Germany's naval/dockyard gambit (A strategic discussion)

[ringhloth]

If you need, hypothetically and pulled completely out of nowhere, 200 destroyers to stop 50 submarines from operating in the North Sea effectively, you don't need 400 destroyers to stop 100 submarines operating in the same area, right? Isn't the difficulty in ASW finding, not destroying, so it's more about you need X ships per Y area (with some increase in X for each enemy sub), and not X ships per Y enemy sub? Wouldn't the returns for submarines, in terms of requiring resources be spent on destroyers, diminish quickly? I'm asking this as a legitimate question, not as a statement veiled as one.

 

[mephy]

If you need, hypothetically and pulled completely out of nowhere, 200 destroyers to stop 50 submarines from operating in the North Sea effectively, you don't need 400 destroyers to stop 100 submarines operating in the same area, right? Isn't the difficulty in ASW finding, not destroying, so it's more about you need X ships per Y area (with some increase in X for each enemy sub), and not X ships per Y enemy sub? Wouldn't the returns for submarines, in terms of requiring resources be spent on destroyers, diminish quickly? I'm asking this as a legitimate question, not as a statement veiled as one.

Yeah the number of ASW ships (not only DDs... CVE were much more efficient) should depend on area covered and technology level of ASW ships compared to the subs level

Well maybe Germany starts talking about the new way to move goods. Underwater! no more loss of cargo off decks! Transport your good by sub today!

Germany actually tried that in WWI, and I think the Japanese and Russians used it in WWII. Also there are more recent plans for subs which could pass under the artical ice and thus vastly reduce traveling time during the winter

 

[Big Nev]

@ringhloth

That's not the way to look at it. It's a BIG ocean and the hard part is actually for the submarines to find the convoy. The escorts already know where the convoy is and it's not like you're going to come across 100 sub's all in one go. Firstly, because if they were that concentrated, they'd be way to easy to spot, secondly, if they were that concentrated there'd be only a tiny possibility of them actually encountering anything and thirdly, if there were that many sub's in one place, only the few on the perifery of the formation would be able to attack anyway.

How about this? Hypothetically.

If you need 200 destroyers to stop 50 submarines in the North Atlantic from attacking your convoys of merchant ships.

You actually need the same 200 destroyers to stop 100 submarines from attacking that same number of convoys of merchant ships.

They'll just be a lot busier as the lines of sub's may be a little longer &/or there may be more lines of sub's in order to increase the chances of some of them catching a convoy.

OK, so say you have 8 escorts to a convoy and you cross a sub' line. You're still only going to encounter two or three sub's.

At first.

Push them down & carry on your way. You will probably get hunted-down but you'll still only be encountering an additional two or three sub's (less any you've damaged/sunk) per day. After a few days, you may be facing a dozen sub's and you'll get overwhelmed as escorts get pulled of to push a contact down and another slips through the gap.

But, after a couple of days, you should have got reinforcements of your own &/or be within range of your land-based air.

So, realistically, yeah, you're going to need more escorts, but it's not in proportion to the number of sub's out there. It's in proportion to the number of sub's you're likely to encounter once you cross their picket line. You would probably need to have enough escorts to keep them down, individually, until they run out of air. So we're looking at quite a lot of escorts, but not double.

Looking at it the other way. If you were to double the number of escorts because there are twice as many sub's IN THE OCEAN, you'll more than double the efectiveness of your screen simply because your escorts are where they need to be and the sub's are spread-out trying to find you. Now the sub's are back-footed as you can overwhelme them by keeping them down.


IMHO

But I don't think that's the main question from this thread.

If Germany build three times as many subs, what does Britain do.

What CAN Britain do?

I see CAMs earlier & catapult ships earlier.

I see RDF getting refined earlier. Not getting the instantaneous (2-3 seconds) to get a bearing Huff-Duff on all their escorts four years early, but better RDF on small ships than they had and, maybe, in widespread application of Huff-Duff two years early along with more & better applied land-based RDF.

