The Butterfly Effect: A British AAR

[El Pip]

Hawkeye1489 - Thanks for both those posts, confirming I was right on the status of Alaska and for the 1924 map. The latter I think will be particularly useful as, at the moment, Garner is leading the popular vote in two states.

Lord Strange - That's the kind of voting I like to see (in this election anyway) - voting for the interesting option.

caffran - It has indeed changed considerably, as has how I write it. I've spent most of this afternoon wrestling with an update and I'm still only grudgingly happy with it. The only reason I'm posting it is I don't think continued fiddling is going to make it any better.

At times I do wonder if a return to the short, less detailed and quicker to write updates might be better, but every time I sit down to write one in that style I find myself writing epics. People still seem to like it though.


Update in minutes!

 

[Lord Strange]

Huzaah. More updates. Alll is good.

 

[El Pip]

Chapter LXIII: The Backbone of the Empire.​

Before we begin dissecting the autumn defence estimates it is worth outlining the role of the Ministry for Defence Co-ordination. Having only been established at the beginning of the year the ministry had proved it's worth during the Abyssinian War in prioritising war production, working with the service ministries and industry to push through the most vital projects quickly. Post-war however the department would lose both it's first minister, Leo Amery, and many of it's powers to the Treasury in Chamberlain's first cabinet reshuffle. With a far reduced budget, but a new and enthusiastic minister in Harold Macmillan, the ministry began it's slow evolution into the modern Ministry of Defence, starting with it's work in drawing up a unified defence budget with the service ministries, an innovation that allowed the military to present a common front to the Treasury in budget discussions and stop the Chancellor playing one service off another. Equally vital was it's role of coordinating those projects that fell into the gaps between the services, the units that spanned two ministries, both of which accepted the value of the unit but for various reasons had no desire to pay for it. Prime examples were Coastal Command and the Royal Marines, units that would prove of immense value in later conflicts but who's mother service would have treated as a very low priority had it not been for the compulsion of Macmillan and his successors at Defence Co-ordination.

A Coastal Command Avro Anson. Put bluntly the Anson was slow, short ranged and poorly armed. While it would eventually find it's role as cheap and forgiving multi-engine crew trainer, the Anson should never had been near a front line squadron. That Coastal Command had accepted it at all was only because the Air Staff placed them plumb bottom on the priority list, a side effect of the RAFs desire to control all military aviation, even in areas they had no interest in funding. The dire position of Coastal Command would be just one of the areas Macmillan would have to focus his department's energies on.​

Turning our attention to the defence estimates we begin with the Senior Service and pride of the British Empire; The Royal Navy. The war with Italy had come as a considerable strategic surprise to the Navy, most planning since the end of the 1920s had revolved around a war in the Far East against Japan while retaining enough strength to protect home waters and the Mediterranean. That so much planning had been so wrong would normally prompt a major re-think, yet the Admiralty could find little fault with their original thinking. Of the great naval powers war with either the United States or France, even allowing for the collapse of the Entente Cordiale, was considered highly unlikely. This left only the Imperial Japanese Navy as the only remaining great naval power, the Italian fleet having been decimated during the Abyssinian War. The Naval Board therefore dug out the previous years Defence Requirements Sub-Committee (DRC) report, dusted it down and used it as the base for their naval estimate. The DRC was based on the 'One Power' standard, requiring the Royal Navy to be able to engage in a full blown war in the Far East while keeping control of Home Waters and the Mediterranean. While the demise of the Regia Marina had made securing the Mediterranean that much easier, this was however balanced by the loss of the French fleet as a likely ally and the concerns over long term German naval ambitions therefore the Royal Navy pushed for the same recommendations;

DRC 'One Power Standard' strength required by 1942

• Capital ships (Battleships and Battlecruisers) - 15
• Aircraft Carriers - 8
• Cruisers - 70

At first glance a none too ambitious target, the same number of capital ships and only two extra carriers, even the increase in cruiser strength appeared modest, given the target date it boiled down to five new vessels a year, hardly an onerous expense. As a brief aside it is illuminating to note that even after the success of the carriers in the war, and the spectacular strike on Taranto, the Admiralty still could not bring itself to call aircraft carriers 'capital ships', preferring instead to give them a separate category of their own. In balance however carriers had finally been promoted from below cruisers in the list of priorities, which was at least a move in the right direction.

