WitW-HKD TEA Fleet

[Historiker]

For WitW-HKD, I'm trying to find out, what's the realistic developement for the German Navy after WW 1.
As this mod intends to add a vast number of major ships on both sides, I want as much ships as possible. Therefore I might simply add 50 big ships on both sides (to keep it more simple perhaps even of one single class), but this wouldn't give the game a soul. So every ship should have it's reason for existance and it's own history.
To enlarge the TEA navys (as they have to face GB, US, Japan and F) the TEA-navys will have to cheat wherever possible. So museum ships as well as target ships ans hulks will be rearmed in war - but of course, I can't simply turn every ship into a hulk as GB would never accept this. So in this thread, I want to discuss with everyone interested, how and how much of the big ships could be preserved for later wars and how the TEA navys might develope after the war.
Some of the ships will be handed over to future enemys (Turkey), but most of them shall be spared for later use somehow.



When the War ends in Feb. 1917, it was a part of the armistice that shipbuilding is halted. So two of the Bayern and all the Mackensen and Ersatz-Yorcks aren't built.

In 1922, Germany get's the same rata as Japan at the Washington Naval Conference.
It's 10 major ships will be:

SMS Bayern, SMS Baden; BBs Bayern-class
SMS Derflinger, SMS Hindenburg; BCs Derflinger-class
SMS König, SMS Großer Kurfürst, SMS Markgraf, SMS Kronprinz; BBs König-class
SMS Kaiser, SMS Friedrich der Große; BBs Kaiser-class

The SMS Nassau is turned into a museum ship in Wilhelmshafen, as the first German BB, the SMS Brandenburg is turned into a museum ship for Hamburg, as the first German pre-Dread.
The SMS Kaiserin is turned into a remote controlled target ship.

The question is now:
How many of this will be replaced until the end of 1934 (no one will get replaced after Japan has cancelled the 1930 London treaty)? Germany has a much stronger economy as Japan, so it could afford much more easy to replace old ships.
How many will be modernized like the Kongo class? How much will an extensive refit of the ships change?
a) Starting with 30,5cm Guns, can there be fitted bigger ones on them (or just change them to 320mm like the Italiens did?)
b) How much will the ships get faster after refitting with new engines?
How many CVs will Germany have at the end of 1936?

Building programm after 1936:
Doctrine:
I guess we must assume still many BBs and CAs to be built, as Germany still hasn't realized the full importance of CVs, yet. But there is the possibility for Flightdeck Cruisers. Germany made studies about them for commerce raiding issue. Armed with heavy artillery, they should also carry bombers to find and attack enemy merchant shipping. Something like this might be built:


Will there be any Scharnhorst class BBs? They will be built with 38cm, but with no more Naval treaty - why should they be built? I guess they will be Bismarck-class BBs, no?
Will there be more Bismarck BBs?
How many CVs, CVLs, BBs and CAs will be built until 1/41?

I have every shipyard that can build major ships but I don't know how much may be built simultanisly in everyone. Can anyone provide me with informations?
The shipyards are:
- Howaldtswerke Hamburg
- A.G. Vulcan Stettin
- A.G. "Weser" Bremen
- B&V Hamburg
- Germaniawerft Kiel
- Friedrich Schichau Danzig
- Howaldtswerke Kiel
- Kaiserliche Werft (Deutsche Werke Kiel AG) Kiel
- Kaiserliche Werft (Kriegsmarinewerft) Wilhelmshafen

The German Deutschland class CAs/pocket battleships will be built as Washington-CAs with four 20,3cm cannon instead of the tripple 28cm. They refetting has just started, so 2 will already have their 28cm guns, the other 3 (including Panzerschiff "D" and "E") may immediately be refitted.