And I see Chamberlain saying NO to the Sudetenland and backing the Czecks. Especially after the second "most unsatisfactory" meeting.

 

[Jazumir]

Well I hope various nations have to use spies to find all this out.

I am happy if I go full sub for the UK to respond, but they would have to have people on the ground to find out. Well unless Hitler gets photographed at the sub pens for the news.

Uhhh - i see a possible game-mechanic, here. Do something the ´loud´ way and get some national unity (propaganda) along with world tension for it, or do it silently, and get neither. Or somesuch. It could be implemented via the focus-tree. If you have a focus enabled, telling you to build, say, X subs, and you do, you get that NU and WT (and maybe a slight discount for the program of building them), but of course, you could also just build X subs without ever having picked that focus - which would be the ´silent´ way of doing it.

 

[Secret Master]

So, realistically, yeah, you're going to need more escorts, but it's not in proportion to the number of sub's out there. It's in proportion to the number of sub's you're likely to encounter once you cross their picket line. You would probably need to have enough escorts to keep them down, individually, until they run out of air. So we're looking at quite a lot of escorts, but not double.

This is important to consider.

I should point out, though, that if Germany does into submarine spam mode, they will be higher tech just like the RN would have higher tech stuff to hunt them. This means submarines with better engines, speed, range, and endurance. Plus the ability to sniff out RADAR sooner rather than later. This should make it a bit easier to get more submarines into contact with the convoy once it is located (speed and range). You could probably get some bigger and nastier (for both sides) convoy battles with this set up.

I wonder, though, if more range would make it possible to cut lines of communication with Asia even if the mid-Atlantic Gap is closed. If German submarines were operating effectively past the equator around Africa, would the British have enough land based air to make their life difficult? The Type XXI had a really long range.

 

[Axe99]

This is a very interesting discussion (thanks all ), and my contribution is going to be tiny, but for what it's worth:

I'm also thinking of March 1943 in this scenario. Even with high tech gadgets available in 1943, March was an ugly month for the British. If you put 150 U-boats into action in 1939, even if the British have higher techs than the historical start for 1939, and even if they have spammed DEs, I don't see them escaping significant damage. Imagine March 1943 losses in October of 1939? Sure, Germany can't sustain that kind of U-boat effort indefinitely (Donitz's approach in March was kind of an "all hands on deck for a big push" thing), but it sure looks a lot scarier with the US not in the war yet and with no Lend-Lease in the offing (still under Cash and Carry at the time).

March '43 was due, in no small part, to the Germans refining their codes and blinding the Allies for 10 days (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battl...1943_.E2.80.93_May_1943.2C_.22Black_May.22.29 - but I've read/seen this elsewhere as well, I'm just using Wikipedia as a source because it's cheap and easy ) - and was something of an outlier, but also shines a light on where the Germans could probably get the most bang for their effort in terms of the Battle of the Atlantic, which is not having broken codes.

I wonder, though, if more range would make it possible to cut lines of communication with Asia even if the mid-Atlantic Gap is closed. If German submarines were operating effectively past the equator around Africa, would the British have enough land based air to make their life difficult? The Type XXI had a really long range.

Land based air is something that I think hasn't featured enough in this discussion. In terms of this scenario, coverage of the 'gap' between South America and Africa, with aircraft based out of Ascension, would likely make this a pretty difficult proposition.

Also on land-based air, the Brits had a pretty decent heavy aircraft industry. While in the actual conflict it was focussed more on the bombing offensive into Germany, I'd bet good money more of it would have been focussed on coastal command, and earlier, if u-boats had looked like a greater threat earlier. Unlike the RN, I doubt the UK would have been squeamish about cutting back on heavy and medium bombers to support their coastal air arm if there was a need. Especially prior to the Fall of France, when U-boats need to sail around the UK, this would make life for U-boats a good deal harder. Further, if Germany 'trips' the Allied rearmament switch early, then the Fall of France is less of a foregone conclusion (as, as a few have pointed out, not all of the 'extra' rearmament dollars would go into convoy defence - some would go into a stronger RAF and stronger Army - and I'd bet good money the French would have stepped up their war preparations as well, although I know things were more complicated politically there).

