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

[GermanPower]

Not quite.

I'm not advocating anything that Donitz wasn't advocating before the war. I understand that is appears to be hindsight, but even looking at the stupidly ambitious plans Germany created for naval expansion included input from Donitz that asked for far more submarines. Sure, Plan Z was kind of a pipe dream given German economic limitations in the pre-war era, but that 300 submarine number before the shooting starts isn't mine. It's Donitz.

Instead of it being hindsight, it's closer to "Hitler should have listened to viewpoint Y instead of viewpoint Z when formulating German naval strategy in the 30s." And Donitz wasn't a homeless man yelling about submarines and conspiracy theories on the side of the road, either.

Now, I do understand that Bismark and Tirpitz served other purposes besides actually sinking enemy ships. And yes, Britain could easily switch building tactics and focus on ASW instead of building more battleships. This is why I don't think going for full submarines actually wins the war for Germany. But I do think it is a more efficient way to fight the war. Britain still need some new battleships and carriers even without the German surface fleet, since Britain has Japan and Italy to think about.

As for securing the Baltic, I am not sure Germany needs to actually do that beyond some destroyers to sink Soviet submarines (which did exist). If Germany is actually at war with the Soviet Union, the winning move is to secure the Baltic coastline and Leningrad, rending any Soviet naval assets in the region largely irrelevant. Once the Baltic is secured this way, with some destroyers around to sink Soviet submarines acting as hold outs, the Baltic can be used to ship stuff to the army through Leningrad. But you don't need capital ships to do any of this.

It's rather idiotic thinking you can outbuild a Navy that's been building since 1918. German idea of naval supremacy is rather foolish. He's right on that. Hitler simply thought OOOOOOO BATTLESHIPS ARE SEXY. That's the tenet that Plan Z was based upon.

 

[Oriflamme]

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.

Speaking of which (and this is just an idea), what if Churchill never becomes PM in the first place? If Britain takes the in-game option of invading Norway and opening a new front in Scandinavia, only to be ignominiously defeated, perhaps there should be a chance (however great or small) that Churchill resigns and someone else becomes prime minister, which would increase the UK's chance of suing for peace with Germany.

 

[shri]

Where, when and how are Germany going to build 200 more Type VII before 1939? They save all that steel and crew but that doesn't mean they can just switch and build a shed load of subs really quickly. obviously HoI lets you do that in the interests of fun rather then the soul crushing realism of the actual logistics and politics involved.

If you think that is possible then what if the British don't build their new battleships and build Convoys, Destroyers, Corvettes, Frigates, Escort Carriers, better planes, etc...

WRONG.
Germany could build those monstrous wastes like Bismarck and Tirpitz, it could easily have built 200 or even 300 subs, the capacity was present. A sub is some 800 tons, small naval craft, it is smaller than a torpedo boat.
Germany's only naval enemy is the UK, it can concentrate on SUBS and ignore everything else. The British cannot do this simply because the MED and the FAR EAST i.e. Italy and Japan are part of this game, if the UK ignore capital ships they will lose Naval Supremacy in the MED and that is a bigger disaster.

 

[Axe99]

Speaking of which (and this is just an idea), what if Churchill never becomes PM in the first place? If Britain takes the in-game option of invading Norway and opening a new front in Scandinavia, only to be ignominiously defeated, perhaps there should be a chance (however great or small) that Churchill resigns and someone else becomes prime minister, which would increase the UK's chance of suing for peace with Germany.

Churchill actually became PM after Chamberlain resigned, in no small part because of concerns over how they were defeated in Norway - so you're kind of half right here, but you've got Churchill in play a bit early.

WRONG.
Germany could build those monstrous wastes like Bismarck and Tirpitz, it could easily have built 200 or even 300 subs, the capacity was present. A sub is some 800 tons, small naval craft, it is smaller than a torpedo boat.
Germany's only naval enemy is the UK, it can concentrate on SUBS and ignore everything else. The British cannot do this simply because the MED and the FAR EAST i.e. Italy and Japan are part of this game, if the UK ignore capital ships they will lose Naval Supremacy in the MED and that is a bigger disaster.

Absolutely, but the UK built five KGVs in the lead-up to WW2. Without Bismarck and Tirpitz in the mix, they could drop this to three (most of Italy's and all of Japan's non-Yamato class BBs were all pre-Washington Treaty) and use those 70,000+ tons of material and the like on destroyers and escorts. 70,000 tons builds a lot of corvettes (ton-for-ton, around 75, although we should be very careful about ton-for-ton comparisons for corvettes or submarines).