The remaining of the rest of the High Seas Fleet:

Poland get's the following BBs:
SMS Prinzregent Luitpold, SMS König Albert; Kaiser class
as well as the pre Dreads SMS Hannover, SMS Deutschland (both coastal defence), SMS Schleswig-Holstein (turned into remote controlled target ship), SMS Schlesien (mostly disarmed training ship)

The Osman Empire recieves:
SMS Moltke (BC), the sister of the SMS Goeben
SMS Wörth to complete their collection of Brandenburg-class Pre-Dreads

Finland recieves:
SMS Von der Tann; BC
SMS Seydlitz; BC
SMS Braunschweig, SMS Elsass; pre-Dreads for coastal defence.

As Yugoslavia will recieve old Austrian equipment, they will not recieve anything from the High Seas Fleet.
So the following ships are left:
5 Kaiser Friedrich III. class - pre-Dreads
5 Wittelsbach class - pre-Dreads
3 Braunschweig class - pre-Dreads
4 Nassau class - BBs
4 Helgoland class - BBs
How much can be preserved as hulks? Will the British accept some pre-Dreads to be excluded from Washington (as totally obsolete) as coastal defence? Some might be stripped of their engines and be "beached" as coastal defence?


What about Russia and Austria?
I guess Russia will recieve the 5:1,75 ratio as well as Austria? How much can both build after the cancelled treaty?
Is a higher number than 2 BBs/BCs + 2 pre-Dreads possible for Finland and Poland?
How much may Yugoslavia have? It has a very long coast...






Fate of the Cruisers:
Kaiserin Augusta -> ML
Victoria Louise class (5) -> ML
Gazelle class (7) -> ML
Fürst Bismarck -> Poland ML
Prinz Heinrich -> Finland ML
Bremen class (5) -> ML: 2 Finland, 2 Poland, 1 Germany
SMS Roon (CA) -> Finland
Königsberg class old (2) -> Finland
Kolberg class (2) -> Poland CLAA 2x10,5cm; 8x2x3,7cm; 8x4x2cm; 8x2x2cm
Magdeburg class (2) -> Poland CLAA replaced the 10,5 with the 10,5 DP (1916 Breslau
armement)
Graudenz class (2) -> Finland CLAA replaced the 10,5cm with 10,5cm DP
Pillau -> Poland CL
Frankfurt -> Finland CL
Brummer class -> Finland CL/ML
Königsberg replacement -> Hulk, gets rearmed as colonial Cruiser after 1936 (3 the Nürnberg gets completed just before the armisteace)

Torpedoboats:
G38, G39, G40, G41, G42, V45 to Finland

[Monter_Trismegistos]

Washington Conference allowed some BB's under construction to be converted to CVc - so maybe two Mackensens could be saved that way?

Well, Poland surely would not be able to maintain those - but were ready to obtain them. Did you know that during Russo-Polish war in 1922 after few battles which made Red Army on the west non existant - Poland made a peace offer, demanding 2 Ganguts from Russia?

[Historiker]

I already have a "Mackensen" class CV in the DB as I thought about the same.

In 1936/37, there was a Polish Naval Plan that includes two BBs with 25.000ts and 30,5cm guns as well as two CAs.
1938/39 they changed the plan to three BBs with 25.000ts and one CV while no longer building the CAs. The final navy then should look like:
1CV
3BB
12DD
12PC
18TB
21SS
1ML
16MSW

As Poland is fully integreated in the TEA, and there aren't any war demolitions because of the Russo-Polish war, it has a significant stronger economy. Moreover, it will recieve any help needed from Germany to modernize and maintain this ships because of the TEA. So I think 2 BBs + 2 pre-Dread isn't to much for Poland. With German help, they may even have more, but I'm afraid Britain wouldn't be happy with to many German ships being "parked" in Polish hands, no?

And no, it was new to me that they demanded 2 Ganguts.

[mlees]

London naval Treaty of 1930: http://www.microworks.net/pacific/road_to_war/london_treaty.htm
 
Washington Naval Treaty of 1922: http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pre-war/1922/nav_lim.html
 
Note that capital ships (which include cruisers with guns larger than 6.1 inch/155 mm) are generally not considered overage until 20 years old. (I forget the premise you are working off of...)
 
Great Britain retained a lot of WW1 era ships due to the cost of replacing such a large force needed to defend a world wide empire.
 
