Jump to content

Tankovian Meta Thread


Recommended Posts

Since the Italians have the right guns and mounts, fire control, torpedoes you might as well order the entire ships there. Especially because they are fine with payment in metals and industrial minerals. Foreign exchange is hard to come by in these days. 

I think we should order the flying boats in Italy too. Performance wise the latest version of the Wal and the S.55 are similar, though the latter can carry bombs and torpedoes. And we could most likely get a good price if we also order the ships from Italy. 

 

PS: Sorry to bother you again but the accountants would like to point something out:

 

A twin 10cm LA/HA mounts weights 15 tons and each barrels has a RoF of eight to ten RPM.

For three mounts that amounts to 45tons, 48 to 60 RPM and a broadside weight of 662 to 828 kilos.

 

A single 12,7cm/25 mount(with no shield) weighs ten tons and has a RoF of 15 to 20 RPM.

For three 12.7cm/25 guns you are looking at a total weight of 30 tons(w/o shields), 45 to 60 RPM, and a broadside weight of 1,098 to 1,464 kilos.

Edited by Markus Becker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There are a number of routes possible with our requirement;-

  1.  British - They have no gun/mount that meets our requirement. At this juncture they only have single, manually worked 4"/45 DP HA guns. Could we commission a new gun and mount from the UK? I think it is entirely possible, especially if we do not insist on the intellectual rights which are generally the most often abrogated in this field.
  2. Italian - We could go to OTO and have them design us a whole new mount for the 10cm with all our requirements. 
  3. Swedish - Bofors has let it be known that they are doing a 10.cm/50 twin for the Finnish coast defence ship. It is power rammed but it needs RPC and does not have director control. (rate of fire is 15rpm claimed)
  4. American - 5"/25 singles, require gun shields and is two piece ammunition.

American builds would be the most challenging to maintain in the long term. British or Italian built would be much easier, since we just really need to send them into the Mediterranean for either. I would prefer the British myself for a number of reasons, including the fact that we have a bunch of ex-RN types in the Navy which will make the whole process a little less culturally challenging. 

The Bofors gun is a solid fall back position if the British cannot deliver on the guns (which is obviously the MkXVI on the twin MkXIX mount). We can also justifiably get the damned things because we essentially bankroll the development. 

For some or all of these we could chamber for our existing 10cm as well. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They sell very little in the 20s as the Soviet Union was a mess and they needed everything for rebuilding internal state power. In the 30s, they do, but usually for political and ideological reasons, e.g. Spain.  China is the other big recipient based on the disputes with Japan. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Simon Tan said:

They sell very little in the 20s as the Soviet Union was a mess and they needed everything for rebuilding internal state power. In the 30s, they do, but usually for political and ideological reasons, e.g. Spain.  China is the other big recipient based on the disputes with Japan. 

Did not know about China. Thanks for the new information. What did they sell and what did they donate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with pre-creating a Hunt class DD/DE in the early 30s is that the QF 4-inch Mk XVI doesn‘t become available until 1936 IRL(date of design 1934 per navweaps). That would change the numbers to 50 tons, 90 to 120 RPM and 2,600 to 3,500 kilos. What to do?

 

1. Going to the British or Italians and paying them for a 4”/10cm gun with all the bells and whistles of the 5”/25. But that will take some time. WAG: The Mk XVI might become available slightly earlier if Tankovia kickstarts the development. PS: see below

 

2. Or buying off the shelf. The Swedish/Finnish gun has good firepower. 90 RPM, 1440 kilo broadside but the mounts are very heavy. 65 tons for three of them. That is 1,4 rounds per ton. Slightly better than the IRL Italian guns at their best RoF(1,3). Were the gunshields armored? I don’t think the Russians have anything to offer in the early 30s. They were being helped by the Italians at the time.

