WesWorld

Hi!

Sparked by my intention to secure the SAE position in WesWorld and fanned by various discussions or comments about SAE weaknesses and strength I always wondered what result a neutral analysis would present. I wanted to understand where the SAE stands and how I could improve on what I already had or planned.

In short, I needed a strategic assessment and O'Dwyer & Jackson, a reliable consultancy with headquarters in London and Amsterdam, agreed to run the required analysis based on internal and public information. So I provided every little piece of data I have on the SAE and its armed forces (both officially posted information plus half-breed stuff I have on my harddrive) while the encyclopedias offered what information is available on other powers.

The final result of that assessment can be found in this PDF file .

A [SIZE=3]BIG [/SIZE] "Thank you!" for time and effort spend on this project. Hood and Kaiser Kirk really did a splendid outstanding job. Almost all content is a result of their work, I only put results together and made it look like one big text. So the applause is all theirs. *bows*

I hope you enjoy the read as much as I did when I first got results.

Feedback is welcome. I'd like to hear what you think before I may offer some personal thoughts on the result.

Australia feels slighted that they where not taken into account.

That said pretty cool report. Well done guys.

Australia's been quiet lately. You'll have to start acting up again.

Excellent work, gentlemen. A most interesting read.

Given that late 1941 data forms the basis for a lot of the report, I'd be curious to know if the authors consider any subsequent developments - in SAE or elsewhere - to have a significant impact on their findings.

I presume that my knowledge of this document is OOC, and I comment from that perspective. That said I have found a particular point worthy of clarification, correction or confirmation.


"A basing rights treaty with the United Kingdom ensures that the SAE would be able to field commerce raiders worldwide..."

If Great Britain, or any other neutral, allowed the SAE to base commerce raiders in its territories, it would be a blatant breach of international law and would immmediately invite retaliation. If His Majesty's Government has turned its back on more than one hundred years of diplomatic practice and precedent of its own making and is now willing to harbor the warships of a potential belligerent at its naval bases, and allow then to prey upon the commerce of belligerents or neutrals, there will be consequences of enormous importance.

Yeah, the US player could potentially be quite pissed at the Crown if this is in fact true. They might have to take it to the Permanent Court of International Justice once it would become public knowledge.

A few numbers that are off:

Quoted

Chile:
The Chilean Navy comprises; a Battle Force (three battleships (Almirante Blanco Encalada, Almirante Cochrane, Capitan Prat), four heavy cruisers, six destroyers); a Scouting Force (two seaplane carrier-cruisers, six destroyers, 16 aircraft); a Fast Carrier Force (two carriers (Libertad, Mapuche), six destroyers, 117-147 aircraft); other forces comprise twelve destroyers, a coastal defense force with submarine hunters and sixteen destroyers covering geographical districts of the coastline, eight submarines and an Amphibious Command of six vessels. There is a training carrier, Chiloe, with 24 aircraft.

Should be corrected to:

Quoted

Chile:
The Chilean Navy comprises; a Battle Force (three battleships (Almirante Blanco Encalada, Almirante Cochrane, Capitan Prat), four light cruisers, eight destroyers); a Scouting Force (one armoured cruiser, one seaplane carrier-cruiser, six destroyers, 8 aircraft); a Fast Carrier Force (two carriers (Libertad, Mapuche), one heavy cruiser, four light cruisers, eight destroyers, 117-147 aircraft); other forces comprise fourteen destroyers, one minelayer, a coastal defense force with submarine hunters and sixteen destroyers covering geographical districts of the coastline, eight submarines and an Amphibious Command of five vessels. There is a training carrier, Chiloe, with 24 aircraft.

By December 1941 the armoured cruiser assigned to the Scouting Force would be known to be sold, but not yet transferred to, the Colombian Navy.

Quoted

Despite the long history of settlement, the historical and political point of view taught in those nations places the South African Empire as an interloper, controlling the valuable lands surrounding the Rio de la Plata to the economic determent of the peoples around, who are primarily of Iberian or native descent.

I'm not certain I agree that's true. Years ago there was an erroneous OOC opinion to that effect, generally held by previous players, but that OOC error seems to have been corrected and IC attitudes seem to have changed to match (possibly through a bit of a retcon).