Factor in the UK seeing Germany building subs (unlike Bismarck and Tirpitz, a Germany building a lot of subs is clearly angling at the UK), and you've got UK defence expenditure ratcheting up earlier and higher, and a greater focus on ASW (Politicians start putting pressure on Navy to make sure ASDIC will do the job, give them money to do test runs with modern submarines, and it snowballs from there) and while I do think it's still the better play for Germany than a surface fleet, I think it's impossible to say exactly how it would play out, and even if Germany would be better off in the long run (as Germany benefited substantially from the UK's false sense of security from ASDIC - take that away with a large sub program - clearly a signal that Germany thinks ASDIC won't stop them - and the game could change substantially).

 

[shri]

Absolutely, but the UK built five KGVs in the lead-up to WW2. Without Bismarck and Tirpitz in the mix, they could drop this to three (most of Italy's and all of Japan's non-Yamato class BBs were all pre-Washington Treaty) and use those 70,000+ tons of material and the like on destroyers and escorts. 70,000 tons builds a lot of corvettes (ton-for-ton, around 75, although we should be very careful about ton-for-ton comparisons for corvettes or submarines).

Factor in the UK seeing Germany building subs (unlike Bismarck and Tirpitz, a Germany building a lot of subs is clearly angling at the UK), and you've got UK defence expenditure ratcheting up earlier and higher, and a greater focus on ASW (Politicians start putting pressure on Navy to make sure ASDIC will do the job, give them money to do test runs with modern submarines, and it snowballs from there) and while I do think it's still the better play for Germany than a surface fleet, I think it's impossible to say exactly how it would play out, and even if Germany would be better off in the long run (as Germany benefited substantially from the UK's false sense of security from ASDIC - take that away with a large sub program - clearly a signal that Germany thinks ASDIC won't stop them - and the game could change substantially).

Let me put it in another way, the Germans were extremely strong on Land, strong in the air, strong under the water and feeble over the water i.e. their Surface Navy in 1933 or 1936 was absolutely useless. Now, granted the Army was useless in 1933 too and in 1933 the Air-Force was non-existent but the strength of the Germans was in the land and not on the high seas. I will go one step further, Adm. Cunningham (one of the Best Operational and Tactical Commanders of the RN in WW2) said- it takes 3 years to build a BB and 300 to build a tradition during the battle of Crete (while the RN was getting a pounding from the Luftwaffe).

The Germans did not need a surface fleet in WW1 and even more in WW2, it was a waste of precious resources. What they needed was a commerce raiding fleet- a mix of Fast Light Cruisers, Several converted fast merchantmen becoming armed raiders and U-Boats coupled with at-least 500 long range Condors based on the West Coast of France under Donitz's command was the ideal situation for the Germans and the worst situation for the British.

A surface navy even if it had 3X the investment could never ever hope to challenge the RN, it was a pipe dream of RAEDER and the Bohemian Corporal lacked the basic clues of how Naval War works (he had a good basic idea about land combat despite several writers challenging it) agreed to RAEDER's whims and fancies and kickstarted the galactically stupid Plan Z and played right into the hands of the British and the RN. A balanced fleet was the best scenario for RN and worst for the Germans.

One is supposed to play the game at one's strengths and not at the strength of the enemy is one of the basic tenets of command and control in War.
The strength of the Germans was in a Cruiser/Raider/Sub fleet backed by long-range reconnaissance/bombers. The weakness was a surface fleet esp. Balanced Fleet.
By building a balanced fleet pre-1939 they squandered their advantage and played right into the hands of the RN and British.

 

[Axe99]

Let me put it in another way, the Germans were extremely strong on Land, strong in the air, strong under the water and feeble over the water i.e. their Surface Navy in 1933 or 1936 was absolutely useless. Now, granted the Army was useless in 1933 too and in 1933 the Air-Force was non-existent but the strength of the Germans was in the land and not on the high seas. I will go one step further, Adm. Cunningham (one of the Best Operational and Tactical Commanders of the RN in WW2) said- it takes 3 years to build a BB and 300 to build a tradition during the battle of Crete (while the RN was getting a pounding from the Luftwaffe).

The Germans did not need a surface fleet in WW1 and even more in WW2, it was a waste of precious resources. What they needed was a commerce raiding fleet- a mix of Fast Light Cruisers, Several converted fast merchantmen becoming armed raiders and U-Boats coupled with at-least 500 long range Condors based on the West Coast of France under Donitz's command was the ideal situation for the Germans and the worst situation for the British.

