# It's 1940 and you're....



## Lucky13 (Feb 5, 2008)

CNO (or what it's called) of this your fictional country, what would your pride and joy, your navy look like? Which are your destroyers, destroyer escorts, cruisers, carriers, submarines....etc. etc?


----------



## timshatz (Feb 5, 2008)

Need more parameters. Is it a continental power or island nation? How far away are you key threats? What are you natural resources and how far away are the key resources from your shores. 

Are you a Maritime Power (such as England) or is your power found primarily in an Army (Soviet Union or Germany)? Do you have a seperate Air Force and is the Naval Air Force part of the Navy or a adjunct of the Air Force?

Do you have colonies? Does your apponent have colonies? Where are they in relation to your strengths and weaknesses?


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 5, 2008)

I'll have to get back on this chaps, getting ready for my nightshift....good questions though!


----------



## timshatz (Feb 5, 2008)

Have a good shift. 

Depending on the answers, you might not even need a Navy. For the Soviet Union, it was not strategically relevent. However, for England, it was the only reason they stayed in the war (water, water everywhere and panzers don't float).

Also, the nature of the threat is important. The US in 1940 needed a Navy to keep the war away from her shores. It was required to project power as well. But the Navy's main task was to defend the US. As such, a heavy bomber fleet (going on the theory of the B17 and B24 being Maritime Attack Aircraft- weak, but that was what they sold Congress on) would be as important to the stategic plan as battle fleet/carrier fleet. 

Lots to consider, but once refined, it could be interesting to kick around.


----------



## DBII (Feb 5, 2008)

interesting thread.

DBII


----------



## joy17782 (Feb 5, 2008)

Yeah get back on this one lucky, sounds like a real good thread


----------



## Thorlifter (Feb 5, 2008)

Yeah, I don't think we've done this one. I think Erich may like this thread, with his interest in the Kriegsmarine. (did I spell that right?)

Set it up Lucky and lets have some fun with it. And stop this stupid excuse of having to work. It never stops me from posting!


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 6, 2008)

1: This our country is an island nation. 

2: We are a maritime nation.

3: We have to import rubber, tin, copper, aluminium among other things...but we do have our own iron ore and coal mines.

4: Key threats are TWO other nations, which we've been in conflict with before in the past. We're not the biggest nation of the three, but more in between the two in size and population, they're also almost on our doorstep. 

5: We have an Air Force, but our Naval Aviation is just about to celebrate it's 20th birthday.

6: We have colonies that has been supplying us with what we need minerals etc. and so does our "neighbours", but they haven't been so lucky. Our colonies are on the other side of the world. They have also just discovered oil in our colonies!

I hope that this will help a wee bit...


----------



## timshatz (Feb 6, 2008)

Your screwed. 

No, seriously. Tell us about the two threats. Especially, the larger of the two. How about an air force? Tell us a lot about the air force. Does it have strategic bombers? If so, how many. Are they the closer of the two threats? Does their military have any experience in the recent past. 

Same set of questions go for the smaller of the two nations. 

How much water seperates you from them both. 

Do both of them have a fleet? If so, what is the size in proportion to your fleet? What kind of offensive power do they have? Do they have carriers? Is their naval air arm experienced? How about subs? Do they have subs, if so, how many and how much of a threat are they to your lines of communication?

The reason why I ask so many questions is to try to get the nature of the threat. Building the Air Force is going to require you to deal with threats, both strategic (Naval Assets, Economic Production, ect) and tactical (are the threatening nations so close that Fighter Sweeps across your country are almost a certainty).

It might help to use countries that now exist (say The British Isles), define them in terms of who is in in that area (Scotland, N. Ireland and Britain in, Ireland out). Also, it might help to do the same thing with your threats. Say it is 1938 and your threats are France and Spain. Or Germany and France. Norway and France. 

Just to give you some options on simplifying it.


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 6, 2008)

No problem at all Mr T....

As for distance between the countries.... Well, 

1: 1500 miles, larger and the smaller 1350 miles, also they are continental powers and neighbours as well, which more or less have had their eyes on our colonies beacuse of the minerals and rubber etc.

2: Bombers, recent rumours say that the larger nation is developing four engined heavies, while the other slightly smaller nation due to lack of funds, for now, are upgrading their medium bombers...range and altitude. Fighters and dive bombers constantly improved...

3: Both have a relatively strong fleets with battleships, destroyers, cruisers, carriers and subs....the three having always followed each other in development *you build a cruiser, I build two*. As for experience of the fleets....no wartime experience as of lately. The larger has just finished developing a new torpedo bomber.

4: Subs.... They both have something similar to the Type VII class.... The larger have 90 and the smaller 65.

Keep ask more questions if needed....


----------



## Njaco (Feb 6, 2008)

I would have destroyers, destroyer escorts, cruisers, carriers, and submarines.  

Lucky, what is the fuel situation? It sounds like Norway sortof. Between Germany and Russia.


----------



## Thorlifter (Feb 6, 2008)

Ok, I'll take first crack at this and we can tweek it. I would have two fleets (consider it a Pacific and Atlantic fleet). I picked just from the U.S. arsenal of what was operational in 1940. If we can mix and match, my battleships would be Bismarck class.

Fleet 1 (on the side of the smaller threat)
2 Carriers (1 Yorktown class and 1 Ranger class)
(F4F Wildcats, Dauntless, Devastators)
4 Escort Carriers
3 Battleships (Pennsylvania class)
5 Heavy Cruisers
14 Light Cruisers
38 Destroyers
55 Destroyer Escorts
52 Subs
Plus support ships

Fleet 2 (on the side of the larger threat)
3 Carriers (2 Yorktown class and 1 Ranger class)
(F4F Wildcats, Dauntless, Devastators)
5 Escort Carriers
4 Battleships
4 Heavy Cruisers
15 Light Cruisers
50 Destroyers
72 Destroyer Escorts
75 Subs
Plus support ships

Airforce
274 P-40 Warhawks
80 Buffalos
120 B-17's
30 PBY Catalina's


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 6, 2008)

How about the heavy cruisers being something like the New Orleans class, and the light of Brooklyn class? 
The destroyers maybe of the Japanese Asashio Class and the older of Fubuki Class...
I have no idea of destroyers escorts in excistense in 1940....


----------



## timshatz (Feb 6, 2008)

Not bad Thor, not bad at all. 

Couple of ideas on Thor's call. 

-Probably lite on Cruisers, both light and heavy. All those colonies so far away leave the merchant fleet exposed to raiders. Brits covered that by making a ton of cruisers. Would probably be a good idea to do the same with our fictional country. 

-Think you have a good line on the DE and DDs. Both as escorts and hunter killers. Good to have more than less. Figure 33% are at sea at any given time, doing their jobs. Rest are up for refit, in port, coming or going, ect. 

-Carriers might be a tad lite. Might be another one on both sides. Even a light carrier would boost the numbers. Both Carrier and Battleship numbers would be in reference to the opposition's numbers. Like to have at least 1.5X the number of the opposition combined.

-Think the Airforce is light on everything. Think of the RAF or Luftwaffe in 1940. Our total is around 500 aircraft. Need about 3x to start. Not sure it would be good to just mulitiply by 3 to get the total but it would suffice. Also, no cargo or liason aircraft. Would want about 200-300 cargo birds, C47. As for liason, something like a Lysander or even the Grasshopper would do. 

But on the whole, it looks ok for a start. Just Cruisers and a larger airforce and we can start the ball rolling.

Then again, have to see what the opposition has. Make it interesting.


----------



## Thorlifter (Feb 6, 2008)

Your right Lucky. Upon a little investigation, destroyer escorts didn't exist yet. Good ideas Tim. While it would be great to say 25 Aircraft carriers and 37 battleships, I considered how many battleships the US and Germany had in 1940 and went with that and tried to be resonable. So, hows this........

Fleet 1 (on the side of the smaller threat)
3 Carriers (1 Yorktown class and 2 Ranger class)
(F4F Wildcats, Dauntless, Devastators)
7 Escort Carriers
3 Battleships (Pennsylvania or Bismarck class)
7 Heavy Cruisers
19 Light Cruisers
48 Destroyers
62 Subs
Plus support ships

Fleet 2 (on the side of the larger threat)
4 Carriers (2 Yorktown class and 2 Ranger class)
(F4F Wildcats, Dauntless, Devastators)
5 Escort Carriers
4 Battleships (Pennsylvania or Bismarck class)
7 Heavy Cruisers
18 Light Cruisers
60 Destroyers
85 Subs
Plus support ships

Airforce
400 P-40 Warhawks
150 Buffalos
300 B-17's
60 PBY Catalina's
200 DC-3
100 Stearmans

Again, it would help to know what we are going up against. Lucky, how about a little intel about what the "enemy" has. And can we mix and match or stay with one nations equipment? If we can, then I'm throwing the Buffalos in the trash and getting me some 109's or Hurricanes.


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 6, 2008)

Well, I'll see what "our spies" has to show....

The new four engined bombers are already confirmed....


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 6, 2008)

Just got this from my courier....three new battleships on ships sea trials....


----------



## joy17782 (Feb 6, 2008)

Thor i dont think there was escort carriers in 1940, there was the light carriers the japaneese had, and the heavy cruiser class, could,nt you support this class with the duetchland class pocket battle ships, .And also wouldnt also be better too use britsh carrier,s because of there steel decks? and also minesweepers the french used were also sub chaser,s will look up in my book when i get home at 4 alsso AS I LOOK AT THE PICS THE SPY SENT the first pick is a french battle ship , how you can tell the class is that there is no distinctive funnel this class had the funnel and rear control tower built togeather, , second one is a bismark class battleship or duetchland class pocket battle ship , look at the seaplane spotter and the crane the second i think is the early 30 s french battle ship, also it might be a italian pola battle ship class . when you look at these dont look at the gun size , look at the fire control and engine , ie fuel oil consupstion also not many ships had the radar systems will get back with the class of ships


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 6, 2008)

Their latest aircraft carrier...


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 6, 2008)

The British carried less aircraft than US ones 60 compared to 90 was it?


----------



## Thorlifter (Feb 6, 2008)

Joy, I agree that different countries had some better equipment than the US did in 1940. That's why I asked if we get to mix and match. I started with US equipment, but if we can, then I'd like to get the German pocket battleships, the japanese destroyers, England's or German fighters, Germany's medium bombers, etc.

I already removed the escort destroyers.

Please more comments so we can turn back the bad guys.


----------



## joy17782 (Feb 6, 2008)

yes but the british were more capableof substaneing battle battle damage OK GOT THE SHIPS IN THE PIC first one is the richelive , french, third is the littorio,itailian second a early french battle ship , looks like its german but it is not there is no rear bottom turent the ship was built in early 1930 the carrier is japanese i think light carrier class .


----------



## joy17782 (Feb 6, 2008)

well since the emeny is now useing different ships we can too right , i also think we should look at dutch subs too !!!!!!!!!! they had better subs then the germans . hydrogen subs and also they already had snorkels on there subs the snorkel let them stay under water < also need too ask the spy about shore insulations , ie for attack let me do some resherch for a huor or two and get back with you , the ships we need should be good in attach and defense , , i think the colonies he is refering too is the dutch east indies, they discovered oil there in late 30s


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 6, 2008)

Two of the heavy bomber prototypes during trials....


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 6, 2008)

The three battleships are from top Richelieu, Roma and Vittori Veneto....


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Feb 6, 2008)

Planes are top: Piaggio P.108

bottom: Petlyakov Pe-8


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 6, 2008)

These are "enemy" aircraft" though....took some lesser known ones, so they wouldn't be so easily recognised....I thought...


----------



## joy17782 (Feb 6, 2008)

Well the french and itailian ships do look very much alike , both of there med fleets were almost copies of each other hey i got 2 right just from looking at them and thinking , now im home and got my books ,,,,, OK i know what sub we should use it a dutch version that was built in 37 its the o class it has a snorkel no other subs had these in operational use untill the germans did in 43, a snorkel let it deseils run while underwater too charge the batts and vent air also it has a range of 10,000 n,miles at 8.9 knots 6 tubes and dept 175 meters crush dept unknown , speed 19.5 knots underwater on batts 12,3 knots at 5 hours 6 tubes carries 20 torps , these were beter subs then anyone had at the time in 1940 also sonar was atlas werks , the best in the world at the time , remember when we build this fllet dont look at the men or the countries just go on the ships strengths and dont forget alot of the little guys had good stuff


----------



## timshatz (Feb 6, 2008)

There were Escort Carriers in 1940. Just barely but they'd finished building them. Here is a link to the HMS Archer. 

HMS Archer, British escort carrier, WW2

As for the DEs, could we consider the Sloop a DE? I was working on that assumption. It works if we change the name. Here is a link to Wiki on the Sloop:

Black Swan class sloop - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for the Carrier question, Brits had lower compliments than US carriers because the Armor deck was the flight deck. That meant a lower ceiling in the Hanger Deck or the ship had problem with stability. For the US, the Hanger Deck was the Armor deck. What it mean was the US ships had a larger compliment of aircraft. For our purposes, 60 vs 90 is fine. No need to get into the nitty gritty. 

As for what the other guys have in terms of ships (not having any specs on them and just going on the eyeball), I would say, "Oy-vey". It is obvious they are more recent designs than the Pennsylvannias. Probably have the edge in speed. No ideas on the armor or guns. 

Carrier and planes are unknown. 

It shows our opposition is building. We are in an arms race. Do they have the capacity to build fleets of two different types of 4 engined bombers, and a fleet as well. We know the size of our fleet and how much it would take, where will there be gaps in the opposition's equipment. Maybe the opposition's carrier planes? 

Dunno. The more we know, the more questions we ask.


----------



## joy17782 (Feb 6, 2008)

, but i was i-balling the pics no radar , we should go with jap class destroyers and american class , japs we can use long lanz torps good ones , american because of the fire power , 5 inch dual purpose , i say the large americain fleet destroyers for fleet defense , jap class for there offense punch of the torps, also would like too add that as far as batts go there ok but wouldnt heavy crussiers and aircraft carriers be the way too go but have a bunch of them, and a heavy cruiser is better then a light one lol why take up ship yard space with the light ones just use the german schanhorst class .but then agian these german ships were not ment too punch it out with other cruisers, they were raiders really


----------



## DBII (Feb 6, 2008)

Great thread. Are some of the B-17 for long range patrol or they for multi purpose? Is there any intel on the other countries OOB?

DBII


----------



## Thorlifter (Feb 6, 2008)

I'm sure they will be used for whatever roll they need to be used for, but remember, we also have PBY Catalina's


----------



## magnocain (Feb 6, 2008)

Isn't this fictional? My questions are:

Do you have to use things operational by 1940?
Do you have to use actual units?
Can they be any nationality?
How big is this country? The size of England? Ireland? Hawaii? Australia?
Is it a rich nation or a poor nation?
Is it not in our universe, only with our technology?
Can you name the classes of ships as long as you specify their abilities?

Just to clarify a bit.


----------



## joy17782 (Feb 6, 2008)

Well i think the class and nat of the ship would be ok and i think we are mixeing the enemy is look at pics 2 page 1 french ship 2 itailian, and also the bombers plus the aircraft carrier is a KAGA class displacement 42,000 tons speed 28 knots crew 2016 90 aircraft , and since its 1940 we have use only operational classes of ship , but i think if there on sea trails thats cool too , . im still working on mine will have my navy posted tonight or tommrow PS thor look over what ill post and see if we might want too add some of my list on too yours .


----------



## Freebird (Feb 6, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> 1: This our country is an island nation.
> 
> 2: We are a maritime nation.
> 
> ...



*Ok, you have just described the UK here!* Island nation, Maritime power, rich colonies on the other side of the world, two major opponents nearby, one larger one smaller {Germany, Italy}, they envy our colonies, both are Naval threats with subs bombers. 



timshatz said:


> There were Escort Carriers in 1940. Just barely but they'd finished building them. Here is a link to the HMS Archer.
> 
> HMS Archer, British escort carrier, WW2
> 
> ...



Excellent Naval post Tim, {as usual!  } 

You are right about the Sloops, they would be called DE's in the US.

As for "escort carriers", there is not much difference from early war "CVL's" {Hosho, Argus, Eagle, Hermes}, 20 - 25 aircraft 20 - 25 Knots, and the later "CVE's", 18 - 20 aircraft 18 knots.

I think its a bit difficult to judge a hypothetical nation, but if we take the UK as an example, and their situation in 1939 - 1940, and see if they had good Naval planning. I have to say from the start that the more I read about the Royal Navy the more respect I have for Adm. Pound the Admiralty, I think they did very well in both planning execution, I can't find any major faults with their pre-war plans. 

First lets look at the opposing fleets and see how they shape up. The Admiralty was very well prepared in planning for a future conflict, which they assumed would be with Germany, italy Japan. (real genius to predict that!  )

The Naval plan was that they would have to face the entire German Navy, and 50% of the Japanese navy. {The Italian navy in the Med would be dealt by the French, while the other half of the Japanese fleet would be facing the USA.} The British correctly predicted that war with Japan would only occur if the US was involved as well, as Japan would not risk attacking Malaya Singapore with the US fleet in Manila at their rear.

Looking forward to mid 1941, the Admiralty tried to maintain a 200% advantage against their opponents.

lets compare how they predicted the fleets to size up in summer 1941

------------------ *British* - - German - Japanese - (half Japnese)
BB (Modern)* - - - - *2+5* - - - - 2 - - - - 3 - - - - - - -1.5
BB - - - - - - - - - - *10* - - - - - - - - - - 4 - - - - - - - 2
BC- - - - - - - - - - - *3* - - - - - 2 - - - - 4 - - - - - - - 2
CA (or Pocket) - *19 + (10**)* - 3+(3) - - 18 - - - - - - -9
CL - - - - - - - - - - *65* - - - - - 6 - - - - 20 - - - - - - 10
DD- - - - - - - - - - *200*- - - - - 20 - - - 84 - - - - - - 42
CV (armoured) - - *4 + (4)* - - - - 2 - - - - 5 - - - - - - 2.5 
CVL- - - - - - - - - - *3* - - - - - - - - - - - 3 - - - - - - 1.5

notes: 
* includes 2 x mid 1920's "Nelson" class, they were slower, but powerful well armoured, designed to go broadside to broadside with the German BB's.
The last two K.G.V.'s {Anson, Howe} were planned for mid '41 completion, but due to war priorities (DD's DE's) they were completed mid '42

** British 9,500 ton "Town" class included with CA's

Capital ships there are 20 British vs. 9.5 Axis {counting only 50% of Japan's}

CV's there are 8 British vs. 4.5 Axis

Some problems that the British encountered when war actually began were:

1.) The surrender of France left the British facing the Italians alone in the Med 
2.) The loss of 8 US BB's at Pearl left the Allies in some difficulty facing the Japanese 
3.) The early loss of 2 of 3 large CV's (Glorious, Courageous) was a huge setback, luckily the German failure to complete the "Zeppelin" class CV's compensated for this somewhat. 
4.)The Royal Navy was almost the *ONLY* nation that observed the "Naval Treaty Limits", the Italians Japanese built CA's (for example) that were up to 50% over the limits, leaving the British CA's at a disadvantage


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 7, 2008)

I was wondering if this would be a single island nation or one of two or three islands....opinions?


----------



## joy17782 (Feb 7, 2008)

one very large one lucky was i right about the aircraft carrier what is she ?


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 7, 2008)

That's Junyo. I know that she's after 1940 (1942?), but in this case I only for her lines....as with any other female....


