WesWorld

Im going to be on the strategic defensive. But since no nation right now has the capability to invade an conquer Australia, I dont see the need for Slow Coastal Battleships, which I consider to be Nagato fodder. On the other hand I am at the end of long and vulnerable supply line. So the main role of the RAN will be trade protection, with raiding and harrasing as secondary roles. I just have to hold the line untill the RN arrives.

This is what I have in mind for the RAN:

1 Battlesquadron:
Tiger
2 Heavy cruisers
Light forces

2 Carrier Squadrons:
1 Carrier
1 Battlecruiser/carrier escort
Light forces

2-3 Escort/Scout Squadrons using CDS tonnage:
1 Heavy Slow Cruiser CDS
1 Seaplane Carrier CDS
Light Forces

+ a large amount of escorts using free tonnage

So 2 carriers, 2 new Battlecruisers/Large Cruisers HMAS Tiger, and two heavy cruisers? Interesting.

I'll note that Nagato and Mutsu are "offically" armed with 14 inch guns. (or at least that is what I remember).
Though I wouldn't put it past Walter that he might still have the 16.1 inch guns "in reserve". (whatever happened to the 8 inch/100 cals?)

Would a slow heavy cruiser benefit from wing turrets for more heavy firepower? But the ship would still be limited to under 8,000 tons....so no Blucher types (unfortunate really, as that might startly the Japanese/Filipinos).

Quoted

(whatever happened to the 8 inch/100 cals?)

For at least some of them, they sleep with the fishes...

Quoted

a large amount of escorts using free tonnage

The Greek "multi-purpose" design might make an interesting case-study.

Quoted

1 Battlesquadron:
Tiger
2 Heavy cruisers
Light forces

When the Indians were planning to be a "Cruiser Navy", they planned two squadrons of 1 BC+1 CA+4 CL, so this sounds quite reasonable. Reccomend 8 'cans.

Quoted

2 Carrier Squadrons:
1 Carrier
1 Battlecruiser/carrier escort
Light forces

Again, this sounds good. What sort of BC will these be? A "really heavy cruiser", perhaps?

Quoted

2-3 Escort/Scout Squadrons using CDS tonnage:
1 Heavy Slow Cruiser CDS [Escort Cruiser]
1 Seaplane Carrier CDS
Light Forces

The idea of using CDS tonnage for a 'seaplane cruser' is an intriguing one. I'm eagerly awating seeing what you come up with. :-)

Or the other "really heavy cruisers ".

You could probably sim a 13,000ton cruiser cut out the middle bit dropping speed from +30kts to 24kts and it'll be 8000tons - just a guess - I may be thinking of 10000tons to 8000tons. I know I can fit 12 6" guns and heavy armour on 5000tons.

Cheers,

Quoted

Again, this sounds good. What sort of BC will these be? A "really heavy cruiser", perhaps?

This is the design I have been talking about. And no its not a very heavy cruiser. Keep on Guessing ;-)

If I go with very heavy cruiser they would have 9.2" not 8".

It sounds kind of like Australia’s naval doctrine is based on its role in WW1. Using your carrier squadrons in a “Force H” style combination of raider-finding/wounding by the carrier, and raider-sinking by the battlecruiser could would work out. But I’d consider putting Tiger with one carrier, and a second similar-sized ship with the other carrier. Your battle squadron could be concentrated on heavy cruisers, giving you more flexibility to engage in cruiser actions where you might be hesitant to risk a capital ship.

The notion of using CDS tonnage to build a seaplane carrier has occurred to me as well. With 8000 t, you can get a design on par with France’s Commodore Teste. The drawback is that this ship will be constantly having to slow down or stop to pick up its aircraft. This could be a real problem if the ship is tasked with escorting a convoy, as it will constantly be dropping in and out of formation. Whether or not it takes some escorts along with it, it will be vulnerable to submarine attacks each time this happens.

So...does this plan change depend on who the opponent is? What if the RN’s not involved for some reason?

Quoted

Would a slow heavy cruiser benefit from wing turrets for more heavy firepower?

