First UK Co-operative AAR!

Duritz said:

OOC: GAH! All this talk about Dreadnought vs South Carolina, all this quoting of experts. It makes an Army General (sic)!

Click to expand...

OOC: I can't help that either Anthony Preston or Conway's proofreader need to go back to elementary school! :rofl:

Some digs at Nebb I see. Good fun. Ah, Parliament, how to they get anything done with all the 'Hear! Hear!' and the 'Lies! Lies!' and the governments falling and the PM's closing down shop if they don't do what he wants!

One day I should take a course on British Parliamentary Rules/Laws and whatnot so it makes some bit of sense to me. o

Braedonnal said:

OOC: One day I should take a course on British Parliamentary Rules/Laws and whatnot so it makes some bit of sense to me. o

Click to expand...

You can't understand it by reading - only by seeing. Although far tamer and less witty than in the good old days [sheds a sentimental tear ], there's nothing like watching question time in the Westminster system!!

Try here http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/ for the NSW State Parliament webcasts. It is the oldest Parliament in Australia and is closest in design and feel to England.

Dury.

OOC: I did say design... NER NER NER!

Braedy, think Congress with a two drink minimum...I think that's the least it takes to deal with the opposition.

Braedonnal said:

Laid down and designed are hardly the same. NER!! NER!! NER!!

Click to expand...

But the class is known after her... she was launched first and infact was not only the first "All big gun" ship but also powered by steam turbines that would have given her a advantage over the South Carolina.

Wiki said:

All big gun concepts

The idea of all-big-gun warships, capable of firing powerful guns from a long distance seems to have emerged as the threat of torpedoes became more potent. The Italian naval architect Vittorio Cuniberti first articulated the concept of an all-big gun battleship in 1903 (although Fisher claimed the idea had occured to him since 1900). When the Italian Navy didn't pursue his ideas, Cuniberti wrote an article in Janes propagating his concept. He proposed an "ideal" future British battleship of 17,000 tons, with twelve 12-inch guns, 12-inch belt and 24 knots.

Click to expand...

So Fisher had the idea in 1900

Braedonnal said:

As for why it is 'Unenglish' given the time we are portraying, I am sure others understand that when you have a globe-spanning empire to protect and patrol, dumping twice as many resources into one ship is unsound as two ships can cover more area, can escort twice as many convoys, etc.

The Dreadnought worked so well because she cost less to operate than a Lord Nelson class pre-Dreadnought. Hardly the case if one builds the British equivalent of the Yamato. Plus, Britain has experience in the 18" gun and opted not to go back to it. Partly because of naval treaties limiting main armament but just as much because British designers knew of the horrible blast effects such a gun inflicts upon the ship that fires it.

There are other reasons that involve things like math that I won't get into but as the math was done by an Englishman it was likely well-known in the RN. The probabilities do not add up on the super heavy battleship.

Click to expand...

The Lion class was designed and to be built. until the RN decided that they needed ships quicker and so went for the HMS Vanguard (the only RN battleship not to fire its guns in anger)

If there had been no depression, the RN would have continued to build larger and larger ships.... the HMS Lion would not have been "the British equivalent of the Yamato" but much smaller.

Anyway I'm taling game terms and the SHBB is superior in firepower to the Advanced (Vanguard) class, and that is what is needed in game terms.

Adaml83 said:

OOC: I did say design... NER NER NER!

Braedy, think Congress with a two drink minimum...I think that's the least it takes to deal with the opposition.

Click to expand...

But my dear sir it is about who uses it... and without the terbines the South Carolina is not as large a jump... NER NER NER!

Americans inventing proper battleships!? What a load of old wank to quote Harry Enfield.

SirCliveWolfe said:

The Lion class was designed and to be built. until the RN decided that they needed ships quicker and so went for the HMS Vanguard (the only RN battleship not to fire its guns in anger)

Click to expand...

Yes, I am well aware of the Lion class which in 1939 was essentially an equivalent to the US South Dakota class. As to why you brought it up here, I have no idea as it doesn't prove or disprove anything.

SirCliveWolfe said:

If there had been no depression, the RN would have continued to build larger and larger ships.... the HMS Lion would not have been "the British equivalent of the Yamato" but much smaller.

Click to expand...

The Depression had nothing at all to do with why the RN didn't build larger and larger warships. The Washington Naval Treaty forbade construction until 1937 anyways so the Depression had no influence at all unless one was willing to break the treaty.