----------



## joy17782 (Feb 7, 2008)

hey your cheating i wasnt even thinking of after 1940 she is a pertty one owe , well ive been researching tonight just got done , lucky i say we say no too airforces just do navy first with the carrieer arm plus costal command 1940 only . if it was on order by 1940 you cant use it , only commisioned ships, sea trial ships are commisioned ships . were let you use junyo. we can do air later then maybe ground after that


----------



## joy17782 (Feb 7, 2008)

ok there were no escort carriers in 1940 , the one mention was not commision untill 1941, you can see this on the britsh navy web site on commision ships 1939 too 1945,


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 7, 2008)

Made a swap now....the new lassie was out and about in 1937 already...


----------



## Freebird (Feb 7, 2008)

joy17782 said:


> *ok there were no escort carriers in 1940* , the one mention was not commision untill 1941, you can see this on the britsh navy web site on commision ships 1939 too 1945,



Uh, *yes there were escort carriers in 1940*, the "HMS Argus" was a converted merchant ship, completed in *1918*. Compare the performance of "HMS Argus" with "HMS Attacker" {Bouge class}, not much difference. "Argus": 20 aircraft, 20 knots, 566' flight deck - "Bouge's": 20 aircraft, 18.5 knots, 495' flight deck.

During the war "Argus" served mostly as a convoy escort aircraft transport, only for a short time as combat carrier {due to shortage of fleet carriers}

World Aircraft Carriers List: RN Developmental Experimental Carriers


----------



## joy17782 (Feb 7, 2008)

ok lucky, freebird the argus was not a escort carrier it was a fully commison ship in 1918 it was britian first carriers , we were talking about jeep carrier, you know the ww2 verson, but in no way can the argus compare too the jeep carriers of ww2, were trying too make this simple, and plus it was really a experimental type , so for the thread game were saying nope ok , but come on can you really think it was a escort carrier ???? and if that was the case we could use the us langly too but would you want these types of ships in your 1940 fleet ?


----------



## Freebird (Feb 7, 2008)

Thorlifter said:


> Ok, I'll take first crack at this and we can tweek it. I would have two fleets (consider it a Pacific and Atlantic fleet). I picked just from the U.S. arsenal of what was operational in 1940. If we can mix and match, my battleships would be Bismarck class.
> 
> Fleet 1 (on the side of the smaller threat)
> 2 Carriers (1 Yorktown class and 1 Ranger class)
> ...



Pennsylvania Class?? They could only do 21 knots - slowwww.....

Also I would probably take a mix of carriers, a couple of the armoured British "Illustrious" class would be better if they would be operating within range of shore-based enemy aircraft, while the larger "Yorktowns" would be good for open ocean (Pacific) operations. For Escort carriers "Argus" would be the type, as USS "Langley" had been converted to a seaplane carrier before the war.

The choices for BB would be Littorio, Nagato, King George V, Nelson or maybe Richeliu, although she was not quite finishe when she was forced to flee following the defeat of France. Here is a very interesting comparison of the Battleships, although remember that Yamato, Iowa's S. Dakota's were not available in 1940 

Battleship Comparison


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 7, 2008)

Ok, how are we gonna do this...? Are we gonna allow ships that were, laid down, launched or completed in 1940, or are we just allowing ships that were completed had their sea trials and is combat ready or what you wanna call it?


----------



## timshatz (Feb 7, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> I was wondering if this would be a single island nation or one of two or three islands....opinions?



Question could be simply put, is your island nation like Britian or Japan? Both were major naval powers. I am not sure, from the standpoint of Naval or Air Power that it would make much difference (although it would make a difference from the point of domestic economic travel and potential invasions from outside powers).

On another note, I was kicking around the ship totals and looks of the opponents battlefleets (your spies hard at it) and I something came to mind that would be a BIG problem.

The notes stated our Battleships are of the Pa class. Top speed on them is 21 Knots (or as Freebird pointed out S-L-O-W). The pics of the Battleships show all looked more modern that the Pa class. As a consequence, they could pick when and where they wanted to fight our BBs or, even worse, decide not to fight them at all. 

This creates a big problem for us. 

If they decide when and how they want to fight, we have a situation similar to Tsushima. Get ahead of our ships and cross the "T" (with a little luck and decent scouting). 

If they decide not to fight and run away from our fleet, we have BBs loose on our lines of communications, that could shoot to pieces anything we send after it. In short, what it can't outrun, it can outshoot. Big problems for the maritime nation if one of these monsters gets loose in our sea lanes. Convoys would have to scatter, leaving them vunerable to subs and long range bombers (those 4 engine jobbies we've seen pics of).

Germans did this several times during WW2 with their pocket battleships. Besides the Graf Spee (who got conned into self destruction) they tended to be successful at it. Not until the Scharnhorst ran into a Fast BB in the Far North Atlantic did the tactic really see an end.


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 7, 2008)

Richelieu reached 32kts in service, Roma and Vittorio Veneto was 28-29 kts ships...which means so far only our "Yorktown" and "Ranger" class carriers could keep up with them with 32.5 kts and 29 kts...


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 7, 2008)

Three island nation....but they're close to each other, much like Japan and New Zealand (2)...


----------



## timshatz (Feb 7, 2008)

Three island is fine. Point is minor unless the other side figures out that interisland traffic can be severly restricted, much like B29 Campaign did to the Japanese home islands in 1945. The mining campaign essentially shut down the last of Japanese shipping and froze the economy. If the opposition can get their 4 engined bombers into that act (somewhat similar to what the Lufwaffe tried around England in late 1940 with Magnetic Mines), we are in big trouble. 

But back to the BB discrepency. We have a problem here. The disparity in speed between their BBs and our BBs leave us with only one viable weapon to counter their BBs, Carriers. We might be in a situation similar to the US around May of 1942. Carriers being the only effective weapon and the BBs (of which there were actually 6 available at the time of Midway), being sent back to the West Coast as they could not keep up with the Carriers and were more of a hindrance than a help. 

They have Carriers and BBs in a fight, we have only Carriers. 

Our lines of communication with our colonies will be in serious jepardy. The opposition only has to attack the colony with the strategic resources to force our Carrier fleet out to face that invasion. Unless we have superior intelligence, we are at the mercy of the enemies attacks. 

Better go attack him first.


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 7, 2008)

Since it's our colonies, should they also have a strong naval presence, with cruisers and destroyers etc.?


----------



## Freebird (Feb 7, 2008)

timshatz said:


> Question could be simply put, is your island nation like Britian or Japan? Both were major naval powers. I am not sure, from the standpoint of Naval or Air Power that it would make much difference (although it would make a difference from the point of domestic economic travel and potential invasions from outside powers).
> 
> On another note, I was kicking around the ship totals and looks of the opponents battlefleets (your spies hard at it) and I something came to mind that would be a BIG problem.
> 
> ...



Tim I don't see where it says you have to use PA class, thats just what Thorlifter picked for his BB's because he assumed that the ships have to be all of one nation. 

Your points on slow BB's are good, although again it depends on the missions used, is it an offensive strategy {like Japan} or a defensive one {like UK}.
The UK could do much more with slower BB's because they were on the defensive. For example, if you are running convoys {eg. North Atlantic} you could have an older BB {"Royal Oak" class or "Paris" or "Colorado"} capable of 21 - 24 knts with a few cruisers as escort. The BB a couple of CL's could hold their own against 2 ships of "Sharnhorst" "Hipper" or "Graf Spee" class, meanwhile as soon as your scouts report that the enemy BC's or CA's have sortied you dispatch 2 fast BC's {Renown or Hood class, 32 knot speed} with perhaps 2 CA's (County or Northampton class) to chase them down and sink them. *THIS* is what the Battlecruiser was supposed to be used for, to chase down enemy raiders, it was never designed to fight BB's, it was supposed to outrun anything it couldn't outgun.

OK, who is running this scenario? Lucky posted it, so somebody needs to set up the parameters. 

Tim to have any idea of what the fleet could be there needs to be a list or total of existing ships. Every nation {except Germany} entered the war with a buch of older BB's CA's CL's etc. You can't say pick *ANY* BB's for your complete total, otherwise people would just pick all Bismark's or something. There should be 4 - 6 new BB's, + 6 - 10 old WWI or 1920's BB's {Royal Oak, Colorado, Yamashiro etc}

What would be your total tonnage of each class allowed? What would be the enemy force? Are you bound by treaty limits?


----------



## timshatz (Feb 7, 2008)

Freebird, check the first page of the post and you'll see we covered the substance of the fleet at that point. That is where the PAs come in. No BCs were on the list. Nice addition though.

See you point and agree a defensive posture would work with a slower BB. Convoy escort is a good example. 

Have to see what other oddities Lucky comes up with to confuse us. So far, he's done a pretty good job.


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 7, 2008)

How about this, neither of "our" countries took part in WWI, so I don't think that we have to respect the treaty limits.... Although, things beyond our control make it so we cant build ships larger than 45.000 ton...fully loaded.

We don't know though, if our neighbours have the same problem....


----------



## Freebird (Feb 7, 2008)

joy17782 said:


> ok lucky, freebird the argus was not a escort carrier it was a fully commison ship in 1918 it was britian first carriers , we were talking about jeep carrier, you know the ww2 verson, but in no way can the argus compare too the jeep carriers of ww2,



??? Why not, because it was an escort carrier, not a fleet carrier or a CVL



> were trying too make this simple, and plus it was really a experimental type , so for the thread game were saying nope ok ,* but come on can you really think it was a escort carrier ???? *and if that was the case we could use the us langly too but would you want these types of ships in your 1940 fleet ?



Langley was no longer a carrier in 1940, Joy, so it is available as a seaplane carrier, not a CVE.

The terms as I read them are that you can have any ship of a type that was in commision in 1940.

Sure I would want these ships in the 1940 fleet, as they only take 25 - 30% of the time labour to make compared to a fleet CV.

*Joy, compare the facts*. An escort carrier makes about 18 - 20 knots, 15 - 20 aircraft, converted from a merchant hull, and used primarily for convoy escort or aircraft transport. This exactly describes the Argus, when the British decided in 1940 to build more CVE's (HMS Audacity, HMS Activity) they built them roughly the same way as the Argus. The HMS Activity was in service in mid 1941. 

A CVL on the other hand is built from the keel up, not converted from a merchant hull. A CVL {Ryujo, Hermes, Independance} is faster (25 - 30 knots) and has 20 - 40 aircraft. It also takes more than twice as long to build than a CVE conversion



Lucky13 said:


> How about this, neither of "our" countries took part in WWI, so I don't think that we have to respect the treaty limits.... Although, things beyond our control make it so we cant build ships larger than 45.000 ton...fully loaded.
> 
> We don't know though, if our neighbours have the same problem....



*Lucky ALL countries were part of the treaty process *{Italy, France Japan, USA, UK} whether they were in WWI or not. Germany was also treaty bound, and could not build BB's



timshatz said:


> Freebird, check the first page of the post and you'll see we covered the substance of the fleet at that point. That is where the PAs come in. No BCs were on the list. Nice addition though.
> 
> See you point and agree a defensive posture would work with a slower BB. Convoy escort is a good example.
> 
> Have to see what other oddities Lucky comes up with to confuse us. So far, he's done a pretty good job.



*Tim I read the entire thread, I don't see where you have to take Pennsy class BB's.* I think Lucky is setting the parameters correct?

*I still have not seen the answer, can you mix match ships* from all nations? If you have only one country's ships then the choice is easy, you would have to pick the Royal Navy.

Germany Italy have no Aircraft carriers.

USA has only fleet carriers, no CVL's or CVE's. The US Battleships were 21 knots max (until the N. Carolina's in 1941). They had no Battlecruisers. 

Japan would be a second choice after RN, except that they didn't have Sonar or Radar in 1940, and were almost totally unprepared for ASW. The Kongo class BC's were not bad, but they didn't have any fast modern battleships that could match the K.G.V's

Also for toughest battleship in a firefight, the Nelson or Rodney would be the best. It had 9 x 16" guns vs. 8 x 15" for Bismark or 8 x 16" for Nagato. The armour was superior, with 2" or 3" better on hull, turrets deck.
The deck armour on Nelson was 4.5 - 6.75, while Bismark's was 3 - 4.7, and Nagato was 3 - 5. 

Tim we really need to know what are the starting positions with regard to WWI leftovers, especially Battleships.


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 7, 2008)

We can pick and mix Bird... Thanks for telling me about the treaty, I didn't know that even if you weren't involved in WWI you were still bound by it...

We have 8 BB's, 25 light and 15 heavy cruisers left of WWI heritage...


----------



## timshatz (Feb 7, 2008)

Freebird, Thor took a shot at the early parameters and I was going by them as my standard. Here they are:

Fleet 1 (on the side of the smaller threat)
3 Carriers (1 Yorktown class and 2 Ranger class)
(F4F Wildcats, Dauntless, Devastators)
7 Escort Carriers
3 Battleships (Pennsylvania or Bismarck class)
7 Heavy Cruisers
19 Light Cruisers
48 Destroyers
62 Subs
Plus support ships

Fleet 2 (on the side of the larger threat)
4 Carriers (2 Yorktown class and 2 Ranger class)
(F4F Wildcats, Dauntless, Devastators)
5 Escort Carriers
4 Battleships (Pennsylvania or Bismarck class)
7 Heavy Cruisers
18 Light Cruisers
60 Destroyers
85 Subs
Plus support ships

Airforce
400 P-40 Warhawks
150 Buffalos
300 B-17's
60 PBY Catalina's
200 DC-3
100 Stearmans

As Lucky didn't shoot them down (and it's his thread), I was still going with them. Hence the Pa class BB. However, if we're going to tank Thors initial standards, then we'll probably have to take it from the top and Lucky is going to have to give us a list of ships, places, ect.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 7, 2008)

Ahhhh....I missed the Bismark Class being thrown in there. Big spread between the two classes in many different ways. 

Hmmmm....


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 7, 2008)

timshatz said:


> Freebird, Thor took a shot at the early parameters and I was going by them as my standard. Here they are:
> 
> Fleet 1 (on the side of the smaller threat)
> 3 Carriers (1 Yorktown class and 2 Ranger class)
> ...


What exactly are you thinking Timshatz? I'm getting ready for nightshift, but since it's weekend and I have nothing planned we can work out a few more things....


----------



## Thorlifter (Feb 7, 2008)

I have an idea guys. Since my "let's gt it started and see what sticks" posts seems to have confused people, lets start from scratch. Since we now know we can mix and match, it sure opens the possibilities.

Tim and Freebird. Since you two have the strongest opinions here, why don't you post something to start with?

Also, just a question.......if we are picking Battleships, would the Yamato be an option? yes I know it only went 27 knots and the carriers would have to wait on it, but the firepower it would bring in a battle group would be tremendous. It was launched in 1940 so it's an option.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 7, 2008)

Ok, it's a thread that has promise so let's give it a whirl. 

For starters, let set up the time and geography. Time is 1940, March. No particlular reason I picked March, just came to mind. Anybody have any strong opinions about another month, have at it. 

Three powers. One is Maritime, the other two are continental. The Maritime power is one large island with colonies that supply raw materials. It's economic power is roughly 40% greater than one of the the continental powers and about 10% less than the other. For simplicty, we'll make England our Maritime power and Spain and Germany the two Continental powers. Lends itself to the time frame as well. France is neutral, as is the rest of Europe to varying degress. But France is decidedly not friendly to Germany, indifferent to Spain and cordial to England. 

US is friendly to England. USSR is cordial but not overly friendly to England. Italy is not friendly to England. Nordic Countries are strictly neutral. 

All England's possessions are in play as they were in 1940. Same geography, same trade routes. 

All airplanes in the world at that point are available with the exception of the the Japanese Empire. Japan, as a power, does not exist. It has the same power as China so it is not a regional power. Strictly local. Aircraft are second rate from the US/England/France. Just did it it for simplicity. Same with the Japanese Navy. No oriental equipment is used in the setup (and they had some very good stuff). Again, nothing personal, just for simplicity.

Ships, the same. England can purchase or "lend lease" ships from the US. Spain can do the same with Italy. USSR sells to both sides. Same goes with other equiepment. 

As for the fleet sizing, I would say 8-8-5 for BBs. Cruisers, Ger- 12, GB- 33, Esp- 9. DDs Ger- 33, GB- 57, Esp-21. Subs, Ger- 48, GB 39, ESP 30. Carriers, Ger 2, GB 5, Esp 1. 

Ok, it's a start. Somebody want to flesh out parts of it. Have at it!


----------



## Freebird (Feb 7, 2008)

Thorlifter said:


> I have an idea guys. Since my "let's gt it started and see what sticks" posts seems to have confused people, lets start from scratch. Since we now know we can mix and match, it sure opens the possibilities.
> 
> Tim and Freebird. Since you two have the strongest opinions here, why don't you post something to start with?
> 
> Also, just a question.......if we are picking Battleships, would the Yamato be an option? yes I know it only went 27 knots and the carriers would have to wait on it, but the firepower it would bring in a battle group would be tremendous. It was launched in 1940 so it's an option.



I thought we were doing "completed date", now if you pick Mar 1940 things become *VERY* interesting, as you would miss all the modern Battleships, as Littorio was completed in May, Bismarck in Aug and King G.V. in Dec. Yamato North Carolina were not completed until 1941. Thor, remember that "launched" only means that the hull is complete, it still needed guns, turrets etc. worked on. 

Anyways if you pick Mar 1940 there is no BB faster than 23 knots, making the BC's {Renown, Scharnhorst} very valuable indeed.



timshatz said:


> Ok, it's a thread that has promise so let's give it a whirl.
> 
> For starters, let set up the time and geography. Time is 1940, March. No particlular reason I picked March, just came to mind. Anybody have any strong opinions about another month, have at it.
> 
> ...



I think we should stick to "end of 1940" just for interest sake. 
We should set the number of old BB's, and then say that there are only so many modern BB's available

Tim if the Maritime power is already outnumbered 13 - 8 in BB's and 2 - 1 in subs they are *pretty much sunk already!* Due to the fact that the maritime power has to prevent an invasion of the homeland, assist it's continental Allies secure trade routes they would need AT LEAST 150% of they enemy's strength, otherwise the empire could not expect to survive. 

Your choice of Spain instead of Italy is interesting though...

Do you think the countries are already at war? Or is this planning for a Future war? Would Spain's fleet be in the Med, the Atlantic or 50/50? What is the status of Portugal?

It would make the contingency plans for the fall of Gibraltar even sharper in focus. If the Spanish had made a move against Gibraltar, {or let Germany do it} the British would have moved to seize the Canaries, and if Portugal is invaded they would occupy the Azores Madeira as well 

And I don't think you can consider # of cruisers, but *total tonnage*. Thats why the British CA's seem weaker than the Japanese, because they built a larger # of cruisers of about 10,000 or 11,000 tons, the Japanese had CA's of 13,000 or 14,000 tons.


----------



## Glider (Feb 7, 2008)

To be honest the British Navy had a good mix at the start of the war, but I would make some changes to what was built.

Courageous, Furious and Glorious were very good smaller carriers with 36-48 aircraft, speed and a decent AA defence. The Ark Royal was an excellent carrier and I would have continued to build these rather than the Illustrious.

The old BB were ideal for escorting convoys able to take on any opposing warship.

The KGV were not the best but were no pushover for anyone. Also they had the best AA defence of any BB in 1940. Bismark and Scharnhorst would run them close.

The Heavy Cruisers were not the best but again were a good average but the Medium cruisers were very capable. The Dido were the first AA cruisers in the world and even the old WW1 cruisers had a role to play in the front line being converted to AA cruisers. Most importantly the RN had a lot of them.

