WesWorld

Nice analysis RA,

Quoted

there is some kind of agreement with Greece already but me and Alt Naval never got around to a text

It's along the lines of Greece and GB having common cause in the Med if either is attacked. If GB is attacked external to Med then Greece will back fill RN in Med while GB redeploys.

Greece has been building up Suda Bay on Crete as a main base as being remote from both Italy and Turkey. The Greek buildup has focussed on heavy units as 'fleet in being' value while expanding light forces and aircraft for attrition and scouting purposes.

Cheers,

Interesting analysis Gavin, particularily with the Italian veiw on Turkey. Its also interesting that Italy has noticed the improved relations between Iberia and Atlantis.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Interesting analysis Gavin, particularily with the Italian veiw on Turkey. Its also interesting that Italy has noticed the improved relations between Iberia and Atlantis.

We don't here much from Turkey, but from what is available, Greece and Persia are more her main concerns, rather than attacking Italian shipping or going South into Palestine.

This report overlooks the diabolical implications of Canadian Superscience. Obviously, my virtual minions need better virtual PR....

I just find it interesting that the report completely ignores the main Mexican strength, its strong and modern air force. its the only one of the three armed forces that can have a substantial effect on an AEGIS-Mexican War.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
I just find it interesting that the report completely ignores the main Mexican strength, its strong and modern air force. its the only one of the three armed forces that can have a substantial effect on an AEGIS-Mexican War.

It'll still be outnumbered and outclassed. Lots of fighters but very few offensive aircraft. Wouldn't have much of an effect on the ground war in the jungle. The geography makes effective strikes far behind the frontline on ports etc. unlikely. I don't rate the Mexican air force that highly at the moment. With a week or two of heavy operations it could realistically be eliminated as an effective fighting force and with pretty much all the aircraft being manufactured and purchased abroad the chance of recouping initial losses are nonexistant. It would be on the ground where Mexico has the advantage of position and simply the number of troops available. The results depend more on whether Aegis can supply enough men and material to the region from elsewhere around the world.

The U.S. would be in a prime possition to rearm the Mexican airforce. I would expect the Mexicans in such a conflict to have a few initial successes and then slowly get ground down due to losses of both aircraft and experience pilots. Aegis would have its own difficulty's re-enforcing its own assets so its most likely any conflict would end in a stalemate.

I don't see either side doing something stupid to start a conflict because they loose their strategic advantages, Mexico its full allied support if its the instigator of such a conflict, AEGIS its regional numerical superiority if it attacks a NATO country first.

The least distructive conflict possible for Aegis is a Mexico/U.S. vs Aegis senario and even then the U.S. just has too many resources. They can effectively cut off the Caribbean and dominate. I suspect that in the future Iberia will see this and grant more autonomy in their Caribbean holdings. No doubt Mexico will try to exert their influence in the region though I'm not sure if they can over shadow the U.S. influence

Actually with the exception of a few bombers, obsolete fighters, and non-combat aircraft, the FAM is composed completely of Mexican built aircraft. Replacing aircraft would not be a problem, and with a dedicated training program in place, replacing pilots would not be either. Also Mexico has a substantial bomber force, which at this point in time, would be seen as having a powerful anti-shipping potential. Remember that this is the time of the B-17 in its continental defense guise.

And considering that the bulk of Mexican help to the Yugoslavs is in the form of aircraft and pilots, I would have expected Italy to concentrate on that area alone.

Quoted

The U.S. would be in a prime possition to rearm the Mexican airforce.

But that would be against the laws of neutrality. A scenario where the US is belligerent is completely different and fairly unlikely. Mexico on the other hand is a loose cannon likely to go off at any moment.

Quoted

Also Mexico has a substantial bomber force

Only eighty aircraft of note, none of which have very great range. Survivability when operating in an environment with fighter opposition is doubtful, probably even greater losses than the Hampden and Wellington raids in early WWII.

The Mexican air force currently doesn't have sufficient strength to alter the strategic situation.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

The U.S. would be in a prime possition to rearm the Mexican airforce.

But that would be against the laws of neutrality. A scenario where the US is belligerent is completely different and fairly unlikely. Mexico on the other hand is a loose cannon likely to go off at any moment.

Hmmmm? Aircraft are not warships, and neutrals are allowed to supply arms, ammunition, etc to combatants. It's only, as far as I remember, warships that neutrals may not supply to combatants.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

The U.S. would be in a prime possition to rearm the Mexican airforce.

But that would be against the laws of neutrality. A scenario where the US is belligerent is completely different and fairly unlikely. Mexico on the other hand is a loose cannon likely to go off at any moment.

Hmmmm? Aircraft are not warships, and neutrals are allowed to supply arms, ammunition, etc to combatants. It's only, as far as I remember, warships that neutrals may not supply to combatants.

Even if that's the case, how did the USN end up sending over that slew of Four-pipers while technically still neutral?

The US was able to do it because the US said it could.
Risk / reward.
Was it advantageous for Germany to declare war over those old DDs, or refuse to treat US Merchantmen as Nuetrals and start sinking them? either course means the entire USN gets involved. Or just complain? The USN was shooting at U-boats well before Pearl Harbor.

Heck, WWI, everyone got worked up over the German violation of Belgian nuetrality. Yet the UK blockaded the Nuetral Dutch as the 'port of Germany', and the US siezed Nuetral Dutch merchants and used them.

Here, if Iberia and Mexico were at odds, and Iberia could prove the US was shipping arms overland... then what? Declare war on the US and hope NATO doesn't wade in as well? Its what makes proxy wars so much fun !

