never a good answer beyond 'To show we're a great power'. Which is fine in peace but sod all use in war.
Vann the Red - Glad you liked it.
The Dutch design will be an interesting one, quite aside from being a big industrial contract it will have (or be seen to have) strategic implications. And the Dutch will know this so will be looking for a good deal and as many secrets as they can lever out of the circling bidders.
gaiasabre11 - I did wonder if the threat from Japan might prompt a revival of French shipbuilding, but French policy to the Far East appears to have consisted of "Meh." and I don't think anything has happened to change that.
The big question "What is the German Navy for?" was never honestly answered by the Nazis so it's hardly surprising everything from doctrine to ship design was always a bit ropey. If commerce raiding was the actual aim of the fleet then going all out for U-boats with aerial recon support was the way to go not surface raiders.
That said a big U-boat build up would have got an unholy reaction from Britain, the mid-1930s 40 boat target spooked the RN I dread to think what a 100+ wolf pack plan would have provoked
Carlstadt Boy - My impression is that German ships were political gestures first, warships a very distant second. Everything from tonnage to guns was dictated by foreign or domestic politics.
Personally I'm not even sure light cruisers are the way to go, auxiliary cruisers and U-boats would accomplish the commerce war far more effectively. Keep a few heavy units for 'fleet in being' work to tie down the RN in the North Sea and reduce the size of any hunting groups.
DonnieBaseball - Very true, while a great deal of modern RN units were tied down covering a fleet in being I'm not sure it did Germany any strategic good. I suppose a lot of high level effort was put into sinking the Tirpitz, but again that effort would probably just have been sent to the Far East so no real benefit to Germany.
Again it all comes back to 'Why build a fleet?' and there was never a good answer beyond 'To show we're a great power'. Which is fine in peace but sod all use in war.
Vann the Red - Glad you liked it.
The Dutch design will be an interesting one, quite aside from being a big industrial contract it will have (or be seen to have) strategic implications. And the Dutch will know this so will be looking for a good deal and as many secrets as they can lever out of the circling bidders.
gaiasabre11 - I did wonder if the threat from Japan might prompt a revival of French shipbuilding, but French policy to the Far East appears to have consisted of "Meh." and I don't think anything has happened to change that.
- 1
Boat porn! *fap-fap-fap-fap*
The Dutch battlecruiser program is interesting. Because it never got off the ground due to Germany being the enemy and all that. They were meant to scare off Japanese cruisers, and maybe force them to commit battleships and carriers, raising the stakes for Britain and America who likely wouldn't be keen to see such a build-up outside the Japanese home waters. Of course, you only need to look at Scharnhorst to see if that was feasible in that role.
I read the Dutch did consider British designs, but Germany just offered a sweeter deal by letting the Dutch take care of most of the construction, offering jobs to Dutchmen wereas the British were of course 'Britain first!'. That's not the first time because there had been a battleships plan before WWI with some very interesting designs. Of course they had flaws. One plan had four two-barreled turrets, with both pairs getting in eachothers' way, limiting the ships to two turrets port, and two to starside, one if the enemy was also aft or fore. Another (uglier) design had two turrets with four guns each, but that was deemed too risky because one critical hit would take out half the armament. Because the Dutch government spent too much time bouncing ideas off German and British designers, nothing workable got off the drawing table before WWI, eliminating the possibility to work with either side. Ironically, it was once again the Germans who offered the Dutch the generous employment opportunities domestically, with most British shipyard being rejected since they kept the construction works to themselves. I guess that's why the Dutch are going with Scharnhorst ITT, as I recon your Britain is just as British-centered as the original. Just don't complain if that doesn't synergize in the Pacific war.
The Dutch battlecruiser program is interesting. Because it never got off the ground due to Germany being the enemy and all that. They were meant to scare off Japanese cruisers, and maybe force them to commit battleships and carriers, raising the stakes for Britain and America who likely wouldn't be keen to see such a build-up outside the Japanese home waters. Of course, you only need to look at Scharnhorst to see if that was feasible in that role.
I read the Dutch did consider British designs, but Germany just offered a sweeter deal by letting the Dutch take care of most of the construction, offering jobs to Dutchmen wereas the British were of course 'Britain first!'. That's not the first time because there had been a battleships plan before WWI with some very interesting designs. Of course they had flaws. One plan had four two-barreled turrets, with both pairs getting in eachothers' way, limiting the ships to two turrets port, and two to starside, one if the enemy was also aft or fore. Another (uglier) design had two turrets with four guns each, but that was deemed too risky because one critical hit would take out half the armament. Because the Dutch government spent too much time bouncing ideas off German and British designers, nothing workable got off the drawing table before WWI, eliminating the possibility to work with either side. Ironically, it was once again the Germans who offered the Dutch the generous employment opportunities domestically, with most British shipyard being rejected since they kept the construction works to themselves. I guess that's why the Dutch are going with Scharnhorst ITT, as I recon your Britain is just as British-centered as the original. Just don't complain if that doesn't synergize in the Pacific war.
- 1
However though, the cost of a large fast battleship would surely be considerably more (both in money and in terms of yard space) than a smaller battlecruiser. British industry was still recovering (or merely slowing its decline depending on your PoV).
I think the Germans would be better off using converted merchant shipping as raiders. Such as the German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran. Although she sunk only 10 merchant ships, she did manage to take out the HMAS Sydney, a cruiser which would have been far more worthy in combat terms than a converted merchantman ever was.
- 1
You should probably focus on defending the Ardennes rather than a tinpot SE Asian colony that will kick you out soon anyway.Meh.
I'll design and build my own uber MN in my AAR.
- 1
- 1
A very interesting look at battlecruisers, El Pip.
Great! I just woke up and I am already scarred!
Great! I just woke up and I am already scarred!
- 1
El Pip, I'm always grateful for the updates but please forgive me. After reading about those future artificial reefs, all I could think about was how many tanks could have been made from that steel instead. Surely it would have been a more sensible use of resources.
Now, quickly with the FAA update so we can get to the good stuff.
Now, quickly with the FAA update so we can get to the good stuff.
- 1
Perhaps, but tanks make for lousy artificial reefs for marine life to live in.
Britain will rely on blockade pressure and the strategic possibilities offered by sea power to throttle any continental enemy.
Nice to have a few tanks handy in case the Italians get uppity again, but let's not go overboard.
- 1
Yeah, so what are the Italians going to do if they get uppity? Send their own tanks? Being the hindrances they are, you could say their tanks work to your advantage.
- 1
El Pip;10421119 [B said:
Escort ships, possibly, particularly if the RN cannot be counted upon to be on France's side.
- 1
Today's Sydney Morning Herald carried a story on the modern day Commonwealth of Nations. A group of leaders have published a report questioning the direction of the organisation and challenging its relevancy in the modern world. Link here for your perusal. I'll keep an eye out for the report and post it if I find a copy.
Cheers,
Dury.
**WARNING** Article may frighten readers stuck in the 1930's!
Cheers,
Dury.
**WARNING** Article may frighten readers stuck in the 1930's!
- 1