 

If the ships are wanted in the fist half of the 1930s you have a choice between the Bofors and the 5”/25. We all know what I’d prefer but I have another idea:

The late 1920s naval rearmament plan founders on the cliffs of the Great Depression! Sorry navy, not enough money in the budget for your new toys! Overhauling the sloops and buying R-boats is the most the treasury can pay for.

 

PS: OTOH, the Italians already have a mount that meets all requirement except RoF. If they could increase that to at least 15 it would be ok.

Edited by Markus Becker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Finnish Bofors twin 10.5cm is heavily armoured like the rest of vessel (looks like >12mm). With normal blast and spray shields, I expect it to go down considerably. Each gun & rammer is about 500kg heavier than the Skoda/OTO 10cm. So approximately 17mt with RPC etc. 

To mollify the Treasury in a fiscally challenging period, the Navy proposes to procure 2 new hulls first, but designed around armament to be fitted later. A more modest interim gun armament is to be fitted along with concrete ballast to simulate the loading. The interim gun armament will be transferred to the 24s when the design gun armament is fitted. 

Proposal for interim gun armament is 3 no.s 4"/45 MkV in HA mounting. If the British are amenable, we will get the improved 4" (MkXVI). If not, we get the Bofors 10.5cm.

2nd pair will be ordered with designed gun armament. Once these are delivered, the first pair will be refitted. 

This backloads the program with a small additional cost for the interim guns, which will be recycled. 

Sloop modernization gets pushed into the second half of the 1930s as this escort program is supposed to deliver 1932-1935.

This is priority #1 for the Navy. Subs and motorboats will be deferred.

If we take the exemplar of the Turkish 'I' class DD, they seem to be fitted out as per RN spec including ASDIC. So I expect we can probably get Fuse Keeping Clock for our AA. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/29/2020 at 1:42 AM, Simon Tan said:

There are a number of routes possible with our requirement;-

  1.  British - They have no gun/mount that meets our requirement. At this juncture they only have single, manually worked 4"/45 DP HA guns. Could we commission a new gun and mount from the UK? I think it is entirely possible, especially if we do not insist on the intellectual rights which are generally the most often abrogated in this field.
  2. Italian - We could go to OTO and have them design us a whole new mount for the 10cm with all our requirements. 
  3. Swedish - Bofors has let it be known that they are doing a 10.cm/50 twin for the Finnish coast defence ship. It is power rammed but it needs RPC and does not have director control. (rate of fire is 15rpm claimed)
  4. American - 5"/25 singles, require gun shields and is two piece ammunition.

American builds would be the most challenging to maintain in the long term. British or Italian built would be much easier, since we just really need to send them into the Mediterranean for either. I would prefer the British myself for a number of reasons, including the fact that we have a bunch of ex-RN types in the Navy which will make the whole process a little less culturally challenging. 

The Bofors gun is a solid fall back position if the British cannot deliver on the guns (which is obviously the MkXVI on the twin MkXIX mount). We can also justifiably get the damned things because we essentially bankroll the development. 

For some or all of these we could chamber for our existing 10cm as well. 

 

Why do your small warships need to go to the Mediterranean Sea? Diplomatically you have the Royal Navy "guard" your ships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Simon Tan said:

The Finnish Bofors twin 10.5cm is heavily armoured like the rest of vessel (looks like >12mm). With normal blast and spray shields, I expect it to go down considerably. Each gun & rammer is about 500kg heavier than the Skoda/OTO 10cm. So approximately 17mt with RPC etc. 

To mollify the Treasury in a fiscally challenging period, the Navy proposes to procure 2 new hulls first, but designed around armament to be fitted later. A more modest interim gun armament is to be fitted along with concrete ballast to simulate the loading. The interim gun armament will be transferred to the 24s when the design gun armament is fitted. 

Proposal for interim gun armament is 3 no.s 4"/45 MkV in HA mounting. If the British are amenable, we will get the improved 4" (MkXVI). If not, we get the Bofors 10.5cm.

2nd pair will be ordered with designed gun armament. Once these are delivered, the first pair will be refitted. 