SirCliveWolfe said:

Anyway I'm taling game terms and the SHBB is superior in firepower to the Advanced (Vanguard) class, and that is what is needed in game terms.

Click to expand...

Which is why I will always have a problem with you and your SHBB's. You are talking about 'game' terms while I am talking about reality. What would you rather have if you had the choice, one SHBB or two Lion class battleships? I would take two hulls over one every time (though HOI2 makes SHBB's far too cheap) especially if I had an Empire to cover.

Tactically, two smaller ships would ruin one larger one. The range advantage of an SHBB is pointless in reality in this era as hits were not recorded longer than 26,000yds. The smaller ships would be faster and would dictate the range of the engagement anyways. Positioning would go to the smaller ships as well by and large. The firepower advantage lies with the smaller ships as they have twice the rifles (although less capable) and thus a greater chance of the first hit. The smaller ships are well smaller and thus harder to hit. The list goes on and on.

Now, don't take this as to mean smaller is better (this isn't true one-on-one), that's not the point. The point really is that battleship design had reached a point where large increases in size were required to get even a small advantage over existing ships. This, as much as anything, doomed the battleship in WWII and the post-war period. There just wasn't much else one could do to improve them without massive expenses and huge increases in displacement. That is what doomed the Lion class in 1945 when there were proposals to build them then. The ship as designed had gotten up to Iowa class weight but the protection was found inadequate and a 12" deck was found to be necessary which would have forced another redesign of the ship (and a whole lot more tonnage added). Britain took the smart road and said to hell with it.

Duritz said:

You can't understand it by reading - only by seeing. Although far tamer and less witty than in the good old days [sheds a sentimental tear ], there's nothing like watching question time in the Westminster system!!

Try here http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/ for the NSW State Parliament webcasts. It is the oldest Parliament in Australia and is closest in design and feel to England.

Dury.

Click to expand...

I'll check that out. I've always wondered about the Westminster government style in action. Thanks for the link, Dury.

SirCliveWolfe said:

But the class is known after her... she was launched first and infact was not only the first "All big gun" ship but also powered by steam turbines that would have given her a advantage over the South Carolina.

Click to expand...

The class known after her is pointless. Britain ruled the world basically in this timeframe so naturally Britain took all the credit. The Dreadnought was the first ship of the type completely and this also played a big part as to why the type it known as the Dreadnought. Go figure! Perhaps if the US felt as threatened as the Empire did, maybe they would have rushed to put their design into the water first but the US had no need to do so. They took their time, refined their design and launched a better laid out ship on less tonnage (speed was less true but the US designers felt they had to stick with VTE engines for the fuel economy and the US had to build their ships with the Pacific in mind).

Mahan would disagree with you on speed being too much of an advantage anyways. When battleship fleets need to slug it out, they need to come close to one another. Speed plays less of a role than most would think in BB duels. Given Dreadnought and South Carolina both had the same main armament caliber and the same broadside, range and number of rifles are basically dead even. Armor protection was similar as well. Likely a fight between them would come down to luck, crew quality and crappy cordite.

SirCliveWolfe said:

So Fisher had the idea in 1900

Click to expand...

Hardly proof. If only Admiral Sims had made some similar statement in 1899 that could be backed up with no evidence! I said so, therefore it is. "Lies! Lies!" I say. :rofl: (and yes, I know it was a jest, just going with it )

Sir Humphrey said:

Americans inventing proper battleships!? What a load of old wank to quote Harry Enfield.

Click to expand...

OOC: Humpy you got it wrong, Americans generally don't "invent" they adapt and make things better. That's at least the way it happens thoughout history with various developments. FM Radio, Aircraft Carriers (repeatedly, Britain developed, American copied and improved), Photography, Movies, Cars (manufacturing), and there's probably more.

And yes, probably in some of those cases it wasn't just Americans, there were probably people who came up with the same ideas at the same time in different locations.

Wolfey: NER NER NER!

Tuesday February 2nd 1937
A hospital in Nationalist Spain

Philby was impatient to be out of hospital, but this morning a doctor had told him “No” in no uncertain terms. So now he was sat up in bed in pyjamas and dressing gown, alternately reading and writing letters whilst a whooshing in his ears came and went.

Suddenly the door opened and a well built young man in civilian trousers, a dark grey blazer and a stylish blue and yellow cravat positively bounded into his room. “Ah, Mr Philby” he said in English as his eyes swept around the room. “I trust you are well.”

“Er, yes. W,well enough.” It was most disconcerting; the stranger seemed not to be looking at him but rather under his bed, or so it seemed.

