Is it possible to beat British navy with planes and subs?

[Denkt]

Yes submarines can sink capital ships but their usefulness for defeating surface navies are limited, many submarines was destroyed without any kills, it was a few submarines that took the lion share of all kills.

A carrier can be sunk by a submarine in HOI4 but a carrier protected by modern destroyers with air cover will be very hard to sink with submarines.

 

[Wimpola]

North Korea uses Photoshop to boost their military. Who can forget the picture that they put out showing a naval landing exercise where they just copy pasted the boats. It was hilarious to see.

That's why I put the quotations next to the "larger" part. Also nearly their entire navy are corvettes and light Patrol craft. Same with China but they have actual naval ships. The Is navy is the most advanced and has the largest actual fleet in the world if you take out patrol craft.

 

[GermanPower]

HEY GUYS SO HOW ABOUT THEM TYPE 21's? Off-topic. Next time I won't insult plastic Chinese missiles.

Looking into it it seems like Subs became rather pointless with all the allied inventions. It really did. I bet the few planned strikes by Donitz would have worked....without the codes being broken. But the advances were apart of the game and they(Allies) had a large advantage over them(Germans) anyways technologically it seems. Would the electric boogaloo been enough to strike back the fear of the subway sandwich?

 

[Axe99]

Wow, didn't take long to turn this into a "my navy is bigger then your navy" boasting.

Now, the real issue here is, does the naval combat model something like a random factor or lucky hit? In WWII, subs actually sank capital ships like the Ark Royal or Royal Oak (what is it with brits and things being royal?). US subs sank a whole bunch of japanese cruisers. Now these things didn't happen every day, but once in a while a sub could get lucky. They would need to model some kind of low-percentage lucky shot possibility if subs and capitals are present in the same sea zone.

I'm very interested in how well the game models this. Subs were quite dangerous to surface ships, but in a fairly 'random' fashion - the sub had to be lucky enough (or well positioned enough) to have the surface warship stumble upon it (as the surface warship was likely to be steaming faster than a submerged sub could cope with, at the very least until the type XXIs).

 

[Denkt]

Still XXI can not destroy navies and the enemy will just develop tools that can detect type XXI and weapons that can kill it.

The same happened to ship vs aircrafts. As aircrafts get more advanced so do the anti aircrafts guns, and then the war end you have stuff like computer controlled fully enclosed automatic loading long range high firepower guns like the bofors M48.

 

[Axe99]

Still XXI can not destroy navies and the enemy will just develop tools that can detect type XXI and weapons that can kill it.

The same happened to ship vs aircrafts. As aircrafts get more advanced so do the anti aircrafts guns, and then the war end you have stuff like computer controlled fully enclosed automatic loading long range high firepower guns like the bofors M48.

Aye, totally - I was just referring to the cruising speed - the type XXI could make 17 knots underwater, so unlike pretty much every other German sub, could actually follow and maybe slowly gain on a warship cruising at 15-16 knots. Prior to the XXI, to sink a warship, even if it was just cruising, subs tended to need to 'get lucky' and be in the right place at the right time, or wait for the ship to be damaged (like the Yorktown, for example). I wasn't suggesting the XXI would be able to take on a fleet in a massed action or anything like that, it'd get shredded.

Edit: Originally had Lexington as the example CV sunk by subs, because my memory's rubbish - it was actually the Yorktown that was finished off by a Japanese sub after damage during Midway.

 

[shri]

Oh dude you make me laugh.. Have a nice time in the fantasy world that you make the rules..

As a thumb rule-

Decrease what any Dictatorship says by 50% and esp. Chinese by 75% and inflate what the Americans say by 50%.
The Americans love being underdog (some psychological issue) but the real game is they have been top dogs now since 1919 onwards, nearly a century and are likely to be for another foreseeable century.

In short- CCP just loves to lie, the Pentagon loves to say it is under-supplied and undermanned and under-equipped.

 

[GermanPower]

As a thumb rule-

Decrease what any Dictatorship says by 50% and esp. Chinese by 75% and inflate what the Americans say by 50%.
The Americans love being underdog (some psychological issue) but the real game is they have been top dogs now since 1919 onwards, nearly a century and are likely to be for another foreseeable century.

In short- CCP just loves to lie, the Pentagon loves to say it is under-supplied and undermanned and under-equipped.

We have a 400 billion dollar budget. Constant complaints about funding. Navy has advanced laser systems and rail gun technology they can mount. Needs to build Zimwalt and Gerald Ford Class Carriers instead of upgrading. Because what's 100 billion dollars for the world's most powerful navy.