Additionally, I note that this is incorrect:

Quoted

Grand Alliance:
The possibility of war is remote. Only France has local bases, Djibouti being the nearest. This base could conceivable be knocked-out by carrier raids and operations in the Red Sea would hamper reinforcements to Indochina. West African forces are unclear but like Britain any offensive action will rely on naval forces closer to their homelands. The Gulf of Guinea is most at risk but RSAN forces there are sufficient for adequate defense. A direct attack from Chad is unlikely but possible. Germany is building up a fleet capable of global operations but the lack of friendly bases in the African region suggest limited persistence and only token forces. For the threat from Atlantis see the NATO assessment above. SAE merchant traffic using the Red Sea/ Med would be halted.

Since this is being presented in the aspect of a late 1941 date, the Grand Alliance wouldn't have formed yet: it was still FAR.

Quoted

Grand Alliance:
A direct attack from Chad is unlikely but possible.

Mmm... I'd have said completely impossible, frankly. In theory, local commanders could try to attack, but it would be pretty easily defeated and futile. There are no roads leading overland from Niger to Tchad, and so any attack would be starting off approximately 1,200 miles from the closest railhead.

This is, incidentally, why I'm hawking Tchad off to the British. Their railheads are closer and they can better assert control of the region. (I might have considered offering it to the SAE, but the SAE has nothing worth trading for. While it'd be nice to have Mauritius and Reunion back, I figured they're now viewed as too integral to the empire, since the RSAN named battleships after them...)

Echoing Bruce and Jason:

Quoted

"A basing rights treaty with the United Kingdom ensures that the SAE would be able to field commerce raiders worldwide...".

If true, this would be a most lamentable violation of British principles.

A couple of things of note.

The Americans are mentioned a lot here, the US really hasn't gotten involved much in South America aside from some armament sales, commercial involvements, and a purchase from Argentina which isn't around in 1941. I suppose Johannesburg could view Washington's attitude as cooling, but that relationship is still relatively warm in 1941. Sure the Americans have sold armaments to ABC which in some quarters could be viewed as shady countries. I do recall Johannesburg selling armaments to China which in some quarters is viewed as a shady country. Business is business though. And Washington prefers an independent, peaceful stable ABC over a Johannesburg dominated South America. The latter is for obvious reasons not in Washington's interests or the interests of Wall Street anymore than a Madrid dominated Central and South America.

Argueably Atlantis is the greater potential threat to the SAE rather than the US for a variety of reasons. I find it interesting that wasn't mentioned much at all.

I'm glad the report has been useful Hoo. It's great to see this in a professional PDF form!

Some notes and comments on points raised thus far.

1) Australia does seem to have been overlooked. For my part I probably thought in terms of a unified Commonwealth threat to SAE rather than individual. I don't consider an Oz-SAE war particularly likely, an Oz-SAE-Bahrat War even less so, an Oz-SAE-Netherlands (AEGIS) war would be very unlikely without UK assistance which probably would be lacking. That said some kind of threat assessment should probably be added to the South-West SAE threat assessments.

2) 1941 Data. Actually I wrote this around last Christmas so the report is more like 1943 data (hence the inclusion of the GA) but the state of some encyclopaedia entries etc. made some recent data harder to obtain. Any omissions are mine of course. I'm sure Hoo will update as time goes on.

3) "A basing rights treaty with the United Kingdom ensures that the SAE would be able to field commerce raiders worldwide..." I did not write this and can only assume Kirk or Hoo added it. I don't know where this came from but its the first I've ever heard of it. I can say the UK would not allow this. It's possible Kirk meant United Kingdom of the Netherlands I suppose...

4) I subscribe to the new Grand Uruguay population theories of the board. So much so I have stated to Hoo that the whole Argentina seeking Uruguayan independence thing that started the 1935 War is in reality a nonsense since the Uruguayan's are more Afrikkans than Iberia in descent, culture and language although we did agree along the border areas there would be a considerable intermingling of cultures a bit like central Europe.

5) Good point about Chad Brock. Generally I feel the SAE is quite secure in Africa due to the harsh terrain. With 1940s technology fighting any kind of invasion of SAE or vice versa would be hazardous without particular attention to varying rainy seasons and conditions. It's a real mixed bag.

