building a navy

[R011]

Washington treaty

London treaty

Actually, I was wrong. A Contracting power may build for a non-Contracting power (they still can't sell old ships). Canada, though, is a Contracting power and subject to the limitiatons in the trearty. We had already agreed that the RCN will count with the rest of the British Empire. I can't see why any of the other Contractiongh powers (especially Japan) would agree to Canada being considered separately.

Edited September 2, 2005 by R011

[R011]

If you want a fantasy RCN, then the point of departure has to be in about 1919.

 

Admirakll of the Fleet Sir John Jellicoe went on a tour of the empire after the Great War and made recommendations for the Dominion navies. For Canada he recommennded three options.

 

From warships1

 

Plan 1(@1,000,000pds):

8 submarines, 4 local defense destroyers, 8 P-boats, 4 trawler minesweepers.

 

Plan 2 (@2,000,000pds):

3 light cruisers, 1 flotilla leader, 8 submarines, 1 submarine parent ship, 4 local defense destroyers, 8 P-boats, 4 trawler minesweepers.

 

Plan 3 (@3,500,000pds):

1 battle cruiser, 5 light cruisers, 1 flotilla leader, 6 destroyers, 1 destroyer parent ship, 8 submarines, 1 submarine parent ship, 1 aircraft ship, 2 fleet minesweepers, 4 local defense destroyers, 8 P-boats, 4 trawler minesweepers.

 

Plan 4 (@5,000,000pds):

2 battle cruisers, 7 light cruisers, 1 flotilla leader, 12 destroyers, 1 destroyer parent ship, 16 submarines, 1 submarine parent ship, 2 aircraft carriers, 4 fleet minesweepers, 4 local defense destroyers, 8 P-boats, 4 trawler minesweepers.

 

It's unclear whether the battlecruisers are new contruction or former RN ships, and if former RN ships, what type. Aircraft carrier designs were somewhat in flux then as well and also refered to seaplabne carriers/tenders. This doesn't necessarikly mean we'd have got two new 27.000 ton proto-Hornets.

 

To make this workable, the Washington Treaty would have to allow the British EMpire to have more capital ships and other tonnage. I expect we'd need at least three. possibly six, more capital ships for the Empire and the US and two, possibly four, for Japan.

 

So this then requires two major historical changes. One by the Canadian government and people, and one by all the major naval powers.

[KingSargent]

If four carriers are too expenive at first then one per coast is fine,

216067[/snapback]

Why do you need one in the Pacific? Most of Western Canada is tucked neatly behind US territory. If the war is with the US, Vancouver will last maybe a week if you're lucky and then your CV is homeless. Much as I hate to say it, Vancouver could be better covered by land-based air and coastal subs than a single CV.

 

Aside from local "show the flag" ships for the Pacific, I'd concentrate on the Atlantic for a Canadian Navy. If you develop some good ASW weapons and cheap ASW CVs, and the doctrine to go with them, the RN and USN will be panting at your door when they hit an ASW crisis. You are obviously not going to lead the world in Battle Lines, and you will be playing catch-up in carrier ops (although it would be pretty easy to forge ahead of the RN and keep up with the USN. Being the world's leaders in ASW and having a couple of raider hunting groups in the Atlantic will be your niche. Note that although the Germans didn't get any major warships into the Atlantic in WW1, they were building ships expressly for raiding in the 1930s.

 

And the advantage to ASW is that you don't need to build the whole force. Do some experimental and training ships and develop plans and construction techniques for easy-to-build pre-fab ships. Store critical materials like turbines and weapons to give a headstart in construction. Hulls are pretty easy to build quickly if you don't use heavy armor, it's what makes the ship go that needs time. And the weapons, many RN and USN ships were delayed or went to sea partially armed because of weapons shortages.

[larrikin]

Playing this game in the '30s the 3 countries that are realistic possibilities for the building of a 'real' navy are Brazil, Argentina, and Australia. The 2 South Americans because of regional rivalries, Australia because of Japan. Canada, aside from having minimal naval tradition, is only really ever going to build a small ship navy because of her needs and location.

[Daniel Papp]

And do not forget Netherlands. They might want to have one or two BCs to slow any Japanese advance in the DEI - just advancing their planst to build them by 5-10 years.

