| Alternate Naval Exercise | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Dec 26 2010, 05:45 PM (948 Views) | |
| Simon Darkshade | Dec 26 2010, 05:45 PM Post #1 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
A little exercise in analysis, problem solving and counterfactual history. Starting date: 1930 (London Naval Treaty applies) Available nations: USA Britain France Germany USSR Japan Italy Minor power (optional) (Minor powers would be the likes of the Spanish, Dutch, Canadians or Australia, to name a few that would have the basis for a navy) Task: Outline a programme and plan for naval construction over the next decade. Take into account existing treaties, new treaties that you can attempt to arrange/negotiate and the principle that the international situation can change dramatically in 10 years. Level of detail required: As much or as little as you want. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Dec 26 2010, 08:54 PM Post #2 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
Certainly an interesting challenge. The USA plan would probably involve the transfer of some funds from various public works programs to naval construction. FDR did this to a limited extent, but Congress made it harder as the decade wore on. |
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Dec 26 2010, 09:25 PM Post #3 |
|
Interesting concept. Hmm, now, I am really stabbing in the dark here, but a common what if involves Italy building aircraft carriers. I don't really know Italian capacity, so forgive any holes, but I thought I would take a (little) crack. Basically the various cruiser programmes would be bumped back two years to give room for a small size early carrier. 1930: 4 x Giussano class cruisers launched 1931: 4 x Giussano class cruisers completed 1 x CV1 laid down 1932: 2 x Cadorna class cruisers laid down 1933: 2 x Montecuccoli class cruisers laid down 1 x CV1 launched 1934: 2 x Cadorna class cruisers launched 2 x Vittorio Veneto class battleships laid down 1 x CV1 completed 1935: 2 x Cadorna class cruisers completed 1 x CV2 laid down 1936: 2 x Montecuccoli class cruisers launched 2 x Duca d'Aosta class cruisers laid down 1937: 1 x CV2 launched 2 x Montecuccoli class cruisers completed 2 x Duca degli Abruzzi class cruisers laid down 2 x Vittorio Veneto class battleships launched 1938: 2 x Vittorio Veneto class battleships laid down 2 x Duca d'Aosta class cruisers launched 1 x CV2 completed 1939: 2 x Duca d'Aosta class cruisers completed 2 x Duca degli Abruzzi class cruisers launched 1940: 2 x Vittorio Veneto class battleships completed 2 x Duca degli Abruzzi class cruisers completed Now, as to the shape of these carriers (I imagine one thing to consider would be aircraft development.) CV1: Length: 500 Ft Beam: 65 Ft Draught: 18 Ft Tonnage: Around 8,000 Propulsion: 80,000 HP (30-34 knts I figure) Crew: 600 Aircraft: 8 Torpedo Bombers, 10 Fighters CV2: Length: 620 Ft Beam: 85 Ft Draught: 22 Ft Tonnage: Around 13,000 Propulsion: 40,000 HP (21-22 knts) Crew: 800 Aircraft: 12 Torpedo Bombers, 16 Fighters Armoured Deck Now, admittedly, carriers may not do Italy all that much service what with the nature of the Mediterannean, but they may be used as close support for battleships, and other things of that sort. Edited by Matthew, Dec 26 2010, 09:26 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Dec 26 2010, 09:52 PM Post #4 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
There are some articles I have in an old volume of Warship regarding the Regia Marina 'Breakout Fleet'; I'll dig them out after the holidays and post some details of their carrier plans. There would be plenty of reference material on Warships Projects. |
![]() |
|
| JBK | Dec 30 2010, 09:58 AM Post #5 |
|
Here is my alternative history for the Royal Dutch Navy between 1930 and 1940. Until 1936 almost everything is the same. The only differance is the construction of three more excellent John Maurits van Nassau class sloops of war. Then, in 1936 just after the Koninklijke Marine has laid down its replacements for the aging Java and Sumatra in the form of Tromp and Jacob van Heemskerk a belligerent act is commited somewhere in Asia by Japan. Looking for a response, and bound by the financial situation the first reaction comes in the form of a new class of destroyers beying laid down. While these were under construction the Koninklijke Marine looked for a capital ship which could be