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

[GermanPower]

God it's a sexy looking Sub. It has sonar, it has anti-sonar measures. It's a interesting little thing. Basically all nations scrambled and used one for many years after the war. It's pretty wunderful it appears. Considering the long usage after the war and service it certainly was quite the advancement.

In any event I rather think the ultimate failure is the Huff Duff and capturing of U-110. That has some major impact on the entire following years of the war. So I think in any and all of this it's ultimate a information war the Sub war looses. Then itself loosing.

 

[Axe99]

@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.

Aye, totally - I'm just addressing the XXI in the context of 'could it defeat the RN' (and not could subs and aircraft defeat the UK - I'm more approaching it from a 'could a force of subs and aircraft defeat a subs of surface ships and aircraft (as the RN had its own aircraft, and the RAF would get amongst it at as well). There's no question an earlier XXI would have had a strategic impact, and could have helped strategically defeat Britain without needing to destroy the RN. Secret Master's post has all of that covered and written better than I could though .

 

[Adrian Gaming]

If my two cents means anything, I would say: no, you cannot defeat the Royal Navy through air superiority alone.

To take land for civilization, you need infantry; to take the seas for civilization, you need a navy. No amount of air superiority will grant you the oceans, only boats can do that.

 

[AOW]

Interesting discussion. I would add that it depends a lot on how the game is designed and subsequently balanced. I am not sure if air + subs would allow the Germans to pull off a Sea Lion, but I am sure going to give it a try
In such a game it would be a nice assist to the German effort if Italy also emphasizes naval air to do some damage to the UK Med fleet.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

If my two cents means anything, I would say: no, you cannot defeat the Royal Navy through air superiority alone.

To take land for civilization, you need infantry; to take the seas for civilization, you need a navy. No amount of air superiority will grant you the oceans, only boats can do that.

Subs would be covering the ground (water)

 

[Axe99]

Subs would be covering the ground (water)

I'm not convinced subs alone can maintain control of a large body of water efficiently (and given there aren't many all-sub navies yet, I'm not the only one) - while it may be possible for subs alone to control a body of water, I doubt (particularly given WW2-era technology) it would be the most efficient way to do it. I'd agree that somewhere like the channel could be shut down by aircraft and subs (but aircraft would be doing most of the work), but once you go out into the Atlantic, German aircraft are at a substantial disadvantage (as they're operating from bases further away, and British radar would be able to detect large numbers of aircraft on their way out, unless they wanted to put themselves at an even greater range disadvantage), which puts the work back onto the subs. Just throwing ideas around though - I've never tried to control a large body of water with subs or aircraft m'self so am far from an expert .

 

[Gort11]

When we say, "Beat the British Navy" are we talking:

1. Starving the British Isles into submission
2. Isolating the British Isles from the rest of the empire

or

3. Invading the British Isles?

Because 1 is literally impossible in Hearts of Iron 4, and 2 and 3 are quite different goals. 2 is probably doable to some extent through a focus on submarines and air superiority over the seas in which they'll operate, but for 3 you'll need a surface navy in addition to air superiority over the Channel.

 

[GermanPower]

I personally find starving the British isles a pipe dream. The mass bombs didn't work, I don't think starvation would make them submit either.

It's too illogical for them to be able to destroy British shipping to that level given the numbers someone else posted. Triple quintuple the numbers..it would still seem to be not enough. I think it would however convince the British to come to peace terms IF the Soviets were defeated. That's likely. Without the Soviets. I find a much smaller degree of pressure would be needed for peace.

 

[shri]

I personally find starving the British isles a pipe dream. The mass bombs didn't work, I don't think starvation would make them submit either.
It's too illogical for them to be able to destroy British shipping to that level given the numbers someone else posted. Triple quintuple the numbers..it would still seem to be not enough. I think it would however convince the British to come to peace terms IF the Soviets were defeated. That's likely. Without the Soviets. I find a much smaller degree of pressure would be needed for peace.

Well, i was the one who posted the numbers and i can prove that you have got your numbers wrong.
It is easily verifiable if you bother to just google numbers, that the Convoy problem was the main issue for the UK. An ISLAND nation with few natural resources it greatly depended on its foreign trade and its colonies for Raw Materials (RM). Further, it also depended on pseudo Allies like Persia and USA for OIL.