Destroyers. The RN had a good number of destroyers of different sizes. Unfortunately they stuck with 4 x 4.7 LA guns for far too long. That said they had some good ones. The LM Class were very good and more of those would have been of considerable benefit. I would have stuck with building more of these.
The small Hunt class were excellent. Small, well armed, first class handling and fast enough to support any convoy and the older BB's.

Escorts - didn't have enough at the start of the war (which navy didn't) but the designs were the best in the world.


----------



## Freebird (Feb 7, 2008)

Glider said:


> To be honest the British Navy had a good mix at the start of the war, but I would make some changes to what was built.
> 
> Courageous, Furious and Glorious were very good smaller carriers with 36-48 aircraft, speed and a decent AA defence. The Ark Royal was an excellent carrier and I would have continued to build these rather than the Illustrious.
> 
> ...



Excellent posts Glider, I agree. Do you think the 5.25's would have been better on the destroyers?

About the CV's, I'm a bit torn on those. The result of actual battles is mixed too. It would be nice to have 60+ aircraft instead of 36, although it seems that they improved that in the Indomitable. Also they almost mothballed the last 2 "Implacable's", they took 5.5 years to finish, "Illustrious" was done in 3. I would think it would have been better instead of starting so many new carriers in 1942 1943 {Collossus, Majestic's, Eagle's Malta's} it would have been better to try to finish the Implacables sooner.

What do you think about "HMS Vindictive"? It was originally a CA, converted into a CVL in the 1920's, then re-converted into a training/depot ship. Would it have been more useful as a CVL or a CA? I think they might have put it back into service as a CVL?

About the BB's, I think they made the right choice, to finish up the K.G.V's, but not use up scarce shipyard resources on the "Lion" class BB's, which would be several years away in any event. Sad though because it would have been nice to see them. 


Tim, Thor, Lucky all.

Since we are musing about possibilities for Spain what are your thoughts? Use the historical model of the Royal Navy, from Dec 1940. Assume that the UK is at war with Germany, Italy, while Japan is menacing as it was. Now *IF* the Spanish had thrown in their lot with the Axis, and attacked Gibraltar. by Jan 1941 the fortress is neutralized, the guns have mostly been eliminated, the Royal Navy has left, although the defence battalions are still holding out. What would your strategy for the Navy be? Would you try to stop the Italian fleet from linking up? Suppose that Portugal wants to stay neutral, would it be worth risking their wrath by occuping Madeira Azores? Or would you abandon Iberian Morrocan waters to the Axis? If you can set up airbases base a fleet in Madeira it might compensate for the loss of Gibraltar


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 7, 2008)

Anything that was completed in 1940 up to December 31 will do, me think...


----------



## Freebird (Feb 7, 2008)

Glider said:


> To be honest the British Navy had a good mix at the start of the war, but I would make some changes to what was built.



And about ships, there are really two questions, what kind of ships would you like, and in what ratio. The kind of ships are more or less personal preference, as most navies were similar. For CA's, I have always liked the Northamptons, but the Zara's, Takao's, Hipper's County's were comparable. For BB's, the Littorio's, Bismarck's, King G.V.'s N.Carolina's were all roughly similar in power, about 28 - 30 knots, 8, 9 or 10 of 14", 15", or 16" guns. 

In all nations, it took from 3 - 5 years to build anything from CA or heavier, so you are more or less locked into what you decided to build 3 or more years ago! 

Considering the ratio's, the plan for the Royal Navy at the end of 1940 was to have a ratio of: 

CV-CVE-BB-BC-CA-CL, it was: 2- 1- 4- 1- 8- 16 

which gives 6-3-12-3-24-48

*Do you agree that this is a good ratio of ships?* Or would you change it? In WWII the British did not build any more CA's, they concentrated on CL's, DD's DE's. I also think that they made the right choice with the Battleships, but I don't think the planning for the CV's was good. They should have finished the 4 remaining Illustrious/Implacable CV's as quickly as possible, then laid down perhaps 4 more CV's or CVL's, and convert some passenger ships quickly instead of wasting years building CV's CVL's. The Royal Navy laid down *ten* Colossus class from Jan '42 - Jan '43, and *six* "Majestic's" in 1943, only ONE made it into sevice by 1944 (Colossus in Dec of '44). It would be far more helpful to have a dozen or so "aircraft transports" in 1941-1942, instead of *TWENTY* carriers still building at the end of 1944!

Unfortunately, the sinking of the Glorious Courageous left the RN with only 4 fleet carriers until the Victorious is finished in May of '41

Its also a little difficult to compare CA's CL's as the British "Town" class, the US "Brooklyn's the Japanese "Mogami's" were listed as CL's but were almost the same tonnage as CA's and so should really be included as CA's. In fact the RN had plans to convert some of the Town's to 8" guns, just as the Japanese had converted the "Mogami's"

*I think the ratio's were about the right mix, although I would increase the number of CVE's as quickly as possible*

I personally think the British should have converted some of their large fleet of passenger liners as Auxilliary carriers, instead of using them as AMC's {Auxilliary Merchant Cruisers} A merchant ship could probably be converted in about 3 to 5 months if they pushed it, these auxilliarys could have been used as escorts as aircraft transports, which would free up fleet carriers from this task. Wasp, Ranger, Victorious, Ark Royal, Furious etc were all used as transports when they were badly needed as fleet carriers, especially in the Pacific.

An "Aircraft Transport ship" would have a flight deck, catapults arrestors, but would have only basic maintainance facilities, and would not have spent time working up training a large naval air group. {since they would be transporting P-40's or Spitfire's for take-off to Malta or elsewhere} This would also have the advantage that if lost in this mission would be easier to replace than a fleet carrier {eg. Ark Royal was lost on an aircraft transport mission} They would also be better for this mission than the "Bouge" type CVE's, because the passenger ships were longer {600' - 700'} with more take-off room than the shorter 500' "Bouge's" Some of the ships that could have been used were the "Empress", "Duchess" "Castle" classes


----------



## Glider (Feb 8, 2008)

freebird said:


> Excellent posts Glider, I agree. Do you think the 5.25's would have been better on the destroyers?


No I don't. The 5.25 was way to big for a destroyer but I would have replaced the 4 x 4.7LA with 6 x 4in AA. The weight is about the same and the AA would of course have been invaluble. The twin 4in was also a good gun against destroyers so it wouldn't have lost out in a naval context. Its worth noting that some WW1 VW destroyers were rearmed before the war with 4 x 4in AA guns and the last of the Cossack class destroyers had 8 x 4in instead of 8 x 4.7LA.



> About the CV's, I'm a bit torn on those. The result of actual battles is mixed too. It would be nice to have 60+ aircraft instead of 36, although it seems that they improved that in the Indomitable. Also they almost mothballed the last 2 "Implacable's", they took 5.5 years to finish, "Illustrious" was done in 3. I would think it would have been better instead of starting so many new carriers in 1942 1943 {Collossus, Majestic's, Eagle's Malta's} it would have been better to try to finish the Implacables sooner.


At the end of the day aircraft carriers carry aircraft so I would go for the Ark Royals on that basis alone. Also it was a proven design, building 4 or 5 more of them wouldn't take nearly as long as building the Illustrious which of course was a new design.
Collossus, Eagle etc are interesting but far to late and don't fit into this 1940 timescale.



> What do you think about "HMS Vindictive"? It was originally a CA, converted into a CVL in the 1920's, then re-converted into a training/depot ship. Would it have been more useful as a CVL or a CA? I think they might have put it back into service as a CVL?


CVL definately. It would be small but fast and able to assist the larger carriers. The RN had enough cruisers and one more wouldn't have made much of a difference. CVL's are always useful.



> About the BB's, I think they made the right choice, to finish up the K.G.V's, but not use up scarce shipyard resources on the "Lion" class BB's, which would be several years away in any event. Sad though because it would have been nice to see them.


Have to agree with you but again the 1940 slot would rule the Lion out anyway.

One general point the RN with the German Navy were well ahead in the Radar game in 1940. This would count for a lot.

Re the Split I would go for 

1 Aircraft carrier - 1 Modern BB - 2 Heavy Cruiser - 3 Medium Cruiser - 2 Light cruiser - 6 fleet destroyers - 6 escort destroyers - 6 escorts


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 8, 2008)

Would we really swap Yorktown class for the Ark Royal? 90+ vs 60 aircraft? They were also slightly slower 31 vs 32, not much, but in the long run...
And what about the double-hangar design, resulting in a very high hull? Generally a good design I have agree with, well armed and protected, good for aircraft operations, etc. One flaw though, was the arrangement of boiler exhausts, which in the end, lead to her loss.

Also, with armor piercing shells and bombs, wouldn't a armored flightdeck be so much harder to repair compared to a wooden one, so that you could if there were time, land your aircraft?


----------



## Glider (Feb 8, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> One flaw though, was the arrangement of boiler exhausts, which in the end, lead to her loss.
> 
> Also, with armor piercing shells and bombs, wouldn't a armored flightdeck be so much harder to repair compared to a wooden one, so that you could if there were time, land your aircraft?



I had a decent conversation once with a Priest in Plymouth. During the war he was a Swordfish pilot on the ArK Royal when she was hit by the torpedo. He was absolutely adamant that what caused her loss was the actions of the Captain who allowed the engines to be shut down leading to a loss of power and the loss of the vessel.

Re an armoured deck vs a wooden one. It an age old argument, but in brief any bomb will penetrate a wooden deck making it a dockyard repair. Only some bombs depending on the armour will penetrate an armoured deck making a dockyard repair less likely.
Bombs that don't penetrate an armoured deck tend to bend it and this was easily repaired at sea using quick drying cement.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 8, 2008)

Freebird, I think Portugal stays neutral as does Italy. Later, we can toss more in but for now, in the basic, let's keep these guys where they are. Simplicity.

Start date is December 1940. 

Where are we with the ratio of ships? While I agree with you the odds are stacked against the Brits, I think they've got several advantages in their favor. Position is the first and it is the biggest. They're open to move on either side as they choose. And the caliber of the British ships (along with the crews) is excellent. Rate the Germans as very good and the Spanish as average. But if you want to change the ratios, toss something out covering all three sides. Nothing written in stone, we can mix and match. 

Once we get the Naval forces figured out, we can go on to the Air aspect. 

But we really need to figure out the base line before launching any campaigns (The Rock, Canaries, ect). 

So, back we go, what would be the composition of the forces (with an eye towards what they had historically)? Need to finish our baseline.


----------



## Freebird (Feb 8, 2008)

Glider said:


> No I don't. The 5.25 was way to big for a destroyer but I would have replaced the 4 x 4.7LA with 6 x 4in AA. The weight is about the same and the AA would of course have been invaluble. The twin 4in was also a good gun against destroyers so it wouldn't have lost out in a naval context. Its worth noting that some WW1 VW destroyers were rearmed before the war with 4 x 4in AA guns and the last of the Cossack class destroyers had 8 x 4in instead of 8 x 4.7LA.



You are quite right, but I think that they probably decided that during wartime it was better to build new DD's CL's instead of re-fitting. What do you think of the "new" CL's - the "Ceylon's", "Bellona's" "Swiftsure's"? All were completed in late '41, '42 or '43. Were they good designs?



> At the end of the day aircraft carriers carry aircraft so I would go for the Ark Royals on that basis alone. Also it was a proven design, building 4 or 5 more of them wouldn't take nearly as long as building the Illustrious which of course was a new design.
> Colossus, Eagle etc are interesting but far to late and don't fit into this 1940 timescale.



The point I was making with Colossus etc was that these were products of choices made in 1941 or early 1942. The problem in this kind of scenario is that ships you can't just say "I wish I had this", you must consider what you have available, and try to predict what you need 3 or 4 years later. I don't think you are right about the carriers, Ark Royal took 3 years to build {1936 - 1938} and so did Illustrious {mid '37 - mid '40} I agree that it is better to have more aircraft {  }, but I do see the advantage of the armoured carriers, while they might be put out of action for many months by bomb damage, at least they made it home with almost all of the crew. compare that to the fate of the Akagi Soryu etc.

Consider the time frame of Dec 1940, and think what you want to do. There are 5 carriers under construction. The "Victorious" "Indomitable" were completed as quickly as possible, both in sevice 1941. The "Implacable" was laid down in early '39, "Indefatiguable" at the end of '39. Also "Unicorn" started mid- '39 After that things took a wrong turn, they started work on the 10 carriers in 1942, and all but 1 didn't become operational until '45. 

I think you can consider the new 1942 "Eagle" to be more like a modern "Ark Royal", as the air group is up to 78 aircraft. 

*What I would do in 1941* is start construction of 1 or 2 fleet carriers, "Super Ark Royal's" if you will. Finish the Victorious Indomitable. Work on the "Implacable's" "Unicorn" as quickly as possible, so that they could be completed in 1942 or early '43. I would plan to convert passenger ships to auxilliary carriers as quickly as possible, instead of taking 3 years to build "Colossus" class. Only start a couple of CV/CVL's in 42, instead concentrate on finishing existing ships quickly. No reason why "Implacable" should have taken 5.5 years!



> CVL definately. It would be small but fast and able to assist the larger carriers. The RN had enough cruisers and one more wouldn't have made much of a difference. CVL's are always useful.
> 
> Have to agree with you but again the 1940 slot would rule the Lion out anyway.



Actually the Lion is already under construction, laid down mid 1939, work suspended Oct 1940, later scrapped. Vanguard was laid down late 1941, not completed until 1946. So if you wanted another BB it would be better to finish the "Lion", not start a new one. I would not have started "Vanguard", it would take too long to finish. The British probably have enough BB's at that point, they are much tougher than CV's, they really only lost 2 in wartime combat {Royal Oak Barham}, I consider "Prince of Wales" more like "suicide by stupidity". I would finish "Duke of York" "Anson" "Howe", then concentrate on the carriers. 



> One general point the RN with the German Navy were well ahead in the Radar game in 1940. This would count for a lot.
> 
> Re the Split I would go for
> 
> 1 Aircraft carrier - 1 Modern BB - 2 Heavy Cruiser - 3 Medium Cruiser - 2 Light cruiser - 6 fleet destroyers - 6 escort destroyers - 6 escorts



Are you talking new construction here? Thats not enough DD's escorts. If you are talking * total fleet* then you are way too light in cruisers destroyers, the Germans didn't need that many, but the British did with their far-flung empire. Do you consider "medium cruiser" to be like the "Fiji", "Swiftsure" or "Brooklyn's"?

Consider the total # of RN ships completed from Jan 1941 - summer 1945: CV 4, CVE 63, BB 4, CA 0, CA(med) 7, CL 7, DD 220, DE 250+

So the ratio of '41-'45 builds would be: 1 Aircraft carrier - 16 Escort carrier* - 1 Modern BB - 0 Heavy Cruiser - 2 Medium Cruiser - 2 Light cruiser - 55 fleet destroyers - 60+ escort destroyers (corvettes)- 60+ escorts (sloops, trawlers etc) *includes US construction

I think they had a good ratio of building program, except I would cancel the "Vanguard most of the "Colossus", and convert more Aux. carriers


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 8, 2008)

Glider said:


> I had a decent conversation once with a Priest in Plymouth. During the war he was a Swordfish pilot on the ArK Royal when she was hit by the torpedo. He was absolutely adamant that what caused her loss was the actions of the Captain who allowed the engines to be shut down leading to a loss of power and the loss of the vessel.
> 
> Re an armoured deck vs a wooden one. It an age old argument, but in brief any bomb will penetrate a wooden deck making it a dockyard repair. Only some bombs depending on the armour will penetrate an armoured deck making a dockyard repair less likely.
> Bombs that don't penetrate an armoured deck tend to bend it and this was easily repaired at sea using quick drying cement.


Thanks! What about the much smaller air group? Also, what was the cost for Ark Royal compared to Yorktown?


----------



## Freebird (Feb 8, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> Would we really swap Yorktown class for the Ark Royal? 90+ vs 60 aircraft? They were also slightly slower 31 vs 32, not much, but in the long run...
> And what about the double-hangar design, resulting in a very high hull? Generally a good design I have agree with, well armed and protected, good for aircraft operations, etc. One flaw though, was the arrangement of boiler exhausts, which in the end, lead to her loss.
> 
> Also, with armor piercing shells and bombs, wouldn't a armored flightdeck be so much harder to repair compared to a wooden one, so that you could if there were time, land your aircraft?



Lucky, in Naval war it's kinda like the expression "dance with the one that brung ya"  In most cases they had second thoughts or would like to change the design, but with a 3 or 4 year construction time you are basically stuck with what you laid down years ago. I agree with you that the "Yorktown" was probably the best aircraft carrier design in early 1941, considering size of air group how well she stood up to damage. Would the British offer the 23,000 ton "Furious" or the 26,000 ton "Eagle" {1924 ver.} to trade straight up for a 25,000 ton "Yorktown"? In a heartbeat!!!  

The British design for armoured flight decks I would tend to agree with, for the points mentioned earlier, survivability, and because the British anticipated fighting in the Atlantic or the Med within range of shore based A/C, while the US looked at operations far out in the Pacific away from freindly bases. I would note that the 4 British armoured CV in service before "Pearl" all survived heavy damage from multiple bombs, while the 4 Japanese carriers at Midway all sank with 2 - 4 bomb hits. Even if your carrier is unrepairable, if it makes it home with the crew intact you have a trained crew that could be put on a new ship.

Also I would note that the Victorious operated 60 Wildcats while in the Pacific in 1943. So I would say that it was British operational doctrine that was flawed, not the ships. For example on "Pedestal", I would have landed *all *of the swordfish Albacore's, and had 50 -60 fighters for fleet defence. For airstrkes on the Italian fleet (if they showed up) I would have carrier bases fighters escort longer-ranged land based Swordfish, Beauforts Hapmdens to hit the Axis fleet. 



timshatz said:


> Freebird, I think Portugal stays neutral as does Italy. Later, we can toss more in but for now, in the basic, let's keep these guys where they are. Simplicity.
> 
> Start date is December 1940.
> 
> ...



I would say that the Spanish would have a fleet about the size of the historical Italian Navy, while if we hypothesize that if Germany had not lost its WWI fleet it might have 4 or 5 "Bayern" BB's and 1 or 2 "Hindenburg" BC's

The main question is are these countries already at war? *What the situation with France is a key consideration.* About ratio's I think it is the other way around, the German/Spanish Axis have the advantage of interior lines, while the British would have to provide long escorts to colonies "around the cape" {as Gibraltar would soon fall to the Axis, shutting off the Med except through Suez.}

I will have to think on the baseline a little and put something up.


----------



## Glider (Feb 8, 2008)

freebird said:


> You are quite right, but I think that they probably decided that during wartime it was better to build new DD's CL's instead of re-fitting. What do you think of the "new" CL's - the "Ceylon's", "Bellona's" "Swiftsure's"? All were completed in late '41, '42 or '43. Were they good designs?


You are correct about the preference being to build new destroyers but most of the war built destroyers kept the 4 x 4.7 LA guns as the main weapons. Its these that I would have equipped with the 6 x 4in.

The Cruisers proved themselves many times over and were based on the Town class cruisers. I served on HMS Tiger in the early 70's and although the guns and radars had changed beyond all recognition the basic ship hull was little changed. 



> The point I was making with Colossus etc was that these were products of choices made in 1941 or early 1942. The problem in this kind of scenario is that ships you can't just say "I wish I had this", you must consider what you have available, and try to predict what you need 3 or 4 years later. I don't think you are right about the carriers, Ark Royal took 3 years to build {1936 - 1938} and so did Illustrious {mid '37 - mid '40} I agree that it is better to have more aircraft {  }, but I do see the advantage of the armoured carriers, while they might be put out of action for many months by bomb damage, at least they made it home with almost all of the crew. compare that to the fate of the Akagi Soryu etc.


