That should not happen here. Baron Letters made his mark as commander of the BC force at Dogger Bank and Jutland. Lutzow and Hindenburg should be expedited
due to the superb performance of Derfflinger during both battles.
The Mackensen class BCs laid down in 1915 to 1916 are a different matter. No one is going to deny that they are what the German navy needs. But war requres
some tough choices concerning resource allocation.
Lettertime - Post EG Speculation
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 Dave Bender |
Work stopped on Hindenburg due to poor performance of HSF | ||
|
Posts: 6466 (28-Apr-2008 01:28:05) |
|
||
|
Syphon1 |
|||
|
Posts: 462 (28-Apr-2008 02:18:05) |
Dave Bender wrote: Dave, unless a decision is made to scrap ships well under construction then at least the first two Mackensen would be completed all be most likely at a
slower rate due to repairs. Politics and the fact that Tirpitz is still technically in control of the Kaiserliche Marine will ensure that these are completed.
With the HSF actually contributing to the war I think we might see Sachsen make an early appearance some time around may 1917 with Württemberg in early 1918 with the mackensen's turning up six to nine months after. Depending how the war goes they may or may not partake in the war. That requires more info on what the French do once Russia dies in mid to late 1916. One thing is certain once Russia is out or on its last legs Italy will be will probably to honour its treaty obligations and go to war with France just so it can lay claim to some of the goodies on offer at the peace Treaty. GB is the big What If here. Does it continue the war out of sheer bloody mindedness or does it make the best of a bad situation and throw France to the dogs? I'd say probably the latter especially if the yanks have shown no signs of entering the war.
We satisfy our endless needs
And justify our bloody deeds
In the name of destiny
And in the name of God
David
|
||
|
Dave Bender |
More info on what the French do once Russia dies | ||
|
Posts: 6467 (28-Apr-2008 03:12:29) |
That is easy to predict.
If the U.S. joins the war at the same time that Czar Nick bites the bullet (historical path) then Britain and France will hang on by their fingernails while waiting for the American military steamroller to show up and save the day. If U.S. entry into the war does not appear likely then France will quit the war immediately after Russia crumbles. Hope of American troops appearing was the only thing that kept France going after the mutiny in the spring of 1917. Britain will quit if France does. It would be insane to do anything else. Threat of a last minute Italian entry on the side of the Central Powers is additional incentive for France to quit quickly. Otherwise Italy is going to scoop up Corsica. Possibly Tunisia and Nice also. Continuing construction of 2 Mackensen BCs and the Bayern BBs at normal speed is possible. To make that happen the KM will need to be very cooperative with the Heer, to gain their respect. Killing RN ships just for the sake of bringing trophies home to Wilhelmshaven may impress Kaiser Bill but it won't impress the German army. The KM will need to close Arkhangelsk and keep it closed until Russia dies. It is a mission that only the HSF can accomplish. That is the price of Heer support in the allocation of resources. |
||
|
Syphon1 |
|||
|
Posts: 463 (30-Aug-2010 21:09:37) |
Dave Bender wrote: I thought the resources were already available for the Macks in fact if only two are started that frees up quite a lot some that would probably have been
used repairing damaged ships the rest goes to building your cruisers.
If Baron Letterz can close and keep Arkhangelsk closed then the Heer command would probably kiss Letterz feet at his promotion ceremony to Grand Admiral. Close this port for three months and then winter stops shipping for three months or more and Russia won't be able to launch any offensive come summer. If Letterz keeps it closed for an additional three months at the prime shipping period and Russia is doomed! It would make The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk look kind in comparison. It wouldn't surprise me if Germany got the entire Karelia peninsular as well. Now wouldn't that be a carrot to dangle in the eyes of the Swedes and the newly independent Finns to send troops to assist the Central Powers.
We satisfy our endless needs
And justify our bloody deeds
In the name of destiny
And in the name of God
David
|
||
|
CJvR |
|||
|
Posts: 2149 (28-Apr-2008 12:20:38) |
Since the Brussilov offensive ended up killing about as many Russians as the 1915 rout, as well as the last of the Russian morale reserves, not launching it in
1916 could actually have a positive effect for Russia. The big breakdowns in WWI tended to happen after failed offensives, Brussilof/Kerenski, French muteny,
German collapse following Mikhael in 1918. Holding trenches to protect holy mother Russia is not quite the same as charging machineguns and barbedwire for
Tzarist imperial ambitions.
|
||
 PhilJD |
Failed offensives | ||
|
Posts: 617 (28-Apr-2008 13:05:34) |
that has to be the first time I have heard the Brusilov offensive as being a failure? Kerenski yes, all the other Russian offensives against the Germans yes,
but against the Austro-Hungarians not many failures there (just the winter ones IIRC).