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I agree with the others who question "If there's no threat, why spend the money?" in particular on big hulls that wouldn't stand a chance against the dominant navies of the day.

 

In the 30's the best place for Canada to put money would be into military engineering education and efficient production technologies.

 

Due to Canada's location R&D/production focus would be on long-range patrol aircraft, long-range multi-purpose escorts and long-range submarines borrowing U.S. and British technology as much as possible.

 

Ensure you have 3 or 4 small shipyards and commit to building 1 military vessel (2500 tonnes or less) per year and three cargo vessels and subsidize or outright buy the cargo vessels as necessary possibly as part of a Crown Corporation, and 1 submarine every 2 years.

 

Additionally, ensure you have dry dock facilities on both coasts.

 

Sitting navy during most of the 30's would be:

 

East Coast:

12 Escort and Patrol Vessels between 1000 - 2500 tonnes.

3 Submarines (constantly used in exercises to test ASW gear on the ships)

 

West Coast:

6 Submarines

3 Escort Vessels between 1000 - 2500 tonnes

 

 

 

Matthew.

[hammerlock]

" '30s the 3 countries that are realistic possibilities for the building of a 'real' navy are Brazil, Argentina, and Australia"

 

If Canada, is unable to afford a navy with large ships, then for sure Australia can't. Its population is smaller than Canada's and has less industrial out put and GDP than Canada. It might has a greater need to have them, but has less money to build them or buy them. Brazil and Argentina are in much the same place as Canada when it comes to threats and are no more in need of as 'real" navy than the Canada.

 

The RCN I see in the late 30's is a navy much like that like of the RCN in early 50's. Trying to have this in 30's my be unrealitic, but not impossible. Canadians have always let some else to the defending, and the spending for it. Too bad that in even a what-if thread so many have con't this unwritten Canadian policy.

[larrikin]

" '30s the 3 countries that are realistic possibilities for the building of a 'real' navy are Brazil, Argentina, and Australia"

 

If Canada, is unable to afford a navy with large ships, then for sure Australia can't.  Its population is smaller than Canada's and has less industrial out put and GDP than Canada.  It might has a greater need to have them, but has less money to build them or  buy them.  Brazil and Argentina are in much the same place as Canada when it comes to threats and are no more in need of as 'real" navy than the Canada.

 

The RCN I see in the late 30's is a navy much like that like of the RCN in early 50's.  Trying to have this in 30's my be unrealitic, but not impossible.  Canadians have always let some else to the defending, and the spending for it. Too bad that in even a what-if thread so many have con't this unwritten Canadian policy.

216640[/snapback]

 

Read the whole post. I didn't say Canada couldn't afford one, they didn't need one. As for Brazil and Argentina, theirs would have been because off each other, and for Argentina, Chile.

[gewing]

Why do you need one in the Pacific? Most of Western Canada is tucked neatly behind US territory. If the war is with the US, Vancouver will last maybe a week if you're lucky and then your CV is homeless. Much as I hate to say it, Vancouver could be better covered by land-based air and coastal subs than a single CV.

 

Aside from local "show the flag" ships for the Pacific, I'd concentrate on the Atlantic for a Canadian Navy. If you develop some good ASW weapons and cheap ASW CVs, and the doctrine to go with them, the RN and USN will be panting at your door when they hit an ASW crisis. You are obviously not going to lead the world in Battle Lines, and you will be playing catch-up in carrier ops (although it would be pretty easy to forge ahead of the RN and keep up with the USN. Being the world's leaders in ASW and having a couple of raider hunting groups in the Atlantic will be your niche. Note that although the Germans didn't get any major warships into the Atlantic in WW1, they were building ships expressly for raiding in the 1930s.

 

And the advantage to ASW is that you don't need to build the whole force. Do some experimental and training ships and develop plans and construction techniques for easy-to-build pre-fab ships. Store critical materials like turbines and weapons to give a headstart in construction. Hulls are pretty easy to build quickly if you don't use heavy armor, it's what makes the ship go that needs time. And the weapons, many RN and USN ships were delayed or went to sea partially armed because of weapons shortages.