I noticed some bashing the on XXI. For some reason considering the massive Sub programs by a chunk of nations I doubt the lessons of that Sub and others was they are less important..if anything I think it's capabilities showed it'd be far more powerful now. To me tactically it gives you a ton of advantages. There are no real effective methods in knocking out a Sub. The reasons they were so devastated was rather because of code breaking&slowness&poor knowledge of aircraft. Which are all practically solved when you introduce the XXI. I have a feeling it'd be a huge breakthrough for a good while. I more wonder who's at fault for the failure of the XXI. In my readings it was just one built never explained why? Hitler seemed to keep his hands off the navy...least thats my perception. I assume it's because the Corporal felt less comfortable with Naval combat.

 

[spartansociety]

As a thumb rule-

Decrease what any Dictatorship says by 50% and esp. Chinese by 75% and inflate what the Americans say by 50%.
The Americans love being underdog (some psychological issue) but the real game is they have been top dogs now since 1919 onwards, nearly a century and are likely to be for another foreseeable century.

In short- CCP just loves to lie, the Pentagon loves to say it is under-supplied and undermanned and under-equipped.

The Chinese are famous for under reporting their defence spending. America has called on China on numerous occasions to be more transparent and actually make public their total spending. Other countries are forced to look at the official spending figure, then estimate the amount not reported to come up with a likely total.

 

[shri]

@GermanPower

The USA's defence budget this year is $560 Billion officially, in addition you have other budgets for the CIA, Homeland, Coast Guard etc. All together over $750 Billion.
I do agree that the "Bohemian Corporal" didn't like Naval matters much, but another reason was that Adm. Raeder was supposedly the Best Grand Strategist as per many people (including several in the forums) and he wanted Surface Ships. Had the Germans invested pre-war in a good "intelligence set-up" i.e. encryption/de-cryption (they did have the scientists and mathematicians for it) they would have solved their "intelligence issues" and the Battle of the Atlantic would have been far more brutal for the UK.



and @spartansociety
Again, China's capabilities are far inflated and even their high command realises it. Have you noticed in recent months, XI Xinping has cut back 400000 troops from the PLA and plans to cut another 600000 in the coming 2-3 years, because he has understood that it has become a corrupt and bloated organisation similar to the Red Army in the 1980s. Now how far he can move before a "REACTIONARY" step happens is anyone's guess.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

PRC frequently engages in underreporting their military and security budget because of claims of militarism and oppression, and the standard practice is to add on top of what they claims. Additionally, the labor cost in China is significantly lower than in the West, so there's a pretty big margin of error if one assumes a dollar is worth the same in the US and China.

Oh and by the way, please take further discussion to another thread please.

Back on topic, I think it should be possible to do so. Submarines and airplanes can cover each other's weaknesses: submarines are slow but can hide and be a constant threat for a long time and excel at night, while aircrafts are fast, can be amassed in short order but can't hide, cover regions and are ineffective at night. A sub being chased down can call for air support to sink or dislodge sub chasers and shoot down planes, while fleet formations can be broken up by firing torpedoes to the center and lowering AA density, allowing planes to go for the prize. Ships merely damaged and stay afloat by the time the planes ran out of ammo or nightfall can be stalked by submarines.

 

[Axe99]

I noticed some bashing the on XXI. For some reason considering the massive Sub programs by a chunk of nations I doubt the lessons of that Sub and others was they are less important..if anything I think it's capabilities showed it'd be far more powerful now. To me tactically it gives you a ton of advantages. There are no real effective methods in knocking out a Sub. The reasons they were so devastated was rather because of code breaking&slowness&poor knowledge of aircraft. Which are all practically solved when you introduce the XXI. I have a feeling it'd be a huge breakthrough for a good while. I more wonder who's at fault for the failure of the XXI. In my readings it was just one built never explained why? Hitler seemed to keep his hands off the navy...least thats my perception. I assume it's because the Corporal felt less comfortable with Naval combat.

I don't think anyone 'bashed' the type XXI (technically it was quite the innovation, although I think the Japanese developed a similar sub with similar capabilities before the war was done, although similarly too late to have any meaningful impact), we were just saying that it alone wouldn't be up to taking out the RN in a fleet action. The Germans built quite a few Type XXIs (see http://www.navypedia.org/ships/germany/ger_ss_xxi.htm) but only got one operational. It was really only with nuclear power, when subs could remain underwater as good as indefinitely from a tactical perspective, when they became the potential dangers to fleets they are today (while the Type XXI could muddle away at 5 knots for 60 hours underwater, this is far too slow to be usefully tactically, and at least according to my rough Googling, it could only do 90 minutes at 18 knots). As long as the XXI still needs to surface to recharge, it's still at the mercy of allied radar-equipped planes.

So imagine a fleet action where a wolfpack attacks an allied SAG/CAG - I would expect XXIs to be successful in knocking out a few warships initially, but once the ships knew they were in trouble, they would simply steam away (every warship modelled in HoI other than the sub had a flank speed above 18 knots) and then send in the aircraft to wait for the u-boats surfacing, and when they did it would be the same story with the earlier u-boat types.