The raw ship numbers however were not the whole story as they did not include the DRC's recommendations on replacement vessels, a difficult issue for a fleet still containing many Great War veterans. The DRC baldy report stated that the entire Revenge class of battleships were unsuitable for modernisation and would have to be replaced, as would both the Renown class battlecruisers along with the carriers HMS Argus, HMS Hermes and HMS Eagle. The marked disparity amongst the upgraded and not-upgraded Queen Elizabeths was also noted and HMS Valiant, HMS Malaya and HMS Barham were all recommended to be thoroughly modernised. Almost as an afterthought the 'C' and 'D' class light cruisers that formed the bulk of the cruiser fleet were also earmarked for replacement along with almost all the early 'Post war standard' destroyers. All told the final naval estimate was for seven new capital ships, the full modernisation of three more and the construction of five new aircraft carriers. In addition dozens of cruisers and destroyers, both for fleet and escort duty, were to be constructed in a series of rolling programmes, all programmes to be complete by 1942.

HMS Warspite entering the Grand Harbour at Valletta, Malta. After a string of modernisations she had been all but completely rebuilt, she received new engines powered by new more efficient small-tube boilers, thicker deck armour, revised secondary armament, extra anti-aircraft weaponry, improved gun laying equipment and countless other improvements. The DRC report proposed bringing the rest of the class up to the standard of Warspite and her sister Queen Elizabeth, an option not available for the smaller and more cramped Revenge class.​

Despite the vast cost and scope of the scheme it was being based on an existing agreed plan and so was tricky for the Treasury, or indeed anyone else, to argue with, not that the War Office and Air Ministry didn't try. The crux of the argument against the plan was that the Admiralty was too cautious and that a fleet that so handily defeated the Regia Marina was clearly in no need of new ships. The Admiralty's response was to use the great deal of political capital it has accumulated after the string of naval successes in the Abyssinian War, spending in both in Parliament and the press, the First Sea Lord Keynes being particularly vocal. His offer of keeping the Revenges in service if the RAF would agree to stick with the Sopwith Camel and the Army in Mark I 'Male' tanks being particularly effective.

Such efforts though were, perhaps, unneeded, put simply Britain was still primarily a naval power, the Empire had been built on, and thus depended upon, control of the seas and safe shipping lanes. For as long as that remained the case the Royal Navy would remain top of the military pecking order and retain first call on resources for rearmament. Having established the long term plans of the Royal Navy in the next chapter we will see how this translated into actual hulls in dockyards and how the experience of the Abyssinian War influenced the design of those vessels.

 

[trekaddict]

Just to clarify: We're looking at at least the historical number of King George V-Class ships, perhaps a G-3 class BC or two and Five Lusties? Wow!

 

[Duritz]

Come on you Democrats, rally!

Hull/Barkley in Mississippi, the South shall stay blue! (or is that red in this time period? )

Nice update Pippy. Will the extra money for the capital ships prolong the British in their BB obsession or will the additional carrier hulls be the first step towards a truly modern fleet carrier?

Can't wait for the Battle of Singapore!

Dury.

 

[Jerzul]

Having lived in Louisiana for five years and Oregon for most of my life I cast my vote(s) as such:

Oregon- Hull (Go Dems)
Louisiana - Garner (Mr. Long would want the republicans or Garner to win so he can sweep into office in 1940).

 

[unmerged(34050)]

Will Hood get a big rebuild along with Valiant, Malaya & Barham? If the RN plans on her serving another 10+ years she should get one...

For new battleships, either the "14O" KGV design with 3 quad 14" turrets and a bit less armor, or go right to the Lions if treaties are no issue.