I see where you are coming from. With war coming I wouldn't have bothered with a new design, the Ark Royal worked and worked well, the only changes that I would suggest would be the lifts, making them go from the lower deck to the flight deck. This though is small potatoes compared to desinging a new ship. The follow on ships could have been built from 1937 and would have been finished well before the Illustrious came on stream. By 1941 they all would have been available for action.

This would have freed up the dock space for more of the same or the Colossus class.


> Actually the Lion is already under construction, laid down mid 1939, work suspended Oct 1940, later scrapped. Vanguard was laid down late 1941, not completed until 1946. So if you wanted another BB it would be better to finish the "Lion", not start a new one. I would not have started "Vanguard", it would take too long to finish. The British probably have enough BB's at that point, they are much tougher than CV's, they really only lost 2 in wartime combat {Royal Oak Barham}, I consider "Prince of Wales" more like "suicide by stupidity". I would finish "Duke of York" "Anson" "Howe", then concentrate on the carriers.


I would have done the reverse, not started the Lion and pushed the building of the Vanguard. The problem wasn't the building of the ship, it was supplying the Guns. We didn't have the ability to build the 16in guns needed, we only had the machinery to build the 14in. This is why the Vanguard had WW1 15in Gun Turrets.



> Are you talking new construction here? Thats not enough DD's escorts. If you are talking * total fleet* then you are way too light in cruisers destroyers, the Germans didn't need that many, but the British did with their far-flung empire. Do you consider "medium cruiser" to be like the "Fiji", "Swiftsure" or "Brooklyn's"?



Sorry the Term medium cruiser is one that I am used to using in debates. It is unofficial and not a term you will hear anywhere else or in any book.
We used it to cover the 7000-10000 ton range. Lights were less than that and Heavy bigger.
The traditional if its a 6in its a light cruiser and if its got 8 in its a heavy makes little sense in the real world. It means the Brooklyn with 15 x 6in and heavy armour is the same as an Arethusa which has 6 x 6in and has very thin armour, or even an old WW1 cruiser.
Just ignore the term for this forum.


----------



## Glider (Feb 8, 2008)

These may be of interest, apologies to those who have seen them before


----------



## timshatz (Feb 8, 2008)

freebird said:


> The main question is are these countries already at war? *What the situation with France is a key consideration.* About ratio's I think it is the other way around, the German/Spanish Axis have the advantage of interior lines, while the British would have to provide long escorts to colonies "around the cape" {as Gibraltar would soon fall to the Axis, shutting off the Med except through Suez.}
> 
> I will have to think on the baseline a little and put something up.



Figure the French are neutral but it is an uneasy neutrality. Was thinking the Spanish fleet was smaller than the Italian fleet, not nearly so fast. Ships are older, more WW1 class than up to date. A few ships here and there are new but most are at least 10 years old. 

As for the German fleet, that's a good one. I guess we're going to have to give them a couple of BBs. So WW1 Bayern and Hindenburgs are a good call. Sounds like a scenario where the Great Depression forces navies of the world to downsize. Same could be said with the Brits. The best in class stick around while the older ships of WW1 vintage go to the breakers. 

Politically, Nazi Germany comes again due to a collapse of the Kaiser's Govt brought on by the Depression. Interum Democratic Govts fail and Hitler again rises to power, but in 1936 instead of earlier. Franco is in charge in Spain (after the civil war that ended late 30s), Mussolini in Italy. France is a republic but well aware of the three Facist dictatorships on her borders. She is trying to stay out of it.


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 8, 2008)

I haven't seen any minesweepers for our fictional country's navy...or have I just missed them....?


----------



## Freebird (Feb 8, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> I haven't seen any minesweepers for our fictional country's navy...or have I just missed them....?



 I'm not as knowlegable about the smaller stuff, I think the British used "trawlers" for mines, and that they could also assist in ASW

*What do you all think about the force mix ratio of the Royal navy?*

Considering the ratio's, the plan for the Royal Navy at the end of 1940 was to have a ratio of: 

*CV-CVE-BB-BC-CA-CL-DD*, it was:* 2- 1- 4- 1- 8- 16 -60 Historical* 

which gives 6-3-12-3-24-48


Consider the total # of RN ships completed from Jan 1941 - summer 1945: CV 4, CVE 63, BB 4, CA 0, CA(med) 7, CL 7, DD 220, DE 250+

*Builds: CV-CVE-BB-BC-CA-CL-DD-DE* *Ratio 1- 16- 1- 0- 2- 2- 55- 60* 

So the ratio of '41-'45 builds would be: 1 Aircraft carrier - 16 Escort carrier* - 1 Modern BB - 0 Heavy Cruiser - 2 Medium Cruiser - 2 Light cruiser - 55 fleet destroyers - 60+ escort destroyers (corvettes)- 60+ escorts (sloops, trawlers etc) *includes US construction


----------



## timshatz (Feb 8, 2008)

freebird said:


> the plan for the Royal Navy at the end of 1940 was to have a ratio of:
> 
> *CV-CVE-BB-BC-CA-CL-DD*, it was:* 2- 1- 4- 1- 8- 16 -60 Historical*
> 
> which gives 6-3-12-3-24-48



That would work for me as a starting place for the RN ships. Give Spain 40% less. What about Germany? Figured 10% more originally but you made the statement that it would make the war a non-event. I see and agree with your perspective. So we give them, what, 80%? Enought to make the Brits sit up and take notice but not enough to end the war in the first major combat. 

Also, enough so the combined total is greater than Britian's total. Forces England on the attack, makes the scenario more interesting.


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 8, 2008)

As for the subs, I think that we say that the best in service in 1940 were the German Type VII and IXA and B, right...?
Don't know much about the Royal Navy's S, T or the U class that were operational then...
What's the USN Sargo and Tambor class subs like?


----------



## Glider (Feb 8, 2008)

British submarines were average and not as good as the German or American boats. However in 1940 they did have one huge advantage, the torpedo's worked.


----------



## joy17782 (Feb 8, 2008)

the dutch had a better class of subs in 1940 then the germans it was the o class,it even had a snorkel the germans didnt untill 1942, and if you look it up it was better even the dept on these boats were better and there sonar was better too , i say we use the dutch class and american sargo and tabor classand the range on the o class was 10,000 miles @8.5 knots, sumerge was 9.3 knots on surface was 19 knots, the torps were beter then the germans and also the snorkel gives it a advantage over all 1940 boats


----------



## joy17782 (Feb 8, 2008)

all so the tabor and sargo we almost the same heres some info on them 21 knots surface,9 knot sumerge ,8 tubes, 24 torps , range was 15,000 miles at 7.5 knots crush depts were 230, also we must look at this the taybor and sargo class were crew friendly, so thet could stay on patrol longer , thats a big advantage over the german boats ,, if you have ever been in a german ww2 sub it aint good !!!!!!!!!! in went into u 551 in chacago, god hope i spelled that right , and i tell ya after a few weeks in that i would have been ready too kill myself , ive been in a sargo too in texas it was soo much better ,


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 8, 2008)

These ones....?







Displacement: 
Standard: 982 tons
Surf: 1109 tons
Submerged: 1491 tons 
Length: 264 feet 9 inches (80.70 m) 
Beam: 24 feet 4 inches (7.41 m) 
Draft: 12 feet 8 inches (3.87 m) 
Propulsion: Two 7-cylinder Sulzer diesel engines, 2-stroke two 2650 hp motors driving two shafts 
Speed: Surf: 19.5 knots (36.1 km/h)
Submerged: 9 knots (17 km/h) 
Range: Surf: 10,000 nmi (20,000 km) at 12 knots (22 km/h)
Submerged: 27 nm at 8.5 knots (15.7 km/h) 
Complement: 40 
Armament: 14 torpedoes, incl. 6 reloads, and 40 mines, 40 mm machine gun


----------



## joy17782 (Feb 8, 2008)

also the sbd wasnt as good as the vultee a-35b vengeance, it was operational in 1940 heres some info on it ,range 2300 miles, speed 279mph cruise speed 230 mph , it also had 6 50 cals in the wing , the problem is vultee couldt produce then fast , small company , the navy went too dauntless and ask them if thet would produce them also they said no so thats why the sbd was the winner, remember us was,nt in the war yet and so couldt really tell dauntless too do that, alll i was thinking we should also do mtb,s i would pick the german schnell boat or the american mtbs better then anyone elses in my eyes


----------



## joy17782 (Feb 8, 2008)

yep thats it lucky they were good boats alot better then the germans i got too run into town the girlfried want wine tonight and some coors sounds good too me so i will be back on later around 7 or so but i got my navy readt too post ok


----------



## joy17782 (Feb 8, 2008)

also we should look at french and britch mine sweepers they had some good ones the french sweepers were better


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 8, 2008)

joy17782 said:


> also the sbd wasnt as good as the vultee a-35b vengeance, it was operational in 1940 heres some info on it ,range 2300 miles, speed 279mph cruise speed 230 mph , it also had 6 50 cals in the wing , the problem is vultee couldt produce then fast , small company , the navy went too dauntless and ask them if thet would produce them also they said no so thats why the sbd was the winner, remember us was,nt in the war yet and so couldt really tell dauntless too do that, alll i was thinking we should also do mtb,s i would pick the german schnell boat or the american mtbs better then anyone elses in my eyes


Between the two, the USN Elco boats could be a good choice.....


----------



## joy17782 (Feb 8, 2008)

yeah the elco boats were good one 2 , i guess it just depends on what you want out of your forces and what your thinking ill post MY navy tommrow or monday im still going over some stuff in my books i think your like mine i want a really fast battle fleet with the ships too dish out punishment and also be able too take it also i will have a mothball fleet, you know a reserve navy proberly make it all wwi and 1920 ships


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 8, 2008)

Looking forward to it mate....


----------



## joy17782 (Feb 8, 2008)

hey lucky was looking up minesweepers and cant get much info on them but did find the canada had the bandor class , and the us navy had a wooden hall design, but cant find the class from what i read the brits and other,s use converted craft , but i know the french in 1930 built [purpose built minesweepers and they were ocean going ships , could we use converted ww1 destroyers? its your thread ! this is fun!! trying too use your mind , i like this thread !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! well im sitting here drinking a coors beer ,, and i must say americain beer is ok but compared too eropean beer it aint good ! can i use americain ww1 4 funnels as my mine sweepers ?the britsh did convert some i think 8 into minesweepers but that was in 41 if not then thats ok 
also the echo class had plywood halls i think i will go with the german e boat , the iltailains had some good ones too but there engines and defense gear dont impress me also i want too say the itailians did have 2 aircraft carriers and the germans had 1 but they never made it too sea trails but they did have them , Thats just for information , and also i think we should use commision ships only !!!!!!! sea trail ships we commision ships !!!! THE PRINCE OF WALES IN 1941 WHEN she went after the bismark still had workmen on board working on her guns after sea trails, hey if there on sea trails then you can rush them in battle , might not be a smart think too do but when your in a pinch anything will do !


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Feb 8, 2008)

It would be nice if someone could draw a map of this fictitious country, with a list of it's natural resources, economics, industries, etc. I think it would be easier then to choose what kind of ship/aircraft/army that country could build or raise according to their respective population and overall wealth. An added factor would be if the raw material would have to be imported, or ships/weapons/aircraft bought from another country.


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 9, 2008)

Good idea Arsenal...any takers?


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 9, 2008)

joy17782 said:


> hey lucky was looking up minesweepers and cant get much info on them but did find the canada had the bandor class , and the us navy had a wooden hall design, but cant find the class from what i read the brits and other,s use converted craft , but i know the french in 1930 built [purpose built minesweepers and they were ocean going ships , *could we use converted ww1 destroyers?* its your thread ! this is fun!! trying too use your mind , i like this thread !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! well im sitting here drinking a coors beer ,, and i must say americain beer is ok but compared too eropean beer it aint good ! can i use americain ww1 4 funnels as my mine sweepers ?the britsh did convert some i think 8 into minesweepers but that was in 41 if not then thats ok
> also the echo class had plywood halls i think i will go with the german e boat , the iltailains had some good ones too but there engines and defense gear dont impress me also i want too say the itailians did have 2 aircraft carriers and the germans had 1 but they never made it too sea trails but they did have them , Thats just for information , and also i think we should use commision ships only !!!!!!! sea trail ships we commision ships !!!! THE PRINCE OF WALES IN 1941 WHEN she went after the bismark still had workmen on board working on her guns after sea trails, hey if there on sea trails then you can rush them in battle , might not be a smart think too do but when your in a pinch anything will do !


I think that we can do that....if we have enough good WWI destroyers, that's in good condition, nothing say that we can't rebuild them....

As for destroyers....what do you think about the French _Le Fantasque_ class destroyers? They're still today, the worlds fastest destroyer class....sisters: _Le Malin and L'Audacieux._






Class and type: Le Fantasque class destroyer 
Named after: "Capricious one" 
Laid down: 15 November 1931 
Launched: 15 March 1934 
Commissioned: 1 May 1936 
Reclassified: March 1943 

Displacement: 2570 tonnes 
Length: 132.40 m 
Beam: 11.98 m 
Draught: 4.30 m 
Propulsion: 4 Penhoët boilers
2 Parsons or Rateau engines
74,000 to 81,000 HP
2 propellers 
Speed: 45 knots (40 nominal)
37 knots after refit 
Range: 1,200 km at 34 knots
6,600 km at 17 knots 
Complement: 10 officers
210 sailors 
Armament: 5 x 138 mm (5.4-inch) guns (2 forward, 3 aft)
4 x 37 mm AA guns (original)
4 x 13 mm AA machine guns (original)
8 x 40 mm Bofors AA guns (after refit)
10 x 20 mm Oerlikon AA guns (after refit)
9 x 550 mm torpedo tubes in three triple mounts
40 mines


----------



## timshatz (Feb 9, 2008)

Arsenal VG-33 said:


> It would be nice if someone could draw a map of this fictitious country, with a list of it's natural resources, economics, industries, etc. I think it would be easier then to choose what kind of ship/aircraft/army that country could build or raise according to their respective population and overall wealth. An added factor would be if the raw material would have to be imported, or ships/weapons/aircraft bought from another country.



That was a question we kicked around and came up with using countries that existed and their economic conditions when they existed. We came up with England Vs Germany/Spain. Year is 1940, Month is December. All colonies that England had at that time are still in her possession. 

Germany is run by Hitler, Spain by Franco, England is unknown. 

Germany has not lost all the ships from WW1 but has had to scrap a bunch due to the Great Depression. Same problem with England. German forces amount to about 80% of Britian's forces, Spain is about 60%. 

Right now, we are in the process of figure out what those fleet's look like.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 9, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> As for destroyers....what do you think about the French _Le Fantasque_ class destroyers? They're still today, the worlds fastest destroyer class....sisters: _Le Malin and L'Audacieux._



That is one fast Can. I was on a Gearing when it did a speed run from Norfolk to Phila. Avg speed was 33 (or was it 31) kts. Anyway, it was fast and guys were puking all over the place. Even had puke on the Overhead ( commonly known as the ceiling on dry land) in the Head. We were rolling so much that a guy who barfed parrallel to the floor could have it hit the Overhead. 

Never been so happy to cross the breakwater and go under local speed restrictions in my life. 

Anyway, getting back to the Destroyer. Just because she can run at 45 kts doesn't necessarily mean anybody thought it was a good idea. You can only do that in very calm seas or you'll probably wreck your ship. 

But the numbers, for numbers sake, are impressive.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 9, 2008)

Anybody know where we sit with regards to the big stuff. We have the 100/90/60 split with the British/German/Spainish fleets but what does that translate into regarding CV-BB-CA-CL-DD-DE-SS? 

What numbers, what ships, how many? 

Leave this one to Freebird or Lucky as my knowledge of exactly what was available when is somewhat limited.


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 9, 2008)

Must be SOME feeling going that fast on calm sea on a destroyer, it's one thing with those smaller boats, but a destroyer at 30-40 knots...wow!


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 9, 2008)

*NEWSFLASH!! *

*Spain is massing troops and equipment towards Gibraltar....!*


----------



## Freebird (Feb 9, 2008)

timshatz said:


> That would work for me as a starting place for the RN ships. Give Spain 40% less. What about Germany? Figured 10% more originally but you made the statement that it would make the war a non-event. I see and agree with your perspective. So we give them, what, 80%? Enought to make the Brits sit up and take notice but not enough to end the war in the first major combat.
> 
> Also, enough so the combined total is greater than Britian's total. Forces England on the attack, makes the scenario more interesting.



Tim I think you might be underestimating the # of ships needed by the Maritime power, I don't think they could survive below 150%, in Capital ships cruisers, otherwise they would probably have to sue for peace. If the British ever allowed their navy to be equalled by their enemies, they would barely be able to manage to protect the UK from invasion, and to secure convoys from Halifax Trinidad. All heavy naval units would be needed for this, meanwhile abandoning all of the colonies in the Indian Ocean, including Egypt, India, Burma, etc. The army would evacuate all of Africa Arabia conceding it to the Axis. What would be the point of fighting on? They would take Hitler's offer of an armictice allow the Nazi's rule Europe Asia and hold on to the UK colonies. If they have the entire Royal Navy in the N. Atlantic facing off against a combined Axis navy that is equal or close to it, there is nothing to prevent surface raiders or Axis cruisers from cutting off all merchant traffic going to Egypt, India the Far East. 

But don't take my word for it, see how the deployment is of the Royal Navy in Dec 1940, and tell me how you would deploy it to face a threat equal in size

Here is a link to a most excellent website, WWII cruisers. You can use the "fleet locater" in the info section to see where all the RN KM capital ships cruisers are.

Fleet Dispositions


----------



## Freebird (Feb 10, 2008)

Glider said:


> Sorry the Term medium cruiser {CM} is one that I am used to using in debates. It is unofficial and not a term you will hear anywhere else or in any book.
> We used it to cover the 7000-10000 ton range. Lights were less than that and Heavy bigger.
> The traditional if its a 6in its a light cruiser and if its got 8 in its a heavy makes little sense in the real world. It means the Brooklyn with 15 x 6in and heavy armour is the same as an Arethusa which has 6 x 6in and has very thin armour, or even an old WW1 cruiser.
> Just ignore the term for this forum.



A very excellent idea, Glider, I will agree that all cruisers between 7,000 -10,000 tons with 9 or more 6" guns will be CM {I assume that you mean design tons, not full load}



timshatz said:


> Anybody know where we sit with regards to the big stuff. We have the 100/90/60 split with the British/German/Spainish fleets but what does that translate into regarding CV-BB-CA-CL-DD-DE-SS?
> 
> What numbers, what ships, how many?
> 
> Leave this one to Freebird or Lucky as my knowledge of exactly what was available when is somewhat limited.



*OK I will propose a scenario, then see where it leads.*

I will give each side roughly the same size, and see how you would set up your fleet. 

Lets assume that the war progresses as it did until Dec 1940, at which time Spain joins Italy Germany, and attacks Gibraltar. The Vichy French under Laval declare war on Britain at this time {Upset by the attack at Mers-el-Kebir the activities of the Free French} All Vichy Naval forces go over to the British except for the force in Dakar, that joins the Free French instead {alliance with the Germans is just too much} So the Richelieu, 2 x Duqesne CA + 2 x Montcalm CM join the Allies. The Vichy navy consists of 2 "Bretagne" battleships, Paris Ocean battleships, 2 Dunkerque BattleCruisers, Bearn CV, 5 x CA, 4 x CM, 5 x CL

The last 2 Spanish Dreadnoughts sank in 1937 {1 by mine, 2nd by mag explosion} In 1940 they have 1 CA {Canarias, 10,000 tons, 8 x 8"} 5 CL {Navarra, Nunez, Alfonso etc. 4,700 - 7,400 tons, 6 or 8 x 6" guns} left.