 

[Secret Master]

In terms of this scenario, coverage of the 'gap' between South America and Africa, with aircraft based out of Ascension, would likely make this a pretty difficult proposition.

I knew I was forgetting something. Yep, you could base heavy RAF assets there and cover large portions of the ocean.

 

[Big Nev]

Snip...
You could probably get some bigger and nastier (for both sides) convoy battles with this set up.

I wonder, though, if more range would make it possible to cut lines of communication with Asia even if the mid-Atlantic Gap is closed. If German submarines were operating effectively past the equator around Africa, would the British have enough land based air to make their life difficult? The Type XXI had a really long range.

Yes, the convoy battles would be bigger and nastier and both sides would loose more, and more quickly. All-in-all, I think it would be bad for Britain & the Allies as it would take time to convert the CAMs. Which we don't have in the game but which had a truly disproportionate effect relative to the investment. Probably not catastrophic, but with the potential to be catastrophic.

As for range, I don't see that the extended range of the Type XXIs would have had that much effect IRL. There were milk-cows (something else we don't have in the game) from very early-on that had a huge impact on U-boat operational range and the XXIs would still need to re-supply torpedoes. 23 fish may seem like a lot more than the 14 of the Type VII, but it's still not very many and is barely equivalent of the US sub's (which carried 24 from the 1936 Salmon class onwards) and I don't see the XXIs being brought as far forward as the critical period (39-41) that we're considering here.

In-game, of course, because we don't have milk-cows and the underway supply tech' doesn't actually do what you would think, that extra range would make a big difference later on.

This is a very interesting discussion (thanks all ), and my contribution is going to be tiny, but for what it's worth:



March '43 was due, in no small part, to the Germans refining their codes and blinding the Allies for 10 days (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battl...1943_.E2.80.93_May_1943.2C_.22Black_May.22.29 - but I've read/seen this elsewhere as well, I'm just using Wikipedia as a source because it's cheap and easy ) - and was something of an outlier, but also shines a light on where the Germans could probably get the most bang for their effort in terms of the Battle of the Atlantic, which is not having broken codes.



Land based air is something that I think hasn't featured enough in this discussion. In terms of this scenario, coverage of the 'gap' between South America and Africa, with aircraft based out of Ascension, would likely make this a pretty difficult proposition.

Also on land-based air, the Brits had a pretty decent heavy aircraft industry. While in the actual conflict it was focussed more on the bombing offensive into Germany, I'd bet good money more of it would have been focussed on coastal command, and earlier, if u-boats had looked like a greater threat earlier. Unlike the RN, I doubt the UK would have been squeamish about cutting back on heavy and medium bombers to support their coastal air arm if there was a need. Especially prior to the Fall of France, when U-boats need to sail around the UK, this would make life for U-boats a good deal harder. Further, if Germany 'trips' the Allied rearmament switch early, then the Fall of France is less of a foregone conclusion (as, as a few have pointed out, not all of the 'extra' rearmament dollars would go into convoy defence - some would go into a stronger RAF and stronger Army - and I'd bet good money the French would have stepped up their war preparations as well, although I know things were more complicated politically there).

Good call Axe,

As far as I know, Short didn't build long-range bombers so there would be no need to divert resources (other than materials & money*) to the building of more Sunderlands from as early as 1938.

And yeah, while I can see Britain having more troops to send to France, I don't see the ultimate outcome being guaranteed as different. An extra few divisions, would just mean a more critical Dynamo. Although it's possible (maybe even probable) that Arras would have worked out differently. Maybe double the number of Matilda IIs (32 instead of 16 isn't much of a stretch) and them being supported by infantry divisions instead of battalions could have tipped the balance but (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) the battle of France was lost in Belgium and at Sedan, where everybody KNEW it was impossible to be attacked by German tanks.