Current Fleet Missions

As outlined above, the navy has a number of tasks to fulfil. A strong home fleet enables effective control of areas of the Mediterranean and their denial to opposing forces. With the current strategic position, the current deployment is a considerable overmatch without reason. Only the RN Mediterranean Fleet can be considered as an equal force and such a match is found to be unlikely. Other possible threats have significantly less force that would allow for a much smaller home fleet to be deployed. This would likely act to reduce tensions in the region and probably lead to a reduction in size of the RN Med Fleet. Reducing the size of the home fleet would free up resources for overseas commitments that are not currently met. An increase in land based naval strike aircraft would help remedy the situation.

The most important commitment overseas is the continuing secure position of Ethiopia. The Indian Ocean coastline is considered indefensible given the large expanse of desert. The heartland of Ethiopia lies much further inland. Any successful invasion on the Indian Ocean coast would have long and vulnerable supply lines leading inland. Along the Red Sea, the coastline is more broken, but an expansive network of fortifications around Bab el Mandab would restrict access. The position of the main fleet anchorage at Massawa is well protected by geography. The first role of the fleet is the protection of commerce transiting the Red Sea to Suez and the Mediterranean. The likely threat is to be submarines and aircraft rather than surface ships given the position. The second role is the defence of Ethiopia itself. Given the likely threat of India, coastal defence vessels will not be suitable. The large numbers of capital ships, cruisers and aircraft carriers available mean that a powerful force has to be deployed in response. The third role is again escort, of vessels transiting to SEA in the event of larger scale conflict against Satsuma. Again, submarines and aircraft would be the primary threats, leading to vessels similar to those for role one, but with better seakeeping.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
the coastline is more broken, but an expansive network of fortifications around Bab el Mandab would restrict access.

Unfortunately for Italy, the French and British have the best spots in the Mandab Strait already picked out for coastal fortresses. I think back when AdmK was running France, he heavily fortified the Mandab Straits with coast defense guns - there was a map I've seen somewhere of the layout.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
Unfortunately for Italy, the French and British have the best spots in the Mandab Strait already picked out for coastal fortresses. I think back when AdmK was running France, he heavily fortified the Mandab Straits with coast defense guns - there was a map I've seen somewhere of the layout.

I don't think the UK has much in that area. France has some down the coast a bit here. Neither particularly bother Italy.

Odd, I can't see the image in the link, but I'm guessing it was the one I remember, with the big guns overlooking Djibouti?

Yeah. BLEEPing Tripod. Copy/paste link works.
http://admkuznetsov.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/djibuti4.gif

Ah, yup. That's the one I remember. I thought there was another 420mm battery much closer to the Mandab Straits, though.

Current Requirements

Escort; Power Projection; Sea Denial

The navy is currently in a reasonable position for the escort roles, possessing over seventy escort vessels. It should be stressed that most of these vessels are old and unsuited to oceanic use. Realistically, only eight vessels are suitable for proper oceanic use. A larger number are suited for coastal and Mediterranean escort purposes. The large numbers of Spica Class torpedo boats are useful but are structurally weak with poor range and habitability. Their capability against either submarine or air threats is poor. The newer Gabbiano Class vessels are much more capable against submarines and considerably cheaper to operate. The newest C Class frigates are considerably faster and more general purpose at the expense of seakeeping and habitability. Only the Vespa and Diana Classes of escorts can really be considered useful for oceanic work, mostly by virtue of their larger size and range. Many more vessels will have to be built to form an effective escort. Current thinking is for escort groups of about twelve vessels centred on a small aircraft carrier for scouting and air defence.

Power projection should be at the core of Italy’s future fleet: it enables her strength to be demonstrated around the world. This is especially important in the two main theatres envisaged, where a show of strength could avoid hostilities. A powerful force needs to be built up, consisting of battleships for action against surface targets, aircraft carriers for scouting, air defence and striking on land, and plenty of escort vessels against submarines and torpedo boats. The largest problem with such a force will be supplying it in forward bases, far from Italy. There currently exists little capacity for replenishment away from port. Additionally, stocks of Italian parts should be assembled at friendly bases to reduce the strain on shipping from Italy in wartime.

Sea denial is partly the task of surface task groups outlined above, which, with the aircraft carrier’s scouting ability, give the ability to control large areas of ocean. The large Italian submarine fleet is a less visible means of attaining the same goal. Over the past decade, it has been mostly focused on the Med, but the new T and U Class are more suited for oceanic operations. Their likely area of operations is to be the Persian Gulf, arresting shipments of oil to India. Again, the problem of supply occurs, with fuel, ammunition and stores needing to be sent from Italy to more forward bases.

The navy is currently able to meet most of the requirements in part, but inadequate fleet train would hamper prolonged operations. The navy is very expensive, and at the moment, an increasing drain on Italy’s economic performance. Manpower is one of the largest problems, with the current fleet consuming 270,000 persons if it were fully equipped. In the long term this is unaffordable for Italy and needs to be reduced to much more manageable figures. A fast reduction to 200,000 should be enacted, followed by a gradual reduction to 150,000. This would free up large numbers of able bodied men for the workforce and reduce expenditure at the same time. With the scrapping of obsolescent vessels and the decommissioning of those of less usefulness, it should be possible to arrive at a much more affordable force, but one also more capable of meeting its requirements.

What qualifies as "obsolescent" and is there a d-i-s-c-o-u-n-t?