Suppose you give them 2 old-style BB's {Bayern Class} which have been repairing or refitting until Dec 1940 {very similar to Revenge or Royal Oak, 600', 8 x 15" guns 22 knots)

The Germans have replaced the triple 11" guns on the Scharnhorst class with twin 15" turrets, making them into fast battleships. The Germans have completed Graf Zeppelin CV, Seydlitz CVL, and De Grasse CVL, while the Italians have the Aquila, and the French have Bearn, which is classed as a CVE due to the slow speed. All CVL's CVE's have about 22 aircraft, the CV's have about 40 aircraft, except for Ark Royal at Scapa has 60 aircraft. BB is for modern Battleships, Bismarck, King G.V., Littorio etc. which can make 28 - 30 knots. The "B" designates older Dreadnought Battleships that can only make 21 - 23 knots, like Andrea Doria, Provence, Barham or Resolution.

Note that on the map British are Red, French are Blue, Germans Grey, Italian/Spanish are Yellow. 

If anyone has any questions about what units are where go ahead and ask. I assume that the British Naval units in Gibraltar are in Freetown or Bathhurst in West Africa, the fortress garrison in Gibraltar is about to fall, the shore guns have been destroyed.

*What would your strategy be as the Royal Navy?*


----------



## timshatz (Feb 11, 2008)

Great job Freebird. Any problems that might be with the map (and from what I can see there is nothing we can't explain around) are minor. Good setup. 

Ok, we have the Forces, we have the economic conditions, we have the time frame. 

Let's go!

Ok, first move for the RN is to keep the Scapa Flow force where it is. As it is, it can check either the German Fleet in Kiel or the force in Norway. The intent is to bottle them up in the North Sea. 

Move two, reinforce Gibraltar. My fist instinct would be to abandon it, but I think we can hold it. Holding it would put a plug in the Med and keep the Spanish/Italian fleet in. Easier to hold Gibraltar than to have to deal with the combined fleet loose in the Atlantic. The Spanish and Italians can not throw their fleet against Gibraltar without leaving the rest of the Med (mostly Italy) undefended against an attack from Alexandria by the British Med Fleet. Worst case scenario, if Gibraltar falls, it will at least keep the Spanish and Italians busy long enough to take the next, and most important, step....


Seizure of the Canaries and Azores. While the Forces from Freetown are looking big and bad around the mouth of the Med, a force sets sail from the Canadian maritimes with the intention of taking both the Canaries and Azores. This is a must. If the Axis powers can reinforce the Canaries (or seize the Azores), it could act like Malta did during WW2 to the German forces coming from Italy to Africa. It could shut England off from her colonies. The force in the Med is already doing that (defacto) without firing a shot. But losing control of the Central Atlantic (and allowing the Axis to turn those islands into a base for Subs/Raiders/long range bombers) could cost the Brits the war. 

Portugal, who doubtless is not going to think the invasion of the Azores is a good idea, will be told at the last minute and presented with a fait acompli. Either go along as a willing hostage or take the consequences as an enemy.


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 12, 2008)

So, what are we sending down theree then....?


----------



## timshatz (Feb 12, 2008)

Send the whole force from Canada less a couple of lite cruisers to cover the back door in case a raider or two shows up. England has to take the Azores and the Canaries or this thing is over. 

Taking the Azores will push Portugal into the Axis camp. Not that it wants to, but at that point it would have no choice. Spain would probably insist on it.


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 12, 2008)

So the whole force part from let's say three light cruisers then....?


----------



## timshatz (Feb 12, 2008)

Yeah, everything that floats, BBs, CVs, CAs, everything. 

Whoever holds those islands out there in strength controls the Mid-Atlantic trade routes. England just can not afford that loss and stay in the war.


----------



## B-17engineer (Feb 12, 2008)

Are we just focusing on Air force and naval power?


----------



## Freebird (Feb 12, 2008)

timshatz said:


> Send the whole force from Canada less a couple of lite cruisers to cover the back door in case a raider or two shows up. England has to take the Azores and the Canaries or this thing is over.
> 
> Taking the Azores will push Portugal into the Axis camp. Not that it wants to, but at that point it would have no choice. Spain would probably insist on it.



I wonder about some "black ops", a parachute landing by {fake} German paratroopers performed by SAS in disguise, on the largely undefended {in 1940} Azores, followed very quickly by the British troops {convieniently available} making a naval landing to "Secure" the islands. If Hitler protested that the first wave of German speaking invaders were fake, would he really be believed? I should note that in this time period that Portugal was actively discussing with the UK to have british troops defend the Island, as they were in fact very worried about a Nazi invasion 



B-17engineer said:


> Are we just focusing on Air force and naval power?



Mainly yes, we are exploring the ramifications of Naval air power.

I should note that I consider this position to be untenable, the British cannot kepe the convoy route secure defend the colonies unless they have at least 150% of Axis strength, and an even larger margin if Gibraltar is open to the Axis.

If the UK was ever faced by this situation, they would have to sue for peace IMO, otherwise lose all of the colonies anyways.


----------



## B-17engineer (Feb 13, 2008)

Okay thanks


----------



## timshatz (Feb 13, 2008)

B17, these are the opening moves of this thing. At present, it is almost all naval power. And while Freebird is right, the main idea is to explore the limits and ramifications of Naval Power, I do not believe any Naval question could be discussed without taking into consideration the power of the Air Forces, especially 4 engined bombers. 

Freebird, my worry of a black op situation would be the time it would take. I have a feeling this thing is going to be screwed up from the start (thinking along the lines of the British invasion of Norway). I think, paraphrasing Bedford Forrest, the one that wins is going to be "The one that gets there firstest with the mostest". I would imagine the SAS/Mi6 types had checked this place out earlier when the war clouds were on the horizon. Somebody in the Admiralty had to have an eye towards the strategic ramifications of Spain coming into the war against England. Azores would be at the top of the list. 

As for the ratio, I think England can survive at present. Neither Spain nor Italy is a major threat. While they are naval powers, they are not of the same caliber as the German threat. The British have to take the Germans as their primary enemy, both in terms of combat power and ability. I see Spain and Italy as more Med threats. 

I think the opening moves by Britian will be successful, though marked by confusion and questionable competence. At that point, she transfers a couple of squadrons of Flying boats (if available) and the same with long range aircraft (if we are still using B17s at this juncture, it would be a good spot to bring them to). Also, at least two divisions of troops. Local defenses include defensive air power in the form of Fighters. In short, the Azores and Canaries are fortified.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 13, 2008)

You people really need to play on Hearts of Iron II - you'd enjoy it.


----------



## B-17engineer (Feb 14, 2008)

i didn't know if like we should protect our shores......

Like artillery for an incoming invasion......Infantry units for ground battles. I suppose the 4 engined bombers would be used to bomb the mainland of our threat. Do we have any attack planes??


----------



## timshatz (Feb 14, 2008)

B-17engineer said:


> Like artillery for an incoming invasion......Infantry units for ground battles. I suppose the 4 engined bombers would be used to bomb the mainland of our threat. Do we have any attack planes??



What are you talking about defending? England? Spain? Azores?


----------



## Freebird (Feb 14, 2008)

B-17engineer said:


> Like artillery for an incoming invasion......Infantry units for ground battles. I suppose the 4 engined bombers would be used to bomb the mainland of our threat. Do we have any attack planes??



Assume that all of the nations have roughly what they did historically, so the British don't have the Typhoon yet, but they have some Beaufighters, Marylands Bostons as attack aircraft. The British also have the some Hurri II's but I'm not sure if they have the cannon versions yet. The first British 4 engine bombers are the Stirling Halifax, there are perhaps only a half dozen squadrons in service by the end of 1940



timshatz said:


> Great job Freebird. Any problems that might be with the map (and from what I can see there is nothing we can't explain around) are minor. Good setup.



I had some trouble with the "paint" on the other computer. I'll update the map tonight with the convoy info, so you can see what defensive ship moves you might want to make.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 15, 2008)

freebird said:


> I'll update the map tonight with the convoy info, so you can see what defensive ship moves you might want to make.



Thanks Bud, I appreciate your work. Good to put this stuff on a map. 

I think the Axis counter will be marginal for now. If they have any sense (and I'm assuming they do), they will not try to retake the Azores but use it to keep the Brits occupied. Their real advantage lies elsewhere. 

I see a force leaving Italy and heading for Malta. Taking Malta is going to be the Axis focus as it will secure their sea lanes to Africa. Being land powers, the Axis wants to use their Naval power in support of their Armies. Taking Malta, in an operation similar to that which was done at Crete in 1941.


----------



## Freebird (Feb 15, 2008)

timshatz said:


> Thanks Bud, I appreciate your work. Good to put this stuff on a map.
> 
> I think the Axis counter will be marginal for now. If they have any sense (and I'm assuming they do), they will not try to retake the Azores but use it to keep the Brits occupied. Their real advantage lies elsewhere.
> 
> I see a force leaving Italy and heading for Malta. Taking Malta is going to be the Axis focus as it will secure their sea lanes to Africa. Being land powers, the Axis wants to use their Naval power in support of their Armies. Taking Malta, in an operation similar to that which was done at Crete in 1941.



I think I might have thrown a monkey wrench with including France in the mix... But there were serious British concerns about this possibility, with the later conflicts against the Vichy in Madegascar Syria. And of course Laval's attitude was quite anti-British

In any event, Malta loses much of it's importance because the Axis could ship directly from France/spain into Algeirs, Oran other French African ports, bypassing Malta. 

Also I don't think you can hold Gibraltar with the entry on Spain into the war. The airfield at Gibraltar is extremely limited, and subject to artillery fire from Spanish guns. A combined German/Spanish air attack against the port/airbase will eliminate the British fighters drive off the fleet within a couple of days. It would take a few more days for Axis aircraft heavy rail guns to neutralize the British fortress guns, opening the straights to the Axis, even if the troops there were still holding out


----------



## timshatz (Feb 15, 2008)

I think your fine by taking France out. As long as the Brits get her fleet, we have something. With Italy coming in, it reshaped the whole setup. Need the Free French fleet to keep the scenario viable. 

As for Malta being important, I truely believe it has to be taken. Given the lines of communication, it is crucial to take that island (for the Axis) so they can support the next link of their plan, the drive towards the Middle East. 

Going west across the top of Africa will turn the Med into an Axis lake, remove Alexandria (and Egypt) from the British Colonial System, shut down the Suez Canal and allow the Germans to seize oil assets they need to suppor their operations. It would make the Balkans and Turkey defacto allies of the Axis (in name if not in fact) and threaten the Jewel in the Crown, India. 

My plan, at present, has the Allied Forces seizing the Canaries and Azores, while the Axis forces seize Malta and bring the 6th Army to North Africa in preparation for a drive to Mesopotamia. 

Freebird, can you map that? I'd like to see what it looks like, give me some time to think it through. 

BTW- While I'd love to take credit for moving the 6th Army to Africa as the main assalt (on the Middle East) after the fall of France (instead of going into Russia), I have to give credit where credit is due (to a far better strategic thinker). The idea was Liddel Hart's idea and came from his book, "On Strategy". 

Amazon.com: Strategy: Second Revised Edition (Meridian): Books: B. H. Liddell Hart

Great book on strategy. Especiallywhen it comes to the designs and decisions of WW2. Little dry and at times redundent but well written and thought out. 

As far as Gibralter is concerned, it is a good question. I thinkthe Brits would want to hold it as far as it would give them a toehold in the Med. Also, a base of operations for subs. I agree with you it is doubtful the fleet or major air component could survive. Still, I think the Brits would at least try to hold it. My fear is, you are right. They would lose it. It is just too strategically important for the Germans to allow it in their rear. Plus, it's been a thorn in the side of Spain since it was taken.


----------



## Freebird (Feb 15, 2008)

timshatz said:


> .
> 
> Freebird, can you map that? I'd like to see what it looks like, give me some time to think it through.



   Sure no problem. First, before we get into Malta, Azores Canaries, there is the question of how Axis naval units in the Atlantic will affect the convoys. (even before Gibraltar falls there is still the possibility of German or Spanish raiders venturing into the shipping lanes) It might be interesting to see how a fleet could react.

Ok just to update, here are the notations I used

BB Battleship modern
BC Battlecruiser
BD Dreadnought 21 - 23 knts, 8+ guns 13.5"+ (Royal Oak or Bretane class)
B Old 12" Battleship (Iron Duke, Paris etc)
CA Heavy Cruiser 9,000 tons+ 8 x 8" or 12 x 6" guns
CM Medium Cruiser eg. 7,000 - 9,000 tons 9 or 10 x 6" guns
CL Light cruiser
CE Crusier (escort) old slow CL, eg Ceres or Emden 29 knts, 6 or 8 x 6" guns 
CF Flak Cruiser 4" AA guns
CV
CVE 20 - 22 knts, 20 aircraft
CVL 26 - 32 knts, 24 aircraft
MC Merchant cruiser (aux) 8,000 - 12,000 tons 20 knts 6 or 8 x 6" or 8" guns

Cruisers MC's are in groups of 2, so a "CA" means 2 heavy cruisers
All Capital ships carriers are individualy listed.

I've assumed that the Axis have 3 CVL's (CA's converted to light carriers)
The British have re-converted "HMS Vindictive" to a CVL and have also converted another "Fiji" class into a CVL {"HMS Vengance"}

Consider in this scenario that the Germans Spanish have launched a surprise Christmas attack on Gibraltar, within about 3 days the British guns are neutralized and the fleet has moved out into the Atlantic {to location marked with an asterisk} The fortress still holds out, but is unable to control the straights, and a large Axis fleet has moved through to the Spanish base at Tangier. The German Pocket Battleship "Scheer" + a couple of cruisers in Dakar, Africa, having just been out raiding in the South Atlantic.

*Iv'e marked the convoys that are en route*, *inbound (to Britain) in Red*, *outbound in purple*. Convoys consist of 40 - 80 merchants, + 1 DD and 2 DE's. British bases are small Red squares, Yellow for Spanish, Blue for French. 

Consider the starting lineup to be 

Scapa Flow {&UK}
--------------------------

1 x BB, 1 x BC, 4 x BD, 2 x B, 2 x CV, CA, CM, CL, CE, CF

Gibraltar Fleet {in Atlantic}
--------------------------
1 x BC, BD, 1 x CV, CA, CL, CE, CF

Freetown
--------------------------
CVL, CA, CL, B

Alexandria
--------------------------
3 x BD, CV, CA, CM, CF

St. Johns
--------------------------
BD, CA, CE

Trinidad
--------------------------
CVE, CA, CM, CL

Burmuda
--------------------------
CVL, CA, CL

There is also a CA at Ascension, and a CE in Aruba. There is 1 MC at each British base on the map exept for Malta, Accra Trinidad. Also 1 MC is with the "Gibraltar fleet" The reserve is 1 each of BD, BC, CVL, CA, CM, CL, CE, these units can be placed anywhere.

Each merchant convoy takes about 5 - 7 days between each port {or waypoint - a red cross}, this is the position at the outbreak of hostilities. *Think about orders you would give to your Navy*, and what course changes you would give to the convoys (if any). Remember that a breakout by Italian, German Spanish surface raiders could destroy dozens of ships in each convoy. One probable Axis plan would be for several raiding groups to set out, each consisting of a CVL, BC, a few cruisers to make attacks on a convoy

Again, remember that each MC, CA, CM, CL, CE or CF cruiser consists of 2 ships.


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 16, 2008)

Niiiice work Freebird!


----------



## Freebird (Feb 16, 2008)

I think you like ship pics Lucky {me too} so this is for you.  

Part of this thread is exploring possible scenarios threats for our "maritime power", and I think we are also looking at ship types. The 3 main naval threats are: enemy fleet actions {battleships}, U-boats, and surface raiders.
For protection against surface raiders is one of the main focus of our Cruisers Battlecruisers. 

The one main failing of the British navy {pre WWII} is that they did not have ant "fast" CA's or CL's, as the RN units could all only do about 32 -33 knts. Compare that to the Italian CA's "Trento" class - 35 knts, the CL's "Barbiano" "Attendolo" class which could both do 36 knts

*Heavy Cruisers*

The cruisers were often deployed in pairs of the same type, but to balance things I have for British "CA"s put 1 "County" class {Kent, 10,500 tons} with 1 "Town" class {Belfast 9,300 tons} together as a pair

The "*County"s had 8 x 8" guns*, + 4 twin 4" AA gun mounts.

The "*Town"s had 12 x 6" guns* in 4 triple mounts, + 4 twin 4" AA guns.
The original intention was for the "Towns" to switch the triple 6" guns for twin 8" mounts, {like the Mogami's} but in wartime it was decided to keep the triple 6"s, because there was not enough time space to re-fit them all, also the newer 6" guns proved very effective, with a faster firing rate than the 8" s.
*Both types could do about 32.5 knots*

I will put a couple pictures of the Town class "HMS Belfast"
For "County" class the best pic is in my Siggy!


----------



## Freebird (Feb 16, 2008)

And here are "Trento" and "Zara+Pola"

They both had 8 x 8" guns, but the "Pola"s could only do 32 knts, like the British ships


----------



## B-17engineer (Feb 16, 2008)

In 1940...........there weren't to to many 4 engine aircraft the Lancaster didn't come till 42.....B-17 only certain variants were around...I meant defending england


----------



## B-17engineer (Feb 16, 2008)

ALso Spain


----------



## Freebird (Feb 16, 2008)

Of the late '20's early 30's cruisers, I've always liked the Northampton class....


----------



## Thorlifter (Feb 16, 2008)

Yeah, nice looking ship Freebird.


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 17, 2008)

I have to say that I'm rather partial to USS Minneapolis CA-36 and....










At the Mare Island Navy Yard, 30 August 1943, upon completion of overhaul and battle damage repairs.
Note: SK-1 search radar and gunfire directors mounted atop her foremast and bridge; large false windows painted on her pilothouse, part of a camouflage scheme intended to make her look like a destroyer; Sailors pushing a cart full of battle helmets in the lower left; railway boxcars on the pier alongside the ship; lighter YF-280 in the left distance and crane vessel YD-98 at right.
Circles mark recent alterations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
USS Indianapolis CA-35....





USS Indianapolis (CA-35) at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, circa 1937.





USS Indianapolis (CA-35) steaming in New York Harbor with President Franklin D. Roosevelt on board, at the time of the Presidential fleet review off Ambrose Light, New York, 31 May 1934.

As for the Northhampton class of cruisers....three of the six were lost to enemy action....

USS Houston, lost on March 1st 1942.
USS Northampton, lost on December 1st 1942.
USS Chicago, lost on January 30th 1943.


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 17, 2008)

The Aoba class cruisers aren't that bad looking either....





At anchor off Shinagawa, Japan, on 4-10 October 1935.
The three bands painted on her after smokestack signify that she is the third ship of the 6th Sentai (squadron). The cruisers Aoba and Kinugasa, also members of Sentai 6, are in the left distance.





Aoba photographed soon after completion, circa 1927-29.