This backloads the program with a small additional cost for the interim guns, which will be recycled. 

Sloop modernization gets pushed into the second half of the 1930s as this escort program is supposed to deliver 1932-1935.

This is priority #1 for the Navy. Subs and motorboats will be deferred.

If we take the exemplar of the Turkish 'I' class DD, they seem to be fitted out as per RN spec including ASDIC. So I expect we can probably get Fuse Keeping Clock for our AA. 

The I class DD is too much ship for such a small nation. Alternate history is starting to turn to fantasy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Med is the nearest place to get major work done, e.g. reboilering etc. There is nowhere to do this in the Black Sea that is not the Soviet Union. 

Why is the I class DD 'too much ship' for such a small nation? Finland with slightly more population and Norway with somewhat less population both have coast defence ships in the cruiser displacement.

In any case the question of the I class has to do with control of technology by the British.

Please feel free to ignore this thread. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rick said:

The I class DD is too much ship for such a small nation. Alternate history is starting to turn to fantasy. 

Rick, I understand that the I class destroyers are not(!) something Tankovia intends to purchase. Simon just mentioned them to make a point: If the Turks could get ASDIC for their I-class DD, Tankovia might get AA-FCS for their DE.

 

 

It’s good that subs are dropped from the plan. I suggest you also get rid of all old sloops. I thought the DE(and R/S-boats) were intended as their replacements and they are approaching 20 years of age anyway. By ‘motorboats’ you mean S- and R-boats?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Motorboats describe everything that is 100 ton or less. If you want to look as steam launches, I'm open to suggestions.

The Escort Destroyer proposal is around destroyer displacement and has destroyer like manning requirements. The RN is building 2 types of sloops in this time frame, the 600t 'below Treaty' Kingfisher and the 'Treaty controlled' Bittern (not allowed to have TT.) Our Escort Destroyer would count under DD totals if the RN built it. Bitterns were built with either no armament or interim armament as general service vessels rather than as fleet units. 

The 24s are built as fleet minesweepers and have reinforced bows for this purpose. The Kils were only intended as sub chasers. This is why we should retain the 24s as they are still useful for sweeping. They are quite similar to the 1930s Halcyons but have only 1 screw (less redundancy) and are coal fired (smoky).  They are also large enough to carry more modern sweeping gear, like magnetic and/or acoustic sweep. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/26/2020 at 8:12 AM, Simon Tan said:

I think you must have missed the earlier post where the Navy was greatly expanded in the 1920-22 period via the procurement of a number of ex-RN sloops that were practically unused, namely 2x24-class and 4xKil-class. This will carry us through well into the early 1930s, which is when we start looking for a new construction escort vessel. (see above) The USN doesn't engage in vessel dumping till much later.

We actually have to crash into this because of the Russian Civil War and Greco-Turkish War. Our vessels are initially crewed by Austro-Hungarian and British 'specialists' looking for work after demobilization due to the fledgling state of the Navy at the end of WW1. Normality does not really return till the mid-20s after the Soviets and Kemalists tighten their grip on their countries and by extension their waters. 

Indeed this experience is what turns an opportunist action into policy.

Routine maintenance is done in Burgas , which has perfectly serviceable maintenance yards and docks. What we don't do much of is fabrication and construction. As the primary port of the country, these would have been steadily developed. 

It is pointless to try and construct motor torpedo boats domestically as long as we don't produce aero engines. And by the time we do (see Hispano), we will have come to the conclusion that marine diesels are a much better idea. 

 

Earlier post not missed, just an alternative to this alternative thread :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assorted points
However and whatever, the UK yards are going to be the cheapest option, there may well be considerations other than price, but on price the Poms win. 

Floatplanes are not ideal at sea, but can certainly operate quite widely in conditions far worse than a flat calm. It's better if they can be catapult lunched, and a nice quiet bay is lovely, but the RN was flying them off in the middle of the North Sea in WWI and things were much better by the mid 30's.