There was a finite supply of shipping that the UK had and though various continental allies like- France, Denmark and mainly the Norway and Dutch fleets joined the UK, the losses at sea took away the edge. I postulated a theory where the Germans had 6 times the SUBS but sank only 2 times the shipping, i took a very conservative view of it.

Before entry of the USA, the RN was struggling with the Atlantic, North Sea and Med positions and in addition the threats in the Far East, a tipping point was close.
What sinking ships does is not -starvation of UK but actually reduction of RM into UK which means lesser number of Tanks and Planes are produced which means North Africa is getting lesser re-reinforcements and Bomber Command is starved of planes.
The UK wouldn't have actually starved in terms of food until tight blockade was imposed for over a year or two (which was impossible given the puny size of the German Navy) but the UK would have been starved of RM crucial for the War Efforts.

Rubber, Oil, Tin, Manganese, Iron Ore, Copper, etc was imported on a large scale by the UK along-with food, if more convoys are sunk obviously food gets priority due to the population problem, which means the RM imports decrease which reduce the factory outputs and finally force the UK to spend more and more on building convoys, convoys escorts etc and which further reduces the available RM for offensive War Effort.
In short the Offensive War Efforts of the UK would get Emasculated. This is sufficient in the time frame and allows the German allies like Italy some breathing space and the Germans themselves will end up spending less on their massive "Defense of the Reich Campaign".

 

[Raptor83]

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.

A lot depends on technology and training (and luck) on each side. If nation doesnt invest significantly into anti-submarine warfare, and find itself fighting someone with advanced subs, they would be in a big trouble.

 

[Jeremy971]

Rubber, Oil, Tin, Manganese, Iron Ore, Copper, etc was imported on a large scale by the UK along-with food, if more convoys are sunk obviously food gets priority due to the population problem, which means the RM imports decrease which reduce the factory outputs and finally force the UK to spend more and more on building convoys, convoys escorts etc and which further reduces the available RM for offensive War Effort.
In short the Offensive War Efforts of the UK would get Emasculated. This is sufficient in the time frame and allows the German allies like Italy some breathing space and the Germans themselves will end up spending less on their massive "Defense of the Reich Campaign".

With the new equipment system, UK has no way to win this war. If USA doesn't provide lend lease at time, they lose.

I'm so excited to play Germany and do the Operation Seelow and Battle of Britain because I'm sure at 100%, Germany can defeat UK in 1941...

I juste need good submarines, good planes and I win...

 

[Axe99]

With the new equipment system, UK has no way to win this war. If USA doesn't provide lend lease at time, they lose.

I'm so excited to play Germany and do the Operation Seelow and Battle of Britain because I'm sure at 100%, Germany can defeat UK in 1941...

I juste need good submarines, good planes and I win...

While Germany has always been buffed to be 'easy mode' in Hoi, I don't think we have any evidence that it's going to be easier than in past titles yet. In the case of variants, if the AI matches with its own aircraft and destroyers, I'd expect it to be at least as 'difficult' as previous HoI games, although we won't know until launch.

 

[Maizel]

I am sure if you have enough planes and subs, you can sink just about anything.

Wouldn;t count on that strat working well with the overal strategy of your country.

 

[GermanPower]

Well, i was the one who posted the numbers and i can prove that you have got your numbers wrong.
It is easily verifiable if you bother to just google numbers, that the Convoy problem was the main issue for the UK. An ISLAND nation with few natural resources it greatly depended on its foreign trade and its colonies for Raw Materials (RM). Further, it also depended on pseudo Allies like Persia and USA for OIL.

There was a finite supply of shipping that the UK had and though various continental allies like- France, Denmark and mainly the Norway and Dutch fleets joined the UK, the losses at sea took away the edge. I postulated a theory where the Germans had 6 times the SUBS but sank only 2 times the shipping, i took a very conservative view of it.

Before entry of the USA, the RN was struggling with the Atlantic, North Sea and Med positions and in addition the threats in the Far East, a tipping point was close.
What sinking ships does is not -starvation of UK but actually reduction of RM into UK which means lesser number of Tanks and Planes are produced which means North Africa is getting lesser re-reinforcements and Bomber Command is starved of planes.
The UK wouldn't have actually starved in terms of food until tight blockade was imposed for over a year or two (which was impossible given the puny size of the German Navy) but the UK would have been starved of RM crucial for the War Efforts.