Aoba off Nagasaki, Japan, at about the time of her commissioning (which took place on 20 September 1927).
Taken from a foreign warship, this photograph was provided to the U.S. Naval Attache in Tokyo soon afterwards. It was subsequently forwarded to the Office of Naval Intelligence.





Aoba off Nagasaki, Japan, during the latter stages of her outfitting, circa mid-1927.
This photograph was obtained by the U.S. Navy's Office of Naval Intelligence, under date 30 October 1927.





Aoba again, off Nagasaki, Japan, during the latter stages of her outfitting, circa mid-1927.
This photograph was also obtained by the U.S. Navy's Office of Naval Intelligence, under date 30 October 1927.





Aoba photographed soon after completion, possibly during the naval review off Yokohama on 30 October 1927.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 18, 2008)

Always like the Takao class crusiers the Japanese put out. Liked the lines and the firepower. Great looking ships.

Freebird, great work. Your map covers a lot of ground and puts the whole thing in a clearer light. At least the Atlantic. Couple of questions we should kick around (and B17 has already allueded to):

1. What kind of long range recon aircraft are available to the Axis?
2. Did the Spanish keep the Canaries? It seems they still have a base down there.

The questions are just for clarification. 

I'm thinking there is no way the British can afford to have an Axis fleet loose in the Atlantic. They are going to have to do something about it. A Taranto style attack would be one option, followed up by a bombardment much as they did to the French fleet. But the fact that the Axis has come out to the Atlantic has to be countered while British strength is at it's best. Otherwise, it is only a matter of time before the Axis attack and take the Azores. And that would be a catastrophe for the Brits.


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 18, 2008)

If they kept them....what is their naval strength there? Will it just be Spanish or will there be German and Italian ships there as well...?


----------



## Freebird (Feb 18, 2008)

timshatz said:


> Always like the Takao class crusiers the Japanese put out. Liked the lines and the firepower. Great looking ships.
> 
> Freebird, great work. Your map covers a lot of ground and puts the whole thing in a clearer light. At least the Atlantic. Couple of questions we should kick around (and B17 has already allueded to):
> 
> ...



1. Mainly the Fw 200 Condor, 2,000 mile range + 3,000 lbs of bombs. Also some Ju-88's He 111's could be used

2. This would be the situation at first, a few days after the Spanish surprise attack. Spain would be threatened with the seizure of the Canaries Spanish Morrocco. {ultimatum was ignored}

I don't think the British can invade *all* of the vital islands, Canaries, Madeira, Azores Cape Verde's. In my mind the British should first try to secure basing rights to Portugese islands by diplomacy. {The Portugese are worried about Germany seizing the undefended islands.} If diplomacy fails the "SAS deception plan" should be used, have a few dozen paratroopers posing as Germans land in the Azores and then quickly move in with a British Brigade to "rescue" the islands. Hopefully Potugal will believe the deception and agree to Britain "defending" the Azores Medeira etc. {Hitler will deny responsibility but who will beleive him?  } The UK would also guarantee Portugal's safety from Axis attack. Worst case - if they don't believe the fake "Falshmirjagr" attack the British would just go ahead and occupy the islands anyway and pay the consequences. I think there is a good chance that if Portugal felt threatened by the Axis they would agree to British occupying the Islands. Read the HyperWar link "hemisphere defence" page 115 - 121 "Azores Brazil". The quote is from the Pesident of Portugal


> "While Portugal might accept aid {occupation of the Islands} from its British ally, it didn't want the US occuping them as it had no political connection with the USA"



HyperWar: US Army in WWII: The Framework of Hemisphere Defense [Chapter 5]




Timshatz said:


> I'm thinking there is no way the British can afford to have an Axis fleet loose in the Atlantic. They are going to have to do something about it. A Taranto style attack would be one option, followed up by a bombardment much as they did to the French fleet. But the fact that the Axis has come out to the Atlantic has to be countered while British strength is at it's best. Otherwise, it is only a matter of time before the Axis attack and take the Azores. And that would be a catastrophe for the Brits.



agreed, the Axis raiders must be dealt with quickly. I would think that the best policy is to occupy Azores, Madeira Cape Verde, as Madeira is in a better position to block ships exiting Gibraltar. While the Spanish garrison on the Canaries is probably only a regiment or two, the British don't have that many troops available for an amphibeous assault. I think it would be better to airstrike the ports airbases in the Canaries to try to deny them to the Axis. Then the RN will have to assemble a few "hunting groups" to try to track down the Axis raiders that escape.


----------



## Freebird (Feb 18, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> If they kept them....what is their naval strength there? Will it just be Spanish or will there be German and Italian ships there as well...?



This would be the situation right after the Spanish/German joint attack on Gibraltar. The British would then have to decide if they want to attack the Canaries Spanish Morrocco. {Tangier}

The guns of Gibratar have been neutralized, so the Spanish Italian navy can exit the Med if they wish. German units would try an exit from the Baltic, similar to the "Bismarck" sortie in May 1941


----------



## timshatz (Feb 18, 2008)

Right now, I see the Brits as having the advantage of interior lines of communication. The German threat is in the North, around the North Sea and will remain there. Germany can not allow the Iron Ore to be interupted substantially. As such, it has to keep at least a sizeable chunk of it's surface fleet in the north. Though Air power is a large part of the threat in the Baltic/North Sea area, there has to be a fleet contingent to defeat and landings that might happen. 

Down south, I see the Italians and the Spanish operating together but not very well. Neither is on the same scale as the German fleet. While they have the numbers, they do not have the skill or drive. The Brits are fighting for their survival, the Spanish and Italians only for advantage. 

Freebird, see your point on lack of ability to take all the islands. Good point. All of them at once, even undefended, would be a stretch of the resources available. I am thinking the majority of the troops are Canadian, as that is where the main assault comes from. Might be a bit much for this point in the war, but we can kick that around. Canaries stay Spanish, the Brits take the other islands. Almost immediately a low intensity air war starts between the British held islands and the Canaries. The distance between Madeira and the Canaries looks like it is something on the order of 300 miles. Out of fighter range (for the time) but in the range of meduim and definitely heavy bombers. 

Madeira is the front line for the Allies with the Azores as the staging area. With the virtual loss (and doubtfull soon to be real) loss of Gibraltar, Mediera becomes the key holding for the Brits. 

Freebird, don't know if the Brits will have the time for the "Nazi Commando Act". Have a feeling this thing is going to be rushed and somewhat confused. Later in the war, with way more experience, it would be viable. But I see the attack on those islands as rather like the invasion of Norway. Disorganized and confused, but with no real resistance so it works. This will only be the 2nd or 3rd attempt at an invasion since Gallipoli. 

At this point, the British are concerned formost with the Spanish/Italian fleet that has ventured into the Atlantic. Where is it based? What is the composition? Especially BBs and CVs. Any of those in this combined fleet?

Heavy use of air recon (Catalinas and Sunderlands) and sea recon (Subs mostly) to find this fleet. It has to be found and destroyed. The Atlantic has to be a British lake of the war is over and the Brits have lost.


----------



## Freebird (Feb 18, 2008)

timshatz said:


> Freebird, don't know if the Brits will have the time for the "Nazi Commando Act". Have a feeling this thing is going to be rushed and somewhat confused. Later in the war, with way more experience, it would be viable. But I see the attack on those islands as rather like the invasion of Norway. Disorganized and confused, but with no real resistance so it works. This will only be the 2nd or 3rd attempt at an invasion since Gallipoli.
> 
> At this point, the British are concerned formost with the Spanish/Italian fleet that has ventured into the Atlantic. Where is it based? What is the composition? Especially BBs and CVs. Any of those in this combined fleet?
> 
> Heavy use of air recon (Catalinas and Sunderlands) and sea recon (Subs mostly) to find this fleet. It has to be found and destroyed. The Atlantic has to be a British lake of the war is over and the Brits have lost.



I think the "Commando attack" would not be that complex, just about 50 guys in fake German uniforms para-dropping on some outlying area of the Azores, making lots of noise {MG's mortars etc} the result would be the local villagers flee to the capital {of the Islands} with the report "Germans invade".
At this point the British move in before the Portugese government has time to check it out. 

But in any event, I think with increased Spanish activity the British should be able to convince Portugal to allow for the occupation of the islands. Assume for the sake of the scenario that one of these 2 options works, so that the UK/Canadians can occupy Portugese islands, but would face at least a regiment {+ airpower} if they tried to land in the Canaries. 

I think the Axis fleet is somewhere between 60% - 80% the size of the British. {for example} The Axis slower BB's and CV's would be facing the British fleet, with both sides facing each other across the North Sea.

The Axis would perhaps form 2 or 3 raiding groups, each would include a CVL, a few cruisers perhaps a Pocket or a Battlecruiser. The British would be forced to heavily escort many convoys, and try to use its "Hunter groups" to try to catch the raiders. One raiding group could lurk in the Central/South Atlantic, the other might move into the Indian Ocean. Assume that the Axis can use Madegascar, Dakar Martinique as re-supply ports.

The British should try to counter this, by forming battlegroups in key areas to hunt down the raiders.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 19, 2008)

freebird said:


> The Axis would perhaps form 2 or 3 raiding groups, each would include a CVL, a few cruisers perhaps a Pocket or a Battlecruiser. The British would be forced to heavily escort many convoys, and try to use its "Hunter groups" to try to catch the raiders. One raiding group could lurk in the Central/South Atlantic, the other might move into the Indian Ocean. Assume that the Axis can use Madegascar, Dakar Martinique as re-supply ports.
> 
> The British should try to counter this, by forming battlegroups in key areas to hunt down the raiders.



I'm good with the idea of putting small battlegroups together to hunt down raiders, but they are not the big threat. Have to get the Spanish/Italian fleet out of the Atlantic or lose the war. Heavy escort of the Convoys is going to wear your ships down fast, strains resources and give the strategic initiative to the Axis. 

After the Brits take the Azores, the assets available should be focused on the goal of destroying (or driving back into the Med) the combined fleets of Spain and Italy. If it is an open sea battle, so be it. Better to attack them in their port. But it is the absolute priority of the British forces. 

Air searches from Mediera, Subs along the Western Coast of Africa. My suspicion is the Spanish and Italians will be wary of going out to far into the Atlantic. Their fleets are designed more for coastal and short range work than open sea operations. Also, they have never worked together. No common doctirne. Time is on their side in the long run so the Brits have to hit them fast before they get themselves straightened out. 

While our Air and Sea patrols are out, theirs will be too. From the Canaries and West Africa. Information will come in dribs and drabs. 

This really is an opportunity for the Brits. Both these fleets are out of their lairs in the Med and can be destroyed, taking a major threat off the board. Take these guys out and your chances of getting back into the Med get that much better.


----------



## Freebird (Feb 20, 2008)

timshatz said:


> I'm good with the idea of putting small battlegroups together to hunt down raiders, but they are not the big threat


Don't be so sure of that... The Admiral Scheer on its own managed to sink about 50,000 tons a month in the winter of '41, the Scharnhorst Gneisenau did about the same in the spring of '41. At this time {and every other time in fact} the British are critically short of shipping, and are only building about 100,000 tons a month. If one of the raiding groups hits an unprotected convoy the UK could lose 100,000 - 200,000+ tons in one day. 



> Have to get the Spanish/Italian fleet out of the Atlantic or lose the war. Heavy escort of the Convoys is going to wear your ships down fast, strains resources and give the strategic initiative to the Axis.



Agreed, but it's unlikely that the Brits can do much about it, the British fleet can't really venture anywhere within about 200 miles of Spain/France as it's within Axis air cover. The bulk of the slower units {old battleships} will probably stay at Kiel Cadiz with occasional short sorties to test the British response. A couple of fast raiding groups will probably venture out to cut the convoy lines in the Atlantic Indian Ocean.



> After the Brits take the Azores, the assets available should be focused on the goal of destroying (or driving back into the Med) the combined fleets of Spain and Italy. If it is an open sea battle, so be it. Better to attack them in their port. But it is the absolute priority of the British forces.



I'm not sure that this can be achieved, the best we can hope for is to keep the bulk of their fleet bottled up in Kiel Cadiz/Tangier, and try to hunt down the units that venture out. I think the priority must be to maintain the convoy routes clear.

Some data for you: The British need to move about 220 freighters inbound to the UK and 220 outbound from Britain *EVERY WEEK* This breaks down to 80 from Canada/US, 60 from Trinidad/Aruba and 80 from Freetown and points south. It takes a ship about 1 week to get from Bermuda, Halifax or Freetown to the Azores, and another week from the Azores to Britain.



> Air searches from Madiera, Subs along the Western Coast of Africa. My suspicion is the Spanish and Italians will be wary of going out to far into the Atlantic. Their fleets are designed more for coastal and short range work than open sea operations. Also, they have never worked together. No common doctirne.



If the Spanish send out some raiders it will probably be to work along the Capetown-Freetown-Azores route, as they have bases in the Canaries, and at Fernando Po Rio Muni, Africa {near Nigeria}. The Italians might try to send a few ships around to attack shipping from Madegascar-Somalia, based out of Italian Somalia {it's still in Axis control at the start of 1941}. If the British can't re-supply their armies in Egypt/Libya then the Axis might be able to push all the way to Suez.



> While our Air and Sea patrols are out, theirs will be too. From the Canaries and West Africa. Information will come in dribs and drabs.
> 
> This really is an opportunity for the Brits. .



Optimistic fellow aren't you!    

Lets try this then, we will assume that the Axis totals are exactly 2/3 of the available Allied Naval forces, see how it could be deployed. 

The UK have rushed to complete the Prince of Wales, the Germans are ready to deploy Bismarck. The Vichy French government has been "persuaded" to sell some of their fleet to the Spanish, but one Battle Group in Dakar, including the Battleship Richelieu Battlecruiser Dunkerque, refuses and joins the Free French, based out of Libreville.

The Allies have 4 CV, 4 CVL 4 CVE. The Axis have 2 CV, 3 CVL 2 CVE. Each side also has two "catapult ships" The Allies have 3 modern battleships, 13 older ones and 4 Battlecruisers. The Axis have 2 newer battleships, 9 older ones and 2 Battlecruisers + a "Pocket BB". {Lets assume a Pocket battleship is worth 2/3 of a BC}

I'm working on an updated map right now.


----------



## Freebird (Feb 20, 2008)

timshatz said:


> Freebird, see your point on lack of ability to take all the islands. Canaries stay Spanish, the Brits take the other islands. Almost immediately a low intensity air war starts between the British held islands and the Canaries. The distance between Madeira and the Canaries looks like it is something on the order of 300 miles. Out of fighter range (for the time) but in the range of meduim and definitely heavy bombers.



Actually its only about 250 miles, so it's well within the range of the Italian Re 2000 and the British P-40's. I think there will be bombing raids going back and forth. The British will have to make sure to keep up the fighter strength there.



> Madeira is the front line for the Allies with the Azores as the staging area. With the virtual loss (and doubtfull soon to be real) loss of Gibraltar, Mediera becomes the key holding for the Brits.
> 
> At this point, the British are concerned formost with the Spanish/Italian fleet that has ventured into the Atlantic. *Where is it based? What is the composition? Especially BBs and CVs.* Any of those in this combined fleet?



OK lets say that the Spanish/Germans launch a Christmas attack on Gibraltar. {Merry bloody Christmas limey!  } By the 29th the Italian/Spanish fleet passes through the narrows, and is seen at Cadiz Tangier. On the 30th the Tangier fleet has moved down to the Canaries. This is the intelligence you get. {The intel is not exact of course}

The Italians Spanish fleet at Cadiz, has several BD's (old battleships), at least 1 CV, and some cruisers.

The Gemans in the Baltic/Norway have the Bismarck, 3 older Battleships, the Scharnhorst, the Graf Zeppelin CV, a CVL, and about 6 cruisers.

The Spanish Italian fleet at the Canaries has the Battleship Vittorio, 1 other capital ship, 1 Pocket Battleship, at least 2 CVL's, and at least a half dozen cruisers.

Notes on the map, new convoy routes {via Azores} are yellow lines.
British/Free French bases are Red squares, Spanish/Italian bases are yellow squares, they can also re-supply at Fascist or Vichy ports, which are blue squares. Neutral ports are light green squares, no military units allowed, but tankers can re-fuel there.

*Now for the bad news!*
Your latest intelligence from the morning of New Years Eve 1940, finds the battleship Littorio, a Battlecruiser, several cruisers one or more CVL's have departed during the night, destination unknown. They may be planning an attack on Madeira, or the Azores, or the Cape Verde's or the Convoys. Searches during the day have not been successful.

*Questions to think about*: Do you summon the some of the Egypt Fleet to help out? Assume that the "C" "D" fleets have been summoned to help deal with the crisis. *Can you risk to send any more of the British Home {"B"}fleet to the Azores?*, without risking a German break-out?

Where do you ask the Free French fleet to go?

*Do you split the "G" Gibraltar fleet to cover both the Azores Madeira? Or leave it together? * Assume that there is one squadron of Hurricanes, a squadron of Coastal Command Hampden/Beauforts a battalion of infantry at each of the Azores, Madeira Cape Verde. 3 more battalions are coming by sea to Azores {with "I" flotilla}, one more battalion can be flown in to either Madeira or Azores. 

The British Naval Forces:
{remember that each CA, CM, CL CE represents 2 ships}

*A* - *Atlantic Fleet* at the Cape Verde's
CVL, BC, CA, CL

*B* *British Home Fleet *at Scapa or Plymouth
CV, BB, 5 x BD, BC, B, CA, CM, CL, CE

*C* *Caribbean Fleet* - Antigua
CVL, CA, CL

*D* *Durban Fleet* - now at Capetown 
CVL, CA, CL

*E* *Egypt Fleet*
CV, 2 x BD, CA, CM, CL
*
F* Freetown Flotilla - between C. Verde Azores, escorts inbound convoy
CVE, B, CA, CE

*G* *Gibraltar Fleet* between Madeira Azores
CV, BC, 2 x BD, CA, 2 x CM, CL

*H* Halifax Flotilla - between Halifax Azores, escorting inbound convoy
CVE, CA, CE also accompanied by 2nd CVE transporting P-40's for Azores

*I* Irish Sea Flotilla - between UK Azores, escorting outbound convoy
CVE, B, CA, CE, - also accompanied by CV, BB, BD, CM

*K* Kenya
CE

*L* Lagos
CE

** Free French Fleet*, at Libreville
CVL, BB, BC, CA, CM


The Fleets can be moved as needed, as can the units in Kenya Lagos.
The 3 Flotillas {Freetown, Halifax, Irish Sea} will be permanently stationed on the convoy routes that converge at the Azores, as each passage is about 2,000 miles the ASW CVE's cover the mid-journey air gap. The "B" unit is a very old battleship, the "Courbet" or "Iron Duke", not able to match up against newer battleships like "Warspite", "Bretange", or "Andrea Doria" but the old 12" guns are effective fighting off "Pocket"s or cruisers. 

There is also one "BD" battleship "Resolution", Battleship "King G. V.", + the carrier "Furious" accompanying the Irish Sea Flotilla on the way to Azores, the "Furious" is ferrying some P-40's for Madeira. The Furious will be within range to launch the next day {Jan 1}


----------



## timshatz (Feb 22, 2008)

Ok, I'm in. 

After those two posts, I had to copy and paste so I could print this out and study it. A lot of info to digest! 

Great work Freebird, give me a day or two to think on it. It's snowing over here now so other than shoveling and drinking, I'll have little to do. 

Good job man. Looking forward to tinkering with this.


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 22, 2008)

Holy cr*p freebird....! Impressive work indeed!!


----------



## Freebird (Feb 22, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> Holy cr*p freebird....! Impressive work indeed!!