Minor powers might be assumed to have purchased overage ships of USA, UK, France, Germany, Italy. However, the major powers would "counter" these units with their own construction. for example, Italy would be uncomfortable with a naval power based in the Adriatic. UK and France would be concerned with a larger Italian navy.

[mlees]

Will the British accept some pre-Dreads to be excluded from Washington (as totally obsolete) as coastal defence?

 
IMO, no.
 

 Some might be stripped of their engines and be "beached" as coastal defence?

 
IMO, No. More likely that the guns and/or turrets would be removed, and installed in land fortifications. (In WiTP terms, static CD units.) This allows better (protected) phone and power connections, barracks for the gun crews, increased and better protected ammo magazines.

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: mlees

Note that capital ships (which include cruisers with guns larger than 6.1 inch/155 mm) are generally not considered overage until 20 years old. (I forget the premise you are working off of...)

Yes, but how many will be replaced until 1934? How many will be modernized? One could also spare 1 or 2 as their demolition was stopped immediately after Japan cancelled the Treaty?

Great Britain retained a lot of WW1 era ships due to the cost of replacing such a large force needed to defend a world wide empire.

How will they react when Germany modernizes most of its fleet with newly built ships (if it does so)? As the new ships will be in most cases only faster and won't have any bigger guns than 38cm - will Britain see the need for totally new ships as well? The old ones still have a compareable armour and strong armement...

Minor powers might be assumed to have purchased overage ships of USA, UK, France, Germany, Italy.

That is indeed the plan. I still don't know which smaller nations shall participate in the war, but Portugal for instance was offered to buy 5 old Conneticut in 1922.

However, the major powers would "counter" these units with their own construction. for example, Italy would be uncomfortable with a naval power based in the Adriatic. UK and France would be concerned with a larger Italian navy.

I know. Britain might cheat by giving some of it's old BBs to the dominion navies, but Italy is indeed a problem.
5:1,75 might be to much for Austria, I thought about something like 5:1 - or just 4 BBs.

But will Japan accept 5:3 when Germany gets the same? But, THIS Washington will be signed while the British-Japanese Alliance is still in perfect order so that GB will be able to calculate with US, J and F on its side.

IMO, No. More likely that the guns and/or turrets would be removed, and installed in land fortifications. (In WiTP terms, static CD units.) This allows better (protected) phone and power connections, barracks for the gun crews, increased and better protected ammo magazines.

That's the typical way, yes.
So one could strip all the not allowed ships of their guns and convert them to AVs, AOs and hulks while their guns are installed at the shore?
Would Britain accept this without doing the same to all its old ships? Of course, this means that a refitting with the old or new guns as well as with new engines (the old will be wrecked after all this years) will take approx. a year...

[mlees]

Yes, but how many will be replaced until 1934? How many will be modernized?

 
All this is covered in the texts of the treaties. 
 

London Treaty, Annex 1, section 1 
Except as provided in Section III of this Annex and Part III of the present Treaty, a vessel shall not be replaced before it becomes "over-age". A vessel shall be deemed to be "over-age" when the following number of years have elapsed since the date of its completion:

(a) For a surface vessel exceeding 3,000 tons (3,048 metric tons) but not exceeding 10,000 tons (10,160 metric tons) standard displacement:

(i) If laid down before 1 January 1920: 16 years;

(ii) If laid down after 31 December 1919: 20 years.

(b) For a surface vessel not exceeding 3,000 tons (3,048 metric tons) standard displacement:

(i) If laid down before 1 January 1921: 12 years;

(ii) If laid down after 31 December 1920: 16 years.

(c) For a submarine: 13 years.

The keels of replacement tonnage shall not be laid down more than three years before the year in which the vessel to be replaced becomes "over-age"; but this period is reduced to two years in the case of any replacement surface vessel not exceeding 3,000 tons (3,048 metric tons) standards displacement.

 
So, the Nassau class becomes overage in 1930. The Vonn der Tann & Helgolands in 1931-1932. The Seydlitz & Kaisers in 1932-1933. The Derrflinger & Konigs in 1934. The Hindenburg & Bayerns in 1937.
 