Regards
Phil
|
||
|
CJvR |
|||
|
Posts: 2150 (28-Apr-2008 13:59:27) |
It certainly started of well, particulary from a WWI perspective. But once the resistance hardened it wasn't called off but reinforced with the predictable
carnage of bayonet charges into killzones generating a casualty list of about a milion men and greatly contributing to breaking the Russian spirit in 17 as the
survivors were ordered over the top again by Kerenski. It did effectively finish the Habsburgs as a major power but they had direct German support and
staggered along despite about 1,5 milion casualties, Russia having no such support fell appart.
|
||
|
Dave Bender |
Big breakdowns in WWI tended to happen after failed offensiv | ||
|
Posts: 6468 (28-Apr-2008 14:25:42) |
A myth.
As for Russia gaining from not launching a 1916 offensive....
|
||
|
Syphon1 |
More info on what the French do when Rusia dies | ||
|
Posts: 473 ( 3-May-2008 00:38:59) |
Dave Bender wrote:There has been no USW and nothing to unset the yanks. What Germany has done is prove to the Yanks populous that the Pommies were blockading the US That and the losses the RN have taken will give the US gov pause for thought. The Secretary of war should be thinking are our ships good enough to tackle the Germans? If the answer is No. Then they have to build more ships and get congress to approve construction. This all takes time, Time Russia and in all likely hood France might not have. With elections coming up in 1916 Wilson wont want to look like he is preparing for a war he has promised the people he would keep the US out of. So expect normal naval requests or slight increases as there is a war going on for ship construction until after the election. After the election is when thing get really interesting. If Wilson wins then things go as he wants if he loses then there is a lame duck administration for four months in which he can't really do anything without the approval of his successor. So now we have a new question how is a likely replacement for WW and what platform and polices would they have to the war in Europe?
We satisfy our endless needs
And justify our bloody deeds
In the name of destiny
And in the name of God
David
|
||
|
PhilJD |
interesting take there, how about...? | ||
|
Posts: 618 ( 3-May-2008 12:27:42) |
1) here has been no USW and nothing to unset the yanks. - other than the all the other things that the Germans did, also there is the Armenian genocide going
on at present, which the Germans refused US requests to influence their Ally, may have some impact. The Bryce report is also still doing the rounds, the A-H
Ambassador is about to be sent home for actions 'not those of a diplomat' as is the German Naval attache (although somewhat later on).
2) What Germany has done is prove to the Yanks populous that the Pommies were blockading the US - not true at all, the RN "blockade" was withdrawn following US pressure long before this story line, all the HSF have done is show that they can fight an effective naval battle off the shores of the US and also raid the coastal areas... which way do you think the USN would take that??? 3) That and the losses the RN have taken will give the US gov pause for thought- totally agree here. 4) The Secretary of war should be thinking are our ships good enough to tackle the Germans? - again agreed. a) If the answer is No. - personally I think that irrespective of whether the answer is yes or no, the USN will be looking at its ships - numbers count and both the RN and HSF are down in these respect which only raises the value of the USN ships in place. b) Then they have to build more ships and get congress to approve construction. - USN already working on future plans in place for the expansion of its battlefleet the 1916 program, that may be accelerated. c) This all takes time, Time Russia and in all likely hood France might not have - personally I think the proposed impact of closing Archangel at this stage of the war is over inflated, there is too much stuff already sitting in the harbour not able to get out due to transport limitations, a few months with no incoming merchants might allow some of that to get delivered. d) With elections coming up in 1916 Wilson wont want to look like he is preparing for a war he has promised the people he would keep the US out of. - having just witnessed a naval battle by 3rd parties off their coast, I would suspect that the Media will be clamouring for a total review of defence appropriations including coastal defences and the Army. e) If Wilson wins then things go as he wants if he loses then there is a lame duck administration for four months in which he can't really do anything without the approval of his successor. - Wilson can be very right in claiming that he has not taken the US to war, but that the war has come to the US, although indirectly. Then RN has always been off the coast of the US so to speak, due to its geographical spread, the HSF has not, so this is a new factor that will raise eyebrows. cheers Phil
Regards
Phil
|
||
|
nebraskan |
Woody and the Navy | ||
|
Posts: 687 ( 4-May-2008 22:51:39) |
I think the public's opinion of WW depends on how the military budget is structured, not on how big it is. In the aftermath of the Battle of New York, he
could be pro-military and pacifist at the same time. Example, increased funding for coast defense forts would be seen as defensive/detterence, cavalry and
seige artillery would probably be seen as gearing up for war. The wild card is how the USN construction is taken. The USN wanted ships with long legs, and
that might be taken as building ships to attack Europe, but I just don't know.
|
||
- Battleship Vs Battleship
- Should Battleships Be Back In Service?
- The United States Navy
- The Royal Navy
- The European Navies
- The Commonwealth Navies
- The Asian Navies
- Aircraft Carriers
- Fighting Ships Of The World
- Submarines
- Designing A Navy/Ship
- The Land Forces
- The Air Forces
- The Naval Fiction Board
- The Politics Of War
- Naval Help