216308[/snapback]

 

 

Considering what German plans intended to use for raiders, what could they build to hunt them, other than maybe (light ?)carriers? I don't know whether enough information on German plans was available, but torpedoes or NO, I'd hate to take a bunch of anti-submarine destroyers up against Scharnhorst, Bismark, etc...

 

 

I suspect subs might potentially have been a useful role for a smaller country to specialize in.

 

Given that subs were still expected to have some surface fighting capability, what if instead of one or more medium deck guns, a sub were outfitted with anti aircraft weapons and anti-submarine weapons? Feasible in any way? Practical? probably not, but something that crossed what passes for my mind.

[KingSargent]

Considering what German plans intended to use for raiders, what could they build to hunt them, other than maybe (light ?)carriers? I don't know whether enough information on German plans was available, but torpedoes or NO, I'd hate to take a bunch of anti-submarine destroyers up against Scharnhorst, Bismark, etc...

I suspect subs might potentially  have been a useful role for a smaller country to specialize in.

 

Given that subs were still expected to have some surface fighting capability, what if instead of one or more  medium deck guns, a sub were outfitted with anti aircraft weapons and anti-submarine weapons? Feasible in any way?  Practical?  probably not, but something that crossed what passes for my mind.

216990[/snapback]

If we are talking about the mid-30s, the raiders planned and building for the KM are the Panzerschiffen, AKA Pocket Battleships. A large CV with a BB support of a Dunkerque or a recontructed Repulse would be adequate. An ASW group would include a CVE type, for both patrol/scouting and attack. The a/c should be able to provide considerable warning, and could delay the raider long enough for help to arrive. Remember if a raider took any significant damage, it was SOL unless it could get home again, so only a hit or maybe two would cause it to break off.

[Argus]

An ASW driven expansion feels a bit too 'hindsighty' for me, while I agree that specialisation would have been the most efficent use of resources givewn WWII just over the horizon, I just can't see it being a real option.

 

Whatever the military imperitives, the political reality would tend towards a ballanced fleet, even if it was one too small to be effective alone.

 

So for my part, it comes down to being a Cruiser Navy or a Destroyer one.

 

In either case, stage one would be buying the R and S class DD's the RN was dropping, IIRC they might even have been offered to Canada at the time(?) The old DD's and a couple of equally second hand subs can act as the expansion stage to get RCN numbers up to a level for later expansion.

 

I rather like the Destroyer type fleet over a Cruiser base line, and I'd buy four classes of new ships.

 

1/ Tribals - modified to take 5x 4"Mk.XIX mounts (its an easy mod). In fire control, I doubt the USN would be parting with any of its lovely stuff, so I'd see if Vickers ocould so something with the Tachy gear they were working on the for 3.7" AA gun. The quad PomPom is alright with some decent DP guns present as well, but look to the Oerlikon or Vickers 25.4mm in plave of the 0.5" quads.

 

These ships are to be the core of the Fleet and based on the East coast with the old DD's. I'd order three from the UK and get the Canadian Vickers yard out of mothballs to build the rest. This should be no problem as they were willing to let Australia make them.

 

2/ A Sloop Class, Grimsby/Black Swan what ever. Built on a simmilar deal, say buy on, build three or four. These ships are for Pacific partrols in peacetime, form the core of ASW in war, boosted by additional orders.

 

3/ The Thames (River) type submarine. They might have been a dead end in RN service, however I think Canada could have done a lot worse than a flotillia of these in the Pacific and if Canadian Vickers could build them too, then so much the better.

 

The RN might have had primitave torpedo fire control, but good training can work around that to some extent and the River's have performance to be very nasty in the northen pacific. Oh and at least one (two for choice) new modern Sub Tenders.

 

4/ A Seaplane tender or two, something along the lines of the old HMAS Albatross, but built around a different aircraft mix. I can't see anyone swallowing a dedicated ASW carrier pre-war, it would just be viewed as small slow carrier and so of little worth except for training. But a seaplane tender makes a lot of sense for Canada, with the way her civilavation was developing. It could be seen as a bit of pork barreling to the western provinces. For denying the west coast to the IJN across this period, a mobile defence based on aircraft and subs looks to be as good as any.

 

shane

 

PS one point, in 'Buying British,' the limits on UK yards shouldn't be taken as fixed. the yards were still there, as was much of the workforce, they just needed to be put back together again.