A surface navy even if it had 3X the investment could never ever hope to challenge the RN, it was a pipe dream of RAEDER and the Bohemian Corporal lacked the basic clues of how Naval War works (he had a good basic idea about land combat despite several writers challenging it) agreed to RAEDER's whims and fancies and kickstarted the galactically stupid Plan Z and played right into the hands of the British and the RN. A balanced fleet was the best scenario for RN and worst for the Germans.

One is supposed to play the game at one's strengths and not at the strength of the enemy is one of the basic tenets of command and control in War.
The strength of the Germans was in a Cruiser/Raider/Sub fleet backed by long-range reconnaissance/bombers. The weakness was a surface fleet esp. Balanced Fleet.
By building a balanced fleet pre-1939 they squandered their advantage and played right into the hands of the RN and British.

I fully agree that the Germans didn't need a surface navy, but their surface vessels were very handy for the Axis, as the UK kept a substantial surface fleet close by as a counter, and the Scharnhorsts and heavy cruisers meant that they needed to disperse their battleships defending convoys. If Germany didn't still have a plausible surface threat in play and didn't rely on anything bigger than light cruisers (and the UK had even more CLs than the US during the period, so going large on CLs may not prove much more useful than the heavier vessels), then it wouldn't have just been Prince of Wales and Repulse at Singapore (and, hopefully, that would have included an aircraft carrier!) and Japan's Indian Ocean raid may have gone very differently (if they got that far). Italy, of course, would have had a far harder time in the Med.

So I agree that if Germany thinks it can win without Italy and Japan, and isn't worried about its allies (and, of course, it's a game with historical diplomatic relations ), then that focus makes a lot of sense, but if Germany also needs Italy to be a credible threat in the Mediterranean, and Japan to be able to run amok in the Pacific, I'd argue (perhaps incorrectly, I'm no expert by any measure, but I think I've got a half-decent case or I wouldn't argue it at all) that those BBs, BCs and CAs make a lot more sense.

Edit: Also worth remembering that when they laid down a lot of those ships, the British weren't considered the main naval foe - the whole AGNA was based around the idea that they wouldn't be fighting each other (and while we all know how well that worked out now, maybe the more sandbox nature of HoI will make having some surface fleet more plausible, although I haven't really thought that through).

 

[Katarian]

WRONG.
Germany could build those monstrous wastes like Bismarck and Tirpitz, it could easily have built 200 or even 300 subs, the capacity was present. A sub is some 800 tons, small naval craft, it is smaller than a torpedo boat.
Germany's only naval enemy is the UK, it can concentrate on SUBS and ignore everything else. The British cannot do this simply because the MED and the FAR EAST i.e. Italy and Japan are part of this game, if the UK ignore capital ships they will lose Naval Supremacy in the MED and that is a bigger disaster.

Where are they building those 200 or 300 extra subs? They free up the dockyards that were building those vanity projects which would allow them to build some more subs but where are they going to find room for the rest? The logistics just aren't as simple as you make it out to be. Yes scrap those capital ships and build more subs, but 200 more by 1939 is just pie in the sky. Using those resources to build 200 or 300 more over the course of the whole war that is possible.

The UK could easily have ignored their new battleships and still secured the Mediterranean, the Far East would have gone just as badly as it did historically without building any battleships. The British would have never done it for almost exactly the same reasons the Germans didn't scrap all their capital ships and build more subs. Even if would have made more sense to ensure the shipping lanes to the British Isles were secure first before trying to hold on to far flung colonies. There is no point having brand new battleships fighting the Italians or Japanese when at home your industry is being starved of the resources you need to carry on fighting.

 

[shri]

I fully agree that the Germans didn't need a surface navy, but their surface vessels were very handy for the Axis, as the UK kept a substantial surface fleet close by as a counter, and the Scharnhorsts and heavy cruisers meant that they needed to disperse their battleships defending convoys. If Germany didn't still have a plausible surface threat in play and didn't rely on anything bigger than light cruisers (and the UK had even more CLs than the US during the period, so going large on CLs may not prove much more useful than the heavier vessels), then it wouldn't have just been Prince of Wales and Repulse at Singapore (and, hopefully, that would have included an aircraft carrier!) and Japan's Indian Ocean raid may have gone very differently (if they got that far). Italy, of course, would have had a far harder time in the Med.