A nurse came in and proceeded to fluff up his pillows and began to change his top sheet and blanket while the blond-haired stranger looked on dispassionately. Then, as though Philby wasn’t there he stepped over and opened the bedside cupboard. “I say…” Philby objected but stopped when the stranger’s jacket half opened as he bent over revealing an automatic pistol in a chest holster. The man shut the cupboard door and exchanged a few Spanish words with the nurse that Philby didn’t catch. “Mr Philby please stand for a moment while I examine you.” Philby got out of bed not quite sure what to expect. The man quickly ran his hands all over Philby’s pyjama-and-dressing-gown-clad body and then crossed the room to look out of the window as the nurse motioned Philby to get back into bed.

Moments later Philby heard a slight commotion in the corridor outside and then a small group burst into the room. Two well turned-out soldiers with rifles who stood to attention inside the door, a young Colonel with brief case, a Sergeant with flash bulb camera and, Philby’s jaw dropped at this, the imposing figure of General Franco himself.

The Colonel spoke in English with a heavy Spanish accent, “Senor Philby, His Excellency General Franco has heard of your meeting with death, and wishes to let you know how sorry he is to hear of the mortality of your colleagues. He wants you to know how much Spain appreciates your contribution to truth and freedom, and to the cause of the people of Spain.”

The Colonel produced a small black box from his brief case and held it open before Franco. The General took something from it and advanced towards Philby. In a state of near disbelief Philby realised that the something was the Red Cross of Military Merit. The camera flash bulb popped as Franco bent to pin the cross onto his dressing gown. After a brief pause to allow the fitting of a new flash bulb the General shook his hand and kissed him on both cheeks. Speaking in Spanish General Franco said, “Senor Philby, Spain owes you a great debt. She and I give you our thanks.” Another photo was taken, and then Franco said, “We both have a duty to perform. Mine is to complete the liberation of my country and save her from her suffering; yours is to get better and to report the truth to the world.” With that he turned and swept out of the room. The Colonel, his face beaming, handed Philby the small black box and a copy of the citation, before scurrying after The General, followed by the other visitors.

Alone, Philby fingered the award that hung from his dressing gown and stared blankly at the citation. ‘Well,’ he thought, ‘I wonder if I’ll ever get a better opportunity? But I guess I’m a fascist now.’


...

OOC: I wrote this a week ago but had to let Philby have a few days in hospital before I could post.

OOC: Well it looks like the Admiralty has someone to test the steam catapult.
/evil

Braedonnal said:

Yes, I am well aware of the Lion class which in 1939 was essentially an equivalent to the US South Dakota class. As to why you brought it up here, I have no idea as it doesn't prove or disprove anything.

Click to expand...

The reason I include the Lion class is to show that the RN was planning to build SHBBs.

Indeed I have looked at the similarities between the South Dakota and the Lion classes. The Lion class was goin to be the 'superHeavy' battleship of the Royal Navy, the fact that it was quite modest for a SHBB (as it had to be due to the treaty) does not deny the fact that it was considered a SHBB and a match (just) for the planned German 'H' class.

A good site comparing the 'never built' SHBBs http://www.chuckhawks.com/super_battleships_projected.htm

Braedonnal said:

The Depression had nothing at all to do with why the RN didn't build larger and larger warships. The Washington Naval Treaty forbade construction until 1937 anyways so the Depression had no influence at all unless one was willing to break the treaty.

Click to expand...

Yes but that is my point... I believe you have it the wrong way around, the Huge cost of a new 'Naval arms race' was too much for the Empire at the time due to the almost bankrupting of her during WWI. That is why the British signed the treaty and, therefore, why they did not build larger ships from 1922 to the out break of war, but built ships that could have armour 'added' after hostilities commenced.

Braedonnal said:

Which is why I will always have a problem with you and your SHBB's. You are talking about 'game' terms while I am talking about reality. What would you rather have if you had the choice, one SHBB or two Lion class battleships? I would take two hulls over one every time (though HOI2 makes SHBB's far too cheap) especially if I had an Empire to cover.

Tactically, two smaller ships would ruin one larger one. The range advantage of an SHBB is pointless in reality in this era as hits were not recorded longer than 26,000yds. The smaller ships would be faster and would dictate the range of the engagement anyways. Positioning would go to the smaller ships as well by and large. The firepower advantage lies with the smaller ships as they have twice the rifles (although less capable) and thus a greater chance of the first hit. The smaller ships are well smaller and thus harder to hit. The list goes on and on.