Or use the R-class turrets and build a class of "Vanguards"? Save time and money (more left for carriers), and modernized, the 15" rifles & mounts are still top class.

Putting Furious into reserve and building 6 Ark Royals would be a nice carrier force, along with Courageous & Glorious.

Oh, and a vote by NJ for Hull please. : )

 

[Nathan Madien]

When you mentioned the battleships, El Pip, I was reminded of the battleship "talk" (for a lack of a better word) you and I had in my AAR.

With the Republicans surging throughout New England, Massachusetts is the next state to naturally fall to the charms of Landon-Vandenberg.

 

[Hawkeye1489]

Oh, I do loves me some Navy Updates lol...Nice one, as usually Pippy!
Landon-Vandenberg '36 Campaign returns to the Steel Belt to mop up with a Republican Vote in the Keystone State of Pennsylvania.

~Hawk

 

[unmerged(78085)]

Aircraft Carriers - not trains! Huzzah!

I'll temper my excitement by pointing out a few flaws which would need correcting ASAP in the Royal Navy's carrier expansion plans : they need a working carrier-born fighter. And although I'm capable of being as soppily sentimental as the next man about the dear old Fairey Swordfish, the 'Stringbag' - for all its success at Early Taranto - was dangerously obsolete well before the Second World War. Against any kind of fighter/interceptor opposition, it simply kills its brave aircrew...

...But never say die - let my voice be the rallying cry for the Fleet Air Arm! Let Hawker or Supermarine or (best and most outrageous bet) DeHavilland be contracted to craft a superb carrier-born fighter to protect the 'Stringbags' or their replacements on their many missions! Pour all the R.N. money into R&D for naval RDF (radar to you Yanks), and better AA guns - spend money to modernise the capital ships this way, rather than layering on slabs of useless armour, which won't stop the armour-piercing bombs and torpedoes from sinking even the most modern battleship, don't you know...

And relegate those Ansons to Training Command forthwith! :rofl:

Um, and also Vote Hull (there's a naval joke there somewhere) in Oregon

 

[unmerged(87160)]

What will be this future carrier design? Will the Royal Navy stick to the armoured carrier design as in RL, or will they implement american idea: thin armour but strong aircraft complement?

The RL variant seems reasonable given the proximity of enemy land to the operating area of Royal Navy in Med and in the North Sea, and exposure to the land aviation. But, since from now on the main naval enemy is Japan perhaps its better to use american way with ships less based on defending themself from numerically superior land aviation (wich will rarely be the case in the vast Pacific), and more based on attacking power, giving them ability to go head to head with Kaga, Akagi, etc. And with FAA in Admirality control, it should be possible to construct some good carrier based bombers and fighters.

In the end, maybe it would be the best to skip both variants and with larger funding now available go ahead and build bigger carriers with adequate armour and aviation complement?

 

[Lord Strange]

OOOOOH. RN Goodness. I think a war against the amercians would be perfectly reasonable, i mean they may have more factories, but they are only a colony.

 

[TheExecuter]

Vote Republican! Landon for Victory!
Pennsylvania

TheExecuter

 

[Pwn*Star]

Vote Garner/White in Texas Because he just might get over 10%

 

[Lord Strange]

VOTE Garner in Florida
For the sake of it really.

 

[El Pip]

trekaddict - Pretty much, the exact details are in the next update.

As to the 'Wow', the report was historic and the recommendations are from a November 1935 report that assumed best case (i.e. London Naval Treaty went through and Germany didn't actually navally re-arm). One year later they revised it (after Japan and Italy left the treaty and Germany started looking threatening) and jumped up to 'Two Power' standard; 20 Battleships, 15 Carriers and 100 cruisers (plus all the replacements and refits from the previous report).

While the revised plan was never fully accepted, parts of it did make it, mainly the KGVs being 'new' not replacement tonnage, making the aborted Lions the replacement for the 'R's. If the full plan had been done (and afforded somehow) that would have been something to behold.