Thanks Lucky. 

Speaking about "How your Navy would look in 1940", Lucky, and considering what the implications of the scenario we are contemplating...

If you were in charge of the Admiralty in the mid 30's how would you develop your designs? For starters, the "King George V" was not a very good design, too many compromises. First, I would separate the need for a "Heavy Battleship", from that of a "fast battleship", and not try to combine both. Since you would have to comply with treaty, I would start them out as fast battleships, {because of the need to build in powerful engines} but then in the event of war approaching, the "Heavy BB" would have more guns armour fitted.

So what I would build from 1935 - 1940 instead of the King George V, Lion BB's and the Dido CL's

I would look to build:

2 Battlecruisers, with perhaps 6 x 15" or 13.5" guns, capable of 34 knots, to hunt down "Graf Spee", or "Hipper" type of raiders.

2 Heavy Battleships, with 10 to 12 x or 16" guns, heavily armoured and able to do 27 - 28 knots or so. {kind of a "super Nelson" type}

2 - 3 "Fast Battleships", similar to Littorio or Richelieu, with 8 or 9 x 15" guns.

6 - 8 modern "CE's" escort cruisers

Instead of the "Dido's" i would consider building dedicated "escort cruisers" capable of perhaps only 24 - 25 knots, but with much more firepower armour, + a good ASW capability. They would be used to escort the slower
convoy's, with the faster CA's CL's able to rush to assist if raiders show up. Keep in mind that the Kriegsmarine also used converted merchants as raiders, like "Pinguin" or "Kormoran" 

Before you dismiss raiders as a minor threat, read about "Pinguin", this ship, armed with 6 x 6" guns, + mines secondary weapons was responsible for the sinking or capture of 32 allied ships! It wa finally caught by the CA "HMS Cornwall" in May '41 and sunk 

German auxiliary cruiser Pinguin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Freebird (Feb 22, 2008)

timshatz said:


> Ok, I'm in.
> 
> After those two posts, I had to copy and paste so I could print this out and study it. A lot of info to digest!
> 
> ...



Also don't forget that even though the convoys won't be going through Iceland, it's still vulnerable to invasion by the Germans.

*Just so that your New Years Eve does not get too boring, there are reports that the German fleet is on the move*.... 

I'll update the convoy situation, but in General assume that in addition to the ones on the move at points "F", "H" "I" there are also ones at Liverpool, Azores, Cape Verde's, Lagos, Burmuda, Halifax ready to move, as well as one now in refuge in Iceland. 

I'll also post the exact Axis Navy totals {pre-war}, but it will be in total almost exactly 2/3 of the British. Of course actual intelligence as to which enemy units are moving where might be a bit sketchy, as recon patrols couldn't always correctly identify types #'s.


----------



## HerbWF (Feb 22, 2008)

Before I build a fleet of steel I want to know about my command structure. Can my country be progressive enough to leave development of my fleet and tactics to men of vision. These men would be expected to learn from history, be open to new ideas and be ready to implement programs that were not their pet projects.
Billy Mitchel told anyone who would listen that ships were not safe from air power on their own,, Donitz told Hitler what he needed for a U boat fleet, an exercise attack on Pearl Harbor was successful in the mid 1930's, and younger admirals begged for aircraft carriers and no one listened.
I would give up some steel for some real leaders, this is going to be a good thread.
Herb


----------



## Freebird (Feb 23, 2008)

HerbWF said:


> Before I build a fleet of steel I want to know about my command structure. Can my country be progressive enough to leave development of my fleet and tactics to men of vision. These men would be expected to learn from history, be open to new ideas and be ready to implement programs that were not their pet projects.
> Billy Mitchel told anyone who would listen that ships were not safe from air power on their own,, Donitz told Hitler what he needed for a U boat fleet, an exercise attack on Pearl Harbor was successful in the mid 1930's, and younger admirals begged for aircraft carriers and no one listened.
> I would give up some steel for some real leaders, this is going to be a good thread.
> Herb



You are dead right about this one, reading about the Royal Navy in WWII, the Admiral in charge had to regularly deal with memos, demands half-baked plans sent by "former naval person". {Winston Churchill} For some reason the Admiral {Pound} didn't think it was a good idea to send the 2 ships Prince of Wales Repulse to Singapore without air cover.  

But of course those near-sighted Japanese pilots couldn't hit anything anyways....


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 23, 2008)

freebird said:


> Thanks Lucky.
> 
> Speaking about "How your Navy would look in 1940", Lucky, and considering what the implications of the scenario we are contemplating...
> 
> ...



Battle cruisers:
3x3 15 inch turrets...

Heavy battleships:
4x3 16 inch turrets....

Fast battleships:
3x3 15 inch turrets...

Would that be suitable...?

We should consider that there is raiders roaming about and need some countermeasures....


----------



## Freebird (Feb 23, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> Battle cruisers:
> 3x3 15 inch turrets...
> 
> Heavy battleships:
> ...



Thats a good start.

For the Fast Battleship I would use the standard "Iowa" type layout

For the Heavy Battleship I would have a "Nelson" type layout, with an extra triple 16" turret aft. 

For the Battlecruiser speed would be the primary concern, it has to as fast {or close} to the enemy CA's like the 32.5 knot Hipper or the 34.5 knot Italian "Trento"s. If it is not possible to mount 9 x 15" guns, I would have 2 x triple 15" {or 14"} turrets forward, perhaps only a twin aft. I would even sacrifice the aft turret to keep the speed, as the plan is that this ship would be to hunt cruisers fast raiders, never to get into battle with enemy battleships. I would think that almost every combat would be a "pursuit" scenario, as soon as the enemy raider sees that it's a battlecruiser with 14" or 15" guns, they will run.

The same would be true of the Heavy Battleship, it needs the turrets foreward, as most enemy's will retire after seeing what they face {this happened several times against the Italians, as the slower Warspite Valiant had bigger guns, but the Italian BB's were slightly faster so the would bugger off if things got hot.

In this situation it would be your fast BB with 3 x triple 15" and able to do 30 or 31 knots that would chase them down. {Much like the role of the "Hood" if she had finished her upgrade.


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 23, 2008)

Wouldn't that be dangerous if you hit one of the forward turrets and get left with a single aft turret?


----------



## Glider (Feb 23, 2008)

I would forget the Battle Cruisers, forget the Heavy Battleships and stick with Fast BB.
It lacks nothing


----------



## Freebird (Feb 23, 2008)

Glider said:


> I would forget the Battle Cruisers, forget the Heavy Battleships and stick with Fast BB.
> *It lacks nothing*



I can't agree with that Glider, the fast battleship {King George V - 28 knts} is too slow to catch a "Hipper" or "Trento' heavy cruiser or "Sharnhorst" all of which can do 32 knots +. 

It's armour is not proof against enemy 15" impacts, let alone 16"

To make a compromise and try to do everything in one ship the *Royal Navy the "Greatest Navy" ended up with a ship that had weaker armour than Bismarck, slower than the Italian "Littorio" and smaller guns than the Japanese 'Nagato"* {smaller caliber than any of the three in fact}



Lucky13 said:


> Wouldn't that be dangerous if you hit one of the forward turrets and get left with a single aft turret?



*Lucky I don't know of any case where a turret explosion destroyed the adjacent turret*, as a shell that penetrates would have to blow through that turrets armour, then it would impact the next turrets armour. {turrets typically had 12 - 16 inch thichk armour. If the shell went into a turret and penetrated the magazine, the whole ship would blow apart anyways.


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 24, 2008)

What was the pros and cons with the 3-1 turret configuration, if it was good why wasn't more ships built with it?


----------



## Freebird (Feb 24, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> What was the pros and cons with the 3-1 turret configuration, if it was good why wasn't more ships built with it?



After the 1920's no Navy built a modern ship with more than 10 main guns, mainly because of the 35,000 ton "treaty limit" most either had 8 main guns {2 x twin turrets fore aft, Bismarck, Nagato, Hood etc} or 9 guns 3 x 3 {with two triple turrets forward, one triple turret aft, Yamato, Iowa, Littorio etc} 

Nelson Rodney were unique with all 9 x 16" guns on the foredeck. The main question is how you would expect the Battleship to be used in combat. The British "Nelson's" were the first Battleships to mount 9 - 16" guns, they chose to put the most weight into the guns armour so that the speed was rather slow {23 knots}. They probably expected that most of the enemy would not want to stick around to duke it out with these "heavy's" so they wanted to get all 9 guns firing as soon as possible. They also counted on the fact that the larger Royal Navy would never deploy this ship alone {as the Bismarck was}, *nor would the Royal Navy heavy units ever have to "run away"* from a battle, so would not have to worry about the "Blind spot" in the rear. 

If you look at the 2 engagements, Bismarck vs. Hood, and Bismarck vs Rodney, they both were efectivly over after about 6 - 8 salvos, so the first few shots in the battle will be most important.

*Pro - you can have 9 guns instead of just 6 fire when approaching a battle, or when chasing an enemy.

Con - less firepower to the rear if you ever have to "flee" from a battle.*

The reason that more nations did not build "alternate designs" is that they all {except USA UK} basically built only 2 "fast Battleships" from mid 1930's to end of the war. {Italy - Littorio Vittorio; Germany - Bismarck Tirpitz; France - Richelieu Jean Bart} , while the IJN built only 2 "heavy BB's" Yamato Musashi.

The designs I would consider are a "Battlecruiser" similar to the US "Alaska" class, and planned as a "cruiser killer". Also a heavy Battleship of "Montana" type design. The Montana was the only ship planned with 12 x 16" guns, with 2 triple turrets front back, but personally I would prefer a "Nelson" type arrangement with 3 triple's forward + an extra triple aft, or my preffered choice, 2 triples forward, + a twin turret rear and a twin on each wing. The advantage of this design is that you could have 10 guns fire forward and 6 to the rear + 10 on broadside, while the Montana had 12 broadside it could only fire 6 guns forward

Check out BC "Alaska" and BB "Montana" info. Diagram is design proposal for the US "Montana"

World Battleships List: US Treaty and Post-Treaty Battleships

World Battleships List: US Battlecruisers and Large Cruisers


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 24, 2008)

Great Stuff Freebird....great stuff....always learn something!


----------



## Freebird (Feb 24, 2008)

Lucky one of the big mistakes that the British French made was that they assumed that everyone else was observing the "Washington Naval Treaty" {35,000 limit for Battleships, 14" guns max}, when in fact Germany, Italy Japan were all cheating to some extent. So later the result was that the British designs were weaker than the Axis. The UK could have legally built more powerful ships {eg. 16"+ Battleships} if a non-treaty nation was also building them {Japan withdrew from the treaty in 1936.} At that point they should have built ships to equal the enemy regardless of treaty, just not to advertise the fact that they were doing so. I might point out that Germany was not supposed to have *any* ships over 10,000 tons, so once they violated that was rather foolish for the British to stick to the treaty limit of 35,000 tons


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 25, 2008)

Royal Navy and the French must have had some plans for ships not allowed according to the treaty, but just didn't build them, right?


----------



## timshatz (Feb 25, 2008)

Morning All, have some ideas on how to handle the openings presented. To my mind, the greatest threat is the Italian fleet out of the Canaries. It is also a great opportunity (frequently, they are the same). I am less worried about the Germans taking Iceland. Even if they can take it, for a short time, I do not believe they can hold it. The Kriegsmarine is not big enough to project power, it does not have the pure firepower to keep the sea lanes between Norway and Iceland open. Plus, the RN bases in Northern Scotland are closer to Iceland than the German bases in Norway. 

Seizing Iceland would be a mistake by the Germans. However, I think Churchill's idea of having the US take over the occupation of the island is a good one to put into operation right away. Then, attacking Iceland would force Germany into a war with the US. 

But back to our Italian force running loose in the South Atlantic. 

I would Keep the British Home Fleet where it is, at it is. It is a check on the German Fleet in the North Atlantic. 

I'll take the CVL and CA from the Carribean Fleet and move it in with the Gibraltar Fleet. Leave the CL in the Carribean to take care of any raiders. 

Sned the CVL and CA from the Durban Fleet to the Atlantic Fleet. Again, leave a CL in Capetown to react to any raiders. 

Send the Free French Fleet to the Atlantic Fleet.

Now we have major forces above and below the Canaries with the FreeTown Flotilla in between. Call that last one "The Bait Force". Any other convoys not covered by the Bait Force are to be Routed to the west and out of harms way. In a sense, we are moving the convoy routes about 600 miles to the west to avoid the Italian naval force. 

Heavy air patrols and sub patrols are out in the area of the possible position of the Italian and German fleets. We need up to date intel on the location, composition, heading and speed of the forces. We have to find out where they are.

Further, the Atlantic Fleet moves North of the Cape Verde islands. Roughtly 200-300 miles. The Gibraltar fleet stays where it is so it can cover both Medeira and the Azores. 

As noted, the Italian fleet being out is both a threat and an opprotunity. Destroy it, and we take a major piece off the board. That is the intent.


----------



## Freebird (Feb 28, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> Royal Navy and the French must have had some plans for ships not allowed according to the treaty, but just didn't build them, right?



Sort of, but only when it was too late. The Royal Navy laid down 5 "King G.V." class battleships in 1937 1938, all of which were finished from 1940-1942. They then laid down 2 "Lion" class BB's in 1939, planned far larger than treaty 35,000 tons. They would have had 9 x 16" guns and do 30 knots, with a similar layout to "North Carolina' or 'Iowa" types. These 2 ships were abandond in 1941, they would have been the best British Battleships, finally solving some of the problems on earlier designs. The then British started all over again by laying down "HMS Vanguard" in 1942, which used 4 leftover twin 15" turrets, but was not ready before the war was over.


----------



## Freebird (Feb 28, 2008)

timshatz said:


> Morning All, have some ideas on how to handle the openings presented. To my mind, the greatest threat is the Italian fleet out of the Canaries. It is also a great opportunity (frequently, they are the same). I am less worried about the Germans taking Iceland. Even if they can take it, for a short time, I do not believe they can hold it. The Kriegsmarine is not big enough to project power, it does not have the pure firepower to keep the sea lanes between Norway and Iceland open. Plus, the RN bases in Northern Scotland are closer to Iceland than the German bases in Norway.
> 
> Seizing Iceland would be a mistake by the Germans. However, I think Churchill's idea of having the US take over the occupation of the island is a good one to put into operation right away. Then, attacking Iceland would force Germany into a war with the US.



Hmmm, interesting take. I do agree that it will be tough to keep supply open to Iceland, however it would make control of the approaches to North Atlantic more difficult for the Allies. I don't think the US is ready to garrison Iceland in Jan 1941 IIRC. Would we post a regiment there? 



> But back to our Italian force running loose in the South Atlantic.
> 
> I would Keep the British Home Fleet where it is, at it is. It is a check on the German Fleet in the North Atlantic.



Agreed, I think the basic plan is to keep about half of the battleships in the UK watching the German KM, the other half at the Azores watching the Spanish/Italians. The UK should probably form 3 "hunting" groups, each with a Battlecruiser, CVL, CA CL, each group could chase down any "raiding" party that breaks out into the Atlantic. 



timshatz said:


> I'll take the CVL and CA from the Carribean Fleet and move it in with the Gibraltar Fleet. Leave the CL in the Carribean to take care of any raiders.
> 
> Sned the CVL and CA from the Durban Fleet to the Atlantic Fleet. Again, leave aT CL in Capetown to react to any raiders.



Tim I would be more inclined to keep the CVL, CA CL group together, they should have enough firepower to deal with a PocketBB or a PB a cruiser, but a CA alone {a pair of CA's} might be on the short end if they run into a PB.
Perhaps if the Durban group heads up towards Freetown (escorting a convoy if possible) then at the same time the CE in Nigeria could head down towards Capetown to cover that area.

You get a special bonus today!!  I forgot to include 1 more Dutch CL, based at Aruba, perhaps it can keep watch over the Caribbean {I put it on the map}



timshatz said:


> Send the Free French Fleet to the Atlantic Fleet.
> 
> Now we have major forces above and below the Canaries with the FreeTown Flotilla in between. *Call that last one "The Bait Force". *Any other convoys not covered by the Bait Force are to be Routed to the west and out of harms way. In a sense, we are moving the convoy routes about 600 miles to the west to avoid the Italian naval force.



Dunno if I'd want to find out I was crew in a "bait force"  

I'm afraid that 600 miles is not that far to be out of harms way. Keep in mind that a convoy doing about 12.5 knots average will travel 300 miles/day, and a cruiser force can do 400 miles/day at 16.7 knots or 500 miles/day at 21 knots. So they would have to make sure that there is always a British force in between the raiders the convoys. 



timshatz said:


> Heavy air patrols and sub patrols are out in the area of the possible position of the Italian and German fleets. We need up to date intel on the location, composition, heading and speed of the forces. We have to find out where they are.
> 
> Further, the Atlantic Fleet moves North of the Cape Verde islands. Roughtly 200-300 miles. The Gibraltar fleet stays where it is so it can cover both Medeira and the Azores.
> 
> As noted, the Italian fleet being out is both a threat and an opprotunity. Destroy it, and we take a major piece off the board. That is the intent.



We should also calculate what the available ground airpower would be, to see how much could be sent to Madeira. I have a feeling that the Axis could take it if they want to, with air cover from the Canaries. How badly do we want to keep it? I would not be so concerned if it was lost, as long as the UK holds on to the Azores. Madeira is a little too far away from Gibraltar {600 miles} to control the straights, it would be nice to hold it, but I don't want to lose a couple of regiments a few squadrons that we could ill afford to lose. Remember that this ir right after BoB, so that almost all Hurri's Spit's are in UK. The air cover at Malta at Madeira (taken from Gibraltar) is would be Gladiators!!   We have to decide what Hurri's to quickly send to Azores, Madeira Cape Verde. 

Tim does anyone on the forum have good info about Coastal Command? It would be important to figure out what is available where.


----------



## Soren (Feb 29, 2008)

For the Allies to attempt taking Iceland in 1940 is a very bad idea! They'd be mauled beyond recognition by German subs!

In 1940 the German subs completely controlled the atlantic, and any attempt to take Iceland with a large fleet could only result in one thing for the Allies, disaster! 

Iceland was best left alone by all parties.


----------



## Freebird (Feb 29, 2008)

Soren said:


> For the Allies to attempt taking Iceland in 1940 is a very bad idea! They'd be mauled beyond recognition by German subs!
> 
> In 1940 the German subs completely controlled the atlantic, and any attempt to take Iceland with a large fleet could only result in one thing for the Allies, disaster!
> 
> Iceland was best left alone by all parties.



Iceland is already controlled by the Allies (Denmark) the question is how much are they willing to lose in defending it? Its also at this point {Dec 1940} that Germany still had far fewer subs than they needed Lucky for the UK, because by the END of 1941, when Germany has built up its sub fleet the UK has increased the # of escorts available, and is starting to use ASW more effectivly. If Germany had the 200 or so subs in early 1941, instead of the 40 something {IIRC} then things would have been very black for the UK indeed.


----------



## Soren (Feb 29, 2008)

Denmark was occupied by Germany in 1940, and thus Iceland was not controlled by the Allies. The Allies would need troops stations on Iceland if it was to be "controlled".


----------



## Glider (Feb 29, 2008)

Iceland would have two alternatives, allow the Allies to use its facilities or starve, Simple

Then the Allies have use of the airfields that can be upgraded and control of a large amount of the Atlantic.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 29, 2008)

Actually, I was taking a historic reference when I posted that. The US Marines took control of Iceland from the Brits in May of 1941. Here is a link to the details. 