I do think the XXIs would have caught the allies on the hop and likely lead to severe losses in the battle of the Atlantic until they could refine their sonar to match the new threat, but I'd expect this would be similar to the other ebbs and flows (things like sonar and radar improved at a breakneck pace during the war), and wouldn't have been a war winner.

 

[egslim]

The Americans love being underdog (some psychological issue) but the real game is they have been top dogs now since 1919 onwards, nearly a century and are likely to be for another foreseeable century.

Yet they lose most of their wars/interventions - Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq 2003, Libya, all failures.

American ROI on military expenditure is horrific.

 

[shri]

Yet they lose most of their wars/interventions - Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq 2003, Libya, all failures.
American ROI on military expenditure is horrific.

You are confusing military efficiency with political ruthlessness, the USA has the first and lacks the second.
Anyway we are going off topic, myself included.


@Axe99
I am not doubting the allied ability to counter the Germans within 6 months, but heavy convoy losses in 1943 will make -
Operation Husky difficult and Operation Overlord even more difficult. Time was always on the side of the allies but time spent on combating the U-Boats and producing more convoys is time not spent on improving the ground forces.
The net result is the Germans still lose but the Russians gain a lot more ground.

 

[Secret Master]

Folks, let's keep this on topic with WWII stuff. All the 21st Century PRC and USN stuff is taking us off topic pointlessly for what should otherwise be a good discussion.

 

[Secret Master]

I guess it's time to ask what we mean exactly by beating the British with subs and planes. (I know, I know, I love to play the "What does victory even look like" game, but bear with me.)

If the yardstick for beating the RN is successfully launching Sea Lion, then I think the answer is no. You need something resembling a real navy to run the invasion. I don't think Germany can do it while having enough assets for the Battle of France. (Although it would be funny to see de Gaulle sitting in Berlin while Bismark and Tirpitz fight Prince of Wales and twelve friends in the North Sea.)

If the yardstick for beating the RN is sinking the British Merchant Marine and starving the UK for imports, then I suppose the answer could be yes. If you take ENIGMA out of the equation, and you give Donitz 300 submarines on Day 1 (possible with a complete realignment of German priorities), and you get rid of the dud torpedoes, and you have Goering commit the Luftwaffe to really doing a good job sinking British ships (which means giving him a personality transplant), then you have a possibility of victory. Not "Germany will win" but just a "Germany could win, if the British don't play well enough." Britain should be able to counter such a strategy, but they should have to put the effort in to do so.

There is a third possibility.

We should ask the question "What happens if the Germans sink enough of the RN to enable Japan and Italy to defeat the rest in detail?" Historically, Italy and Japan, even with good performances, faced serious obstacles trying to defeat the RN. Sure, they have some real successes, but imagine for a moment how much more progress the Italians and Japanese could have made in their respective theaters if Britain lost if Britain loses a significant number of her battleships and carriers in 1939 and early 1940 to German planes and submarines supporting a small force of capital ships. Every extra capital ship lost gives Italy more of an edge. And every extra capital ship lost reduces the protection of Singapore and India (when Japan enters the war). I doubt that the British would be stupid enough to risk their capital ships in a desperate attempt to sink German capital ships within range of the Luftwaffe or be careless about submarines (Jellicoe at Jutland turned away from fleeing German ships, because he knew damn well that they might be retreating over submarines, and losing dreadnoughts to submarines would be stupid), but mistakes can happen. You think your ships are safe, and your CAP is tied up looking for Bismark instead of enemy planes when two dozen Condors show up and bomb your fleet while Gunther Prien sneaks half a dozen torpedoes into Royal Oak and Renown.

 

[shri]

Well, in 1939, the Germans were sinking a measly 120-140k Tons per month i.e in the 4 months of 1939 they sunk just about 0.5 million tons of Shipping, in 1940 too upto July the stats are bad, but then the game changes-
From July 1940 to Feb 1943, they average over 300k Tons per month i.e. more than double due to the vastly decreased distance and the risks of crossing the channel being removed. 300k means in a year they average close to 4 million tons.
Overall they sank nearly 15 million tons of shipping in the whole war.

The UK starts with this-
UK - 6722 ships, 17,891,134 tons
USA - 2345 ships, 8,909,892 tons
Japan - 1609 ships, 5,996,607 tons
Norway - 1987 ships, 4,833,813 tons
Germany - 2459 ships, 4,482,662 tons
Italy - 1227 ships, 3,424,804 tons
British Commonwealth* - 2255 ships, 3,110,791 tons
Netherlands - 1523 ships, 2,969,578 tons
France - 1231 ships, 2,933,933 tons
Greece - 607 ships, 1,780,666 tons
Denmark - 705 ships, 1,174,944 tons

The UK + Commonwealth have nearly 21 Million Tons of Shipping, roughly 40% of the World.
Further, bulk of the Dutch, Danish and Norwegian shipping totalling over 8 million tons was added in mid 1940.
This meant, UK had direct/indirect control of 60% of World's Shipping by mid 1940. Some of the French and Greek Fleets also joined the UK, which i have not counted.
Nearly half of the German Merchant Marine was sunk or captured in 1939 itself (or interred in neutral countries).