built quickly and which were not too expensive. The natural choise were the german Panzerschiffe, and in 1938 three of these ships were ordered, toghether with a other destrpyer flottila. Finally in 1939 four more destroyers are laid down. Dutch Royal Navy in 1930 Cruisers Java Sumatra Destroyers Banckert Van Nes Witte de With Van Galen Piet Hein Kortenaer Evertsen Van Ghent Sloops of War Flores Soemba Minelayers Hydra Medusa Douwes Aukes Van Meerlant Minesweepers M1 M2 M3 M4 A B C D 1930 Sloops Laid Down: John Maurits van Nassau Borneo Sulawesi Soerabaia Minelayers Laid Down: Goude Leeuw Prins van Oranje 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 Cruisers Laid Down: Tromp Jacob van Heemskerk 1936 Minesweepers Laid Down: Jan van Amstel Pieter de Bitter Abraham Crijnssen Eland Dubois Willem van Ewijck Pieter Florisz Jan van Gelder 1937 Destroyers Laid Down: Tjerk Hiddes Philips Van Almonde Gerard Callenburgh Isaac Sweers 1938 Destroyers Laid Down: Wolf Fret Bulhond Jakhals Hermelijn Lynx Vos Panter Panzerschiffe Laid Down: De Zeven Provinciƫn De Ruyter Regent van Holland 1939 Destroyers Laid Down: Holland Gelderland Zeeland Overijssel 1940 Dutch Royal Navy in 1940 Panzerschiffe: De Zeven Provinciƫn De Ruyter Regent van Holland Cruisers: Tromp Jacob van Heemskerk Destroyers: Tjerk Hiddes Philips Van Almonde Gerard Callenburgh Isaac Sweers Wolf Fret Bulhond Jakhals Hermelijn Lynx Vos Panter Holland Gelderland Zeeland Overijssel Sloops of War Flores Soemba John Maurits van Nassau Borneo Sulawesi Soerabaia Minelayers: Jan van Amstel Pieter de Bitter Abraham Crijnssen Eland Dubois Willem van Ewijck Pieter Florisz Jan van Gelder Prins van Oranje Goude Leeuw Hydra Medusa Douwes Aukes Van Meerlant Minesweepers: M1 M2 M3 M4 A B C D Edited by JBK, Dec 30 2010, 10:02 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Dec 30 2010, 02:51 PM Post #6 |
|
One thing to keep in mind, with the Deutschland class was that they were designed with commerce raiding specifically in mind. The problem with using that directly, as far as I could tell, would be that 11" guns might be slightly useful in taking on enemy cruisers but on the other hand, it would be unlikely that they would find themself in such an advantageous position. Keep in mind their primary asset was outgunning everything that could catch them and out running anything that could outgun them. With the plentitude of land air bases throughout the Far East they would easily become the prey. Now, is the intention to order them from Germany or build them in Dutch yards? From what I recall, Dutch shipbuilding had largely petered out by this point, though they probably could handle the small number of sloops and most of the destroyers once the Tromp class completed. Cruisers of 12,000 tons would require time and a fair bit of expenditure, however. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Dec 30 2010, 05:00 PM Post #7 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
The major bottlenecks would be armour plate and heavy gun construction, both of which would be restricted by other aspects of general German armament. There is this option http://www.bobhenneman.info/netherlandshome.htm but it will not be available until 1944 with the historical construction programme. They would need to be laid down in 1936 or so in order to be completed or in a sufficient stage of completion in 1940 to evacuate to Britain and thence to the Far East. Laying down two or more large light cruisers earlier would be ideal but would run into the issues encountered in the ordering of the de Ruyter. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Jan 10 2011, 06:33 PM Post #8 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
Political: A neutered 36 LNT, or none at all; no Anglo-German Naval Agreement; try and keep the Stresa Front going; start apace the moment Washington expires - when Japan gives its notice in 1934, take appropriate measures. General: Advocate fortifying Singapore, Hong Kong and turning Sydney into a major fleet base; Build up Canadian yards; separate the Fleet Air Arm from the RAF early, and give them a reasonable priority for a good monoplane fighter; a good monoplane strike/torpedo bomber, a good monoplane attack/dive bomber and a good monoplane fighter-bomber - in that order Encourage the build up of Coastal Command of the RAF as much as possible. Battleships: Use first few years to put together resources - gunpits Scrap Revenge class, and use guns for 5 Vanguards - Vanguard, Superb, Magnificent, Dreadnought, Centurion; others for Singapore. Malaya to be based at Singapore. Modernise other QEs, with 4.7" AA, radar when available and other necessities. Modernise Renown, Repulse and Hood from 1935 onwards as fast battleships. Modernise Rodney and Nelson. Design KGVs from 1932 onwards. Lay down in 1935 as ostensible treaty ships @ 3/year They will not be. 30 knots, very heavy armour, anti-torpedo protection, 9 x 16", secondary armament preferably 24 x 5.25" with power operated mounts, but if that cannot be done, 24+ x 4.7", and dozens of 40mm; some 20-25mm. HMS KGV, HMS POW, HMS DOY, HMS Princess Royal, HMS Anson, HMS Howe Design and lay down Lions in 1936/7 and 37/38 - HMS Lion, HMS Conqueror, HMS Thunderer, HMS Temeraire, 9-12 x 16", 24 x 5.25", 96-128 x 40mm; 31+ knots, 16"+ armour Encourage Australian and Canada to purchase a pair of ships each from 1937. These would come out of the second batch of Lions These would be followed by a second batch of four when slips are available. Aim: 5 QE 2 Nelson 6 KGV 8 Lion 5 Vanguard 1 Hood 2 Renowns Some may recognize this as what the RN planned from 1936 onwards. Carriers: Keep Argus for training and testing Confine Furious to training and testing Courageous and Glorious to get enhanced AA weaponary, both medium and light. Fit radar suites on them during late 1930s rotational yard sessions and consider rebuilding for the hangar. Sell HMS Eagle to Australia. HMS Hermes to be based in East Indies Fleet Vindictive, Hawkins, Frobisher, Effingham to be converted to CVLs. Used for East Indies Fleet. Enterprise and Emerald to be converted to CVLs. Used for trade protection and East Indies Fleet 1934: Lay down HMS Ark Royal and HMS Eagle. Theoretically to maximum treaty limits, but really treaty busters. Design to be started in 1932. 4.7" AAA, with 40mm and 20-25mm light AA 1935: Lay down HMS Illustrious, HMS Invincible, HMS Victorious, HMS Formidable. 35000t minimum, 4.7" AAA, with 40mm and 20-25mm light AA. Not going for the armoured deck/hangar combo; large single hangar 1936: Lay down HMS Indomitable, HMS Insuperable, HMS Implacable, HMS Indefatigable. Repeat Illustrious 1937/8: Lay down HMS Irresistible, HMS Incomparable, HMS Audacious, HMS Inflexible. Repeat Illustrious Over the period 1932 to 1940, six CVLs based on the Town class hull to be built. Light carriers to be designed and laid down 1/year in whatever yards that can take them from 1934 onwards, initially to replace the Eagle, but later as large trade protection carriers with a powerful enough capacity as to serve as fleet carriers. HMS Colussus, HMS Ocean, HMS Majestic, HMS Theseus, HMS Perseus, HMS Venerable, HMS Pioneer, HMS Hercules Aim is for about 16 fleet carriers (35000t+), 8 light fleet carriers (16-18000t) and 12 light carriers on cruiser hulls (10-12000t) Aircraft: Work towards development of a decent 1939 monoplane airframe that can fill the roles of fighter, or of torpedo/multirole fighter. Same engine for ease of maintenance and production. Cruisers: Concentrate on a lengthened (620-635ft) Town class type from 1932 onwards. Aim for 12500t base weight; 12 x 6", 12 x 4.7" and plenty of 40mm and 20-25mm. Produce these instead of Leanders, Arethusas, and Towns. Use Town hull as basis for a 9 x 8" CA from 1936/7 onwards. Didos with 8 x 4.7" as AA cruisers. 4 D class cruisers to be modifed as AA/trade protection cruisers; others scrapped C class cruisers to be modified as AA/trade protection cruisers. Work to be done on automatic 6" and 9.2" mounts, with preliminary design work for large cruisers (16-24000t) to carry these. Not a big priority, though. Destroyers: Standardize on a Fleet Destroyer type with 6 x 4.7" DP, 10 x 21" torpedo tubes, 40mm and 20-25mm AA, ASDIC and space for some rather strange mortar type devices. Ahead firing mortars were under development in the mid 30s, so are a viable proposition Lay down a flotilla a year, at least. Escorts: ASW DD/DE - frigate for want of a better word - with 2 x 4.7" and an ASW/convoy protection focus. Mass produce as much as possible. Lay down a flotilla of large sloops/year Subs: Save R class, and build new boats based on it for training and experimental purposes Develop a large, long range boat for use in the Med and Far East Base 20+ subs at Singers Fund 7.5 million for an additional armour plant from 1930 Fund 5 million to rebuild old gunpits Do not slash so much armaments and shipbuilding capacity, and provide a Keynesian means of recovery from the Depression Keep annual estimates at around 65 million until first signs of war or international tension, when they should rise rapidly |
