WesWorld

Hm... interesting. Two comments, by-and-large...

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
Finally, the effectiveness of the torpedo boats as employed by the Turkish and Bulgarian Navies was a surprise to the Romanian Navy, and no doubt led to the order for a number of this type the following year."

Oddly, this is running counter to my own thoughts. The small torpedo boats I have are, IMHO, not bad for coastal defense, but their lack of gunnery capabilities makes them, well, not very useful. They are outgunned by some submarines, in fact. Once their torpedoes are exhausted, they are essentially helpless... Which is why Bulgaria won't be building any more torpedo boats of those specifications, and will instead build either MTBs or kontra-razrushitel.

Curiously, I'm doing something completely different with the Azeri Navy, which is building new torpedo boats in the Bazarduzu Dagi style. But then, the Azeri ships have always been gun-heavy as TBs go...

That's the bone I have to pick with my own TBs. While the torpedo packs a powerful punch, the lack of gun armament is simply unacceptable to me.

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
"The Royal Romanian Naval Air Service's (RRNAS) first showing in a major exercise was deemed a sucess, the aerial reconnaisance provided by its 18th Fighter Wing was instruemental in the finding of the enemy fleet. Mostly due to the this sucess, the Romanian government put funds aside for 3 squadrons + 18 spares (72 aircraft) of seaplane/flying boat reconnaisance aircraft to be ordered in the 1937 budget for the RRNAS."

72 aircraft seems like an awful lot for the amount of coastline Romania has to cover... You'll have one floatplane for every 3.5km of coastline. Even presuming heavy war losses, that's a lot of aircraft. Even Bulgaria, with a coastline longer by 110km, has fewer naval aircraft - and those are multipurpose kites, capable of ground attack as well as torpedo attacks and recce. In wartime, those bombers would probably be shanghaied to do real bombing, while DAR-3 Ravens and the Caproni-Bulgara CB-5s pick up the recce roles.

Interesting thoughts about strategy; Romania's biggest problem versus either Turkey-Bulgaria or Russia is that all of Romania's ports are within easy reach of either opponent, while only a few of the opposition's ports are in reach of Romania. Russia can move ships to Poti - which is about as far as you can get from Romania and still be on the Black Sea - or as distant as Indochina, which is not exactly equipodal to Romania... but certainly further than Romania's bombers can go. Meanwhile, Russia doesn't *have* to send her fleet in... she just throws enough bombers at Constanta, and the ships will eventually be unable to come out to fight from the loss of facilities. Only the relative parity between TB and the PRJ prevents similar strategy.

As to Bulgaria's war strategy against Romania... it's best described in poetry!

Sink them in port!
Sink them at sea!
Sink them wherever
They try to be!

[SIZE=1]I make no claims that it was a *good* poem. [/SIZE]

And anyway, Bulgaria's political aims are to avoid wars with the neighbors, since in recent history they tend to end with another pound of flesh taken. And while political peacemaking engagements don't usually make the history books, they can be just as vicious!

Heh, I tend to agree on the Torpedo boats, the Agri's only have 3x88mm for surface engagements. Their speed of 33.5 knots wouldn't be much use in heavy sea's but their 4x21" TT's are usefull.

Most of the Turkish TB's were "sunk" in the exersize but thats the beauty of 600 ton TB's, they are expendable and pack a decent torpedo outfit. They are however more suited to defencive operations which is their main function in the Turkish navy.

October 1st
The Romanian Naval Estimates have again come before the Assembly of Deputies today, after the decision by the Assembly to reject the previous ones due to insufficient funds being available to fund such a large expansion of the fleet. The estimates did not change much, the postponement of the 8 torpedo boats to the 1938 naval estimates, as well as a reduction in the number of flying boats ordered. However, something new was added to the estimates, which actually pushed the cost past that of the original estimates. A deal which involves the funding of a 13.8in naval gun for use in future capital ships. The development would be undertaken by the Czech firm Skoda. As well, a quadruple turrent is also to be developed by the Czech engineering firm, and used by both Poland and Romania in their future capital ships. The expected date of completion for this program would be 1941. Despite the increased cost, the revised program was accepted, with the provision that the manufacture of the guns and turrents for these ships as well as 8 replacement guns would be in Romania.

October 8th

Lt. Colonel Radu Korne left Bucharest today to on a trip to Prague to visit the CKD engineering firm. Colonel Korne was apparently invited to look over their new armoured vehicle designs. CKD, which has lost ground to the Skoda Works powerhouse in export sales is likely trying to get a contract with Romania.

In Colonel Korne's report home, he mentioned that "the Czechs are far more friendly and have better designs than just two years ago. The medium tank they showed me, which they called the Lt-38 (1) appears well-built and is reasonably fast for a medium tank although it could use a bigger gun. When I mentioned this to my Czech hosts, they mentioned that it might be possible to upgun it to a 45-50mm gun. Upon hearing that, I ordered 50 tanks to serve in the 1st Rosiori Division as a medium tank, and 50 turrentless tanks to serve in the proposed 2nd Rosiori Division.

October 10th

The Army Estimates were presented to the Assembly of Deputies today, and include: the purchase of 120 AT-33 tanks from Atlantis to replace the aging Ft/AT-17 tanks in the 1st and 2nd Tank Regiments, the modernization of the 792 Canon de 75 mle 1897 field guns in Romanian inventory, the transformation of the 1st and 2nd Cavalry Brigades into a 2nd Rosiori Division, with the same order of battle, except the addition of 50 medium tanks, an order of 80 75 mle 1897 field guns from either France or another country wishing to sell these weapons, an order of 50 CKD Lt-38 medium tanks, and 50 of the same without turrents, and finally funding set aside to develop the 75 mle 1897 field gun into a tank and anti-tank gun.