So I agree that if Germany thinks it can win without Italy and Japan, and isn't worried about its allies (and, of course, it's a game with historical diplomatic relations ), then that focus makes a lot of sense, but if Germany also needs Italy to be a credible threat in the Mediterranean, and Japan to be able to run amok in the Pacific, I'd argue (perhaps incorrectly, I'm no expert by any measure, but I think I've got a half-decent case or I wouldn't argue it at all) that those BBs, BCs and CAs make a lot more sense.

Edit: Also worth remembering that when they laid down a lot of those ships, the British weren't considered the main naval foe - the whole AGNA was based around the idea that they wouldn't be fighting each other (and while we all know how well that worked out now, maybe the more sandbox nature of HoI will make having some surface fleet more plausible, although I haven't really thought that through).

First of all to kill those CL's the UK needs CA's and BC's , the UK's established policy since the first Churchill Reign in the Admiralty in 1914, was to bring overwhelming firepower to combat the deficiencies in crew, training, firepower etc vis-a-vis the German Navy. A CL vs CL battle was not something the RN enjoyed as it was not without the risks.
For eg: those German Merchant marine raiders were all hunted down using CL and CA which were much bigger and had 3X the firepower of those smaller and less armed ships.

The Japanese entry was precipitated by another blunder of Churchill and the UK's high command, the story is fascinating and wiki has a small article for introductory purpose-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Automedon

Again, the UK sending some more ships to Singapore will end up in even more losses for the RN, the Japanese had sent their "Sledge Hammer" to take Singapore and Malaya and only an all out effort like the US did at Midway will help, this means all the available carriers and bulk of the Fleet which was not possible since the UK considered the Home Fleet and Med Fleet more important (rightly). Adm. Sommerville rightly ran away from the Japanese despite having been told to do the contrary as he was a Wiser commander than those sitting in London.

 

[Ryltar]

Don't know if someone already mentioned it but there is one point where marine bombers could shine if you have air superiority: harbor raiding. The royal navy would bleed out if you could cut it off from supplies. And as Pearl Harbor showed: The best navy is only scrap metal if it's in the harbor playing sitting duck.

In the Mediterrean Sea the best way to beat the Allies will probably be the same thing as in all other HOI installations: Occupy Gibraltar and Suez. After cutting off the supply all fleets remaining there should pose not threat anymore.

 

[Axe99]

First of all to kill those CL's the UK needs CA's and BC's , the UK's established policy since the first Churchill Reign in the Admiralty in 1914, was to bring overwhelming firepower to combat the deficiencies in crew, training, firepower etc vis-a-vis the German Navy. A CL vs CL battle was not something the RN enjoyed as it was not without the risks.

Like the force that went after Graf Spee? They were hardly overwhelming. There are multiple occasions during WW2 of Commonwealth forces fighting at even (or worse) odds as required. I agree they very much focussed on overwhelming force in WW1, but WW2 was very different (in practice at least, I can't speak for doctrine, just for whether it was followed or not).

Edit: And it's also worth noting that if Germany did build a lot of CLs, then the UK would likely have built more CAs.

For eg: those German Merchant marine raiders were all hunted down using CL and CA which were much bigger and had 3X the firepower of those smaller and less armed ships.

There were 11 merchant raiders, their fates were:
Orion - sunk by the RAF
Atlantis - sunk by CA (Devonshire)
Widder - converted into a repair ship in 1944 and survived the war
Thor - blown up by an explosion (likely accidental) in a Japanese port
Pinguin - sunk by CA (Devonshire)
Stier - disabled by US Liberty Ship (Stephen Hopkins - sunk by Stier during the action) and scuttled by crew
Komet - sunk by MTB 236 in the English Channel
Michel - sunk by SS (USS Tarpon)
Kormoran - sunk by CL (HMAS Sydney, which was also sunk by the Kormoran)
Coronel - damaged by bombing while trying to break out to Atlantic, returned to Germany and converted to Fighter Direction Ship
Schiff 5 - never became operational due to bomb damage.

From this, it looks more like that they were stopped by whatever was to hand (although Stephen Hopkins' work clearly wasn't what they were hoping for!) That said, the cruisers were clearly on the lookout for surface raiders (that was, by no small means, what they were designed to do) and would have done a lot of the work, but not because they were trying to apply 'overwhelming firepower' (again, see Graf Spee) but because they were the ships tasked with (and designed for) that role.