Now, losing 4 million a year out 21 million is not big because you are receiving replacements due to many reasons- you have convoys so less useless imports and also you get those allied ships, but if you start losing 8 instead of 4 then things will turn bad and if that number somehow crosses 10, then things may go kaput.

By mid-1940, the Commonwealth had over 30 million tons of shipping at their disposal (even accounting for sinking) and were replacing their merchant marine fast with USA's help.

Now in our alternative History- the earlier Sept 1939 to July 1940 figures can go upto 250k pm instead of 130k pm so netting an extra 1.5 million tons lost.
But if in July 1940 to say Feb 1943, UK loses an average of 600k per month instead of 300k (taking a very conservative figure after assuming the 300 U-Boats available instead of 49, also more type VII and IX ones, the 300 U-Boats are built at the cost of Bismarck, Tirpitz and the heavy Cruisers like Lutzow and the H-41 type BBs etc, the Steel used for them should compensate more than enough). Then, the UK is losing 8 million a year and despite replacements it will go into deficit by early/mid 1942 and then into DEEP RED.
All this means by Feb 1942, the UK would have lost 19 million tons of shipping instead of the 9.5-10 million it had lost historically at that point in time. That should pretty well cripple the UK into a country which is building only Convoys and Escorts and no Bombers or Land based equipment.
Also, though the USA comes into the War by now, they cannot immediately start cranking those Liberties at the furious pace of 1944-45. Again, the USN was notorious for its lax security features against the U-Boats as denoted in Operation Drumbeat etc by Donitz in his book.

 

[Secret Master]

By mid-1940, the Commonwealth had over 30 million tons of shipping at their disposal (even accounting for sinking) and were replacing their merchant marine fast with USA's help. Also the earlier Sept 1939 to July 1940 figures can go upto 250k pm instead of 130k pm so netting an extra 1.5 million tons lost.
But if in July 1940 to say Feb 1943, UK loses an average of 600k per month instead of 300k (taking a very conservative figure after assuming the 300 U-Boats available instead of 49, also more type VII and IX ones, the 300 U-Boats are built at the cost of Bismarck, Tirpitz and the heavy Cruisers like Lutzow and the H-41 type BBs etc, the Steel used for them should compensate more than enough). Then, the UK is losing 8 million a year and despite replacements it will go into deficit by early/mid 1942 and then into DEEP RED.
All this means by Feb 1942, the UK would have lost 19 million tons of shipping instead of the 9.5-10 million it had lost historically at that point in time. That should pretty well cripple the UK into a country which is building only Convoys and Escorts and no Bombers or Land based equipment.

This is a great example of "May not win the war, but its more efficient than the historical strategy."

Also, though the USA comes into the War by now, they cannot immediately start cranking those Liberties at the furious pace of 1944-45. Again, the USN was notorious for its lax security features against the U-Boats as denoted in Operation Drumbeat etc by Donitz in his book.

Although the US did sort out these issues over time. Drumbeat should never have happened, but you can't count on Drumbeat losses for extended periods of time.

But if the UK is already hurting for convoys and then drumbeat happens, the Allies are set back even further.

 

[shri]

This is a great example of "May not win the war, but its more efficient than the historical strategy."
Although the US did sort out these issues over time. Drumbeat should never have happened, but you can't count on Drumbeat losses for extended periods of time.

But if the UK is already hurting for convoys and then drumbeat happens, the Allies are set back even further.

Well, effects of Drumbeat did linger a long time as per Donitz (i find him a reliable source, unlike Speer et all)-
Donitz summarised that by October 1941, the UK had got the U-Boat menace under some restraint and had reduced the average killings from 350k to about 200k or so (strong but lesser).
But from Jan-Feb 1942, these losses spiked heavily- averaging over 500k tons till Nov 1942 mainly due to additional ships but also due to negligence of the USN.
After Dec 1942, the toll crosses 500k tons per month only once that too in March 1943.
This means USN negligence was a major factor for nearly 10-11 months (not a small time period).

 

[Secret Master]

Well, effects of Drumbeat did linger a long time as per Donitz (i find him a reliable source, unlike Speer et all)-

Yes, but as you even point out, let's not discount the sheer number of targets available once the US enters the war.

We should also not discount improvements in torpedoes made during the same period. As Donitz points out in his memoirs, it took them far too long to get around the dud torpedo problem. But they were solving that problem when the US enters the war (it took time to implement the changes), so that helps throughout 42 as well.