Now, don't take this as to mean smaller is better (this isn't true one-on-one), that's not the point. The point really is that battleship design had reached a point where large increases in size were required to get even a small advantage over existing ships. This, as much as anything, doomed the battleship in WWII and the post-war period. There just wasn't much else one could do to improve them without massive expenses and huge increases in displacement. That is what doomed the Lion class in 1945 when there were proposals to build them then. The ship as designed had gotten up to Iowa class weight but the protection was found inadequate and a 12" deck was found to be necessary which would have forced another redesign of the ship (and a whole lot more tonnage added). Britain took the smart road and said to hell with it.

Click to expand...

You are correct in your assumption that Britain needs a large fleet, but it already has one large enough to take on Italy and Germany at the same time, what is needed now are ships (if they be Vanguards or SHBBs) that are capable of 'Trafalgering them' in a quick time, I'm sure if I went to the RN in 1936/7 and proposed a plan to them that would destroy the entire German fleet (including those troublesome u-boats) within a fortnight of war... they would definatly take it on bord.

Adaml83 said:

OOC: Humpy you got it wrong, Americans generally don't "invent" they adapt and make things better. That's at least the way it happens thoughout history with various developments. FM Radio, Aircraft Carriers (repeatedly, Britain developed, American copied and improved), Photography, Movies, Cars (manufacturing), and there's probably more.

And yes, probably in some of those cases it wasn't just Americans, there were probably people who came up with the same ideas at the same time in different locations.

Wolfey: NER NER NER!

Click to expand...

Well I agree that the Yanks steal all our best ideas especialy in CV design (steam catapult & the landing system with the mirrors and lights) I don't generaly see how they make them better.

Cars is what the Japanese do much better than the US
Movies :rofl: :rofl:

Addy: NER NER NER!

SirCliveWolfe said:

Well I agree that the Yanks steal all our best ideas especialy in CV design (steam catapult & the landing system with the mirrors and lights) I don't generaly see how they make them better.

Click to expand...

Well not like it's all that hard to improve the ideas.

Seriously, it has more to do with incorporation of overall design.

SirCliveWolfe said:

Cars is what the Japanese do much better than the US

Click to expand...

Ever hear of Henry Ford?

SirCliveWolfe said:

Movies :rofl: :rofl:

Click to expand...

I never said better, but imporve the process of making movies, etc.

SirCliveWolfe said:

Addy: NER NER NER!

Click to expand...

NER NER NER!

3rd February 1937
House of Commons, Westminster
Debate on the latest trade figures.

The Honourable Member for Barnstaple, Richard Acland caught the speaker’s eye. “Mr Speaker, as has already been alluded to, the official figures don’t exactly make things clear. If the Minister could enlighten us as to our trading position with Spain; by that I mean on the one hand our arrangements with the Republican Government of Spain, and on the other our separate arrangements with rebel Nationalist Spain, I for one would be most grateful. As things stand at the moment, we seem to be laying ourselves open to the charge that we are somehow seeking to circumvent the restrictions imposed by the League of Nations, even though I am sure it’s just the result of bureaucratic vagueness. I hope he will it make it clear what we are actually trading, and with whom. We also need to know what percentage of our trade, if any, is being lost as sea due to hostilities. Lastly, there have been reports that we are sending aid to Spain. Can he confirm this? And tell us what we are sending, and to who? Yes – I will give way…”

William Gallacher the Communist M.P. for West Fife had risen to his feet. “The Government says it is pursuing a policy of neutrality in Spain. What this means in effect is that the Spanish Government is unable to get the supplies it and its people desperately need, whereas the rebels are fed, armed, clothed and transported by Germany and Italy. And now the Germans even openly fight on their side! This state of affairs is lamentable enough. But there are some on that side of the House – “ he pointed to the Government benches – “ who would like to support the fascists. Can we have an undertaking from the Minister that we will not trade with or give aid to the fascist rebels?” With that he sat down.

Acland briefly resumed: “Mr Speaker it is vital for our international reputation that the Minister straightforwardly answers my questions. After the impassioned remarks of the Member for West Fife, does the Minister wish me to repeat my questions?” The Minister shook his head. “Very well, I look forward to his clear answers.”

Braedonnal said:

I'll check that out. I've always wondered about the Westminster government style in action. Thanks for the link, Dury.

Click to expand...

Check the daily lists as the rest can be very boring with as little as 10 people in the whole chamber. You want Question time, it's on at 2.30pm (AEST) most sitting days.