 

Increased orders pre-war would have seen yards reopened so capacity increase to try and meet demand. The new bottlenecks would have been higher up the chain, but even there more business would have increased the rate of expansion.

 

PPS Edited for crimes against grammer

Edited September 4, 2005 by Argus

[larrikin]

PPS Edited for crimes against grammer

217106[/snapback]

 

But not against spelling:lol:

[Argus]

Ha!

 

You should have seen it before I edited...

 

I know I can't spell, but I do at least like to get the words in the right sort of order.

 

shane

 

Edited for damn smiley... nothing works today.

Edited September 5, 2005 by Argus

[R011]

Too bad that in even a what-if thread so many have con't this unwritten Canadian policy.

216640[/snapback]

Building a battle fleet that can cope unassisted with the KM, IJN, or even the MN is not possible. Spending those resourses to building an ASW fleet is both possible and useful both for our own interests and those of the wider war effort.

 

In the coming war, we're either going to take a side and fight, or remain neutral. If we take the Axis side, the RN will destroy a Canadian surface fleet in an afternoon. the US taking the rest of Canada within a couple of weeks after they enter the war. IOW, we would have wasted any defence spending. If we join the Allies, we can best fit into the war effort in the way we did historically and leave the surface war to the RN. The best way to spend our maritime defence budget, even a hugely expanded one, is as a force to keep the sea lines of communications open to England.

 

If we're determained to be neutral, like Ireland, we don't really need much more than a coastal patrol force little larger than the pre-war navy.

Edited September 5, 2005 by R011

[FlyingCanOpener]

But where are you going to get the finances to build any of these navies? Though the economies of the powers were recovering, many other nations were still in the tank...

 

Though to add my ideas to these flights of fancy, without regard to finances or anything...

 

Like Argus said above, you have to decide for either a destroyer navy or a cruiser navy. In looking at the building programs of the powers, there really isn't a choice but to build a cruiser force in the South Atlantic, or a Destroyer force in the North Atlantic. As for the Pacific... well... ask the US and Japan how you can stay out of their ways

 

The South Atlantic proves to be the most interesting place to design a navy. Because the most powerful fleets there were Argentina and Brazil, you don't need much to be an equal. However, considering how Germany would deploy its commerce raiders in the South Atlantic, I'd make sure I had the capability of blowing out of the water any single asset they had. So, with that said, I'd have 1-2 coastal defence ships (much like the Swedish Sverige-class) . From there I would get 3-4 cruisers, 2 of which I'd replace the main armament with 10in guns in order to more fairly match any larger unit they may face on the shipping lanes. Add a few destroyers, and you have a modest fleet.

 

These units would sail in cruiser-based task forces on the shipping lanes in order to protect from raiders, and be able to fall back with teh defence ships to protect the ports and shoreline. Methinks the presence of a flotilla like this that would be allied-friendly would have prevented a lot of the nonsense in the South Atlantic from 1939-41...

Edited September 5, 2005 by FlyingCanOpener

[BlackAurora]

I'm surprised nobody even mentioned the Netherlands here

 

They have a history of seamanship and build state of the art ships, like the Michiel de Ruyter.

[R011]

Hi Shane:

 

You may well be right that a ASW fleet would be "hindsighty", but I agree that a destroyer fleet would be our best bet at this time. The admirals are going to want cruisers eventually, though, but by the time this RCN has the staff and infrastructure to handle them, the war will be on. We can get a couple of Colony class (or perhaps Towns or Clevelands) a bit earlier than we actually did, perhaps even build them in Canada.

 

Speaking of hindsight, I think an all four-inch armament for the Tribals may fall into that category. I think the historical replacement of the X turret with a twin four-incher would tend to fit into contemporary doctrine better. We do know now that the British HACS was not up to the job, but I don't think the RCN would be very inclined to think so in 1935. In fact, one reason the RCN did get Tribals was the heavy ASuW armament. Six four-point-sevens (and a pair of fours) were considered enough to handle all but the largest surface raiders.

 

One thing we need more than ships, is infrastructure. We should build at least two or three yards capable of building big ships (say Halifax, Esquimault, and Quebec), up to Majestic size would be useful, as well as at least three more capable of building large destroyers (Montreal, Vancouver, and St John New Brunswick). We could also identfy and prepare yards that can build smaller vessels, places like Collingwood, Ontario on the Great Lakes. The RN had already placed the intelligence and shipping ocntrol systems in place (or had by 1939 anyway).