The Japanese entry was precipitated by another blunder of Churchill and the UK's high command, the story is fascinating and wiki has a small article for introductory purpose-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Automedon

I'm not sure the relevance of this - I'm assuming a WW2 that breaks out along historical lines, and my point was that if this happens, German surface ships mean the UK keeps more ships in the home fleet, and so has less to fight Italy and Japan with. That said, I thought the US oil embargo had a little bit to do with their entry into the war as well, although happy to hear arguments to the contrary.

In that circumstance (Germany, Italy and Japan allied in a war against the US and UK, with the USSR and Germany going at it as well), if the best Germany has is a CL, the size of the Home Fleet need not be anywhere near the level that was maintained historically. A couple of Revenge class BBs with a few CLs and destroyers would cause all sorts of trouble for a CL-based force, and there's no need to have BBs on convoy duty (and, as air power over the Atlantic intensifies, CLs would become pretty much obsolete for convoy raiding in any event, as it becomes too easy to identify and vector forces in to sink them). If those ships aren't with the Home Fleet, then they're causing more pain for Italy and Japan.

Again, the UK sending some more ships to Singapore will end up in even more losses for the RN, the Japanese had sent their "Sledge Hammer" to take Singapore and Malaya and only an all out effort like the US did at Midway will help, this means all the available carriers and bulk of the Fleet which was not possible since the UK considered the Home Fleet and Med Fleet more important (rightly). Adm. Sommerville rightly ran away from the Japanese despite having been told to do the contrary as he was a Wiser commander than those sitting in London.

You'd only need a couple of CVs to make a substantial difference at Singapore - as far as I can recall, none of the Japanese CVs were near the area, and while I can't recall the exact forces available, I think the core was a couple of BBs*. The air strikes on Prince of Wales and Repulse were carried out by relatively small numbers of bombers (and IIRC - but could be wrong - got lucky with both ships having technical issues with their AA). Put 30 sea hurricanes in the air as a CAP, and the Japanese landing forces on Malaya would be in a tough spot, and the Battle of the Java Sea (the largest ship Japan had there was a CA, albeit it had two very good ones) could end very differently.

* Your memory of this seems to recall a larger fleet - I had a bit of a look around and couldn't find anything, but happy to be corrected if I'm off the mark .

As for Sommerville, you're quite right in that he avoided the main Japanese force, as he was outnumbered in almost every class, but my point is that if Germany has nothing to encourage Britain to maintain a strong fleet at home, then this need not be the case. Another thought is that it was only Germany's surface vessels that gave it any chance of mounting a successful invasion - if an invasion isn't a credible threat, then the RAF can also send more and better aircraft to the Far East sooner, and there's less need to maintain as large a land force in the UK as well (although I doubt this would have been overly large in late '41 as well, although don't know).

 

[shri]

Your memory of this seems to recall a larger fleet - I had a bit of a look around and couldn't find anything, but happy to be corrected if I'm off the mark .

As for Sommerville, you're quite right in that he avoided the main Japanese force, as he was outnumbered in almost every class, but my point is that if Germany has nothing to encourage Britain to maintain a strong fleet at home, then this need not be the case. Another thought is that it was only Germany's surface vessels that gave it any chance of mounting a successful invasion - if an invasion isn't a credible threat, then the RAF can also send more and better aircraft to the Far East sooner, and there's less need to maintain as large a land force in the UK as well (although I doubt this would have been overly large in late '41 as well, although don't know).

I am writing from memory and i may be wrong, i think i may have mixed up the OOB of - Indian Ocean Raid and Singapore in my head. Sorry for that part.

As for the RAF sending more aircraft that was mainly not possible due to the operations in North Africa, with the SUB strategy i talk about, the Luftwaffe is not weakened, no resources are diverted from Luftwaffe, instead a "Direct approach" is abandoned and an "Indirect Approach is confirmed". This also means direct attacks on the UK's mainland are abandoned but invasions of Malta, Crete etc by paratroopers is on the card (the entire indirect approach is denying the enemy the advantage).
So, not sure the RAF could have been stronger in the East.

Also, i am not saying that the "OIL factor was small", i am just saying that the contents of SS Automedon enabled the Japanese to have a clear policy unlike the "Blind Policy" adopted by the Allies in 1941-42 against the Japanese. The entire OOB of ASIA (including land, sea and air assets and their preparations levels and armaments) and all the plans and contingency planning was handed over to the IJN's strategic staff by the Germans.

Now, as to the RN sending a larger fleet, the distance to be traversed is more than twice for the RN as for the IJN, the IJN can send its CTF to the Indian Ocean (as it did send soon after Singapore fell) and combating that is not the RN's "Cup of Tea". The RN was built for the MED and the Atlantic and would have faced a total rout going all-out against the Combined Fleet's CTF.

