WitW-HKD TEA Fleet

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: 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.

You are right! But the needed guns and even the needed turrets can be ordered and built for coastal fortresses. When the marine command even gets a law about building a fortified North Sea coast and the guns really are stationed there in concrete fundaments - why should Britain be leary about that?
In case of war, one "only" has to take the guns which are already in their turrets and may already have their fully trained crews...
The engines may be more difficult, when there are 30 BB engines built without anyone demanding them, but the existing engines may be mothballed professional "for training issues"...

[Historiker]

As the expansion program can't start before summer 1936, I must wait until then to lay down new ships.
The SMS Kaiser, SMS Friedrich der Große, SMS König, SMS Großer Kurfürst, SMS Markgraf and SMS Kronprinz are replaced until 1935 by 6 new BBs of the Feldmarschall class(modified Scharnhorst class).
As initially intended, the ships are built with 38cm turrets with two guns each instead of 28cm tripples. Ths ship now carries 4 turrets instead of just 3, the deck armour is slightly thiker with 115 instead of 105mm.
This are the final data for the new six ships:

Feldmarschall class
v/max 32kn
cruise speed 17kn, range 10.000
fuel 7300 t
deck armour 115mm
belt 350mm
tower 360mm
8x 38cm L/47
12x 15cm L/55
13x 10,5cm L/65
16x 3,7cm AA
10x 2cm AA
6x 533mm Torpedo

The new ships all get their names from German Field marshalls:
Scharnhorst
Gneisenau
Blücher
Zieten
Moltke
Schlieffen

[Historiker]

How shall the German Carriers be?
I will not consider something like the Graf Zeppelin, as it was a misconstruction because of the lacking experience in building CVs. The carriers will probably (at least the smaller ones) be constructed after Tirpitz' doctrine who said: "The first task of a ship is to swim". So they will be armoured on cost of AC capacity.

The Mackensen class BCs are continued as CVs in 1922 and enter service in 1925. With a displacement of around 23-25.000 t - how will their data be?
30kn v/max
12.000 nm at 16kn
6 10,5cm AAA on each side
5 3,7cm doubles on each side
4 2cm Vierling on each side
65 planes
Deck 65mm
belt 180mm
tower 65mm
Is this a possible data for 23-25.000 t?
Less or more armour? More planes? What do you think?

[DuckofTindalos]

Too many aircraft...

[Historiker]

So which data do you suggest, Terminus?



Looking at the shipyards, I come to the following conclusion:
A.G. Vulcan Hamburg: 2 ships simultaneously
A.G. Vulcan Stettin 1 ship
A.G. Weser Bremen 2 ships
Blohm & Voß, Hamburg 2 ships maybe 3
Friedrich Krupp Germaniawerft Kiel 1 ship
Friedrich Schichau Danzig 2 ships
Howaldtswerke Kiel 1 ship
Kaiserliche Werft Kiel 2 ships
Kaiserliche Werft Wilhelmshafen / Kriegsmarinewerft 3 ships

So 16 to 17 capital ships simultaneously.
I calculate the time between laying down and launching as it should be possible after launching to start a new ship, no?
The times are:
BB 35-40.000 16 month
BB 45.000+ 20 month
Pocket battleship 18month (the Diesels and the new welding technology takes its time)
CA 10 month
CV 20 month

Are the times correct?
I assume CLs don't need the same Helling as the bigger ships, no?

[DuckofTindalos]

Well, the Graf Zeppelin had a standard displacement of just over 28,000 tons, and was designed for 42 aircraft. For your Mackensen CV's, I'd say around 35 aircraft.

[DuckofTindalos]

By the way, where are the raw materials for all those big ships coming from?

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Well, the Graf Zeppelin had a standard displacement of just over 28,000 tons, and was designed for 42 aircraft. For your Mackensen CV's, I'd say around 35 aircraft.