 

Note to Hammerlock: those last systems could simply not be put in place by the RCN alone. They need to be integrated into the world-wide Britsh Imperial naval defence system.

 

The RCN did have an interesting building plan in 1939. In May of that year, the Minister of National Defewnce announced a planned fleet "of eighteen destroyers, nine on each coast eight anti-submarine vessels ; four on each coast, sixteen mine sweepers, eight on each coast; eight motor torpedo boats to be used on the east coast only; two parent vessels, one for destroyers on the weast coast and one for the motor torpedo boats on the east coast" * The destroyers would be mostly Tribals and the ASW vessels would be Halcyon Class minesweeper/sloops.

 

As it happens, the war intervened. The UK's yards became too occupied with British orders to build for us and we ended up sailing mostly what we could build ourselves - Flower Class corvettes.

 

* Tucker G.N. The Naval Service of Canada, Origins and Early Years. Ottawa: King's Printer, 1952 pp 366-7

 

See also Marc Milner's Canada's Navy The First Century. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999. ISBN 0-8020-4281-3

 

Dave AAA

Edited September 5, 2005 by R011

[R011]

But where are you going to get the finances to build any of these navies?

217585[/snapback]

That's an excellent question. In Canada's case, though, we were spending so little on defence (a two desroyer, 860 man, navy in 1935) that we should have enough latitude to increase to something proportionate to the UK.

[Argus]

The all 4" Tribal was an original design study for the class, and made it to the final choice as the alternative to the 4.7"s used historically. The hull was actually designed to take 5 x 4" Mk.XIX, two forward and three aft, the un used aft position was retained to take the second Pompom that was later deleated in favour of the aft pair of quad 0.5"s but the sturctural base was still there to take the 4".

 

So the 4" ship is no great reach at all, HACS is, as you noted, the problem.

 

I think the point is that Canada was 'doomed' to become an ASW fleet whatever the prewar stance on naval matters. The battle of the Atlantic was on her doorstep, and without a major shift in domestic shipbuilding that started earlier than the 30's (IMHO), the only ships Canada could build in meaningfull numbers were ASW escorts. 1+1=2 Take into account the strictures of British/US warship construction in the same period ans 1+1+1=3

 

 

A navy for the South Atlantic (South Africa?) is another kettle of fish altogether. I can't see the point in coastal defence ships, the coast is simply too long and the threat profile doesn't fit. Any naval threat to SA is either going to be a single-ship/small group on a raiding basis, or a bloody big fleet.

 

Against a signifigant fleet, a Coastal Defence ship, or any naval Force SA coulld muster is so much chaff in the wind. They may delay/attrite an attacker, but woun't be capable of inflicting a signifigant reverse.

 

A Destroyer Navy on the otherhand is going to come up short in two big areas, range/seakeeping and firepower. SA needs (IMHO) a ship that:

a/ Has sufficent range and seakeeping to exert a presence in three rather large and wooly oceans (S Atlantic, Indian and Southern).

b/ Has sufficent firepower to deal with 6"/15cm armed opponents (raiders) and pose a mission limiting threat to larger ships (Panzerschiffs).

c/ I s cheap enough to have in some quantity, ie more than just one or two.

 

So a Light Cruiser fleet seems the best potion, something like the Dido's in the ~7,000 ton bracket with perhaps 8x5.25."

 

shane

[Bob B]

.....A navy for the South Atlantic (South Africa?) is another kettle of fish altogether. I can't see the point in coastal defence ships, the coast is simply too long and the threat profile doesn't fit. Any naval threat to SA is either going to be a single-ship/small group on a raiding basis, or a bloody big fleet.

 

Against a signifigant fleet, a Coastal Defence ship, or any naval Force SA coulld muster is so much chaff in the wind. They may delay/attrite an attacker, but woun't be capable of inflicting a signifigant reverse.

