• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I don't really know. In the case of Midway I think the two fleets would be in adjacent provinces and the CAGs would fly back and forth doing normal naval strikes. Had the Japanese 2nd Fleet arrived on time then the 2nd Fleet would've engaged the American fleets in the same sea zone.

That's kind of what I was thinking, but I wasn't sure. The sea zones can be large, however, so I was thinking that maybe in HOI3 terms, the two fleets would have been slugging it out with surface fire just by virtue of being in the same large sea zone.

This is one of the things I think makes war in the Pacific a bit odd. I spend a lot more time engaging in surface shootouts that they did historically, simply because our fleets end up in the same sea zones. Maybe I should micromanage the ships more often to get in more naval strikes at distant targets. :)
 
That another branch of the military controls the aircraft on a carrier than the navy does not make carrying out missions impossible, the U.S. Marines often had air groups on U.S. Navy carriers and they are most certainly not the same branch of the military if you ask either of them.

Even on a carrier without divided branches you will not have the captain of the carrier the same man as who commands the air groups commanding a ship is nothing like commanding an air group.

The main issue that crops up is that the different branches of the military's higher command bicker about who is going to control what and since no consensus is reached no funds are allocated and so no planes are built.

I hate to disillussion everyone, and I certainly acknowledge the USN-USMC rivalry, but as a Navy vet I can assure you that the USMC is totally part of the Dept of the Navy. USMC officers come from USNA Annapolis or NROTC as do Naval officers. Both chains of command roll up to the CNO (Chief of Naval Operations - top officer in the Navy) who reports to the SecNav who reports to the Secretary of Defense (back then the Secretary of War) who reports to the CinC (President).

That said both the USN and the USMC both did indeed (and do to this day) have their own air squadrons, and often cooperate in joint missions quite well - and did so back in WW2.

A better case to prove the point would be if the USN aircraft had been "owned" and controlled by the Air Force (US Army Air Corps) for both the Navy air stations and carriers as well as ground support of Army and Marines - let's say under Hap Arnold... >> what a FUBAR mess THAT would have been (like it was for the Germans and to some extent the British, IIRC)...
 
A better case to prove the point would be if the USN aircraft had been "owned" and controlled by the Air Force (US Army Air Corps) for both the Navy air stations and carriers as well as ground support of Army and Marines - let's say under Hap Arnold... >> what a FUBAR mess THAT would have been (like it was for the Germans and to some extent the British, IIRC)...

Italy had this problem too. The Italian navy had spend quite a bit of time and money researching carrier designs, but squabbling between the Navy and Air Force over who the planes would belong to killed several attempts to build an Italian carrier before the war started.
 
Last edited:
Polish Naval Programmes:
Sources came from the internet and the Conway book I mentioned earlier and from the warship projects discussion boards and BATTLESHIPS AND BATTLE CRUISERS 1905-1970 by Siegfried Breyer
Before I start I have to tell you guys that if we speaking with poles and their navy programmes one word is accurate here: MEGALOMANIA! You will see!:

After ww1 when Poland again born after ww1 they wanted a "few" ships from the nations they created from:
2 Gangut class battleships, 1 Bayan class Armoured, 2 Svetlana class Light Cruisers and 14 Novik class Destroyers.
Why? I've got this reply:

"As far as I can recall what I've read on these issues Polish government of the time maintained that Poland had contributed to economical growth of Russia, Prussia/Germany and Austria since the countries had partitioned her in the end of the 18th century. So parts of their fleets seemed to be built (in some part) for taxes paid by the Polish people. And such was the reasoning behind the claims regarding taking over of some ships, esp. of Russian navy.

Another issue was that at that particular time top posts in the just born Polish navy were mainly held by officers (incl. admirals) who had formerly served with the Russian navy. They know Russian ships better than anything else, so their thinking focussed on them rather than ex-German ships for instance."

But soon a naval programme born:
1920 Fleet Expansion programme which to be finished around 1929:
2 Battleships (Unknown from whom or what equipment)
6 Cruisers most probably CL and from France
12-28 Destroyers, from France and UK
as you can see still big programme for a newly formed country.
again a reply:

"Anyway it was of course not realistic, and it surely was not a building programme. Poland wanted to take over some ex-German or ex-Russian ships. It was thoutht that those countries' fleets had been built using Poland's economical potential, so when Poland re-appeared on the map after the Great War ended, she should be given a proportional part of these fleets.
Even during Polish-Soviet peace talks in 1920/1921, there were proposals of the Polish part that some war reparations should have been paid by Soviet Russia not in money or other goods but in the form of ships. All of these efforts to acquire a number of (capital) ships remained fruitless however, and the Polish nave must have been satisfied with few ex-German torpedoboats and minesweepers as well as two ex-Russian gunboats purchased in Finland."