Rubber, Oil, Tin, Manganese, Iron Ore, Copper, etc was imported on a large scale by the UK along-with food, if more convoys are sunk obviously food gets priority due to the population problem, which means the RM imports decrease which reduce the factory outputs and finally force the UK to spend more and more on building convoys, convoys escorts etc and which further reduces the available RM for offensive War Effort.
In short the Offensive War Efforts of the UK would get Emasculated. This is sufficient in the time frame and allows the German allies like Italy some breathing space and the Germans themselves will end up spending less on their massive "Defense of the Reich Campaign".

I don't see it. Lets say you stop the convoys. What then? They just surrender? I don't think it's possible for Germany to beat them soley by getting them to run outta materials. Germany had the same issues in World War 2 and didn't quit. I think the idea you can just beat the British by strangling them isn't true. It'd hurt them a lot and help Germany get air superiority I just don't find it feasible that it'd end the war. Britain refused to surrender. I think only if they were all alone and the Soviets were dispatched and a real chance at invasion was there would they hear peace. Great Britain isn't playing a game of offensive they are turtling. Just have to last long enough for America or the Soviets to intervene or be involved.

 

[Axe99]

I don't see it. Lets say you stop the convoys. What then? They just surrender? I don't think it's possible for Germany to beat them soley by getting them to run outta materials. Germany had the same issues in World War 2 and didn't quit. I think the idea you can just beat the British by strangling them isn't true. It'd hurt them a lot and help Germany get air superiority I just don't find it feasible that it'd end the war. Britain refused to surrender. I think only if they were all alone and the Soviets were dispatched and a real chance at invasion was there would they hear peace. Great Britain isn't playing a game of offensive they are turtling. Just have to last long enough for America or the Soviets to intervene or be involved.

They're not just turtling, they're also doing their traditional strategy of reducing Axis power outside of Europe and isolating Europe. As you say, if the Soviets and Us are still in play and actively or potentially anti-Axis, then it's a play they're likely to continue as long as the RN is strong enough to prosecute the strategy, which gets back to taking out the RN itself.

 

[Secret Master]

I don't see it. Lets say you stop the convoys. What then? They just surrender? I don't think it's possible for Germany to beat them soley by getting them to run outta materials. Germany had the same issues in World War 2 and didn't quit.

And what threat is Britain to Germany, exactly, if she can produce very little and is facing an inability to supply forces anywhere outside the islands?

Japan didn't surrender in June of 1945 despite an acute economic crisis. Then again, it wouldn't have mattered in a year anyway by their own estimation:

On June 9, the Emperor's confidant Marquis Kōichi Kido wrote a "Draft Plan for Controlling the Crisis Situation," warning that by the end of the year Japan's ability to wage modern war would be extinguished and the government would be unable to contain civil unrest. "... We cannot be sure we will not share the fate of Germany and be reduced to adverse circumstances under which we will not attain even our supreme object of safeguarding the Imperial Household and preserving the national polity."

And:

In February 1945, Prince Fumimaro Konoe gave Emperor Hirohito a memorandum analyzing the situation, and told him that if the war continued, the imperial family might be in greater danger from an internal revolution than from defeat.

While the Allies had no idea these memos were circulating or that the situation was this bad, Japan's strangulation by sea was rendering her irrelevant. Take the atomic bombs out of the equation, and postpone Olympic and Downfall to 1946, and maybe the Japanese people take matters into their own hands as a famine devastates the island.

And for those thinking that the Japanese were brainwashed into a mode where they would never revolt or surrender, consider this nugget from the Strategic Bombing Survey:

By 1944, the average per capita caloric intake had declined to approximately 1,900 calories. By the summer of 1945 it was about 1,680 calories percapita. Coal miners and heavy industrial workers received higher-than-average rations, the remaining populace, less. The average diet suffered even more drastically from reductions in fats, vitamins and minerals required for balance and adversely affected rates of recovery and mortality from disease and bomb injuries.

Undernourishment produced a major increase in the incidence of beriberi and tuberculosis. It also had an important effect on the efficiency and morale of the people, and contributed to absenteeism among workers.