6) I figured the main US threat would be via NATO if there ever was a war involving NATO. The USN would be the straw to break the camel's back. Atlantis is tricky to ascertain, yes it has considerable dealings with Argentina and was a leaning-neutral during the 1935 War but its South American concerns are more in the north and facing Iberian threats.

I would say overall from my impression that the SAE is sitting pretty. It doesn't really face serious threats to the homeland and can defend what its got. Whether anyone really wants to take what its got is open to question. Getting to the SAE to take the war directly to the people and/or invade to enforce a settlement (although destroying the RSAN could achieve that) is hard work. Any major SAE war I think would resemble a kind of OTL Pacific War type scenario of stepping stones and gradual noose tightening.

Am I blind, or can it be, that the word "China" doesn't occurs once in the report ?

A phantastic report. Guys, you did a great job !!!!

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
3) "A basing rights treaty with the United Kingdom ensures that the SAE would be able to field commerce raiders worldwide..." I did not write this and can only assume Kirk or Hoo added it. I don't know where this came from but its the first I've ever heard of it. I can say the UK would not allow this. It's possible Kirk meant United Kingdom of the Netherlands I suppose...

Thank you for clarifying this point. The thought that it could refer to the Netherlands had crossed my mind, but the report is elsewhere fairly consistent in referring to "the United Kingdom of the Netherlands".

The concern, however, remains. Any neutral who chooses to harbor the warships of a belligerent would contravene the practices of international law and leave itself open to retaliation in some shape or form.

Arguably Hood that impression can be made on most countries in Wesworld. For most countries they are able to either defend what they have against a potential aggresor or bring allies to the table that make invading them not worth the effort.

[Thank you all for your feedback. I will answer asap. One important note: I consider the assessment IC but highly confidential of course. It will help me to plan my next steps. Meanwhile...]

Reorganization of the RSAN EoY42
1942 saw several new units join the Royal South African Navy while old ones were decommissioned and sold for scrap. To integrate new units and to take into account results from the latest strategic assessment several units were redeployed or reactivated.

In South Africa the capital ship force of 4th Battle Squadron was enlarge by integration of the newly commissioned RSAN Thunderer of the Superb class and her semi-sister RSAN Behemoth of the Leviathan class, the latter becoming the new fleet flagship of First Fleet because of her enlarged communication equipment and staff facilities. 6th Battle Squadron, deployed to the Indian Ocean and operating out of Daressalam, saw RSAN Superb commissioned as fleet flagship for the Eastern Fleet. She will serve as flagship until RSAN Leviathan, namesake ship of her class, will join 6th BS in 1943.

A new fleet carrier, RSAN Helspanth, has been deployed to 4th Carrier Squadron operating in the Indian Ocean, adding 80+ aircrafts of the latest type.

During the strategic assessment it became obvious coast-guard forces and the Special Operations Flotilla may require some back-up from a powerful CDS. As a result the 4th Coast-Guard Flotilla, composed of RSAN Gungnir and two PC22 class armored patrol crafts, was send north from South Africa. To compensate the loss of these vessels for fishery patrols RSAN Lorelei (5th CG) deployed to Cape Town.

Escort forces in South America saw a second division with two Mountain class frigates added to 1st Escort Flotilla. Additionally 11th Minesweeper Flotilla was newly raised. The unit will finally be made of eight Centaur class minesweepers but in 1942 only one such vessel commissioned.

A second new minesweeper unit was added to the OOB of Northern Fleet in Cameroon. 12th Minesweeping Flotilla is made of twelve new 200 ton coastal minesweepers of the MSC41 class. 3rd Minesweeper Flotilla, formerly part of the Northern Fleet, is now deployed to First Fleet in order to answer the strategic assessment where a lack of minesweeping vessels in South Africa was identified.

Following the decision to decommission and to get rid of the old 1926er submarine chasers six UJ26 class were sold for scrap. Three were originally listed as part of 2nd ASW Flotilla in South Africa while the other three came from the 4th ASW Flotilla of Eastern Fleet. The crews were used to commission the first six units of the new UJ42 class which form 10th ASW Flotilla in South America now.