1924 small naval programme:
2 Cruisers probably heavy cruisers with similarity to the Italian Trento class
6 Destroyers
12 Submarines
By this time Poland was found out that the French built ships were not satisfactory enough so these ships would be built by the British or probably by the Swedes and Italy (I'm not sure about these tough...)
Cruiser similar to this just with 2 funnels and the catapult on the turrets:

http://xoomer.virgilio.it/bk/NWS/Regia_Marina/Trento_CA/image-html/1923_cruiser.html
Paradox don't like this sites code so I put it here this way

1936/37 naval programme (what the polish admirals wanted)
2 Battleships similar to the 1938/39 one probably meant to counter the German Scharnhorsts
2 Heavy cruiser of 10.000tons 3x3 203mm Guns 9x 120mm AA guns 4x2 Torpedoes 10.000shp engine 200mm Armour
9 Destroyers
18 Submarines

1937/38 naval programme (what the polish admirals wanted)
3 Battleships of 25.000 tons 350mm Belt armour 120-140.000shp engine 3x3 305mm Cannons 4x3 or 6x2 150mm Guns 2x3 Torpedoes
1 Aircraft Cruiser probably similar to the Swedish Gotland crusier
12 Destroyers
21 Submarines
Proposed Naval Plan of 1942: (to be start at)
1 Battleship
1 Heavy Cruiser of 15.000tons 3x3 203mm and 9x 120mm Guns
Numerous Destroyers

constructive post from that forum:

" This 150 000 tons fleet is not the coincident. It has roots in Geneva Conference where Poland stated programme for such a large navy. It was purely of political reasons and everybody was aware that this was just propaganda and had nothing to do with real programme. In fact before Geneva Conference Polish Navy prepared 6 versions of the programme ranging from the most realistic ones to the totally s-f. The so called A programme stands for 18 500 t fleet, B for 25 000 t, C for 70 500 t (1 BB, 2 CA), D for 100 000 t (2 BB, 2 CA), E for 150 000 t (3 BB, 6 CA) and F for fantastic 210 000 t (4 BB, 8 CA). It was proposed to present in Geneva one of the versions D, E, F as 'official plans' and to show Polish ambitions for big navy. Later it was decided to show E as official plan. In fact the real plan was B which was later executed as 6-year programme (1936/42: 6 DD, 12 SS, 1 CM, 12 PM, 12 MTB). "

Hope it helps.
 
do the Australian Empire please

I' only know two Australian cruisers that were designed by them or intended for them
an 1921 Heavy Cruiser similar to the later British County and earlier Hawkins classes but with casemate gun secondaries:
cockatoo-1.gif

ran-ca2.jpg


2 intended to be built by Cockatoo naval yard who is also the designer
Dimensions:
191,5m x 20,85m x 5,25m
Engine: 90.000shp 4-shafts
Speed: 61km/h
Displacement: 10.000 tons
3x3 203mm Guns
12x1 127mm Guns
4x1 102mm AA Guns
4x1 533mm Torps
Armour Deck/Belt: 38/76mm

And and Anti Aircraft cruiser from 1944
It would be similar in appearance to the Crown Colony, Minotaur/Swiftsure or Tiger class light cruisers
My drawing of it: (Turrets probably either these 5.25" / 133mm Triples or more boxy like ones used for the 6" / 152mm ones)
http://tzoli.deviantart.com/gallery/26568987#/d3333fp
(no official drawing was made tough)
Dimensions:
173.7m x 19.8m
9000tons
56km/h
4x3 133mm AA Guns
3x4 40mm AA guns
6x2 20mm AA guns
51/89mm Armour (Deck/Belt)
 
Last edited:
Does I given any new info? :)

The stuff the admirals wanted is new, but I didn't include that info since it wasn't "official".
 
Last edited:
This is a really interesting thread. I'm just wondering if anyone knows anything about Turkey's Navy and Navy goals. Given their position it would seem they would potentially have significant, but localized, naval ambitions?
 
Turkey purchased some small ships from the UK, of which half were bought by the RN. More details in the UK's entry. Turkey wasn't able to build any of their own ships, which is why I don't have an entry for it.
 
Turkey purchased some small ships from the UK, of which half were bought by the RN. More details in the UK's entry. Turkey wasn't able to build any of their own ships, which is why I don't have an entry for it.

Thanks for the quick reply. Seems bizarre given Turkey's position that they wouldn't pursue a navy, but then again, from what I'm reading online, it would seem they were taking a pretty inward looking domestic/military/foreign policy.
 
Seems bizarre given Turkey's position that they wouldn't pursue a navy, but then again, from what I'm reading online, it would seem they were taking a pretty inward looking domestic/military/foreign policy.
They had the navy they could afford, which wasn't much.