There is no restriction on modernization, except in changes of tonnage, which must be recalculated in to the treaty limits.
 
 

One could also spare 1 or 2 as their demolition was stopped immediately after Japan cancelled the Treaty?

 
Japan only "cancelled" the treaty for itself. Japans withdrawal does not free anyone else from the treaty unless they too withdraw. In the UK's case, for example, the KGV class was to be the replacements for the "Resolution" types, but war broke out before the KGV's were finished. Once war broke out, the UK "withdrew" from the treaties. The only effect of Japan's withdrawal on the US/UK was the clause that allowed them to use 16 inch weapons, and exceed the 35000 ton limit (but still capped at 45000).
 
Text of second London Naval Treaty: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-089_London_Treaty_1936.htm

[Historiker]

According the expansion after 1934/1936 and the modernization of the High Seas Fleet:
After the experience of the battle of Jutland and the sub warfare (which both causes the peace), the German Navy doesn't plan any decisive battle with the Britains any longer.
So both the expansion of the navy as well as every modernization/replacement of the existing ships will concern the new doctrin, which is targeting the commerce raiding against Britain. According to this, all the ships are planned to have maximum ranges as well as high speed to enable both the breakthrough into the Atlantic as well as fleeing from superior enemy forces.

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: mlees

So, the Nassau class becomes overage in 1930. The Vonn der Tann & Helgolands in 1931-1932. The Seydlitz & Kaisers in 1932-1933. The Derrflinger & Konigs in 1934. The Hindenburg & Bayerns in 1937.

But they are all laied down before 1920 - so they are all to be replaced after 16 years, no?
So
SMS Bayern, SMS Baden 1932
SMS Derflinger 1930
SMS Hindenburg 1933
SMS König, SMS Großer Kurfürst, SMS Markgraf, SMS Kronprinz; all 1930
SMS Kaiser, SMS Friedrich der Große; 1928
no?

The question is: Will they all be replaced by new ones or will they just be modernized?

Japan only "cancelled" the treaty for itself. Japans withdrawal does not free anyone else from the treaty unless they too withdraw. In the UK's case, for example, the KGV class was to be the replacements for the "Resolution" types, but war broke out before the KGV's were finished. Once war broke out, the UK "withdrew" from the treaties. The only effect of Japan's withdrawal on the US/UK was the clause that allowed them to use 16 inch weapons, and exceed the 35000 ton limit (but still capped at 45000).

Yes, you are right, thank you! In this case, Germany will react to Japans cancelling of the treaty as well as most of the other TEA members.

[mlees]

How will they react when Germany modernizes most of its fleet with newly built ships (if it does so)?

 
That's entirely up to you, I suppose.
 
Historically, the treaty powers remained loyal to the treaties as long as possible. For example, Germany laid down the "pocket battleships". France responded with the Dunkerques. France had the tonnage available to remain within treaty limits, and these new ships did not violate those.
 
 

 As the new ships will be in most cases only faster and won't have any bigger guns than 38cm - will Britain see the need for totally new ships as well? The old ones still have a compareable armour and strong armement...

 
Probably not, especially if the economic situation remained the same (vis-a-vis the Depression of 1930-1933).

I know. Britain might cheat by giving some of it's old BBs to the dominion navies, but Italy is indeed a problem.
5:1,75 might be to much for Austria, I thought about something like 5:1 - or just 4 BBs.

Actually, the Dominion ships (Australian cruisers) were integrated fully into the RN, and those ship tonnages were required to be calculated into the tonnage limits.
 

But will Japan accept 5:3 when Germany gets the same? But, THIS Washington will be signed while the British-Japanese Alliance is still in perfect order so that GB will be able to calculate with US, J and F on its side.

 
There actually was not a "perfect" alliance. There was a new naval arms race developing because the US/UK predicted (rightly, as it turned out) that the next likely opponent would be Japan (as Germany was tied down by Versailles).
 
