OSchmidt | 27 Mar 2015 1:15 p.m. PST |
Dear List I've been noodling around with the German WWI Navy. Of Now I have in my possession several Old Alnavco 1:1200 Ships of WWI from the German Navy I've always wanted to build up this core into an Imagi-Nation Navy. So I wondered on the following Premise. Assume everyone comes to their senses in 1916 and the war ends on a negotiated settlement. Germany does not surrender her navy and only loses a little territory. The German Navy survives but goes into the most terrible action of all that sank more Battleships than Tsushima- The Washington Naval conferences. I'm being pretty fair when I think that the best Germany could have gotten out of these was the same as Japan or a 5 5 3 3 ratio, America, England, Japan, and Germany. So my question is what would the future WWII German navy look like (for fun assume it's under the Kaiser's son, not Hitler. Here's my estimation. England had the five QE's the Five R class, Nelson and Rodney, Repulse, Renown, and Hood. This is what survives Washington. She also had Corageous, Glorious, and Furious which survive as aircraft carriers. The use of aircraft carriers was an out for the battleships sooo.. I'm thinking the German Fleet would look like this. The 15 battleships and the battle cruisers for England would come out to 9 such ships for the Germans which would be. 2 Koenig Class (maybe 1 more hiding as a gunner training ship) 4 Baden's 2 Derflinger 1 Mackensen 2 more Mackensen saved as Aircraft Carriers. I haven't puzzled out the funny names for them yet. This is the surviving construction. Assume historical construction after for both after Washington. British 5 KG5, German, Blintzmark and Tripewitz, Schnorrhorst and Gneisenuff, British all the modern carriers and the Ark German, one more older carrier and 2 new. I'd give the Germans all their cruisers but knock off the pocket battleships as they were built only to avoid Versailles and would not be needed. One has to remember that the British "R's" never did much except guard convoys, they were too poorly protected and slow. The QE's were faster than the Baden's though only maringally as robust. Certainly Hood would still have been no match for a Mackensen, and the Derflingers are about equal to the Repulse's I've allowed for both sides to keep most of their modern construction. It still puts the Germans at a big disadvantage, and I find it hard to see much use for the older slower ships, especially the Koenigs. The interesting thing for me of course would be the Five German cruisers which were new and quite robust, more than a match for most British ships. Of course I'll have to do some conversions to put on superstructures and modernization for the Koenigs. |
pvernon | 27 Mar 2015 1:37 p.m. PST |
Check put Avalanche Press' "The Kaisers Navy" under the Second World War at Sea section. It is a fictional version of the German fleet using similar back ground as yours. |
JimDuncanUK | 27 Mar 2015 1:41 p.m. PST |
Some good thinking there Otto. Can I ask if the Americans in this world of yours perhaps think that England and Britain are synonymous with each other and does the Commonwealth stop contributing to the Empire forces as well? |
OSchmidt | 27 Mar 2015 2:11 p.m. PST |
Dear Jim Duncan Actually the Americans probably won't enter into it. I was going to leave the commonwealth contribution in place, why meddle with it? The whole question is the War. The Nazi's WON'T be in power, and will at best be only a large faction in Germany. The Crown Prince or Wilhelm III now will therefore not be a power-mad dictator, and something better at it than his father. He will have married his passion, Geraldine Farrar, the Opera singer and be something of a Germanic Edward VII. The war in Europe will be a somewhat more low-key affair if at all. No concentration camps, no Nazi Soviet pact, indeed no Soviets either. The central hot spots of this "Brave old World" will be The continuing squabbles over the position of Poland as Russia, perhaps even a Tzarist Russia wishes a revanchment and re conquest of Poland and the Baltic States, which are satellites of Germany. Austria will have collapsed anyway into some of its constituent elements. Nothing to do there naval wise, but lots of trouble. After the arrangement, Alsace Lorraine has continued as a semi-independent mandate which will cause friction between Germany and France, and might drag England in. The whole of Holland, Belgium, and Alsace Lorraine might be thought of as "buffer land." German meddling in South America and taking sides in this and that squabble between the ABC countries might be a cause of campaigns. Italo-Anglo-French squabbling in the Mediterranean another. On the other hand I might just make up a new map which allows for less constrictive naval operations in Europe vis-à-vis Germany Certain things will carry over, like the preponderance in the naval field of the Anglo-American frleets acting as a breaking agent on any severe belliegerency. This will allow for discrete and easily handle-able arrangements for campaigns and so forth. For example a dispute about putting down a colonial revolt in the proto-Germany's colonies where the proto-French are making trouble might lead to a short naval war between the two, allowing the Anglo-American to apply pressure if things go to far. Similarly the English fleet might take part in a similar campaign where proto-England is pressuring Proto-Italy and the proto-German fleet sides with Italy. What I'd REALLY like to do is start with these "proto fleets" from just after "Washington" and go year by year with each side working on a "Building Program" building up their navies over the years, being given choices along the way, and then from time to time taking what they've built to war. The building program would compete with army, diplomatic, and internal development issues. LIke for example do you build one battleship a year or build every other year and divert the funds to V1 or Jets or other project like education or agrarian reform It's just a big bag of ideas and concepts right now, but eventually it's to get to the war game. |