Submarines, the killer is maintenance, even today they have a have a deep cycle maintenance demand about twice that of a surface ship, and keeping a dockyard set up to properly do such work is a major major overhead - its been a significant factor in the RAN's history of submarine ops as a real world parallel (and we had the RN to poach skilled manpower from)

Coastal artillery, a switched on Tanknovian officer might note that based on WWI experience, sea mines and 6" (15cm) guns had the most influential defensive elements in littoral warfare. The only exception to this would be in places at risk of strategic bombardment from the sea, aka the port/dockyard/refinery complex, and even there the smallest gun that can achieve the desired range will do the job. else where if a normal 2x 6" battery is felt to be insufficient, adding additional 6" is the most cost effective way forward.

Navy

Some folks seem to be looking that the 'fleet' oddly. Tanknovia is not a maritime power, sure it needs a sting in its tail. But the most part the navy's duties are as a marine constabulary. There to maintain sovereignty in native waters and project a local presence into international waters - I'd also add ASW and Minewarfare. Simon is dead on, a bunch of Kil's and 24's, maturing into a force with a few sloops and/or TD's over a core of moderate minesweepers/ASW ships in a high low mix is just the ticket. I'd only offer the Halcyon as possible base for a mid 30's, locally made class of sweeper/escorts t fill the 'low' end. The earlier reciprocating engined ships would be my choice as a model, it might seem regressive, but not only are they well within Tanknovia's engineering base, they were also the better minesweepers. Low speed reciprocating engines were just better for the work than turbines.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IRL, Bulgarian shipbuilding is very modest before WW2 and centered in Varna. Burgas would only be developed under the Communists. In the case of Tankovia, we would want to develop our own national maritime infrastructure. Without the enormous burdens of many wars, we would have more capital available to invest in this.

My emphasis would be on a dedicated repair and maintenance yard vis shipbuilding. There is always demand for this and in the aftermath of the Great War, the whole Black Sea region is pretty much kaput in terms of capability between the occupation of the Bosphorus, the Russian Civil War and the Greco-Turkish War. Simply keeping our existing shipping running is enough of a challenge.  Trying to combine a maintenance yard and a construction yard is a recipe for failure in both. Saw this in Rosyth. 

A lot of our maritime tasks are performed by what would be regarded as coastal forces in larger navies. What we would like to do is replace the hodge-podge of vessels we have agglomerated since WW1 with a series of small vessels that have common engineering and fittings so as to streamline our training, maintenance and support structures. The Raumboote is quite attractive in this regard since it can perform a multitude of tasks.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 6" batteries we have were bought from the French, who took them off the AH Prinz Eugen battleship that was ceded to them.  They were casemate guns and the mount was modified to get a bit more elevation. (IRL the French just scrapped the guns, the Italians used theirs as coastal guns.)

They are not of the most modern design and they do not have the reach of treaty cruiser guns but the refinery is >10km inland of the batteries on the Pomorie and Sozopol headlands. So cruisers would have to hazard the batteries if they want bombard the port or refinery.  Not many of these in the Black Sea until the mid 30s so not much pressure to upgrade.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

My emphasis would be on a dedicated repair and maintenance yard vis shipbuilding.

 

The facilities and skill set are same for all three, the difference being the scale of the capabilities and a few 'nice to haves' for one that are essentials for the other. For example a building yard doesn't really need a dry dock but it must be able to make a lot of hull plates fast enough to keep up with the rate of production. A repair yard should have a dry dock, needs much less plate making capacity, but doesn't really need a building slip. That said a building yard wants to have a dry dock, and a repair yard should have some building capacity if only to make odds and sods for its own use without tying down dry dock time. 

So its perfectly reasonable to have a yard focused on maintenance and repair to also have a small building program - on the side as it were. It helps smooth out the workflow and keep skills up, a minesweeper, a small merchie built on spec, perhaps a Tug or a few barges. They'd also be taking on other heavy engineering work so boosting the wider economy, I dare say Tanknovia has a bit of work to be one on its electrical grid, and such a yard is going to be called in to do some share of that work. 