The Japanese leadership at the time realised that they COULD NOT/WOULD NOT acheive parity with the US or UK. This would have bankrupted Japan. So, that leadership realised that the best case (for Japan) would be to restrict building by the US/UK. It was the ultra-nationalists in Japan that used the 5:5:3 ratio as a political talking point to attract followers and gain power, but it did not reflect the realities of the industrial or economic situation. 
 
Even if you are postualting that (without Versailles and a return to the status quo after WW1) Germany participates in a naval arms race from 1920 - 1922, I presume that Japan (and Germany) would have been asked to respect a 5 (US): 5 (UK): 3 (Japan): 3 (Germany) ratio, because Germany and Japan do not need a multihemisphere Navy, whereas the US and, more especially, the UK, had world wide trade empires to defend.
 

So one could strip all the not allowed ships of their guns and convert them to AVs, AOs and hulks while their guns are installed at the shore?

 
Yes. This is called "demilitarization". Many ships were converted to noncombat roles. The American Utah became a gunnery training ship (with 5 inch weapons as the largest onboard). The British Centurion became a radio controlled target ship (guns removed). Others became harbor "barracks" ships, or flottilla supply ships.
 

Would Britain accept this without doing the same to all its old ships? Of course, this means that a refitting with the old or new guns as well as with new engines (the old will be wrecked after all this years) will take approx. a year...

In general, no. The cost and time involved in refitting the HMS Iron Duke, for example, was deemed too much, and it was decided (in 1940, the darkest hour) that it was better to invest in new construction.

[mlees]

But they are all laied down before 1920 - so they are all to be replaced after 16 years, no?
So
SMS Bayern, SMS Baden 1932
SMS Derflinger 1930
SMS Hindenburg 1933
SMS König, SMS Großer Kurfürst, SMS Markgraf, SMS Kronprinz; all 1930
SMS Kaiser, SMS Friedrich der Große; 1928
no?

 
Your right, I was just applying a 20-year rule across the board for speed/ease of posting. 

The question is: Will they all be replaced by new ones or will they just be modernized?

 
That's completely up to you, of course. I would suggest one scenario were they are refitted, and a "dream" scenario were the Axis fleets are more modern. [;)]

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: mlees

I know. Britain might cheat by giving some of it's old BBs to the dominion navies, but Italy is indeed a problem.
5:1,75 might be to much for Austria, I thought about something like 5:1 - or just 4 BBs.

Actually, the Dominion ships (Australian cruisers) were integrated fully into the RN, and those ship tonnages were required to be calculated into the tonnage limits.

That was new to me, thanks. So this isn't an option.

There actually was not a "perfect" alliance. There was a new naval arms race developing because the US/UK predicted (rightly, as it turned out) that the next likely opponent would be Japan (as Germany was tied down by Versailles).

The Japanese leadership at the time realised that they COULD NOT/WOULD NOT acheive parity with the US or UK. This would have bankrupted Japan. So, that leadership realised that the best case (for Japan) would be to restrict building by the US/UK. It was the ultra-nationalists in Japan that used the 5:5:3 ratio as a political talking point to attract followers and gain power, but it did not reflect the realities of the industrial or economic situation.

Even if you are postualting that (without Versailles and a return to the status quo after WW1) Germany participates in a naval arms race from 1920 - 1922, I presume that Japan (and Germany) would have been asked to respect a 5 (US): 5 (UK): 3 (Japan): 3 (Germany) ratio, because Germany and Japan do not need a multihemisphere Navy, whereas the US and, more especially, the UK, had world wide trade empires to defend.

Good points!
As the war ended in 2/17, the alliance between Japan and GB is intact. The Washington 1922 is signed as part of the armistice, to prohibit a new arms race between Germany and England. As Japans economy is at its limit, it is willed to participate in the treaty as well as the rest does.
US 5
UK 5
J 3
G 3
F 1,75
I 1,75
R 1,75
A-H 1 (But as the Viribus Unitis will be replaced by 4 BBs á 35.000 ts, it will end at 1,4)

So one could strip all the not allowed ships of their guns and convert them to AVs, AOs and hulks while their guns are installed at the shore?