The line-up of light forces in South America was further modified by selling the first six R28 class motor launches (4 from 2nd, 2 from 3rd R Boat Flotilla) for scrap while their crews were used to form the nucleus of the newly created 7th R Boat Flotilla which is currently made up of nine brand new R42 class boats but will finally reach a strength of 12 units. Finally a new river gun boat of the second General class (design RGB42A) was added to the 2nd Gun Boat Flotilla.

The submarine force was boosted in 1942 by integrating the latest two P class coastal mine subs to 6th U Boat Flotilla in Montevideo and the second unit of the large ocean-going Q class mine subs to 8th U Boat Flotilla in Daressalam, answering the need for some mine laying capacity in the Indian Ocean area.

Furthermore the RSAN saw the resurrection of 5th U Boat Flotilla with the first T class fleet submarine in Cameroon and of 4th U Boat Flotilla in South America (currently one R class coastal submarine). In return the last three units of the old F class boats were scrapped.

I know that Atlantis and the SAE have a non aggression pact set up but if the SAE is making battle plans vs. The Netherlands as an unlikely scenario, surely an Atlantean war plan black would prudent?

Thank you all for your feedback.
I will try to address your points where possible. Glad you liked the read...

@Desertfox - Yes, Australia is missing in the Assessment as a stand-alone (not part of the Commonwealth), overlooked somehow. Hood explained his point of view. It might be interesting to hear Kirk on it. But I assume the answer is almost the same: An Oz-SAE conflict is highly unlikely and from my very personal point of view Oz alone offers no threat to the SAE. There is no land border, distance is too long for airplanes of the era and Australia's navy is not powerful enough to cover a landing force that is more than a minor distraction.

@Rocky - Subsequent developments would be interesting to cover. The date of the report is late ' 42 from my point of view. So there are a few things now that WesWorld already entered 1944 for some players (still stuck in 1943 for others - see current China/Chosen conflict). The land swap in Africa is one such thing, said conflict in Asia another. However, I do not intend to update that assessment every so often. The report provides me a new base to go from there...

@Bruce - Yes, please consider this report OOC only. The assessment is IC for my purpose but other WesWorld nation should not be aware of it. The point about basing rights and commerce raiding needs more attention.

The SAE has a treaty with the UK about basing rights for naval assets, warships first place. Kirk read from this, that the SAE can field commerce raiders worldwide, but he (and James) missed the point why the SAE really aimed for that treaty. The SAE has no intention of sending commerce raiders all over the world and the SAE also has no interest in using the Falklands or Walvis Bay. But British bases on the Arabian peninsula (Aden etc.) come in handy when the RSAN is operating around the Red Sea. As pointed out elsewhere in the assessment the RSAN would be forced to operate a fleet about 2,500 miles from major bases. With the British bases nearby this is no longer necessary.
Now, to what extend those bases are available in times of crisis depends on the situation, I assume. But that's what that treaty is for. In peace times ships can usually be refueled and repaired in any port anyway. So the SAE relies on the British to hold their word and allow RSAN units to use British bases. How this collides with international law (which law btw) is a matter of debate.

@Brock - Thanks for your corrections. I rate those differences as a matter of intel data quality. :o) In fact, the date of the assessment is late '42 because that is where I halted posting reports etc. while waiting on assessment results. All data on the SAE is from 1940/41. But other data may be of different date as WesWorld went on during the time while content was written. Not all news pieces about cruisers, OOB modifications etc. have been considered, I guess. Would you rate those difference critical with high impact on the assessment? IMHO it is correct to address the Grand Alliance instead of FAR by late 1942. Am I wrong?

The "interloper" part is, as I read it, still valid. Although we agreed the Urus are more Afrikaans in origin than Iberian or Indian and the society in Grand Uruguay is thus not seeking independance from SAE mother land or falling apart, Gran Uruguay is still a good focus for people/politicians that want to distract from other things, like social issues or bad economy news. That is my personal take on the issue, however, and Kirk - who wrote it - may have had different thoughts.