Bob the Temple Builder | 27 Mar 2015 2:25 p.m. PST |
Otto, The Anglo-German Naval Agreement is probably a good indicator of the attitude the British would have had to German naval building programmes. One can imagine the Badens being modernised so that they look like slightly shorter Bismarcks … or that the Bismarcks might have ended up as slightly enlarged Badens. The German cruisers would have probably been built in larger numbers, but the designs would have been similar to those that were built. |
CampyF | 27 Mar 2015 2:27 p.m. PST |
Don't forget to rebuild some or all of your warships between the wars. BTW, Austria voted to join with Germany after the great war. The victorious powers squashed that plan. Perhaps less victorious powers would have less say in the matter. More experienced naval personnel. I think you could work in more heavy cruisers. Maybe some of the large "light cruisers" (Brooklyn, Mogami, Towns). The Germans ended the first war with a number of fairly modern light cruisers. Perhaps these would be retained, as with the Japanese. (Cross post with Bob the Temple Builder). |
skippy0001 | 27 Mar 2015 3:00 p.m. PST |
Those older ships could be re-configured(on paper or refitted) as Monitors for coastal and Colonial protection. Do you postulate Zepps being improved and used? Probably more restrictions on U-boats but those super subcruisers may be more prevalent. Austro-Hungary had a fleet, probably greatly reduced but still a factor in the Med. Sold off? Selling old warships to Turkey, Spain etc. may be somewhat lucrative. Would slower advances in radar/radio development make carriers more or less important? Don't forget Seaplanes and tenders, S&E-boats Amph warfare development, SeeMarines? Read the articles at Avalanche Press, I do recomend their naval games. |
McKinstry | 27 Mar 2015 3:18 p.m. PST |
FWIW, Seydlitz and Moltke might have had more value to a shrunken German Navy that the two Kaisers. The speedier yet nearly as robust ships would have a broader range of useful duties. |
JimDuncanUK | 27 Mar 2015 4:28 p.m. PST |
Don't forget that most German ships crews in WW1 lived ashore in barracks. Their living quarters on board were very cramped as they were expected to be at sea for only short periods. |
Ottoathome | 27 Mar 2015 5:07 p.m. PST |
Dear List Thank you all for the suggestionsand ideas. I have thought of them. The Germans would of course retain a few classes of the late war cruisers which would have matched gthe Brtish C and D classes I think. I wasn't counting on using the Surviving Austro- Hungarian ships. All of your suggestions do however adumbrate the main problem of the World War One German Navy. No real strategic mission and no effect other than to alienate Britain. Also, the geograpy of the North Sea and the channell serious complicate any real operations there. Where is the Germany navy going to go… and do what when they get there? This can be experienced with only a few replays of the old AH game Jutland. One would like to have a WWII game where the Germans can have some meaningfull actions but for example, intercepting convoys to Russia assumes there is a war going on in Russia which means… well you get the picture. Mers ek-Kebir was going to happen if the Nazi's or the Kaiser marched into paris in 1940. If the problem with the Italians is that fighting in the Mediterranean is like fighting in a bathtub, fighting in the North sea is like fighting in a goldfish bowl. That's why I might have to go to the "proto- world" idea. Only when you get into the pacific do you have space to work in. Of course Zeppelins will be a part of the German Navy. You didn't think I was going to not include something as neat as that! As for Austria Hungary, their fleet is even more difficult. Their ships were very good, but short-legged and on a small displacement. They were also created at hideous expense, and once you got below the four dreadnoughts and the three Radetsky, the rest was just junk. |
Winston Smith | 27 Mar 2015 5:08 p.m. PST |
So, the Great War II but with no Bad Guys? Seems like fun. The French not bled white at Verdun and 1917. So, a little more feisty. No Maginot Line mentality. Is there a need for the French and British to remain allies? Or for the British and Germsns to remain enemies? And Wilson kept us out of the war. A promise he does not need to break a month after he is inaugurated for his second term, thus sparing us his hypocrisy. Without the USA why a Washington treaty? |
skippy0001 | 27 Mar 2015 5:35 p.m. PST |
