|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 20, 2018 8:49:51 GMT -6
I think we should start examining the worlds navies around the beginning of the 20th century and their evolution to the 1950 era. We also need to examine why naval strategies changed. For Britain, it was no long Pax Britannia because of industrialization of nations like the U.S., Japan, Germany, Russia, France etc. The introduction of railroads and eventually wheeled powered vehicles like trucks changed the effectiveness of blockades, which was a primary mission of the British Royal Navy. The development of the German High Seas Fleet, the accord between France and Russia all changed how the British saw their fleet's responsibilities. The failure of the army in the Boer War forced a complete overhaul of how the British army trained, recruited and equipped itself. The British had to withdraw most of their warships from Canada and the Caribbean because of the overwhelming strength of the US Navy, they had to bring home most of their ships from Hong Kong and sign and accord with Japan for protection of their assets. They even had to withdraw some warships from the Mediterranean and focus on Alexandria and Gibraltar with a minimum at Malta. All these withdrawals were based on a new geostrategy of trying to protect Europe from the new threat of the German's. The British Army was beginning to get priority in funding. There were other internal factors like the Irish problem, social unrest, etc.
In Germany, the demise of Bismarck and the Kaiser's take over of the German strategy meant that the fleet was in the hands of an amateur who really did not understand naval strategy. They would pay a price for that ignorance. We have the Japanese now beginning to move on Korea and Manchuria to gain natural resources for their industrialization with British assistance in developing their navy. We have the US beginning to develop bases on the West Coast along with Pearl Harbor and building the Panama Canal. The story gets very complex. The Mahanian view of world navies was not entirely correct, and we can explore this. We should include the development of specifications for warships.
Let's the games begin
|
|
|
|
Post by millsian on Sept 20, 2018 9:22:51 GMT -6
Not sure if was on here or the RTW1 forum but there was a discussion about books that covered the main navies.
I’m re reading o hara’s On seas contested book at the moment which is a really good overview of mission strategy and resources
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 20, 2018 9:27:32 GMT -6
Not sure if was on here or the RTW1 forum but there was a discussion about books that covered the main navies. I’m re reading o hara’s On seas contested book at the moment which is a really good overview of mission strategy and resources On Seas Contested does a good job but you really have find books that can focus on each navy. The Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery is a good book to begin to study the demise of overall superiority of the British fleet in the world. |
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Sept 20, 2018 9:53:32 GMT -6
Here are a few reading suggestions.
Kaigun - Strategy, Tactics and Technology of the Imperial Japanese Navy 1887-1941 by David Evans and Mark Peattie, is an imposing read at 661 pages, but is probably the best overview of the Japanese navy. A very impressive book.
Sunburst - The Rise of Japanese Naval Air Power, 1909-1941 by Mark Peattie is the best book I have read on the Japanese carrier forces. Great read.
For a general survey of the use of carriers throughout WWII, I think Norman Polmar's, Aircraft Carriers - A History of Carrier Aviation and Its Influence on World Events, Vol. 1, 1909-1945, though somewhat dated now, is still an excellent overview.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 20, 2018 10:04:59 GMT -6
If we start this discussion then we can chart a course and use the internet to find some good documents. I use Internet Archive, Navweaps and a few others. A good starting point is to examine the naval situation on January 1st, 1900.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 20, 2018 12:10:55 GMT -6
If we chart the biggest navies at the beginning of the 20th century, then it looks something like this. We can add actual numbers later.
1. UK had a navy larger than the next two navies combined. They had more cruisers and battleships than all the other fleets.
2. Russia had a large fleet composed of battleships, a few coastal defense ships and a few cruisers for commerce raiding. The fleet was distributed in four different seas.
3. France had a mixed fleet with the second largest fleet of cruisers after Britain and several battleships and coastal defense ships. It emphasized gunboats, torpedo-boats and submarines.
4. Germany had just started its naval expansion in the 1898 Naval Law was just a coastal defense fleet. The four Brandenburg’s were coastal defense ships.
5. The US had just started built up in the 1890’s and still composed of smaller cruisers. Most their battleline was simply oversized coastal defense ships.
These were the five biggest with Italy, Japan, and Austria-Hungary smaller than all the rest. The Japanese had just begun to acquire new battleships from other nations.