The Graf Zeppelin was a total misconstruction. Its better to compare the Mackensen class with the CVs of other navies. I guess it can't have the same AC capacity as the Shokaku because it would be armoured more. What about the Illustrious class? What are its armour datas?


And about the materials:
The TEA includes Germany, Poland, Russia, Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia and Italy. Moreover, the colonys should be still in German hands, too (I didn't think to much about it, yet).
I don't think there'll be any fuel or material shortages, no?

[DuckofTindalos]

Shortages would depend on what sort of ratio you'd want to have between army, air force and navy.

The Graf Zeppelin may have been a "misconstruction", but consider that the Mackensen CV is also a first-off design. Also, what sort of aircraft are you putting on it? Modified air force types like on the GZ or purpose-built ones. 65 is far, far, far, FAR too many aircraft for a small carrier like this.

As for the Illustrious, that was a 23,000 ton ship, capable of carrying 33 aircraft, with slightly better deck armour than your carrier.

[Historiker]

At the time when the expansion program begins in mid 1936, the German Navy has the following ships:
10 BB including 6 new
4 CV
11 CAs including 5 pocket battleships
18 CL
65 DD
55 SS
TBs have to be counted as DDs, no?

For later rearmement, there are the following hulks/depot ships/training ships:
10 BBs
14 pre-Dread BBs perhaps listed as CAs because of only 4x28cm main armement
Several obsolete Cruisers and TBs

So what will the expansion plan be about?
Even after concerning that CVs weren't seen more important than BBs, yet, Germany is obviously lacking Carriers. Moreover, there'll be more pocket battleships of something like the P-class, as they perfectly fit the German intentions of commerce raiding. They are fast, long legged, armed and armoured well and will even be able to outfight Cruisers.
There's also an obvious need for Destroyers, when all the old ships have been rearmed.
There's a need for more Cruisers as Germany only has 6 "real" CAs atm.
Some CVL to operate from the Colonies?

Every new ship beyond the restrictions of the naval treatys has to fit following demands:
- fast
- maximum range
- good survivability as own harbours are far away

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

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.

The US Army had in excess of 80,000 vessels. The USN had in excess of 60,000 vessels. This does not count vast numbers of US ships in Panamanian or Liberian registry, and non-trivial others. To that add tens of thousands of British vessels half again as many for the Commonwealth. There were the Soviets, the Russians, the French, and a long list of others - before we begin to contenplate the Axis powers.
Now some of these vessels were PTO - but the majority were. 100,000 vessels might be enough - if we get rid of those that are not modeled and are not off the map all the time. [How do deal with those that spend half the time off the map???] But 200,000 woulld be closer to enough.

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Shortages would depend on what sort of ratio you'd want to have between army, air force and navy.

The Graf Zeppelin may have been a "misconstruction", but consider that the Mackensen CV is also a first-off design. Also, what sort of aircraft are you putting on it? Modified air force types like on the GZ or purpose-built ones. 65 is far, far, far, FAR too many aircraft for a small carrier like this.

As for the Illustrious, that was a 23,000 ton ship, capable of carrying 33 aircraft, with slightly better deck armour than your carrier.

As there's no need for a radical rearmement within only 6 years at it was IRL between 1933 and 1939, there's a little more ressources to spend. Moreover, the lacking Treaty of Versailles changes some more things. I.e. there won't be the need to build the PzKpfw I, which was mainly intended to rearm fast, to get experience in tank building and for training issues. Germany had all the years since 1917 to build a tank corps and a tank industry.

@Mackensen-CV
That's indeed something I've already spent some time in thinking. Both Me 109T and Ju 87 seem to be to short legged for CV use and the Fi 167 isn't a masterpiece, as well.
As Germany didn't have the ban in building Aircraft, it has more time to design carrier planes. Perhaps I will look at the Kate, Zero and Val to make German versions of them? I'm unsure about that yet.
Yes, the Mackensen may have been faulty designs, as well - but there has been more than enough time to react on the experiences made with this design, so this class can be modernized and remodeled several times unitl 1941.
The Shokaku has 84 planes with nearly the same size - but slighter armour.
But you are right. For a well protected Carrier at this size, 65 planes are to much. What about 40-45?