Yes. This is called "demilitarization". Many ships were converted to noncombat roles. The American Utah became a gunnery training ship (with 5 inch weapons as the largest onboard). The British Centurion became a radio controlled target ship (guns removed). Others became harbor "barracks" ships, or flottilla supply ships.

The question is: Will GB accept it, when 10-20 old BBs are demilitarized? Of course, they will really be demilitarized but after several month of intense work they may be remilitarized again - which is planned.
What do you think - will accept Britain such a large number of hulks, and depot ships? In this case, they all will start demilitarized and will need to upgrade - or they will start battleready but with 90% sysdamage.

Would Britain accept this without doing the same to all its old ships? Of course, this means that a refitting with the old or new guns as well as with new engines (the old will be wrecked after all this years) will take approx. a year...

In general, no. The cost and time involved in refitting the HMS Iron Duke, for example, was deemed too much, and it was decided (in 1940, the darkest hour) that it was better to invest in new construction.

So it might not be totally ahistoric that the TEA will be equipped with a huge number of extra BBs then.
As this scenario shall contest the allied rule over the seas, this is the only way to do it without doing totally ahistoric things. All the demilitarized ships will only need dry dock time while they recieve new engines, so they can be refitted additionally while the new ships are being built. This is the only way to imporve the TEA strength massivly without adding several ahistoric shipyards...

[Historiker]

The replacement of the 10 capital ships will be planned realisticly but even the replaced ones will be spared for the minor TEA nations and as demilitarized hulks. But despite the plannings for a possible later remilitarization, the High Seas Fleet must - of course - be as modern as possible while the costs mustn't totally explode.
So there'll be some modernizations while some will be replaced.

SMS Bayern, SMS Baden will be modernized. With their 38cm guns, they are armed that good, that a modernization makes sense. New engines will provide higher speed, additional armour is possible as they only have 32.000 t.

SMS Derflinger, SMS Hindenburg are modernized. They alread run 26,5 kn and will be turned into fast BBs by adding additional armour, new engines and perhaps bigger main armement. The 35cm intended for the Mackensen-class is possible

SMS Kaiser, SMS Friedrich der Große are replaced between 1928 and 1930. As the Scharnhorst-class has some weight reserves, I think that a slightly better armoured Scharnhorst-class with 4 instead of 3 towers (38cm twins instead of 28cm tripple)

SMS König, SMS Großer Kurfürst, SMS Markgraf, SMS Kronprinz are maybe handed over to a TEA nation after being modernized, but also get replaced by the larger Scharnhorst-class.

[mlees]

The question is: Will GB accept it, when 10-20 old BBs are demilitarized? Of course, they will really be demilitarized but after several month of intense work they may be remilitarized again - which is planned.

 
I don't believe that "several months" of work would be sufficient, depending on the condition of the unit in question.
 
There would be savings realised from not having to build a new hull, and possibly engines. However, battleship calibre guns have to be ordered years in advance. The HMS Vanguard (laid down 1941, launched 1944, commisioned 1946) used turrets and gun barrels left over from converting the Courageous and Glorious into carriers in the 20's.
 
But I don't want to be a stick-in-the-mud here, as it really would be a minor point.

[el cid again]

Siegfried Breyer, writing a two volume series on the German Navy, says in his introduction that he finally figured out that the Z plan was "utopian" because, in the final instance, it was never going to be possible to fuel the numbers of ships it contenplated. This plan
contemplated engaging the USA about 1948-1950 - and presumed that the RN would NOT be opposed to Germany - but that UK would
either actually Ally with Germany, or be defeated by it (and RN substantially incorporated into KM). To this end serious study was
devoted to bases in Morocco and the Azores, and a new diplomatic history indicates this indeed was contemplated even during WWII.
[Apparently Spain put too high a price on cooperation: Germany offered return of Gibraltar but Franco wanted a great deal more - and
did not want major German base complexes in his "sphere of influence" in Morocco. There does not appear to be any means of obtaining
the fuel for such a fleet potentially available in Europe itself - with the possible exception of a true alliance with the USSR.