![]() |
|
| JBK | Jan 10 2011, 06:53 PM Post #9 |
|
Why build so many BB with 16" guns? Battleships were obselete, not to mention that the 14" on the KGV did just fine. Also, why waste money on Hong Kong?
Edited by JBK, Jan 10 2011, 06:54 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Jan 10 2011, 06:56 PM Post #10 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
They are useful for bombardment and supporting invasions, as well as screens for carrier task forces. Air power still has a ways to go in 1930 before it can fully supplant BBs. The main justification for 16'' guns would be the similar sizes being made in Japan and the United States, I imagine. |
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Jan 10 2011, 06:59 PM Post #11 |
|
The original intent was to go with 16" but, if I remember correctly, they decided to go with 14" as they were hoping to be able to convince everyone to set that as the maximum caliber. It obviously didn't happen, and we were stuck with 14".
Edited by Matthew, Jan 10 2011, 06:59 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Jan 10 2011, 07:11 PM Post #12 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
Yes, 16" is the threshold that had been passed. Airpower is unproven in 1930, and not useful in night conditions at sea. It won't have true all weather capacity in all climes until the 50s, but they don't know that at the time. As said, this was the historical fleet replacement plan. Hong Kong can bleed the enemy, and the standing plan was for the main fleet to go to Singapore, then steam to relieve Hong Kong. Enough supplies and guns in HK can make it a hard fight for an enemy that will already be stretched, to put it mildly. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Jan 10 2011, 07:14 PM Post #13 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
I doubt if it would really affect the outcome in the big scheme of things, but it would delay them for a while. It would be something like Bataan and Corregidor. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Jan 10 2011, 08:03 PM Post #14 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
That is one possible outcome, and the likely one. However, foresight as to exceptional Japanese capabilities in the 40s cannot be ascribed to 1930. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Dec 20 2011, 12:59 PM Post #15 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=5413006&postcount=172 My response to a rather convoluted and pro-Germanic TL on another forum is of relevance here - if you change something for one side, then the other side will react. And sometimes, their reaction or counter move will come inside your own reaction cycle. German possession of 4 carriers in 1941 would be met by something between the RN carrier plan here and the OTL Tentative Fleet Plan which I've referenced elsewhere on this site. Either way, Germany is starting from a position of 0-5 against an enemy who can lay down 1 fleet carrier+ 1 trade protection carrier/year on a consistent basis and will do so if an enemy lays down the gauntlet to them in such an obvious fashion. In the time taken for the Germans to build 4 new carriers (only two at a time is a realistic schedule), the British are going to have 10-12 new carriers available, for a total of 15-17. They can concentrate 8-10 with the Home Fleet and spread the others out, maintaining a minimum theatre supremacy of 200%. This would be accompanied by more destroyers and AA cruisers and AA cruiser conversions, plus modernization of the battleline, plus construction of 1 battleship/year under reasonable production. Morals of the story: - Germany cannot outproduce Britain - Germany starts from behind in a big way - Every reaction begats reaction - Full pursuit of the Z-Plan is not the best expenditure of resources for Germany in the 1930s, as it would be met with the reactions outlined here at a minimum. - This is even factoring in bottlenecks for British production, reduced armaments production capacity and scrapping of huge sections of British naval construction capacity in the 1920s; if we change that last part...it gets very scary. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Dec 31 2011, 06:49 PM Post #16 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