....

Sixty-four percent of the population stated that they had reached a point prior to surrender where they felt personally unable to go on with the war. Of these, less than one-tenth attributed the cause to military defeats, one-quarter attributed the cause to shortages of food and civilian supplies, the largest part to air attack.

So, an unrestricted bombing campaign against real military and economic targets combined with zero merchant marine might not cause surrender in the strictest sense, but if it goes on long enough, Britain is reduced to basically nothing, and Churchill is hanged with the Montgomery's entrails by a new government that forms via revolution.

I should also point out that if Britain is reduced to Japan's position in 1945, she is unsuitable as a base for the US to attack Europe. Simply holding out until the US enters the war may not be good enough.

 

[GermanPower]

It's not about it being a threat. It's about Britain simply hanging on long enough for the Untied States to enter the war. Germany was forever in a crap position. In order for a naval victory for Germany it requires a destroyed USSR. Without that I find it unlikely Germany can do much of anything to shut down anyone. It's to big a foe too be able to beat Britian. As Germany you are dealing with 1 year and a half window. I don't see them surrendering in that timeframe. The simple socio-economics of the worlds three greatest economic powers weighs on you no matter how strong or brilliant and dashing one might be militarily.

That's my point rather. Germany has to have the Blitzkrieg succeed for if it doesn't she is doomed. Then it's just a matter of the Soviets and Anglo-Americans getting their act together.

Here's my contention
For British Surrender the Soviets must have fell before November of 41. Giving Germany a month or so to put enough pressure on the British to force a surrender before America enters the war. In fact America entering the war might lead to a peace conference. However the issue remains with Hitler being a maniac. Regardless of what happens baring a invasion of the Isles I don't see them surrendering.

I would get your point Secret Master if we were talking a 4 year war..but the problem is time is against Germany from the very start. So it's unlikely that Germany will even have long enough to inflict the damage they need to. I'm skeptical to the extreme that Britain would fold if the US entered the war.

 

[lwarmonger]

It's not about it being a threat. It's about Britain simply hanging on long enough for the Untied States to enter the war. Germany was forever in a crap position. In order for a naval victory for Germany it requires a destroyed USSR. Without that I find it unlikely Germany can do much of anything to shut down anyone. It's to big a foe too be able to beat Britian. As Germany you are dealing with 1 year and a half window. I don't see them surrendering in that timeframe. The simple socio-economics of the worlds three greatest economic powers weighs on you no matter how strong or brilliant and dashing one might be militarily.

That's my point rather. Germany has to have the Blitzkrieg succeed for if it doesn't she is doomed. Then it's just a matter of the Soviets and Anglo-Americans getting their act together.

Here's my contention
For British Surrender the Soviets must have fell before November of 41. Giving Germany a month or so to put enough pressure on the British to force a surrender before America enters the war. In fact America entering the war might lead to a peace conference. However the issue remains with Hitler being a maniac. Regardless of what happens baring a invasion of the Isles I don't see them surrendering.

I would get your point Secret Master if we were talking a 4 year war..but the problem is time is against Germany from the very start. So it's unlikely that Germany will even have long enough to inflict the damage they need to. I'm skeptical to the extreme that Britain would fold if the US entered the war.

I think this debate hinges on how stable you think Churchill's government was. Once the US is in the war against Germany (not necessarily a given if Hitler doesn't make a gratuitous declaration of war), then you're right, I don't seen England surrendering. That being said, there was a pro-peace faction in England that was not negligible, and given additional privation at home and further defeats in the Mediterranean and North Africa (if Hitler had postponed an invasion of the Soviet Union and devoted more resources to that theater), then I don't find it unlikely that the Churchill government would have fallen.

 

[Munin]

If my two cents means anything, I would say: no, you cannot defeat the Royal Navy through air superiority alone.

To take land for civilization, you need infantry; to take the seas for civilization, you need a navy. No amount of air superiority will grant you the oceans, only boats can do that.

By that logic: to take land u need boots on the ground, which would mean that the answer to the OP is no

 

[Denkt]

A lot depends on technology and training (and luck) on each side. If nation doesnt invest significantly into anti-submarine warfare, and find itself fighting someone with advanced subs, they would be in a big trouble.

And so will it be in the game