 

There are a couple of investment syndicates I know in London who have been setting up this sort of facilitiy all over the world for decades. They generally haven't been that active in this area for one reason or another, spheres of influence, political concerns and such. But if Tanknovia is willing to come to the party, they'll be on this like a rat up a rope. However  I've got to warn you, let this crowd in the door and they'll end up investing in everything, ports, harbors, rail, buses, trams, sewage and water supplies, infrastructure is there thing and at the end of the day people can get crabby about foreigners owning this sort of thing. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tankovia is today a haven for and fuelled by external capital, a lot of it regional. White Russians, Red Russians, Turks, Greeks, Bulgars all bank here because it is an oasis of calm in the aftermath of the Great War. A great deal of our financial dealings are with London and the British will have an outsize presence in Tankovina. 

Capital that is not put to work atrophies so it is incumbent for Tankovia to create opportunities for such. The local bourse is not a popular destination because of control measures implemented to limit speculative activities. Lazy investors love speculation, which does almost nothing for a company in the business cycle. There are plenty of places where you can treat the bourse as a casino, Tankovina is just not one of them. 

The Burgas refinery is quite an example of how Tankovia creates infrastructure opportunities. Tankoneft is the majority shareholder of the refinery, with 52%. The other major shareholders are Burmah Oil, Jersey Standard and a Minority Group. Tankoneft is a government owned corporate entity that is listed on the Tankovina exchange. Tankoneft raised bonds for part of the project funding, backed by the government. The Minority Group also issued private bonds to help fund it's share of the project. The return on these is a bit higher as they are not sovereign backed. Foreign participation, though not outright ownership.

I can't seem to see any drydocks in IRL Burgas but there is a shipbuilding yard  on the south side of the city. 

Tankovian Burgas probably has substantially higher population in the 1930s than IRL, much of it immigrant, some domestic but probably a good chunk of expats and refugees, mainly Greek and Russian. 

To an extent, you will be able to know where you are in Tankovia by the funny accents and local drinks. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/30/2020 at 5:13 AM, Simon Tan said:

The Med is the nearest place to get major work done, e.g. reboilering etc. There is nowhere to do this in the Black Sea that is not the Soviet Union. 

Why is the I class DD 'too much ship' for such a small nation? Finland with slightly more population and Norway with somewhat less population both have coast defence ships in the cruiser displacement.

In any case the question of the I class has to do with control of technology by the British.

Please feel free to ignore this thread. 

 

No need for ship construction in the Med. The nearest place for major work is the Galatis shipyard in Romania. You could have any vessel Tankovia needs built there. An alternative in the late 1920's would be Turkey's Golcuk shipyard. From memory, the first vessel they built was a tanker. 

Coastal BB. The Norwegian vessels were 40 years old when they were greeted by the Germans. And it showed. While the Finnish vessels were drafted under their 1927 Naval Plans, they cost a lot in money and manpower. https://web.archive.org/web/20110605125254/http://kotisivut.fonet.fi/~aromaa/Navygallery/index.html

Finland did not have that much of a navy to greet the Russians in 1939. One finnish naval site stated the monies consumed by these two coastal BB affected their military in 1939. One could argue that in theory coastal battleships are a good idea. Both countries you mentioned have long coastlines and at the time they were built only faced one enemy-Russia, an insignificant naval power. 

What countries give Tankovia a naval problem?

Russia -- while their Black Sea Fleet could crush any other navy, I can't see any problems the two countries would have especially as your oil supplies are dependent on Russia. 

Turkey -- doesn't really have a navy at this point and most of their concern is trying to fix a battlecruiser.

Bulgaria -- since Tankovia is/was a part of Bulgaria(close enough) I can see this being a problem. But their navy has only about 6 torpedo boats for defense, not offense. 

