WitW-HKD TEA Fleet

[el cid again]

I think the Italian navy should be highly rated for light ships - because they did the work and they were successful It is the ships that stayed in port most of the time - BB and CA - which do not look good - and then vs a very good opponent - RN.

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I think the Italian navy should be highly rated for light ships - because they did the work and they were successful It is the ships that stayed in port most of the time - BB and CA - which do not look good - and then vs a very good opponent - RN.

The Italien Navy didn't perform good, even when they were superior in firepower and in ships - that's why my rating is so low.
Unfortuenatly - as I really don't want to insult any Italien here - this seems to be Italien tradition for the last centuries, that their armed foreces don't perform as other armies. There are reasons for this, which exceed the dimensions of the thread here.
But it has it's reason why there was the German joke: "What does the German Landser (soldier at food, like the "GI") whish? The clothing of the Russians, the food of the English, the Equipment of the US and the Italian as enemy"...

If the smaller units perform better than their big comerades, what do you suggest to be a correct value for them based on the numbers I have showed here?

[Historiker]

The fleets of
Abessinia
Baltisches Herzogtum
Bulgarien
Chile
Dänemark
Finnland
Griechenland
Irak
Jugoslawien
Litauen
Norwegen
Persien (Shah)
Portugal
Rumänien
Schweden
are added.

Germany, Italy, Poland, Russia, Spain and Uruguay are at work. By adding all this unit to the TEA side, I manage to preserve most of the old Austrian, German and Russian big ships without keeping them as hulls for later rearmement.
I oriented myself at existing naval plans which were - in the most cases - never even started to accomplish. Moreover, I replaced older Costal Guard Ships by old pre-Dreadnoughts which will be reclassified as CGs.
This means that the total amount of BBs stays the same, with the advantage of not having +40 German BBs at the begin of the war - but with the disadvantage of lower expierence with the big ships in the hands of not as well trained navies.

Moreover, Dixie wrote me, he'll support me with art so that the ships will be most beautiful as well

I think that in about 2 month there'll be an alpha version wihtout planes and ground troops yet, but with the ability to test the naval forces of both sides.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I think the Italian navy should be highly rated for light ships - because they did the work and they were successful It is the ships that stayed in port most of the time - BB and CA - which do not look good - and then vs a very good opponent - RN.

The Italien Navy didn't perform good, even when they were superior in firepower and in ships - that's why my rating is so low.
Unfortuenatly - as I really don't want to insult any Italien here - this seems to be Italien tradition for the last centuries, that their armed foreces don't perform as other armies. There are reasons for this, which exceed the dimensions of the thread here.
But it has it's reason why there was the German joke: "What does the German Landser (soldier at food, like the "GI") whish? The clothing of the Russians, the food of the English, the Equipment of the US and the Italian as enemy"...

If the smaller units perform better than their big comerades, what do you suggest to be a correct value for them based on the numbers I have showed here?

This is a popular opinion - but it is simply incorrect. The Italian Navy needs to be divided into different parts. It led the world in development of midget submarines or manned torpedoes for raiding work - and its concepts are still in use. Italian destroyers did fine work - were very active in many places for long periods - and are almost entirely unsung as combattants. It is the big units which were not so successful - the heavy cruisers and battleships in particular. These were victims of several different forms of attack - including an early anti-ship "missile" - or guided bomb - amazing shallow harbor torpedo attacks - and the problems of operating without air cover re regular bombers. Another branch was the submarine one - and it set a number of records - and had some very intersting plans in the offing when hostilities for Italy ceased. The were the first to successfully break the British blockade at Gibraltar - did more than a little of the Yanagi operations (far east trade) - and came up with a way to attack New York harbor more feasible than Germany EVER did: this was about to happen when they were suspended by the "armistice"

[Historiker]

So what XP would you suggest for their smaller units?

[el cid again]

Finland - which won the greatest mine battle of all time in WWII - is not well advised to build BCs. They have no function in the Baltic. It is too easy to get air strikes over the short ranges involved - and a BC is not well protected. Also - the entire Finnish naval budget would not afford even one of these - and who would build it? Then there is the matter of manning. Finland would have to give up a division or so of troops to man this proposed fleet.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

So what XP would you suggest for their smaller units?

Hmmm - DDs might rate 60 - and might rate it at night too.

Subs are more difficult - only a few should be highly rated - and those like German subs - with whom they were competative.


I don't think you have the special forces - but the PT boats might be rated 70/50.

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Finland - which won the greatest mine battle of all time in WWII - is not well advised to build BCs. They have no function in the Baltic. It is too easy to get air strikes over the short ranges involved - and a BC is not well protected. Also - the entire Finnish naval budget would not afford even one of these - and who would build it? Then there is the matter of manning. Finland would have to give up a division or so of troops to man this proposed fleet.

They take over the Seydlitz and the Von der Tann, so they just have to pay the maintenance - no building costs. Moreover, they have a German king and Germany is allied with Russia - so there's no danger in the Baltics! As they are far away fron potential enemys, they need agility - so I gave them BCs rather than BBs.

@Italians
You think their DDs should be better than the GB ships at night - and their PTs better than all GB ships? (dont forget to set the data for the Italians in a relation to the data above.)

[Historiker]

Situation report:
Most of the TEA naval vessels are added. Missing atm are the Italian Subs, the ships of the German naval expansion programm and the Russian ships. ATM around 2300 ships added.
The lack of slots delayed the work, moreover I'm busy in work as I have to write professional articles over the Siege of Neuss 1474/75, War and Army in the Enlightment, Operation Citadell...

I will continue the work ignoring the lack of slots. Without serious numbers of civilian ships, this will - of course - result in an unplayable version, but meanwhile it gives me experience in scenario design. MOreover, I should be able to extract the data to transform it later into an AE scenario.