 

[Secret Master]

I want to emphasize here that my argument that Germany should have switched to submarines completely, and could have had enough in the water by September of 1939 to make a difference, does not mean I think Germany wins the war. Germany is screwed the moment she comes into conflict with the Soviet Union and the United States. How and when defeat occurs is a different question, and how painful it is for the Soviets and US is worth asking. And what happens to France, Britain, Spain, Italy, China, and Japan is also worth asking. If Britain is so badly hurt that she is facing the same kind of resources and food shortages Japan faced from 1944 onward, that is a better performance than Germany had historically against the same enemy.

I have myself stated that with Tirpitz and Bismark and some of the other non-Weimar surface raiders off the table, Britain's need to build more capital ships declines somewhat. Scrapping even just one KGV would free up plenty of resources for corvettes, frigates, and/or destroyers. And Germany could not keep such a building program secret. However, British naval policy precludes too much of a reduction in capital ships, because Italy and Japan are still threats that need addressing. With Japan and Italy abandoning the naval treaty system right at game start, a naval arms race is in the offing no matter what Germany does. This obligates Britain to still consider maintaining naval superiority over other naval powers.

This does not factor in the problem of the Soviet Union. You can look here, but the Soviet Union were planning to become a major naval power in the late 30s. Consider that the 1936 build plan contains a budget for twenty-four new battleships, not counting cruisers, destroyers, and submarines. The 1939 plan is revised to 15 battleships, 16 battlecruisers, and 2 carriers. When you consider that the Soviet Union and Britain are not friends in the 30s, you have begin to see how precarious Britain's position is. She can reduce her capital ships a bit if Germany scraps her big ships, but not by as much as you may think.

We also have to consider that timetables are important to WWII. If the US comes into the war on schedule, she will still be relying on British naval bases to some extent for the campaigns in and around Europe. If Britain, by late 1941, is facing serious privation due to more u-boat successes, this will slow down Allied actions against Germany. Sure, they US will step up and out produce Germany's ability to sink merchant men, but now we're looking at a delay to victory in North Africa, and therefore a delay in attacking Italy. This keeps Italy in the war on the side of the Axis longer, and takes some pressure off of pulling assets from the Eastern Front to help in the west. This doesn't mean Germany beats the Soviets, but things were ugly in the East. They only get uglier if Germany faces less pressure in the west.

You could also argue that Germany enjoying more success in sinking convoys early in the war changes the direction of Lend-Lease. I would expect more Lend-Lease being directed to Britain than historically was the case if Britain is facing a worse situation. Lend-Lease didn't save the Soviets in 1941, but a reduction in Soviet Lend-Lease is going to hurt the Soviets in the long run, especially when they try to actually launch offensives. It won't win the war for Germany, but it would be a damn shame for German units to be still sitting in the Ukraine in May of 1945.

 

[Axe99]

I am writing from memory and i may be wrong, i think i may have mixed up the OOB of - Indian Ocean Raid and Singapore in my head. Sorry for that part.

As for the RAF sending more aircraft that was mainly not possible due to the operations in North Africa, with the SUB strategy i talk about, the Luftwaffe is not weakened, no resources are diverted from Luftwaffe, instead a "Direct approach" is abandoned and an "Indirect Approach is confirmed". This also means direct attacks on the UK's mainland are abandoned but invasions of Malta, Crete etc by paratroopers is on the card (the entire indirect approach is denying the enemy the advantage).
So, not sure the RAF could have been stronger in the East.

Also, i am not saying that the "OIL factor was small", i am just saying that the contents of SS Automedon enabled the Japanese to have a clear policy unlike the "Blind Policy" adopted by the Allies in 1941-42 against the Japanese. The entire OOB of ASIA (including land, sea and air assets and their preparations levels and armaments) and all the plans and contingency planning was handed over to the IJN's strategic staff by the Germans.

Now, as to the RN sending a larger fleet, the distance to be traversed is more than twice for the RN as for the IJN, the IJN can send its CTF to the Indian Ocean (as it did send soon after Singapore fell) and combating that is not the RN's "Cup of Tea". The RN was built for the MED and the Atlantic and would have faced a total rout going all-out against the Combined Fleet's CTF.