Romania -- maybe? Could be a formidable adversary, but again they would have to cross Bulgaria to be a seriously threat. Tankovia coastal artillery and airplanes would be the deciding factor here. 

Greece -- nope. 

Back to the U.K. "I" class DD. Tankovia has a short coastline North - South with the country itself going mostly East-West. Naval invasions are not a problem, land invasions would be. Use your manpower, money and brains in the same allocation. Navies with DE in this time frame on up are technologically and fiscally demanding. You are attempting to digest A.A., ASuW, and ASW all at once. You have a newly establish country by your own admission without the abilities needed to build, train, and maintain such vessels. You would be much better off obtaining a training vessel of about 1,000 tons to familiarize yourself with the fire-control needed for the three- dimensional naval warfare envisioned(an added bonus is the A.A. knowledge you can pass on to the army.) Not to mention the newer- higher pressure steam turbines such vessels would require, the newer damage control needed on such compartmentalized vessels, and the logistical requirements to obtain optimal effectiveness. 

You are a Black Sea country. Concentrate on mine warfare (hence the earlier post on maritime archaeology) and coastal airpower. Be among the first in the world to realize how effective multi-engine airplanes can be in escorting convoys. 

 This is a great informative thread -- especially the earlier small arms and artillery. Even though this is alternative history, things are beginning to go off the deep end in regard to naval matters. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The posts Marcus B. has made would do for consideration of a small navy, especially the Italian connection. Any small country can build wooden, coastal torpedo craft and it would be good for the local economy. And in all honesty, any of the ex-WW1 nations could build the corvette, sloop, ocean-going torpedo boats, or similar vessels. I would favor Italy and Romania. 

The Tankovia's British military attache would do well to acquire knowledge of the Royal Navy's High Angle Control System. Have a foreign exchange mission between the two countries. It would be difficult to top the R.N. naval knowledge of this time period. Combine this with Italian and/or Romanian vessels and one can have an effective coastal navy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The deferral of coastal forces modernization into the second half of the 1930s is probably not a bad thing if we are primarily looking at German craft. The 1934 pattern R-boote and 1935 pattern S14 S-boote  are better developed but it will probably not be possible to procure enough of them to meet our projected needs in the possible time frame. The Kriegsmarine will probably take over any under construction upon the outbreak of war. 

An R-boote is probably within he capabilities of Burgas shipbuilding but it would depend very greatly on the availability of engines. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agus wrote:

There are a couple of investment syndicates I know in London who have been setting up this sort of facilitiy all over the world for decades. They generally haven't been that active in this area for one reason or another, spheres of influence, political concerns and such. But if Tanknovia is willing to come to the party, they'll be on this like a rat up a rope. However  I've got to warn you, let this crowd in the door and they'll end up investing in everything, ports, harbors, rail, buses, trams, sewage and water supplies, infrastructure is there thing and at the end of the day people can get crabby about foreigners owning this sort of thing. „

IMO that is long OBE. The industrialization of Tankovia was stared by foreign investors. If anything foreign ownership was higehr in the past and no one bothered. Foreigners spending their money ti build useful things, create jobs pay taxes. What‘s not to like? ;)

 

Rick wrote:

"The posts Marcus B. has made would do for consideration of a small navy,...“

Linear thinking of mine. Who is the enemy, what do they have? Bulgaria and very little. Furthermore I though the navy would be the „ideal“ service for the lowest priority. After all who got everything in ones military perfect?

 

One the matter of diesel powered S- and R-boats.

Only the former aren‘t available in the first half of the 1930s, the latter already were. Yes, IRL we are talking about 60t vessels with 2x714hp for 17kn but by 1933 960hp Diesels were delivered (for S-Boats) and in 1934 the first big and fast-ish R-boats entered service. 115t, 21 kn, and two engines with a total of 1,836hp.

And it looks like they were not hard to build. 23 were made between 1934 and the start of the war and 401 during the war.

Similar picture with the S-boats. 18 were made before the war and 216 during the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...