Options: The 2nd Great Northern War-Scandinavia vs Russia, a Baltic 'everybody into the pool- at the same time-The 2nd War of the Spanish Succession with France, Britain, Italy, Greece, Turkey and Russia…A Med Monarchy Mashup. The Gran Chaco Pacific-Atlantic Falklands War-oh, just everybody. Lotsa Zepps with paratroopers to get inland quickly. The Lost World(War, Too)- a Lost Continent ImagiNation Colonial War. my favorite. |
Ottoathome | 27 Mar 2015 8:19 p.m. PST |
I don't know to all. Yes, Americans can be in there too. All I want is something to pin a narrative to. I don't want to fight the 443rd refight of the Battle of the Denmark Straight or Coral Sea #238. Whatever the map I'm thinking of using a system I dreamed up decades ago in the 1980's which is a "Mission deck". The game is won by how many missions you complete. 1 to 3 pts per mission. Each turn a player can draw 1 to 3 missions. To these missions you assign ships from your force pool to accomplish the mission (if you CAN!) One mission might be "Move Convoy 103 from New Yuk to Snotty flow." Another might be "Sweep the Bay of Turhan for enemy forces." Another might be "Raid into the Ocean Blue." Ships that you DON't send on missions remain in port to try and intercept enemy missions. You aren't told the substance of the enemy missions, just the ships attached to them (% of accuracy depends on your recon) and you can attempt interception with forces not already on a mission. No interception and enemy mission has a 5 in six cance of getting through. A six is an abort and it goes back to port. Once played, successfully or unsuccessfully, a mission card goes back into the discared and points scored- or not. We did this back then and it was highly successfull. It should generate a number of small easily played contacts. If you are not at war you don't do missions. If you don't have the ships required to do the missions they automatically fail. Once the mission deck is run through the war is over and you score the points each side got and total that to the remaining ships by some means and get a Victory total. I'm interested in this because I recently wrote a new set of modern naval rules I really like and want to test them out. Simple, easy, with no ship cards or paper work. The whole game is designed to allow me to use my 1:1200 ships without needing a football field. It's designed to have the table look like the plotting tables they had in the Admiralty bunker in Sink the Bismark. Already tested the tactical rules and they work very well. I also have rules that allow me to use land forces and air forces at the same time on the same system. Of course by now you realize it's a large scale game. We tried these at "The Weekend" last year and did a mini-Guadalcanal campaign and it went off well. The name of he game is Jane's Frightening Ships, 1937. Otto |
Winston Smith | 27 Mar 2015 9:26 p.m. PST |
You could just put all your ships in a cigar box, put on a blindfold and draw them out one at a time. Stop when the egg timer goes off. That eliminates the need for a narrative. |
Paul B | 28 Mar 2015 8:47 a.m. PST |
If Germany retains its many islands in the Pacific, it could then come into conflict with an expansionist Japan. Britain might be Germany's ally! |
The Young Guard | 29 Mar 2015 11:35 a.m. PST |
I like this idea and have been tinkering with my navwar ships to model this. A few questions. 1) Would the battleship arms still occur, albeit at a limited scale? 2) Even though the imperial family is running the show, is there a strong feel of nationalism? 3)will fascism occur anywhere? I've also been thinking about the med. I think that austro-hungery could break up into splinter groups. May be the Italians support a slavic uprising to further their own interests? If austrian does go belly up then th r fleet may be parcels out. In terms of Japan, I think there would come a time when Britain had to choose to be allied with them or the state's. A war with American isn't unthinkable if you consider war plan red. I still think Japan and American going to war unavoidable |
Ottoathome | 29 Mar 2015 1:07 p.m. PST |
Dear The Young Guard Arms races will always occurr, BUT the question is why and for what do they occurr. The best example is the ABC countries of South America for which there was absolutely NO good reason for having battleships except as a point of national Ego, and wanting to have one chip in the casino of the great powers. On the other end, the German Navy in WWI was also a creation of the Kaiser's Ego, and the ONLY documented case of the dog of Germany being wagged by the tail of the industrialist and maritime construction industries. As I said, what I'd like to do is simply get past all this to where we can distill the game into a game. The problem is that most one-up naval games really have only an imperfect and disorganized reasoning behind them. It was said of Jackie Fischer that he was the only man in the world who could lose the war in an afternoon. This is because navies have a political dimension far in excess of armies. This dimension is quite clearly seen in any Jane's Fighting Ships of the era. I mean NOT in the sections on the navies, but in that of the front part where the advertisements of all the major naval manufacturers and suppliers can be found. To have your advertisement there mean't you were among the foremost companies of the world, able to provide to buyers the most up to date and modern weapons, and the more ads your country had, the more powerful it was. So… yes… the Industrialists could force the German Kaiser, aided by his own