No worries on the Malaya/Indian Ocean raid mix-up - I forget things all the time. You're quite right that the went in hard on the Indian Ocean raid - I can't remember whether it was 4 or 6 CVs, and the number of supporting ships you'd expect for that force, but it squarely outnumbered the Commonwealth's Indian Ocean force at the time. It would have had a harder going of it if the RAF squadrons in Ceylon hadn't been as slack as they were, but the RAF squadrons were slack and provided little to no support, making life harder for the naval forces than it need have been (I'm not suggesting it would have tipped the balance, I don't know the OOBs in question enough to be sure either way, but suspect it wouldn't have).

Also don't disagree that SS Automedon wasn't a calamity of the highest order for the Allies .

You make a strong case - I just feel that it's only one of many possible cases. Ie, I'm happy to agree that we can't be sure the RAF could have been stronger in the east, but I'd argue the probability it was stronger is higher. I'm not sure the distance is a huge factor in terms of having a fleet on station at Singapore - Prince of Wales and Renown both arrived in the Far East before the outbreak of hostilities, and the plan had been to send one aircraft carrier then. Had they had more leeway with drawing down the capital ships in the home fleet, 1-2 CVs, another BB or two and more supporting CLs/DDs would have made a difference early on (as the bulk of Japan's carrier force, and a lot of supporting vessels, are obviously not available in December for Malaya because they're busy doing the Pearl Harbour thing). Things could get far more complicated once the Pearl Harbour force is available to support operations in South East Asia, but it's hard (I'm not going to try, not sure any guesses on my part would be worth the internet space they're taking up in bytes) to say what the impact of the Allies being able to have more time to adjust to defending Malaya and consolidating Singapore would have.

Either way, I'm still confident that if Germany doesn't build capital ships, it makes life harder for Italy and Japan. How much so is the question. I'm not suggesting it would mean the complete collapse of Japan's efforts in South East Asia, but there's a reasonable chance it could lead to significantly more difficulties than they faced historically.

I want to emphasize here that my argument that Germany should have switched to submarines completely, and could have had enough in the water by September of 1939 to make a difference, does not mean I think Germany wins the war. Germany is screwed the moment she comes into conflict with the Soviet Union and the United States. How and when defeat occurs is a different question, and how painful it is for the Soviets and US is worth asking. And what happens to France, Britain, Spain, Italy, China, and Japan is also worth asking. If Britain is so badly hurt that she is facing the same kind of resources and food shortages Japan faced from 1944 onward, that is a better performance than Germany had historically against the same enemy.

I have myself stated that with Tirpitz and Bismark and some of the other non-Weimar surface raiders off the table, Britain's need to build more capital ships declines somewhat. Scrapping even just one KGV would free up plenty of resources for corvettes, frigates, and/or destroyers. And Germany could not keep such a building program secret. However, British naval policy precludes too much of a reduction in capital ships, because Italy and Japan are still threats that need addressing. With Japan and Italy abandoning the naval treaty system right at game start, a naval arms race is in the offing no matter what Germany does. This obligates Britain to still consider maintaining naval superiority over other naval powers.

This does not factor in the problem of the Soviet Union. You can look here, but the Soviet Union were planning to become a major naval power in the late 30s. Consider that the 1936 build plan contains a budget for twenty-four new battleships, not counting cruisers, destroyers, and submarines. The 1939 plan is revised to 15 battleships, 16 battlecruisers, and 2 carriers. When you consider that the Soviet Union and Britain are not friends in the 30s, you have begin to see how precarious Britain's position is. She can reduce her capital ships a bit if Germany scraps her big ships, but not by as much as you may think.

We also have to consider that timetables are important to WWII. If the US comes into the war on schedule, she will still be relying on British naval bases to some extent for the campaigns in and around Europe. If Britain, by late 1941, is facing serious privation due to more u-boat successes, this will slow down Allied actions against Germany. Sure, they US will step up and out produce Germany's ability to sink merchant men, but now we're looking at a delay to victory in North Africa, and therefore a delay in attacking Italy. This keeps Italy in the war on the side of the Axis longer, and takes some pressure off of pulling assets from the Eastern Front to help in the west. This doesn't mean Germany beats the Soviets, but things were ugly in the East. They only get uglier if Germany faces less pressure in the west.

You could also argue that Germany enjoying more success in sinking convoys early in the war changes the direction of Lend-Lease. I would expect more Lend-Lease being directed to Britain than historically was the case if Britain is facing a worse situation. Lend-Lease didn't save the Soviets in 1941, but a reduction in Soviet Lend-Lease is going to hurt the Soviets in the long run, especially when they try to actually launch offensives. It won't win the war for Germany, but it would be a damn shame for Germany unit to be still sitting in the Ukraine in May of 1945.