Wing turrets would take up important space on the beams where a cruiser might want torpedoes and secondary batteries. They could also be a problem for protection purposes. And even if it weren’t inefficient compared to an all-centreline approach, I’d suggest that the likely opponent of a slow cruiser - a raiding cruiser - will be operating solo. If that’s the case, being able to fight on both beams is of little benefit

Quoted

But I’d consider putting Tiger with one carrier, and a second similar-sized ship with the other carrier. Your battle squadron could be concentrated on heavy cruisers, giving you more flexibility to engage in cruiser actions where you might be hesitant to risk a capital ship.

My BCs should be able of handiling anything Tiger can, and Ill have two plus Tiger. Another Tiger would leave me with only two capital ships, this way Tiger can help any of the two carrier groups.

Also Tiger can handle any cruiser killer that engages my cruisers this way.

Quoted

The drawback is that this ship will be constantly having to slow down or stop to pick up its aircraft. This could be a real problem if the ship is tasked with escorting a convoy, as it will constantly be dropping in and out of formation. Whether or not it takes some escorts along with it, it will be vulnerable to submarine attacks each time this happens

Its better than having no aircover. And convoys are slow, it shouldnt be too much of a drawback.

Quoted

So...does this plan change depend on who the opponent is?

Nope

Quoted

What if the RN’s not involved for some reason?

Projected forces are fine, but I might then go for two fast Richelus in liue of Tiger, or get another Ally.

Quoted

Would a slow heavy cruiser benefit from wing turrets for more heavy firepower?

I need to pack as much firepower into the ship. Wing turrents dont help there.

Quoted

What if the RN’s not involved for some reason?

Quoted

Projected forces are fine, but I might then go for two fast Richelus in liue of Tiger, or get another Ally.

These are not just things you can do on the fly, though. They have to be done well in advance of an incident.

Quoted

Also Tiger can handle any cruiser killer that engages my cruisers this way.

What cruiser killer-operating nations would you anticipate conflict with that might warrant this thinking?

Japan?.....Iberia?.....perhaps the Philippines?...Chile is the only one that will soon be operating a new cruiser-killer in the form of the Capitan Tylor, though you never know what someone else might come up with during the 1930s or 1940s.

Quoted

These are not just things you can do on the fly, though. They have to be done well in advance of an incident.

True, but the BC plans are well into the future. I still have time to change my plans.

Quoted

What cruiser killer-operating nations would you anticipate conflict with that might warrant this thinking?

There's Tylor, and the Samals can be considered cruiser killers. Not that Im anticipating conflict. But its better to have an antidote for an non existant illness, than an Illness with a non existant antidote.

Where I got the inspiration for the Battle squadron: "Crace's Chase"

Strange Inspiration, but with a proper DD screen and some nice british torps it just might work.

Pity theres no Kongos left.

I think this is the best place to ask.

Which islands do I control? Do I have the Cook Islands?

Just want to make sure there are no problems. You can keep posting on original topic too.

Confusion can be a Naval Strategy as well.

With Australia be responcible for New Zealand and defense of other British possessions in the pacific?

New Zealand is under my control and maybe the Cook Islands. But Im pretty confused on the ownership of the other Pacific Islands.

Historically Tokelau, Tonga, Nuie, Cocos, Norfolk Island, Christmas Island and Chatham Islands.

Wesworld wize is anyones guess, Christmas Island and Cocos Islands are close to India so they may be part if India's territory.

Your best bet is to talk to Rocky, Rooijin and Canis to see what the have in your neck of the woods.

Would I need to talk to the U.K. or Australia about the Pitcairn Islands in the future? They are about as far out as you can get east in the Pacific before you hit Easter Island.

I don't own any of those islands.

I would say yes, any islands in the South Pacific/Indian ocean could be subject to conflict. I'm not about to travel down that road again so I suggest you guys work together to clairify who owns what, starting with a list of what you assume is yours or you have already stated as your own, provide the proper sources and work out any conflicts. Previous claims accepted by both general consencus and Moderators take presidence over other claims.

I expect Australia would hold whatever was historically Australian/New Zealand turf in the twenties. Consult with Gravina about any division of historical British holdings that remain in British hands here, such as Pitcairn.

India hasn't claimed any historical British islands besides the Chagos archipelago (historically the British Indian Ocean Territory). There are a couple of small, historically Burmese islands just northeast of the Andamans which I'll have also snapped up, but these are of no concern to Australia.