This is a quick assessment and as I said, we could research the actual numbers and their specifications. I've just added Brassey's Armed Forces Naval Annual 1907, 1894 and 1898. That is probably the best I can find as of now.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 20, 2018 12:39:48 GMT -6
While searching the internet for naval information about actual sizes, I've found this interesting document at Florida State University entitled "Power at Sea: A Naval Power Dataset, 1865-2011". . Many of you math geniuses can work this for the old guy. I thought the concept of measuring and presenting the five leading naval powers in periods was interesting. Crisher-Souva - Power At Sea v2.0 full.pdf (574.55 KB) |
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Sept 20, 2018 14:22:47 GMT -6
While searching the internet for naval information about actual sizes, I've found this interesting document at Florida State University entitled "Power at Sea: A Naval Power Dataset, 1865-2011". . Many of you math geniuses can work this for the old guy. I thought the concept of measuring and presenting the five leading naval powers in periods was interesting. It is quite interesting however the power graph calculation seems a little strange. In period 3 there is no TIER for carriers. Ship going down on TIER scale as getting old. This is not reasonable after WNT as battleship holidays do not decrease worthwhile of battleships especially at some theatres. So I think it could work expect period between WNT and start of WW2. It seems quite strange that in 1930 USN was 50 % larger than RN. If we look on capital ships I cannot see it at all. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 20, 2018 14:32:17 GMT -6
While searching the internet for naval information about actual sizes, I've found this interesting document at Florida State University entitled "Power at Sea: A Naval Power Dataset, 1865-2011". . Many of you math geniuses can work this for the old guy. I thought the concept of measuring and presenting the five leading naval powers in periods was interesting. It is quite interesting however the power graph calculation seems a little strange. In period 3 there is no TIER for carriers. Ship going down on TIER scale as getting old. This is not reasonable after WNT as battleship holidays do not decrease worthwhile of battleships especially at some theatres. So I think it could work expect period between WNT and start of WW2. It seems quite strange that in 1930 USN was 50 % larger than RN. If we look on capital ships I cannot see it at all. The calculations for the chart are based more than just the number of ships, but the size and the firepower of each ship. I have to sit down when time permits today and weed my way through it but it is interesting because it isn't just taking raw numbers of ship and comparing them. Each navy builds ships different and the three most important elements of a ship are Speed, Firepower and protection. You have to calculate a number based on those three and possibly more factors. That's why I want the math geniuses on this forum to examine it. My capability stops at square roots and squaring of numbers. |
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Sept 20, 2018 17:57:37 GMT -6
While searching the internet for naval information about actual sizes, I've found this interesting document at Florida State University entitled "Power at Sea: A Naval Power Dataset, 1865-2011". . Many of you math geniuses can work this for the old guy. I thought the concept of measuring and presenting the five leading naval powers in periods was interesting. Just had a quick gander - for period two, the cut-off for ships is 2000t displacement and 5 inch guns, while two is 2000t/5 inch guns or 1000t plus minimum 3 TT - that leaves out a _lot_ of very important smaller vessels and seems to take a Mahanian view to 'battlefleet power' rather than a 'capacity to defend sea lanes' perspective. I'm also very uneasy with their approach to calculating salvos (not least because it pays no attention to a 'broadside salvo' - their salvo calculations, going from the Arizona example, appear to involve firing off both beams) and at no point do they define what displacement means (which, when using it as such a core part of their calculations, is ). It's definitely an interesting concept, but it's not the way I'd do it (although I expect the general trends it identifies are on point - but the timings and ratios might be different to a more comprehensive examination). |
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Sept 21, 2018 3:27:26 GMT -6
It is quite interesting however the power graph calculation seems a little strange. In period 3 there is no TIER for carriers. Ship going down on TIER scale as getting old. This is not reasonable after WNT as battleship holidays do not decrease worthwhile of battleships especially at some theatres. So I think it could work expect period between WNT and start of WW2. It seems quite strange that in 1930 USN was 50 % larger than RN. If we look on capital ships I cannot see it at all. The calculations for the chart are based more than just the number of ships, but the size and the firepower of each ship. I have to sit down when time permits today and weed my way through it but it is interesting because it isn't just taking raw numbers of ship and comparing them. Each navy builds ships different and the three most important elements of a ship are Speed, Firepower and protection. You have to calculate a number based on those three and possibly more factors. That's why I want the math geniuses on this forum to examine it. My capability stops at square roots and squaring of numbers. I will look too. I looked on it quickly only as it will take time to study it. However as I mentioned it is quite strange that USN is 50 % larger than RN at 1930. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 21, 2018 11:00:48 GMT -6
The calculations for the chart are based more than just the number of ships, but the size and the firepower of each ship. I have to sit down when time permits today and weed my way through it but it is interesting because it isn't just taking raw numbers of ship and comparing them. Each navy builds ships different and the three most important elements of a ship are Speed, Firepower and protection. You have to calculate a number based on those three and possibly more factors. That's why I want the math geniuses on this forum to examine it. My capability stops at square roots and squaring of numbers. I will look too. I looked on it quickly only as it will take time to study it. However as I mentioned it is quite strange that USN is 50 % larger than RN at 1930. Good. Really give this some effort because it is my opinion that a concept or study such as this, based on the numbers from RTW and RTW2 could be valuable and fun to deal with. |
|