@TheCanadian - The US Americans are mentioned so often because the USA made some statements in the past that have not been forgotten. There are also severl arms deals etc. I agree to "business is business". :o) But statements like "Washington prefers an independent, peaceful stable ABC over a Johannesburg dominated South America." reveal that the USA have a special interest in the region and so they have to be taken into account. There have never been any posts about the SAE (Pretoria, not Johannesburg) seeking domination in South America. If that paranoid assumption drives US foreign policy, the SAE might be well advised to keep an eye on USA interference in South America in general.

Why do you find it interesting Atlantis was not mentioned much? What do you read from it?

@Hood - Thanks for providing your point of view. I still hope Kirk will join the discussion and provide some more insight into his thinking. Not sure about the "stepping stones". As agreed there are few options to bring war to the SAE main land from inside Africa. And stepping stones, to bring war to the SAE from outside, there are few too. In fact, I think the situation of the SAE differs much from Japan in OTL.

@Parador - Indeed, China has not been adressed. But how would you like to see it mentioned? The SAE acts as an arms dealer on the Asian market, but there is no overlapping in our spheres of interest and no treaty binding the SAE/China.

@Wes - Yes, Atlantis has been ignored and I don't know why. Although Atlantis' interests may lay further north than SAE there still is an option spheres of interest collide. In that case Atlantis' commercial and military power will be feld in the SAE quite heavily. In fact, Atlantis' nayy alone is as large or larger than the RSAN and Atlantis can focus it on the South Atlantic while the RSAN also has to cover the Indian Ocean (at least to some degree). Atlantis is the only nation that can almost certainly pose a real threat to SAE South Atlantic traffic.

Perhaps James and Kirk can explain why they have not assessed a potential SAE-Atlantis conflict.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
The SAE has a treaty with the UK about basing rights for naval assets, warships first place. Kirk read from this, that the SAE can field commerce raiders worldwide, but he (and James) missed the point why the SAE really aimed for that treaty. The SAE has no intention of sending commerce raiders all over the world and the SAE also has no interest in using the Falklands or Walvis Bay. But British bases on the Arabian peninsula (Aden etc.) come in handy when the RSAN is operating around the Red Sea. As pointed out elsewhere in the assessment the RSAN would be forced to operate a fleet about 2,500 miles from major bases. With the British bases nearby this is no longer necessary.
Now, to what extend those bases are available in times of crisis depends on the situation, I assume. But that's what that treaty is for. In peace times ships can usually be refueled and repaired in any port anyway. So the SAE relies on the British to hold their word and allow RSAN units to use British bases. How this collides with international law (which law btw) is a matter of debate.

UK, or UKN? The way I understood Hood's comments earlier, he seemed to say that the British weren't going to allow South African ships access to their bases. Yet you're talking about using British bases in Aden, which seems directly contradictory to what I think Hood said... Nor can I find any treaty posts where Britain agreed to such a concession.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
@Brock - Thanks for your corrections. I rate those differences as a matter of intel data quality. :o) In fact, the date of the assessment is late '42 because that is where I halted posting reports etc. while waiting on assessment results. All data on the SAE is from 1940/41. But other data may be of different date as WesWorld went on during the time while content was written. Not all news pieces about cruisers, OOB modifications etc. have been considered, I guess. Would you rate those difference critical with high impact on the assessment? IMHO it is correct to address the Grand Alliance instead of FAR by late 1942. Am I wrong?

Ah; I'm just commenting on the fact that the data is fairly obviously gleaned from across several different years, and a significant fraction of it postdated what I'd understood the date of your assessment to be. Specifically, you asked about French forces in Tchad in late 1941, so I presumed that was when you set the assessment. Speaking solely for myself, I don't see any places where the data on my forces would significantly alter the balance, though.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
The "interloper" part is, as I read it, still valid. Although we agreed the Urus are more Afrikaans in origin than Iberian or Indian and the society in Grand Uruguay is thus not seeking independance from SAE mother land or falling apart, Gran Uruguay is still a good focus for people/politicians that want to distract from other things, like social issues or bad economy news. That is my personal take on the issue, however, and Kirk - who wrote it - may have had different thoughts.

I suppose there would be the possibility of seeing the SAE as an interloper, given the right impetus, but there is no evidence that such a belief is held presently. But after the last time we hashed this out, after you clarified better the origin of the SAE/Gran Uruguay, I and the other ABC players changed both our IC and OOC opinions to fall in line with the new information you presented. I'd agree that there's the possibility that the SAE would be perceived as an interloper, and I'd say the SAE could perceive that it is being treated as an interloper, but I as the Chilean player say that Chile, at the very least, does not generally see the SAE in this light.