So by the time of Arras, it was already over.

Maybe.


*The Sunderland did share engines with the obsolete Wellesley & Wallace and, of course, the String-Bag)

 

[Secret Master]

As for range, I don't see that the extended range of the Type XXIs would have had that much effect IRL. There were milk-cows (something else we don't have in the game) from very early-on that had a huge impact on U-boat operational range and the XXIs would still need to re-supply torpedoes. 23 fish may seem like a lot more than the 14 of the Type VII, but it's still not very many and is barely equivalent of the US sub's (which carried 24 from the 1936 Salmon class onwards) and I don't see the XXIs being brought as far forward as the critical period (39-41) that we're considering here.

Hmm, I see your point here.

And now that I think about it, even with massive range and endurance on the engines, without milk-cows, the U-boats just have to spend more time going to and from their assigned areas if they want to patrol far away. Without the milk cows, they have to go all the way back to France to get torpedoes, which takes more time the further away you are.

Sure, sail to the Indian Ocean with your uber-submarine like Captain Nemo. Then spend another two months sailing back with no torpedoes.

 

[FarEast]

I will not create many dockyards in early time.
If I remember correctly, we have no tanker. The Atlantic Ocean is large sea. It is too far from Europe to US. In early time DD's willl have no range enough to get east coast of US, I think so.
That's why I don't hurry to make big German fleets like BB, CV ...

 

[Jazumir]

Hmm, I see your point here.

And now that I think about it, even with massive range and endurance on the engines, without milk-cows, the U-boats just have to spend more time going to and from their assigned areas if they want to patrol far away. Without the milk cows, they have to go all the way back to France to get torpedoes, which takes more time the further away you are.

Sure, sail to the Indian Ocean with your uber-submarine like Captain Nemo. Then spend another two months sailing back with no torpedoes.

Torpedo loaded supply-rockets!

 

[Denkt]

Don't forget the variant system allow you to create some ship with surprisingly long range or firepower, a Germany that build early dockyards will probably gather more naval experience through the game and thus have better late game ships as well as more ships.

Ships espacially big ships are cheaper then they are in real life, a battleship cost 7200 DDs (dockyard days) which mean 480 days with 15 dockyards with no efficiency technology researched. A submarine cost 500 DDs which is about a month with 15 dockyards. So if you got alot of dockyards you can build a powerful navy, starting navies will be obsolete then tier III ship starts to appear around 1941-42 so at that time German navy with this strategy could be more powerful then UK navy espacially then UK player only focus on its starting navy.

I don't think you can change dockyards into the other two factory types or change the other two factory types into dockyards which makes it important to build dockyards.

Taking out UK and maybe even US or atleast removing the threat of an amphibious invasion can make this strategy worth it even with the weaker land and airforce.

 

[Secret Master]

Don't forget the variant system allow you to create some ship with surprisingly long range or firepower, a Germany that build early dockyards will probably gather more naval experience through the game and thus have better late game ships as well as more ships.

What surprisingly long range and firepower might look like.

In all seriousness, this is an excellent point. I know that early in my playing of HOI4, I will try to build a BC with 20 inch guns (probably not as Germany, though) and tons of speed.

 

[FarEast]

Don't forget the variant system allow you to create some ship with surprisingly long range or firepower, a Germany that build early dockyards will probably gather more naval experience through the game and thus have better late game ships as well as more ships.

German navy will get Technology of enough range to US around 1941-42. Even so then I must start to create big fleets.
That's why it will be meaningless in short range fleets. If US will open war like history, US will be powerful creation for US navy,won't be?

 

[Big Nev]

What surprisingly long range and firepower might look like.

In all seriousness, this is an excellent point. I know that early in my playing of HOI4, I will try to build a BC with 20 inch guns (probably not as Germany, though) and tons of speed.