D.

P.S. I think you're Britain good, US gooder debate has run its course lads. Pipe down before I find some more cupboards to lock you all in!

Duritz said:

Check the daily lists as the rest can be very boring with as little as 10 people in the whole chamber. You want Question time, it's on at 2.30pm (AEST) most sitting days.

D.

P.S. I think you're Britain good, US gooder debate has run its course lads. Pipe down before I find some more cupboards to lock you all in!

Click to expand...

Nah, I maintain both countries are equally screwed up.

3rd February 1937
House of Commons, Westminster
Debate on the latest trade figures

The Minister rose and placed his notes on the speaker’s box. The chamber was mainly empty and the Minister took an easy pose as he addressed the Speaker.

“I thank the Honourable Member for Barnstaple. As he is no doubt aware the trading relations between nations are complex things. However, as he is no doubt aware, the current administration feels that the Spanish situation is an issue that relates solely to the Spanish people for a decision. His Majesty’s government has therefore taken the view that aiding one side or another would be to incorrectly interfere in the domestic relations of another nation. The League of Nations resolutions support our position and we adhere to them. However, the trade that is shown in the figures that he questions relate to contracts and agreements between British companies and their Spanish counterparts that predate this conflict and which are still being honoured. The British government feels that the freedom of trade is paramount and is pleased that British companies have continued to honour their contracts where possible, upholding the good name of this nation.”

The few members on the government side mumbled their ascent, the Minister nodded in agreement before continuing.

“Mr Speaker, despite this belief, the government remains aware of the potential this may have to favour one side or another in the current conflict. We have therefore engaged in negotiations with individual companies where this may have been possible and have sought, and may I say gained, their agreement to cease trade with their Spanish counterparts. This has meant that in some cases British companies have potentially been out of pocket and the government has worked hard to find alternative contracts for these parties. It is just another way that we are helping to keep this nation at the forefront of International trade.”

At this the Member for West Fyfe began to interject, demanding he be answered immediately. The Minister smiled back at him without being goaded. He waited for the Speaker to warn him back to silence.

“Now if I can finish with the questions put to me by the Honourable Member for Barnstaple first I will get to the Member for West Fyfe readily?”

“Please continue.”

The Minister smiled, “Thank you Mr Speaker. The aid the Member for Barnstaple speaks of does not go to nations per see but to organizations with roles to play in staving off humanitarian tragedies in Spain. The Red Cross and other organizations of the same ilk have taken it upon themselves to cloth, feed and care for those who have been affected by war. It is not aimed at one side or another but goes where the fighting has been, comforting those who have lost all but their lives to the ravages of war. I understand that the figures point to more being spent in areas currently controlled by the Nationalist forces, I make the point that this is because they currently control more territory than the Republican forces. If the Member for West Fyfe spent less time interjecting and more time looking at the government figures he would see that the shift in the balance has reflected the ebb and flow of battle and that figures from the start of the conflict were weighed towards the Republicans almost as lopsidedly.”

His mention of the poor fortunes of the Republicans started the Communist Member squawking again but he ignored him.

“Mr Speaker, I have here a detailed listing of all the figures I have just quoted; with your permission I’ll table those?”

He received permission and handed the documents to the Clerk of the House.

“Thank you Mr Speaker. Moving onto the questions of the Member for West Fyfe, or should I say the ramblings of the Member for West Fyfe. The statements he continuously makes concerning the involvement of the German and Italian governments have long been made but never proved to this government’s or indeed to the majority of people’s satisfaction. Until such time it would be counter productive to consider these accusations as true. I will not deal with them in this debate and suggest the Member take them up with the Foreign Secretary at the appropriate time.”

“He also makes claims that some in the government wish us to provide aid to the Nationalists. This I believe is a statement of fact. This government is a democratically elected one and all members have the right and responsibility to bring to this House the views of their constituents. Just as the Member for West Fyfe has a view on this issue so does everyone else in this House. The government’s view is that our current stance is the correct one. If we feel that this needs to be reviewed we shall do so based on the facts of the matter. Blind ideology will not cloud our judgment, Mr Speaker, a situation I could not be confident of if the Member for West Fyfe was to have his way.”

“Hear, hear!” Came the response of government and opposition members to these closing remarks. The Member for West Fyfe continued to rant but as the Speaker moved on with the debate he was just jousting at windmills. After another few speakers, the Member for West Fyfe retired from the Chamber.