 

A Destroyer Navy on the otherhand is going to come up short in two big areas, range/seakeeping and firepower. SA needs (IMHO) a ship that:

a/ Has sufficent range and seakeeping to exert a presence in three rather large and wooly oceans (S Atlantic, Indian and Southern).

b/ Has sufficent firepower to deal with 6"/15cm armed opponents (raiders) and    pose a mission limiting threat to larger ships (Panzerschiffs).

c/ I s cheap enough to have in some quantity, ie more than just one or two......

 

shane

217882[/snapback]

 

 

Of all the South American countries that possessed modern battleships, I don't believe that any of them saw action, or even much use. After a quick check on Haze Gray of Argentina, Brazil, and Chile, these ships were either purchased in the US or UK, and with the exception of a stint in the Royal Navy for a couple of them, they spent most of their careers sitting in harbor and rusting away. (Did they ever even do any gunnery training or target practice?)

 

All went through either rework, or modernization, and each of them was reported to be in poor condition by the yards doing the work. It would appear that these were really just status symbols. Each of the larger countries had to have a couple sitting around so that the admirals would have something big to visit. It would appear that smaller vessels in the destroyer, or even light cruiser, range might have made more sense for countries with limited resources.

 

FWIW, when these were replaced after WW2 they did go for a carrier and light cruiser combo.

Edited September 6, 2005 by Bob B

[FlyingCanOpener]

Of all the South American countries that possessed battleships, I don't believe that any of them saw action, or even much use.  After a quick check on Haze Gray of Argentina, Brazil, and Chile, these ships were either purchased in the US or UK, and with the exception of a stint in the Royal Navy for a couple of them,  they spent most of their careers sitting in harbor and rusting away.  (Did they ever even do any gunnery training or target practice?)

 

All went through either rework, or modernization, and each of them was reported to be in poor condition by the yards doing the work.  It would appear that these were really just status symbols.  Each of the larger countries had to have a couple sitting around so that the admirals would have something big to visit.  It would appear that smaller vessels in the destroyer, or even light cruiser, range might have made more sense for countries with limited resources. 

 

FWIW, when these were replaced after WW2 they did go for a carrier and light cruiser combo.

218203[/snapback]

 

Yes, and because the ABC powers had them was the reason I mentioned getting some. I wan't really thinking of South Africa tbh, but rather the South American situation as I just mentioned. Because the other guys have BBs, a CDB is a nice waste of resources in order to counter the theoretical battleship threat (and provide a nice status symbol for the Admiralissimoes) without the logistical chain better used for cruisers.

 

However, for our purposes (Since we're assuming that we're purchasing a navy to actually use it) I think the CDB is a useful asset, if just for fleet-in being. I wonder how the Graf Spee would have altered her operations in 1939 if the Minas Gerais and her escorts (OK, I admit 2 things, (1) The Sao Paulo was rusting in harbour there and (2) the escorts would be the rest of the Brazilian Navy) was strolling about off the coast actively looking for her. Probably not much of a threat, but the epitome of a fleet-in-being.

[TonyE]

Maybe this design could have been suitable for the coastal defence ship role mentioned by several posters. The swedish navy proposed it in 1934, so i guess it would fit the time period:

Displacement would have been around 7700 tons, speed 23 knots and length around 130 meters. Proposed armament would have been 4 280mm, 12 120mm, 10-12 25mm AA and 8-10 AAMGs.

[FlyingCanOpener]

Maybe this design could have been suitable for the coastal defence ship role mentioned by several posters. The swedish navy proposed it in 1934, so i guess it would fit the time period:

Displacement would have been around 7700 tons, speed 23 knots and length around 130 meters. Proposed armament would have been 4 280mm, 12 120mm, 10-12 25mm AA and 8-10 AAMGs.

218231[/snapback]

 

Is that a line drawing of the Sveirge-class Coastal Defence Ship?

[TonyE]

Is that a line drawing of the Sveirge-class Coastal Defence Ship?

218234[/snapback]

 

No the Sverige-class were built during WW1, although they were rebuilt several times and each getting a destinct look though the arrangement of the smokestacks. I couldn`t find a linedrawing so these two photos will have to do in showing their appearence:

[KingSargent]

Is that a line drawing of the Sveirge-class Coastal Defence Ship?

218234[/snapback]

Negatory, the Sveriges were 1915-18 vintage, although the configuration is sort of a modernized Sverige.