But other historicans are now saying that war between Russia and Germany was inevitable - that Hitler was probably right not to wait
because later it would only be much stronger (as it recovered from the massive purges of military officers and built still more massive
numbers of aircraft and tanks - both of which it already outproduced Germany in by decisive numbers). It is hard to understand how
one could fuel such a fleet? And if one does imgine such a thing - it is certain that the USN and RN would have not remained anyting like
they were. UK was able to outbuild Germany during the Dreadnaught race - and the US could outbuild the RN.

[el cid again]

The reason for the Washington Naval Treaties was that none of the powers could afford a resumption of the naval
arms race. They all sought a solution that was more controlled than racing to the point where the economies
broke - which surely would end the race (but at an unpredictable point for each nation). The plans as they existed
when WWI began - somewhat revised during the war and shortly thereafter - were for some very interesting
"ships that never were." But these included even US ships - in numbers - armed with 18 inch guns - larger than
the Yamato - and no one had any illusions about how feasible it was going to be to finance these fleets.

In more practical terms - WITP lacks the slots even to duplicate the historical contestants in the Atlantic area -
so it is not really possible to attempt to do still larger fleets in terms of the limits of the program itself. This problem
would be somewhat less severe in AE - but not different in kind: you still lack the slots even to do the historical fleets -
particularly if you become diligent about all the kinds of vessels Matrix has not included. It IS possible to address this
- but only if you let small vessels go into multiple ship units - which you may see in practice in RHS.

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The reason for the Washington Naval Treaties was that none of the powers could afford a resumption of the naval
arms race. They all sought a solution that was more controlled than racing to the point where the economies
broke - which surely would end the race (but at an unpredictable point for each nation). The plans as they existed
when WWI began - somewhat revised during the war and shortly thereafter - were for some very interesting
"ships that never were." But these included even US ships - in numbers - armed with 18 inch guns - larger than
the Yamato - and no one had any illusions about how feasible it was going to be to finance these fleets.

In more practical terms - WITP lacks the slots even to duplicate the historical contestants in the Atlantic area -
so it is not really possible to attempt to do still larger fleets in terms of the limits of the program itself. This problem
would be somewhat less severe in AE - but not different in kind: you still lack the slots even to do the historical fleets -
particularly if you become diligent about all the kinds of vessels Matrix has not included. It IS possible to address this
- but only if you let small vessels go into multiple ship units - which you may see in practice in RHS.

Sorry, Sid, but that's neither correct, nor entirely fair.

[el cid again]

How is it either incorrect or fair? The number of ships required to simulate the entire Atlantic Theater - North, South, Med and Arctic -
vastly exceeds the number of slots available. To contemplate still larger fleets is therefore less practical. And if - somehow - one
could workaround (which I offered a mechanism to do) - how would the larger Axis fleet be fueled (in terms of a reasonable
economic theory)?

[DuckofTindalos]

Well, I can offer two facts that speak against what you just said. The number of slots for all sections of the database has been VASTLY increased, plus (and this is much more important) there is no more hardcoding, which means that you can put what you want where you want, which means no slot wastage. There are 10,000 class slots, and if you want 9,999 Allied classes and 1 Axis class, then you can have that.

As for economic support, that's up to the modder.

[Historiker]

The only thing I wonder is, that it took Sid so long until he tries to discourage me. [:D]
Perhaps he should read what TEA is about, because then he won't talk anything about fuel shortages as long as there's no full alliance between UdssR and Germany? Anyway, if you want to tell me "all you plan is shit, I know it better" - save your breath. I know where the problems are but as I've written elsewhere: I don't intend to make the game fully historical correct on cost of the fun while playing!
I could say more, but now I save my breath.
If you want to tell me what's possible, i.e. how much the v/max can be raised by replacing the old engines with new diesels - you're welcome, but I know it for about 6 month now that the idea of a Europe scenario is bullshit for you. You won't achieve in discouraging me about that, so stop trying it.

Moreover, would you mind stop advertising RHS here and discuss with Terminus whether or not something is possible in AE elsewhere? Would be nice, thank you! [;)]