ego, to make a Navy which would be the ultimate showpiece. Remember that navies at that time had also a political power not available to armies. If you captured the French Army you might defeat France, but there's really nothing you can do with the soldiers except release them and disband the army. This means you get their weapons, which might or might not be a good thing, but you need your own men to use them. The weapons compared to the men are cheap, and you can't just stamp men out of the ground like a cookie cutter. On the other hand we have the historical example of the extreme neurosis of the French fleet given over to the Germans where they could be manned far more easily, which forced the British to sink those units in Mers-El-Kebir and so forth. The machines of the ships are neutral in their political or national alignment. The other problem is geography. The navies of 1939 are as different from the navies of 1914 as night and day. The geography remains the same. The strategic problem of the Germans in 1914 weighs just as heavy on Kriegsmarine as it does on the High Seas Fleet. How do we get out, and once having gotten out, we have to go right back to refuel. go to France? Fine, Bomber Command gets something to do bombing us in port while we are repairing, and when we are almost repaired, they come over and bomb us again. The only safe place is Kiel and they even give it a try when you're in there. The Austrains are even in worse shape. 2. Nationalism would remain unabated. The Royal families of the three realms had themselves been pretty divided in their representatives, George, Nicky, and Wilhelm by 1914. I doubt the casualties and disorganizaon of even ending the war on Christmas 1916 would do much to dissipate that. My own theory is that by Christmas 1916 the Damage to Victorian Society had already been done. The 1917-1918 period would only exacerbate it. 3. The real question is not if Fascism would have emerged, but if the Russian Revolution would have occurred in 1917 first. Naziism without Communism is inconceivable. it was just as much a left wing nihilistic movement as Communism was with the same totally inhuman and brutal philosophy (though tarted out in racial terms rather than economic) and most important, saw brutality and inhumanity and violence to ones own people as legitimate and justifiable, and in fact laudatory and preferred as a means of day to day government. If there had been a revolution in Russia, the example of a successfull (in some ways) alternative to capitalism and Victorian manners and morals would have been one that the Nazis would eagerly have copied. Would they have been able to gain power? An interesting question. In my game world they won't simply because the link between Nazi's and Auschwitz cannot be broken, and the link between the Bolsheviks and Magadan, Kolyma, and the purges cannot be broken either. For me I prefer Imagi-Natons with more burlesquery than brutality, buffoonery over butchery. Otto |
The Young Guard | 29 Mar 2015 1:24 p.m. PST |
I totaly agree with you on all points. The reason I ask about the arms race is that I would of thought the germans would continue with the Erastz Yorck class to out do the Hood. I think Russsia is an interesting point. Without the revolution could their navy still be a threat? Even if relationships between George and Nicky were cordial, I think there is still potential there. I also feel that socialist movements were likely to happen, the war being a tragic catalyst. Nazis are a moot point for me in this world as I still think Germany would be agressive, however it's Italy and Spain that I'm interested in. How would the navies and foreign policy of these two countries pan out. |
The Young Guard | 29 Mar 2015 1:26 p.m. PST |
Plus the Netherlands, isn't there the possibility of german funded navy? This might have ramifications for post Boer war situation. |
JimDuncanUK | 29 Mar 2015 3:41 p.m. PST |
Otto "It was said of Jackie Fischer that he was the only man in the world who could lose the war in an afternoon." The real world quote is from Churchill who said of Jellicoe 'the only man on either side who could lose the war in an afternoon'. |
Mallen | 30 Mar 2015 6:08 a.m. PST |
Otto, et. all: I strongly support pvernon on checking out Avalanche Press on this. The is a lot of good tghought/speculation put into it. Kaiser's navy: link Also works on the Austrian Navy, the Tsar's fllet in 1940, the Dutch. |
The Young Guard | 30 Mar 2015 11:44 a.m. PST |
Are the avalanche press games any good? Are there stockists in the UK? |
OSchmidt | 30 Mar 2015 12:21 p.m. PST |
Dear Mallen Thank you for the info. I opened the link. Not my cup of tea. I don't want to use counters, I want to use my 1:1200 Alnavco Ships, and I almost always write my own rules. That way I am satisfied with them. Otto |
The Young Guard | 30 Mar 2015 1:51 p.m. PST |
Otto Let me know how you go with this as I'm interested how it plays. Have you seen the what if ships on wolfs ship yard? |
OSchmidt | 31 Mar 2015 6:44 a.m. PST |
Dear Young Guard If you want I'll send you the rules so far and keep you updated. Just send me your snail mail postal delivery address to sigurd@eclipse.net by the way, we're going to have a couple of games with this at "The Weekend" convention in June in Lancaster PA. I'll be doing a "raider mission" and someone else will be doing a sort of guadal-canal resupply mission. |