I agree on your statement regarding "interloper". It is a possibility.

With the UKN SAE has a full fledged alliance. With the British United Kingdom there is a treaty about basing rights.

I guess I have to clarify with Hood. There is no purpose in having such treaty if the RSAN cannot use British bases when they need them - which is what I read from Hoods general comment above too.

EDIT: I just noted the treaty was agreed between RLBH and myself in 1934. I mentioned the treaty in my Q3/34 news. IIRC a full text of the treaty was never put together and released.

EDIT2: It was also mentioned in the British news in 1934 .

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
With the UKN SAE has a full fledged alliance. With the British United Kingdom there is a treaty about basing rights.

I guess I have to clarify with Hood. There is no purpose in having such treaty if the RSAN cannot use British bases when they need them - which is what I read from Hoods general comment above too. He either changed his mind or there is a misunderstanding...

*Shrugs.* Well, when the topic came up earlier in the thread, I did a search through all of the known treaties in Wesworld, and I didn't see any statements about the British extending basing rights to the South Africans; perhaps there is one somewhere that I missed, or perhaps there is a misunderstanding. I'll wait to hear how it's resolved before jumping to conclusions. (I'm not contesting the Dutch basing rights; I've seen the treaty that permitted that.)

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
*Shrugs.* Well, when the topic came up earlier in the thread, I did a search through all of the known treaties in Wesworld, and I didn't see any statements about the British extending basing rights to the South Africans; perhaps there is one somewhere that I missed,

Please see my EDIT note above.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Please see my EDIT note above.

Hm. Seems that speaks for itself.

At the same time, that treaty could only come into play in wartime if the British were an active co-belligerent to the SAE. Otherwise, the 1907 Hague Convention Concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War comes into play, specifically:

Quoted

Article 5. Belligerents are forbidden to use neutral ports and waters as a base of naval operations against their adversaries, and in particular to erect wireless telegraphy stations or any apparatus for the purpose of communicating with the belligerent forces on land or sea.
Article 8. A neutral Government is bound to employ the means at its disposal to prevent the fitting out or arming of any vessel within its jurisdiction which it has reason to believe is intended to cruise, or engage in hostile operations, against a Power with which that Government is at peace. It is also bound to display the same vigilance to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise, or engage in hostile operations, which had been adapted entirely or partly within the said jurisdiction for use in war.
Article 12. In the absence of special provisions to the contrary in the legislation of a neutral Power, belligerent war-ships are not permitted to remain in the ports, roadsteads, or territorial waters of the said Power for more than twenty-four hours, except in the cases covered by the present Convention.
Article 13. If a Power which has been informed of the outbreak of hostilities learns that a belligerent war-ship is in one of its ports or roadsteads, or in its territorial waters, it must notify the said ship to depart within twenty-four hours or within the time prescribed by local regulations.
Article 14. A belligerent war-ship may not prolong its stay in a neutral port beyond the permissible time except on account of damage or stress of weather. It must depart as soon as the cause of the delay is at an end.

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Full Convention is here.

The Netherlands would of course also be bound by the Convention, as they were the power responsible for maintaining the register of powers which ratified the agreement, as well as keeping the original copy of the document. A list of the OTL signatories, and the date of their ratification, may be found here.

(Incidentally, Mexico is currently in the process of breaking other parts of this treaty in the other threads - so this is a particularly relevant topic to bring up at the moment. )

I can safely say I've entirely missed this when I went back over RLBH's news posts. It's existence changes my strategic appreciation as much as it does Hoo's. At the time I was an Argentinean player and probably thought the treaty was aimed at the forthcoming South American conflict.

It seems RLBH's treaty was linked to the ending of Italian and Iberian treaties and probably was meant as a poke in their eye. It sounds to me more like a peacetime routine access treaty than a wartime basing rights treaty. Since no wording exists that is something that should be decided between me and Hoo whether the Treaty still stands and if it does what it means.
I signed similar access deals with India under Peredor's stewardship but these have now lapsed.