HyperWar: History of USMC Operations in WWII, Vol. I: Pearl Harbor to Guadalcanal, Part I [Chapter 4]

Much easier for the Allies to take and hold Iceland than the Axis. While subs would be a problem, that goes both ways. It was aircraft out of Iceland that made life miserable for the U-Boats. It is possible, though difficult, to cover a convoy coming from Scotland and going to Iceland with air patrols. Especially when you have VLR Liberators.

US Occupation of Iceland is actually a brilliant move by the Brits. Hitler was trying to avoid a war with the US while the Brits were stretched thin. With US Occupation, the Brits no longer had to worry about the island, both for a basing question and as a potential target for the Axis. 

Pretty slick when you think about it.


----------



## Freebird (Feb 29, 2008)

Soren said:


> Denmark was occupied by Germany in 1940, and thus Iceland was not controlled by the Allies. The Allies would need troops stations on Iceland if it was to be "controlled".



Yes it was actually, as the government of Denmark (and Iceland too of course) joined the Allies as a government-in-exile. Just how well it was defended is of course another matter. 

Britain the Commonwealth had almost as many Kings Queens by the end of 1941 than a chess tounament!   

In exile in UK or Canada:

Queen of Netherands
King of Begium
King of Denmark
King of Norway
King of Greece
King of Yugoslavia


----------



## Freebird (Feb 29, 2008)

Glider said:


> Iceland would have two alternatives, allow the Allies to use its facilities or starve, Simple
> 
> Then the Allies have use of the airfields that can be upgraded and control of a large amount of the Atlantic.



True enough Glider, although the importance will diminish quite a bit with the convoys routing through Azores instead of the North Atlantic. A better route too, IMO the seas are calmer, allowing for more use of aircraft, it also is easier on the crews, and not so freezing. *Did you serve on a ship Glider?*

I should comment its all so bloody easy for us to sit here and say "patrol there",  but for long term sustainablity the N. Atlantic would wear down the crews  much more than a route across the "horse latitudes" {doldrums}


Tim I'm not sure that the US was capable of sending much to Iceland before May, either from a political or military point of view.

We will probably have to give a rough estimate of the total # of regiments squadrons available to Britain, and decide how much could be sent overseas. They were pretty much scraping the bottom of the barrel for *equipped* troops. Now today, *you I* know that Germany didn't really have a chance to invade after Nov during the winter of 40/41, but the British were very reluctant to send much out, they didn't want to take *any* chances


----------



## Freebird (Feb 29, 2008)

freebird said:


> . *Did you serve on a ship Glider?*



I think you just answered my question..  



Glider said:


> On HMS Tiger after a 6in shoot we went back to the mess deck and everything that could be broken was broken.



Where did you patrol on "Tiger"? Atlantic or Med? I've sailed across the Pacific, but not in the Atlantic, but I have seen how nasty the weather can get there too. I'm reading about the British Canadian "sloops", it must have been quite an unpleasant duty on the Iceland route during the winter.


----------



## Glider (Feb 29, 2008)

I served on HMS Tiger and had some time on the Hermes and Ark Royal. On the Tiger it was the Med and then home stopping at Gibraltar. The Americans thought she was a quaint ship a real museum piece and its hard not to disagree with them. However on the last part across the Bay of Biscay we did a last firing exercise. As it was supposed to be the last shoot before she was paid off the Captain upped the guns to the maximum designed firing rate. 20rpm per gun. She was still pretty impressive, getting a direct hit on the aicraft target with her second shell. In peace time they normally reduced the rate to around 15 rpm to save the barrel from overheating.
What wasn't impressive was her reliability, breaking down completely in the Bay of Biscay and drifting sideways on to the sea. Also she was very bow heavy having had the rear gun turret removed for a Helicopter Hanger. In a Gale 8 the bow of the ship was going up and down approx 30ft. As our mess was around the base of the turret ours was the furthest forward mess on the ship and I was as sick as a dog. 
The nearest thing to a WW2 sloop in the RN at the time were probably the 'Ton' class minsweepers. I was on a Sea King that flew fresh bread and other hot food out to one of these as it was going across the Bay, she was rolling like you wouldn't believe, we really felt for the crew.


----------



## Freebird (Feb 29, 2008)

Glider said:


> I served on HMS Tiger and had some time on the Hermes and Ark Royal. On the Tiger it was the Med and then home stopping at Gibraltar.
> What wasn't impressive was her reliability, breaking down completely in the Bay of Biscay and drifting sideways on to the sea. Also she was very bow heavy having had the rear gun turret removed for a Helicopter Hanger. In a Gale 8 the bow of the ship was going up and down approx 30ft. As our mess was around the base of the turret ours was the furthest forward mess on the ship and I was as sick as a dog.
> The nearest thing to a WW2 sloop in the RN at the time were probably the 'Ton' class minsweepers. I was on a Sea King that flew fresh bread and other hot food out to one of these as it was going across the Bay, she was rolling like you wouldn't believe, we really felt for the crew.



I have just read a sailor's account from the "Repulse", from 1939-1941, it was pretty hard going even on the big ships, they often had action stations for days at a time in the N. Atlantic, and some of the smaller guns were open, gun crews exposed to the elements.

All in all, its a shame that they didn't push more quickly to use the Azores, {which was an Allied airbase from 1943} the central crossing is much better in so many ways than the Iceland route



Glider said:


> The Americans thought *she was a quaint ship a real museum piece* and its hard not to disagree with them.



Seems like alot of the British eqipment in WWII was "museum pieces", the BEF arrived in france with some vehicles stencilled "Not for use in Combat", by the end of 1940 the primary fighter in the Med was the Gladiator!


----------



## Soren (Feb 29, 2008)

Freebird, the Danish king (Christian X) was not in exile, he lived in Denmark throughout the entire war.

The same goes for the Belgian king (Leopold III) who stayed in Belgium throughout the war in house arrest.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 29, 2008)

Freebird, I think the main goal of the British fleet in the mid-Atlantic is to hunt down and destroy the Italian Fleet in the Atlantic. They are exposed, with only BB, one or two Italian or Spanish CVLs and a Pocket BB. That last one is more of a problem than a help. It limits the top speed to around 27-28kts. With the coming together of the Gibraltar Fleet and the Atlantic Fleet, they are somewhat boxed in. They are out in the open, with limited air cover and limited fighting power. Plus, they are not long range ships. 

Any raiders that get picked up by these forces are just a bonus. I think the CLs stay home for the most part. They are not big enough to make a major diffence in a big slugging match and are more than enough to handle a raider (provided they don't go in dumb like the Sydney). 

With all that tonnage moving around in the Atlantic, a raider is not really a big worry at this point. Truthfully, a smart raider Capitan will head to less crowded waters, maybe the IO or the Pacific. Much like the German Raiders did. To stick around in the Atlantic, you've gotta be able to slug it out with somebody. I don't see any of the raiders built with that in mind, not the commerce raiders. Ok if you are a pocket BC, but with all that air power buzzing around, it's even hazardous for them!

As for the Bait Force compaining about being Bait, too bad. Shoulda joined the Army! Now make some noise with your radios and attract an Italian BB or two. 

Moving the convoy routes west 600 miles should be fine. I'm thinking of the hassles a PB would have to deal with. That is farther away, as noted, there is a lot of warships running around out there. Going to make life tough for anyone going after a convoy. Look at the Germans going after the PQ convoys, and that was off a friendly coast with no enemy bases in site. Tough for them. Also, moving it west will make life harder for air search. And the Axis desperately needs air search. 

Agree with you on Mediera. Too far from the Azores to worry too much about losing. Have to hold the Azores though. Then again, it is hard for the Axis to get enough power onto Mediera and not be exposed. One thing for sure, whoever holds that rock is going to get a lot of visits from the other side's air force. Not going to be a popular place. Think Malta.


----------



## Freebird (Feb 29, 2008)

Soren said:


> Freebird, the Danish king (Christian X) was not in exile, he lived in Denmark throughout the entire war.
> 
> The same goes for the Belgian king (Leopold III) who stayed in Belgium throughout the war in house arrest.



Hmm I stand corrected. The Danish government was in exile though if I am correct? If Tim has the US *taking over from* the British in Iceland, I think it must have been controlled by the Allies from May/June of 40. {although probably only with a couple of weak battalions}





timshatz said:


> Freebird, I think the main goal of the British fleet in the mid-Atlantic is to hunt down and destroy the Italian Fleet in the Atlantic. They are exposed, with only BB, one or two Italian or Spanish CVLs and a Pocket BB. That last one is more of a problem than a help. It limits the top speed to around 27-28kts. With the coming together of the Gibraltar Fleet and the Atlantic Fleet, they are somewhat boxed in. They are out in the open, with limited air cover and limited fighting power. Plus, they are not long range ships.



I think if we set the Axis at 2/3 of the size of the British fleet that gives the Germans the Bismarck BB, a CV, 2 "BD's" {old dreadnought battleships like "Royal Oak"} The joint Spanish/Italian fleet has Littorio BB, a CV, 4 BD's. The other pocket BB's, BC's, CVL's cruisers will probably do as you say and head for the South Atlantic or Indian Ocean, making the British split up their fleet. They might split the faster units off, and send the PB by itself to the Indian or Pacific as you say.



Timshatz said:


> Any raiders that get picked up by these forces are just a bonus. I think the CLs stay home for the most part. They are not big enough to make a major diffence in a big slugging match and are more than enough to handle a raider (provided they don't go in dumb like the Sydney).
> 
> With all that tonnage moving around in the Atlantic, a raider is not really a big worry at this point. Truthfully, a smart raider Capitan will head to less crowded waters, maybe the IO or the Pacific. Much like the German Raiders did. To stick around in the Atlantic, you've gotta be able to slug it out with somebody. I don't see any of the raiders built with that in mind, not the commerce raiders. Ok if you are a pocket BC, but with all that air power buzzing around, it's even hazardous for them!



Yes, but keep in mind that the CL's were a vital part of the combat against Spee. if the 2 CA's meet 2 German CA's it might end up with the British on the short end, as the German CA's are about 50% bigger. But throw in a couple of CL's and they can hit the raider from several sides {as happened with Exeter co} 



> As for the Bait Force compaining about being Bait, too bad. Shoulda joined the Army! Now make some noise with your radios and attract an Italian BB or two.


  My Grandfather was in the Army, survived to have kids {wounded in the fight against the b****y French though! Syria/Palestine 1941}, Great Uncle joined the Navy ended up on Dorsetshire. BTW don't belive all this bravado by the BB types *it was Dorsetshire that sank the Bismarck!!!*   



timshatz said:


> Moving the convoy routes west 600 miles should be fine. I'm thinking of the hassles a PB would have to deal with. That is farther away, as noted, there is a lot of warships running around out there. Going to make life tough for anyone going after a convoy. Look at the Germans going after the PQ convoys, and that was off a friendly coast with no enemy bases in site. Tough for them. Also, moving it west will make life harder for air search. And the Axis desperately needs air search.
> 
> Agree with you on Mediera. Too far from the Azores to worry too much about losing. Have to hold the Azores though. Then again, it is hard for the Axis to get enough power onto Mediera and not be exposed. One thing for sure, whoever holds that rock is going to get a lot of visits from the other side's air force. Not going to be a popular place. Think Malta.



Yes I think so. I believe the British in the UK have about 12 divisions {36 brigades} only about half are properly eqipped {not including the 14 UK territorial divisions, all very poorly equipped} *How many brigades do you think they could risk sending out from UK?* I think maybe only 5 - 8? That is perhaps 2 each on Madeira Azores and 1 each on Iceland, CapeVerde's, with a couple more going to Egypt East Africa? What do you think?

*Also I think they have about 60 - 70 Spit/Hurri squadrons, how many can the risk sending out from UK?* Even though a NAVAL landing is tricky, Germany could still land paratroops in the UK {or so they worried}


----------



## Freebird (Mar 4, 2008)

freebird said:


> Yes I think so. I believe the British in the UK have about 12 divisions {36 brigades} only about half are properly eqipped {not including the 14 UK territorial divisions, all very poorly equipped} *How many brigades do you think they could risk sending out from UK?* I think maybe only 5 - 8? That is perhaps 2 each on Madeira Azores and 1 each on Iceland, CapeVerde's, with a couple more going to Egypt East Africa? What do you think?
> 
> *Also I think they have about 65 - 70 Spit/Hurri squadrons, how many can the risk sending out from UK?* Even though a NAVAL landing is tricky, Germany could still land paratroops in the UK {or so the UK worried}



*What's your thoughts on this Tim?* If they have about 70 modern fighter squadrons, I don't think they could risk sending more than 15 - 20 or so outside of the UK. presumably if this is following historical events {except for the Spanish} then Germany is still in a position to go several different directions, it wasn't until March/April of '40 that Hitler committed the bulk of the luftwaffe to the Balkans that the UK could determine what Germany was going to do. 

If they have about 20 squadrons of Hurricanes {if even that}, they would need to base some at Malta, Azores, Madeira, Cape Verde, maybe Iceland, and of course in Egypt. *How many in each?*

*How many Coastal Command squadrons were operational in Jan 1941?*


----------



## timshatz (Mar 4, 2008)

freebird said:


> *What's your thoughts on this Tim?* If they have about 70 modern fighter squadrons, I don't think they could risk sending more than 15 - 20 or so outside of the UK. presumably if this is following historical events {except for the Spanish} then Germany is still in a position to go several different directions, it wasn't until March/April of '40 that Hitler committed the bulk of the luftwaffe to the Balkans that the UK could determine what Germany was going to do.
> 
> If they have about 20 squadrons of Hurricanes {if even that}, they would need to base some at Malta, Azores, Madeira, Cape Verde, maybe Iceland, and of course in Egypt. *How many in each?*
> 
> *How many Coastal Command squadrons were operational in Jan 1941?*




Was still kicking around the previous post. Haven't made up my mind just yet. I am of the mind that Malta and Gibraltar are done, Madiera is a maybe and the Cape Verde, Iceland and Azores have to be held. For now, we'll slug it out with regards to Madiera. That is where the fight for now will be. It is an outpost for the mouth of the Med. Keep it and you can patrol the approaches much easier and the chances of a Raider/PB/Invasion Force/whatever getting out and into the South Atlantic unnoticed are much smaller. 

I can supply Mediera, the Azores and Cape Verde much easier than Malta and Gibraltar. Going with 6 squadrons of fighters to Azores, 4 to Cape Verde and 3 to Mediera. Remaining 7 go to Egypt. Azores can reinforce Mediera, if need be. Let's see how this thing develops. 

As for the convoy routes, shifting them west should be fine. Even if the avg speed of a convoy is 10kts and the speed of a raider is 22 knts, we're looking at a closure speed of 12 nots. That's 240 miles per day. AND, the ocean is a big place. You can always re-route a convoy or turn it around to give the raider fits. As I said earlier, the raiders aren't the real problem. They are powerful and fast. But there is so much heavy iron floating around in the Southern Atlantic, you'd have to be nutz to take it on. 

Still, my primary goal is to get that Italian Fleet. That is my focus. Even if a raider does get loose, I am not breaking up my setup in the Mid-Atlantic to go chasing after it. Until I find out the Italians are Sunk, back in Port or back in the Med, that is my primary focus.


----------



## timshatz (Mar 4, 2008)

Iceland goes to the US. Even a token force will do. 

2 Brigades to the Azores, one to Mediera, 2 to Cape Verde. We can lose Mediera and stay in the fight. Lose Cape Verde or Azores and it's over. Sea lanes are cut and we really can't get them back without a major amphib landing. 

On the plus side, the Axis has no amphib experience and the Parachute attack that happened over Crete is definitely not adviseable over Mediera. To great a distance, too much in the way of defenses.


----------



## Freebird (Mar 4, 2008)

timshatz said:


> Was still kicking around the previous post. Haven't made up my mind just yet. I am of the mind that Malta and Gibraltar are done, Madiera is a maybe and the Cape Verde, Iceland and Azores have to be held. For now, we'll slug it out with regards to Madiera. That is where the fight for now will be. It is an outpost for the mouth of the Med. Keep it and you can patrol the approaches much easier and the chances of a Raider/PB/Invasion Force/whatever getting out and into the South Atlantic unnoticed are much smaller.
> 
> I can supply Mediera, the Azores and Cape Verde much easier than Malta and Gibraltar. Going with 6 squadrons of fighters to Azores, 4 to Cape Verde and 3 to Mediera. Remaining 7 go to Egypt. Azores can reinforce Mediera, if need be. Let's see how this thing develops.
> 
> .



Are you sure that you would want to abandon Malta? I would think it would be better to hold it, even if it does eventually fall it will keep the attention of the Italians from planning something more ambitious, like Madeira or Verde's.

What about sending a 3 squadrons to Azores, 3 to Cape Verde 4 to Malta instead? I don't think the Axis could get more than a couple of squadrons {on A/C carriers} to attack the Azores. Also I think of the 20 squadrons sent it should include the 4 or 5 squadrons of Blenhiem fighters, as their long range can help double as maritime patrol.


----------



## timshatz (Mar 5, 2008)

Ok with the Blenhiems. Will work kind of like the JU88 over the Bay of Biscay. Definitely do a number on the LR Axis birds. Actually, that would be a pretty good move.

As for Malta, I'm thinking this time the Axis doesn't screw up and goes into the Med full force and not half cocked. That is one of my reasons for getting that Italian fleet. If we can sink the BB, CVL and one or two of the CA/CL combos, we will change the balance of power in the Med. Then, we have a stronger fleet in there than the Axis. We have a chance to make a stand in the Med as their lines of communication would be at risk. But if we can't get that fleet, then somebody over there may wake up and take it back into the Med. Once that happens, the Axis shows some brains, takes Malta, reinforces the Italians in N. Africa in a big way and starts driving on the Suez Canal. Then, the British fleet is going to have to leave the Med, it becomes an Axis lake and Turkey and the Balkans are driven into the Axis camp. The Allies are stuck with trying to Reinforce the Oil Fields (to stop the drive towards Iraq and Saudi) and stop any threats coming south from the Suez. All of the sudden, the war gets a lot darker for the Allies. 

Everything depends on that fleet right now. After that, it depends on Herr Hitler and his myopia for Russia. If he doesn't go after it again and head's south, it is a big problem for the Brits. 

Hold the fighters for Malta for present. Let's see how this thing develops. We've got all our stuff after that Italian fleet and the rest of the forces either running a holding action or covering convoys.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 20, 2008)

Just thought I'd see if I could bring this thread back to life....


----------



## Freebird (Jun 20, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> Just thought I'd see if I could bring this thread back to life....




I feel a little guilty for letting this one stall. 

I completely re-worked the map, then my laptop fried I lost all the data.  

I'll have to do it again....


----------



## JugBR (Jun 28, 2008)

a fleet of u-boats should fits fine for my fictional country needs


----------



## Freebird (Jun 28, 2008)

JugBR said:


> a fleet of u-boats should fits fine for my fictional country needs



Which country are you thinking of? 

If you are talking about the "Maritime Economic Power" {British Empire} then with a fleet of U-boats it will be difficult to enforce an economic blockade. By their interpretation of laws of the Sea the British cruisers could stop US cargo ships bound for Nazi Germany and refuse them entry. But torpedoing them would surely provoke hostility between the US UK. Also subs are almost useless at protecting shipping from hostile subs. 

And how would you deal with surface raiders? Subs are too slow to catch Bismarck or Sheer class raiders

Now if you are only thinking of the Axis powers like Germany, then that might work. However the Axis also needed to support operations in N. Africa, which subs can't do either.


----------