[DuckofTindalos]

40, tops...

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Terminus

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.

The US Army had in excess of 80,000 vessels. The USN had in excess of 60,000 vessels. This does not count vast numbers of US ships in Panamanian or Liberian registry, and non-trivial others. To that add tens of thousands of British vessels half again as many for the Commonwealth. There were the Soviets, the Russians, the French, and a long list of others - before we begin to contenplate the Axis powers.
Now some of these vessels were PTO - but the majority were. 100,000 vessels might be enough - if we get rid of those that are not modeled and are not off the map all the time. [How do deal with those that spend half the time off the map???] But 200,000 woulld be closer to enough.

Except we're not talking about simulating the entire world at the same time...

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: 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! [;)]

OK.

You have made only a single error: I like the idea of a ETO game. My attitude is based on careful considertation of it. WITP is the wrong engine to get there. I expect Matrix will give us one - a few years from now - after the engine for the WITP which follows AE is completed.
I think it would be ideal if we had a way to link two games - for a global war - because naval ops don't make sense otherwise.

I was trying to discourage you from wasting your time and talent - and since you do not intend to take my advice - I will not do so further.
You can do something I am sure. I want more than is possible in these circumstances. I did suggest an engine above that is up to the task - but you seem to prefer this one. So be it.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

How shall the German Carriers be?
I will not consider something like the Graf Zeppelin, as it was a misconstruction because of the lacking experience in building CVs. The carriers will probably (at least the smaller ones) be constructed after Tirpitz' doctrine who said: "The first task of a ship is to swim". So they will be armoured on cost of AC capacity.

The Mackensen class BCs are continued as CVs in 1922 and enter service in 1925. With a displacement of around 23-25.000 t - how will their data be?
30kn v/max
12.000 nm at 16kn
6 10,5cm AAA on each side
5 3,7cm doubles on each side
4 2cm Vierling on each side
65 planes
Deck 65mm
belt 180mm
tower 65mm
Is this a possible data for 23-25.000 t?
Less or more armour? More planes? What do you think?

There are problems with the Graf design, but the ship is not very different from foreign ships they knew about, and IJN was consulted.
Germany had far more trouble getting suitable carrier aircraft - and was slow for institutional structural reasons. Your approach is better re guns - and might be possible re aircraft with two full hanger decks. Armor is the rub - your tonnage would permit CA scale armor -
100 mm or so on the side, 50 on the deck, and tower is not really used in WITP (although it seems to be). The range is too great - unless you mean at 10 knots. Carriers never have enough range - the way they must steam - at 18 knots minimum and 24 much of the time -
range data is not impressive - and they always are planning the next refueling.

[Historiker]

In Germany, the Graf Zeppelin is considered to be a faulty design. For its size it had to few planes.

With the proposed armour, how many planes do you think are possible on it with two full hangar decks? How high do you consider the range to be for 16kn?
The pocket battleships from the early 1930s already had Diesel engines with approx. 50.000 PS. Isn't it realistic to equip the carriers in the late 1930s with Diesels als well? This would mean higher speed, less fuel consumption as well as more room for fuel...

What do you know about the German shipyards? Are my calculations correct?

[DuckofTindalos]

Erm, a diesel-powered ship is slower than a turbine-powered one.

With two hanger decks, you'll have to settle for less armour protection; you can either spend your weight on armour or space for aircraft, but you can't have both.

The Ark Royal had a capacity of 60 aircraft and two hanger decks, but was not well protected, armour-wise. The Illustrious also had two hanger decks, but was better armoured and only carried 33 planes.

Gotta pick one or the other...

[Monter_Trismegistos]

You better should compare Mackensen to Lexington or Kaga/Akagi as they were ex BB/BC..

[DuckofTindalos]

And considerably larger...