All good points - I hadn't thought about the Soviet build plans (just brain explosion on my part) but you're right, building by Italy, Japan and the USSR would have lead to continued build-up in the UK regardless. I also agree that subs by Germany are the best way forward. I'm just not sure if "as many subs as soon as possible" is necessarily the best option, if that triggers a UK response (as a sub build-up by Germany is likely to only mean one thing in terms of Germany's strategic goals (ie - conflict with the UK), as well as scupper the AGNA) it could mean that more German subs are countered by a UK re-arming more strongly and earlier. I'm just hoping that HoI4 makes playing as Germany a good deal harder than HoI1,2 or 3, so that we'll get a good challenge out of it, and can test these theories .

 

[llib]

I'd think best strategy for Germany historically would have been to present credible naval threat that would lure Royal Navy out, and then use Luftwaffe to get rid of them. This even wouldn't need to be their best ships, just bunch of more or less empty transports barges would do. RAF would be in much worse situation over channel than it was over Britain, was inferior in strength and even though Luftwaffe would take losses, RN would likely run out of ships - it doesn't take that much damage to mission-kill a warship.
Then put together remaining transports, perhaps summon rest of Kriegsmarine and off you go Sea Lion.

Submarines may be helpful in that a bit, though main would be for Luftwaffe. It would probably do it, too.

In-game, UK player will probably prioritize fighter force a lot all the time, so this is unlikely to happen.

 

[Klausewitz]

I think it is important for the question to look at what the Royal Navy needs to do in the Mediterranean.
We are not talking about a situation were both sides just line up there assets and then have a go.
So, what is the task of the Royal Navy in the Mediterranean?
The main task, from what i can tell, is escorting convoys and keeping British outposts or Invasion attempts protected against the Regia Marina.
That basically means tying down large surface assets to convoy duty (Battle ships running at a fracture of their top speed) or sorties and artillery support missions.

And in these situations surface assets are increasingly vulnerable to u-boats and planes.

 

[Secret Master]

The main task, from what i can tell, is escorting convoys and keeping British outposts or Invasion attempts protected against the Regia Marina.

Covering an invasion of Italy?

Although if that's the mission, that still leaves ships vulnerable to planes and submarines.

EDIT:

I may have misread your post. Invasion attempts here mean Allied invasions, not Axis invasions, right?

 

[Klausewitz]

Thing is, though, if Germany doesn't build any surface threats for the Royal Navy and instead puts everything into submarines, what stops the British from just building destroyers instead of larger ships? Destroyers break submarines in half, literally.

I'm with Denkt - if you want to beat the Royal Navy as Germany you need to invest in surface ships as well as submarines so the British can't just hard-counter you with massive quantities of destroyers.

As Secret Master already said:
Germany was not Britains only and not even the main concern for building its surface fleet the way it did.
Britain is still a global empire pre-WW2 and with come immense necessities as far as ship tonnage goes.
Also while Japan and the SU are the most obvious contenders against which Britain has to prepare, the USA and France are also other, non-allied naval powers which Britain could not ignore when considering what its Navy's needs would be.

 

[Klausewitz]

I may have misread your post. Invasion attempts here mean Allied invasions, not Axis invasions, right?

Yep.

 

[Secret Master]

Yep.

In that case, I agree completely.

You can tell how often I play the Allies in the Med if my first assumption is that you were talking about stopping the Axis from invading Allied possessions.

 

[Axe99]

As Secret Master already said:
Germany was not Britains only and not even the main concern for building its surface fleet the way it did.
Britain is still a global empire pre-WW2 and with come immense necessities as far as ship tonnage goes.
Also while Japan and the SU are the most obvious contenders against which Britain has to prepare, the USA and France are also other, non-allied naval powers which Britain could not ignore when considering what its Navy's needs would be.

Britain cooperated heavily with the USA and France in the inter-war years, sharing carrier and other technology. I can't recall (ie, it may be the case, but I think it'd be handy to have some evidence for it) seeing anywhere anything that suggesting the RN was concerned about either as a possible threat, and it's behaviour towards both would have been pretty odd if it did.

Germany, Japan, Italy and the SU were the four naval threats that the UK is likely to have had on its 'radar' (obviously not quite at the start of the game ). The SU was still very much underdeveloped (and the SU would need to project past the Baltic or Black Sea if it had put together a fleet dangerous enough to be a concern), so I'd argue that Germany, Japan and Italy are the 'big three' nations to worry about.