Duritz - All will be revealed but Keyes is a carrier fan who didn't spend much of his career on battleships, so expect no nostalgic sympathies about the Steel Castles....

On the colours, I think it swapped and changed depending on which paper you read or TV channel watched. However I'm going for modern colours to avoid confusion, anachronisms be damned!

Jerzul - I'll bend the rules and take those two votes in one day.

DonnieBaseball - Next update sir, though it is a several year plan so I'd expect an evolution of the design between the first and last hull in any case.

Nathan Madien - The US has the luxury of building whatever it wants (normally anyway ), Britain however has to be a tad more careful than your scattergun approach

Hawkeye1489 - More navy to come, possibly two if my excess typing continues.

RAFspeak - On the raw numbers the battleships sunk more tonnage than the carriers in the Abyssinian War, that's not the best data to argue for a total FAA focus I'm afraid.

Still being freed from the RAF will certainly help, things wont be as dire as in OTL I can assure you of that.

Carlstadt Boy - Lessons have been learnt, whether they are the correct lessons is a different question.

On the last option, getting a deck armoured combined with a large airgroup carrier didn't come around till the USS Midway and even she was cramped and too low in the water, despite being ~45,0000 tonnes.

Given the Ark Royal was 22,000 tonne that's one hell of a jump and definitely beyond the RN for a good few years. Sadly.

Lord Strange - Perhaps, but occupation could be something of a bugger. There are after all quite a few of them and I don't think the India technique is going to apply, no local Maharajahs to co-opt for one thing.

TheExecuter - Noted.

Pwn*Star - Whilst you remain loyal rest assured Garner will remain in the mix.

Lord Strange - Not just for the sake of it, you've pushed him up over a percentage point boundary.


Latest Opinion Poll
Hull-Barkley (Democrats) - 42% (-1%)
Landon-Vandenberg (Republican) - 46% (-1%)
Garner-White (State's Rights) - 12% (+2%)

The Garner fight back continues as the State's Rights Party takes votes off both the main parties, particularly in the Mid-West and the Southern states.

In the 'main' race Landon has retained his four point lead over his rival, snatching the North East vote in the states around Pennsylvania while Hull shores up the Pacific North West by taking Oregon. As the election finally moves towards it's final stage there is still all to play for.

---

The election has gone on far longer than I expected, I genuinely thought interest would have dropped off by now. Given the likely slow pace of updates over Christmas (probably no writing between say the 23rd and the 28th) I'm not going to get to the US election update for quite some time. Three choices;

A. Put a deadline of some time early January and hold onto the result till Feb ish.
B. Put a deadline then update out of sequence (i.e. an election update in the middle of a run of military updates)
C. Just keep voting till Feb.

Any strong opinions either way?

 

[trekaddict]

Please tell me the Lion is built this time. I can even supply a few pictures!

HMS Lion moored alongside HMS Duke of York

HMS Lion In Scapa Flow

 

[Anazagar]

Let teh spammfest continue !!! There's no better thing that legal spamming (well except maybe for legal booze)

Oh and Norman Osborne (the man who knew how to acctually fight skrulls) has just endorsed of Alf Landon in New York speaking - "Look at that Democratic VP candidate and all the wild things he has done - I mean like Superhuman registration ?? Really!!!??! This is America the land of freedom not some european socialist country."

 

[Nathan Madien]

A. Put a deadline of some time early January and hold onto the result till Feb ish.

I think you should go with this approach. For one thing, it would give you plenty of time to translate the results into an update at your leisure.

 

[trekaddict]

Let teh spammfest continue !!! There's no better thing that legal spamming (well except maybe for legal booze)

Oh and Norman Osborne (the man who knew how to acctually fight skrulls) has just endorsed of Alf Landon in New York speaking - "Look at that Democratic VP candidate and all the wild things he has done - I mean like Superhuman registration ?? Really!!!??! This is America the land of freedom not some european socialist country."

Oi! We may be European, but we are certainly not socialist! That Germany has mandatory ID-cards is a remnant of when we were occupied by your lot!