Reading through that thread I see so many of the persistent errors we've come to avoid. The "it's my story, and IT'S ALTERNATE HISTORY so I can do what I want" attitude stands out among them. One thing I did not see mentioned in the discussions on distance is the operating range of carrier groups. It is not simply a mathematical exercise in aircraft capability, but how far operations can be conducted with any degree of control and precision. For example, Fletcher's group launched at the extreme range of 400 miles in the Wake relief expedition, but even this was quickly countermanded because of the threat from Japanese carriers lurking in the vicinity. For the Germans to get within 200 miles of Scapa Flow in the relatively confined North Sea would seem suicidal. Simply building "a longer range Stuka" doesn't necessarily solve the issue either, and illustrates a lack of understanding about carrier tactics. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Dec 31 2011, 06:58 PM Post #17 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
This is the best quote in any AH discussion I've ever seen. ![]()
|
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Dec 31 2011, 07:17 PM Post #18 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
Ah, some of my best work.
|
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Dec 31 2011, 07:26 PM Post #19 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
Something else I was wondering. Even if the Germans did recognize the value of the carrier and built a credible force, wouldn't that make them more reluctant to use them? Sure, in hindsight it makes sense to gamble if you know you'll lose the war otherwise, but even the Japanese displayed a degree of caution. A third strike on Pearl could have knocked out the fuel depots and forced the US fleet back to San Diego, which would have been worth it even if it cost 1/3 of the 1st Air Fleet pilots. Generals don't normally throw their best units into the fray where there is a high risk of losing them for questionable gain -- note the opposition to Yamamoto's original plan. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Dec 31 2011, 07:59 PM Post #20 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
Ah, but now you are making sense and thinking forward through operations and consequences in a logical sense rather than working backwards from where you wish to end. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Dec 31 2013, 01:11 PM Post #21 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
I just remembered this little tidbit: "There are a lot of knowledgeable people here who are supplying you with information not out of a depraved ideological bias in favour of eternal British mastery - speaking personally, that is the sole factor that informs and drives me, as conducting nationalistic arguments over the electric internet has turned me from a four stone apology into two separate gorillas - but out of a desire to help and an interest in realistic history."
Edited by Simon Darkshade, Dec 31 2013, 01:12 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Dec 31 2013, 01:16 PM Post #22 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
![]() What was that from, the thread? I seem to remember you making a similar statement at WI, though I could be transposing memories. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Dec 31 2013, 01:20 PM Post #23 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
It was from the now infamous 'German carrier raid on Scapa Flow' thread that I linked to above. That turned into a real monstrosity of a thread. I may have used my little statement above on other occasions; after all, it is my only motivating factor. |
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Dec 31 2013, 03:28 PM Post #24 |
|
That's great. There are few worthier causes.
|
![]() |
|
| Doctor_Strangelove | Jan 6 2014, 11:35 AM Post #25 |
|
Lord of the Seven Kingdoms
|
.
Edited by Doctor_Strangelove, Nov 11 2016, 09:12 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Jan 6 2014, 07:10 PM Post #26 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
It is in @. It is a reboot of an idea from back in 2007 on Stormoverciv. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Alternate History · Next Topic » |








8:39 AM Jul 11