Turkey inherited the old Ottoman navy - it was originally going to be confiscated by the Allies, but after the Greco-Turkish war they let Kemel keep it. So they had:

1 battlecruiser, the Yavuz (formerly the Goeben). Refitted in 1938.
2 cruisers, the Medjidieh and Hamidieh, which dated back to 1903 and by the WW2 era were only used as training ships rather than combat vessels. (Although the Hamidieh was capable of laying minefields.)
About a dozen destroyers and torpedo boats, which however were all scrapped before 1936.
About seven small coastal gunboats and minelayers.

In 1929 Turkey ordered four destroyers from Italy, which were delivered in 1931 and remained in service until the 1950s:
Adatepe (1250 tons)
Kocatepe (1250 tons)
Tinaztepe (1206 tons)
Zafer (1206 tons)

In 1939 they ordered four more destroyers from Britain, which were completed in late 1940/early 1941. However, Britain only delivered two of them, in 1942:
Demirhisar (1360 tons)
Sultanhisar (1360 tons)
Britain 'borrowed' the other two for the duration of the war. One was sunk in 1942, the other returned to Turkey in 1945 along with another British destroyer as a replacement for the sunk one.

The Turks also planned to build a large submarine fleet. In 1929 they planned to buy 12 from Italy, but in the end could only afford two:
Dumlupynar (920 tons)
Sakarya (710 tons)

In 1934 they bought another submarine from Spain (built in Cadiz, although the original design was German):
Gur (750 tons)

In 1937 they ordered four submarines from Germany. One was built in Turkey (at Istanbul) under German supervision, the other three at the Germaniawerft shipyard in Kiel. Only two of these had been delivered before the war began; the third was taken over by the German navy.
Yildiray (934 tons, Turkish-built)
Atilay (934 tons)
Saldiray (934 tons)

Finally in 1939 they ordered four more submarines from Britain. Two of these were actually delivered in 1942:
Oruc Reis (624 tons)
Murat Reis (624 tons)
The other two were taken over by the Royal Navy, though one would be given back to Turkey in 1945.

Finally, they had 18 or so small coastal craft, either minelayers or torpedo boats, acquired in the period 1926-1942.
 
Royal Yugoslavia wasn't really capable of building their own navy. Ships were either purchased abroad outright or were built based on foreign licenses.



OTOH, Royal Yugoslavia was quite capable of building airplanes prior to WW2 (look up Rogozarski IK-3 for example of domestic production; Me-109s and Do-17 were built after acquiring a license, had license not been acquired IK-3 would have gotten far more significant production quota).

***

While on the subject of fixing HPP, Yugoslavia (and Slovenia) should have core in Trieste province at the very least. It was an ethnically mixed territory (with roughly 50-50 distribution) up until the end of WW1 (as the province Carniola of Austro-Hungarian Empire). Following WW1 it was forcibly italicized until the end of WW2 when roughly half of Italy's WW1 conquests of the former Carniola and Istria provinces reverted back to Yugoslavia (nowadays Slovenia and Croatia), with remainder left to Italy thanks to the western allies.

Core in Trieste is far more warranted than random cores of various nations in central and southern Balkans.

Here's the pre-WW1 regional map for further reference:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Austria_Hungary_ethnic.svg

This is the biggest bunch of bull I have ever read. Those lands were Venetian for over 5 hundred years and before that Roman/Byzantine. The Austrians in order to dilute the Italian percentage moved in large numbers of Slavs to the coast to prevent Italy's claim to Venetian land. Man, I've even been on sites where you guys claim Venice as Slav land. Holy Crap!!. WTF.
 
Formion's post was from several months ago and your response was not relevant to the thread's topic. While it is technically not thread necromancy, bringing up old, irrelevant posts about from six or more months ago is really not helpful to anyone wanting to know about naval build plans or naval OOBs. Let's try to stay on topic and not worry about cores. You can discuss that issue in HPP threads or the history forum.
 
secret master can you use a different colour? I find your yellow almost impossibe to read. In fact delete "almost"
 
secret master can you use a different colour? I find your yellow almost impossibe to read. In fact delete "almost"

What background are you using? I use the blue one, and it is easy to read for me.

I use that color because it's hideous, but if it's hard to read with some backgrounds, I'll change it.
 
no problem using deepoceanblue for me.
 
Okay the approved programmes of Poland:

1919
1 CA
4 DD
2 SS
4 MTB

1920
1 CA
4 DD
2 SS
6 TB
12 MTB

1921
1 CA
4 DD
4 SS
6 TB
9 MTB

1924
2 DD
9 SS

1928
1 CA
6 DD
15 SS
6 TB
12 MTB

1936
6 DD
8 SS
12 MTB

The so-called "9-year programme" for 1920/29 (2 BB, 6 CA, 28 DD, 45 SS, 54 MTB) was not approved by M.S.Wojsk.