Out of curiousity, why the 13.8"? Seems to me you already have the 15" gun in business with Romania; why not maintain similarity? Surely a 15" triple turret would be superior to a quad 13.8"...

Lots of tanks for Romania this year!

Should I observe that the Dastardly Indians have quad 350mm turrets? I smell a plot! Oh, no that's just brussel sprouts exploding again...ugh
j/k only made that mistake once...

Yes, but isn't 16 13.8in better than 9 15in? I'm just not sure of the feaseability of getting it on a 721 foot hull.

October 18th

The Air Force estimates for the 1937 fiscal year were presented to the Assembly of Deputies today and include: the replacement of and bringing up to full strength of 4 squadrons of IAR-11/PZL P.11b with IAR 80 aircraft (72 planes) and 4 new squadrons of IAR 23 dive bombers (48 planes) to be stationed in the Oltenia-Muntenia, Banat, and Transylvannia zones, with the number of squadrons to be 2, 1, and 1 respectively.

November 15th

Today the Assembly of Deputies passed a bill that effectively limits the size of the army to 25 divisions, and the size of the air force to 800 aircraft. The Deputy who proposed this bill, a National Liberal Party member commented "we cannot afford to continue a reckless expansion of our armed forces, as this Assembly sees no threat to Romania or her interests abroad." The bill, which has been debated back in forth in the Assembly for the past month was passed by the slimmest of margins, 195 verses 192 against, was a conscience vote where each Deputy voted as their conscience dictated.

November 20th

Two days after the Armed Forces Limitation Bill, Assembly of Deputies passed a Bill creating a Royal Romanian Naval Air Service. This Air Service, which is not covered under the Limitation Bill will be responsible for the defence of the Black Sea and the Dodrudja Zone. The aircraft which were formerly part of the Dodrudja Zone will now be a part of the RRNAS.

December 5th

His Majesty, King Carol II gave a speech in the Assembly of Deputies, and the Senate, expressing his thanks for a peaceful 1936, and his hopes for a peaceful 1937. The Assembly and the Senate are now closed for the winter holidays, and will reconvene in January.

December 20th

The new aircraft and tank manufactoring plant opened its doors today, and the first light tank rolled off the assembly line. These tanks, the R-5 will join the 1st Armoured Division as additional tanks, filling the light tank role between the R-1 and the R-2.

Given the choice of 9x15" or 16x13.8", I'd take the 9x15" hands down. You can mission-kill an opponent with many soft hits, but I'd suspect most battleships by 1941 will be well-armoured against 15" hits.

That's JMHO, of course.

Also JMHO, I don't see the Black Sea as being a place for a battle-line, or even heavy cruisers. I'd expect such forces to be easily attrited by much smaller and cheaper opponents - aircraft, MTBs, submarines, mines - without seeing actual combat. Which is why, aside from a titular flagship built to replace the Varna when she becomes a museum, I'm probably not going to build anything over 9,000 tons, even after CNTreaty end. Just not disposable enough. Even if I had the money to match Romania ton for ton, I'd probably decline such a Duel of the Designs.

That said, there's a difference between what I want and what Bulgaria wants. Bulgaria wants the Yavuz someday, and if Turkey's ever in a selling mood...

Well Turkey would sell her once a newer design was in the pipeline, but for now it looks like I'll need either a refit for the Piri Ries or a pair of slightly larger CL's, perhaps even both.

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
Yes, but isn't 16 13.8in better than 9 15in? I'm just not sure of the feaseability of getting it on a 721 foot hull.

In quads length shouldn't be an issue, only 3 turrets. Length is linked to speed and overall room, but remember KGV was meant for 12x14" and was 745ft, while QE with 4 twin 15" was 100 feet shorter, while Neptune with en echelon midships mounts was another 100 feet shorter.

16 35cm guns in quads needs 4 turrets.... Though I'm not sure how someone's going to fit 16 35cm guns onto the same (or similar) hull as one would use for 9 38cm guns.

It's simmable providing you accept a 21 knot speed, which is the current speed of the Romanian battleline.

Given that speed, though, can't you fit 12 38cm weapons onto a similar hull?

Yes, its about 1,000 tons more and has about 2,000 pounds less broadside weight.

There's actually going to be a bit of a story on this, and I don't want to give away too many details.

I bit of rough-guess simming tells me that 16x13.8", 21-knots, and a combination of 16" belt/turrets, 3" TDS, and 6" deck can be had starting at around 37,000 tons light.

Personally, I think that is utterly wasted on the Black (or Baltic) Sea. If Romania's into power projection on the Med, it might become a marginal battleship, but honestly I'd rather spend 37,000 tons on two or three fast armoured cruisers, or better yet on a mix of DDs and coastal subs. About the only thing she'll ever do useful is draw enemy bombers and submarines away from the ships which are really doing the actual work.

JMHO, as always.

Late as always I have to comment on the LT 38, calling it a medium tank is of course OK for propaganda purposes but it was considered a light tank by the Czechs and would probably if it has entered production be presented as the TNH since LT Vz38 is the Czech Army designation (Light tank model 1938)

And yes I know its nitpicking