Don't forget that they've said they'll have armour Vs Piercing in HoI IV.

Battlecruisers shouldn’t be as powerful, or rather, effective, in HoI IV as they were in HoI 3.

I love BCs in HoI 3. I build them instead of CAs. I like to build a few high-tech’ ones later-on but for the CA replacement, I take my current tech’ BC & downgrade the armour & main armament to make them cheap. Build loads and they become cheaper than CAs.

And they make proper battleships & full-spec’ battlecruisers really cheap too.

Match each of them-up with a couple of really really fast destroyers and you’ve got something you can actually hunt carriers with that aren’t too expensive. Once there CAGs are de-org’d of course.

They are also deadly commerce raiders, that make mincemeat out of sub-hunters, and they can fight in battles against enemy battleships.

They should get obliterated by same year full-tech’ BCs or any proper battleship in HoI IV. I really hope podcat & his team have got the armour vs penetration right for ships.

 

[Secret Master]

Don't forget that they've said they'll have armour Vs Piercing in HoI IV.

Battlecruisers shouldn’t be as powerful, or rather, effective, in HoI IV as they were in HoI 3.

Well, what I'm hoping for is that penetration is based on main armament and has nothing to do with ship class.

That way, I can build a ship with 20 inch guns and make it BC in terms of armor and speed. Sort of a TD of the ocean.

And speed looks like it will be important, if I read the naval DD correctly.

 

[Big Nev]

Well, what I'm hoping for is that penetration is based on main armament and has nothing to do with ship class.

That way, I can build a ship with 20 inch guns and make it BC in terms of armor and speed. Sort of a TD of the ocean.

And speed looks like it will be important, if I read the naval DD correctly.

Umm…

Two things to remember

Jacky Fisher

Jutland *



OK, three things.

Lack of terrain. Floating TDs don’t, usually, have hills to hide behind, woods to hide in and… well… the concept of going hull-down has a slightly different connotation.



* Speed is NOT armour

 

[Secret Master]

* Speed is NOT armour

But less armor is cheaper. We shall see.

 

[Big Nev]

Yeah this is why I build uber-cheap BCs in HoI 3.

And why I really really want to see how they’ve done this. If it’s a simple 4 x damage if you’re penetrating (like in TFH on land but to both Org and Strength) then it will work towards representing the effect. I’d also like to see that you can only score critical hits (for additional damage) if you’re penetrating. Bearing in-mind that “critical hits” don’t actually have any other effect, like knocking-out Radar, killing the captain, jamming the rudder etc. etc. This could be represented as additional Org damage only if you're not penetrating.

Penetration should be based, entirely, on SIZE of main armament and should only be related to ship class in that, for example, a BC will (should normally) have thicker armour than a heavy cruiser of the same tech-year armour scheme. Sea Attack should, for a given tech’ year ship, reduce as calibre goes up to reflect the reduction in rate of fire and fewer guns.

I’d actually like to see speed be effected (reduced) as you increase main armament, armour scheme and, hopefully, secondary armament to a lesser extent. So you could have two BC types with vastly different capabilities.

Say…

One that focuses on speed & hitting power at the expense of armour, Like Renown (6 x 15” guns & a 6” belt), and one that focusses on speed & staying power like Scharnhorst (9 x 11” guns & a 14” belt).

Both of which were virtually immune to cruiser gunfire and are capable of killing each-other under 24km but Scharnhorst has a distinct advantage with rate of fire. If both ships are penetrating, 27 rounds-per minute is a LOT better than 12 rounds per minute and I’d love to see this reflected.

Personally, I want to build the Japanese B65s as cruiser killers & commerce raiders as Japan and G3s as everything killers as Britain.

Because Britain had the tech’s & capability to build the G3s (which, on paper, look a lot like Iowas apart from the better armour) at (actually, well before) game start.


Which brings us back to Britains response to Germany building lots of military shipyards.