I speak of the little squabble between your allies, China and Chosen. Since the conflict appears to be interminable, I have no idea when and how it will end; if it even does.Conflict in northeast Asia? What conflict in northeast Asia? I did not know that anyone was stupid enough to attack the Russians?Quoted
unless the conflict in northeast Asia escalates.
... well maybe Mexico would do that but I have not seen that in the news...
Quoted
Fleet exercises carried out in 1943 confirmed that capital ships cannot operate effectively without air cover, while a properly-handled group of aircraft carriers has nothing to fear from a surface battle group.
Quoted
Admiralstab has requested including of a further two large aircraft carriers in the 1945 construction programme. If acted upon, this would raise the size of the Kriegsmarine’s operational aircraft carrier force to twelve units by 1948
Quoted
The Kriegsmarine’s view of the role of the submarine has undergone several changes of emphasis in the preceding four years… defensive submarine warfare – characterised by the small coastal U-boat – is of diminishing importance… the commerce-raiding role of the U-boat arm had lost its importance to the sea-control role of the aircraft carrier task forces.
Quoted
The Admiralstab has taken the position that in peacetime available funding should be allocated to design of suitable craft for series production in time of war. Its stated intent is to commission in small numbers the most promising designs but minimise investment during peacetime.
Quoted
The last four years have seen the Kriegsmarine establish a strong amphibious warfare component, capable of lifting two brigades of landing troops simultaneously.
What is this "United Nations" you speak of? Is this some new supra-national player in the game?Not really. It is considered East Asia "as defined by the UN" (quoted from wiki).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Locati…Nsubregions.png
... so I guess your perspective does not match reality.
As for the conflict escalating... as long as it remains within the borders of Chosen and China and does not spill over the Line Of Death (= Japan-Taiwan-San Hainando) when it comes to Naval Warfare, it will be a well-contained conflict...
... but that is Japan's perspective I guess.
Quoted
What is the rationale for this powerful fleet? Whom is it defending against and what out of area operations does it seek to get involved in?
Quoted
How can Germany justify such a large fleet of offensive power sitting at anchor when it has no peacetime global role and no overseas bases and no reasonably-likely enemies to defend against?
Quoted
I would have expected the GA nations to have begun to rationalise their navies, but instead it seems all the GA navies are continuing to build up naval power regardless of existing forces and likely benefits each could bring to a combined taskforce. I wonder what Germany’s role is within such a GA taskforce?
Quoted
The capital ships entry refers to carriers being the best form of protection for capital ships (which I agree with) and that carrier groups need not fear surface groups. Yet they require submarine escort for long-range spotting and anti-surface roles to operate effectively. Suggesting that carriers are not the all-seeing and all-conquering forces the Admiralstab seek to justify hinging the Navy’s doctrine and building programmes on.
I would have expected the GA nations to have begun to rationalise their navies, but instead it seems all the GA navies are continuing to build up naval power regardless of existing forces and likely benefits each could bring to a combined taskforce.
Thanks Brock, I think I'm beginning to understand the GA rationale - I've been attempting to get my head around the GA for some time as to precisely what purpose it serves its members.
I had, perhaps misguidedly, assumed it was a unified defensive bloc along the lines of a proto-NATO (historical not WW) whereby its members not only had geographical zones (as SAER has) but also joint forces and some element of standard logistics being arranged over time. I guess having so much French-Russian-Atlantean co-operation and common equipment I felt that over time a set of standard calibres and equipment might appear but this appears not so.
While we have all talked much of demilitarisation in Europe there seems to be still over-large forces in Europe defending each other when in fact, like Germany, all potential enemies do not exist as such. It just seemed to me the KM is creating an Atlantic force without an Atlantic enemy. Germany's geographical location surrounded by allies and non-aligned but non-aggressive pact members seems to be among the safest nations in Northern Europe. To that end I would say Bruce has met his three objectives very well and without recourse to strong militarism. I was therefore wondering what out-of-area operations Germany intended or was hoping to prepare for but it seems from Brock's French perspective that an overseas role that Germany would be welcomed to attend is limited beyond a major war.
Rationalisation is evidently replacing older ships, but I was meaning more broadly as to whether there GA-wide fleet plans for nations to build and operate certain classes of vessel and undertake certain types of operations or to measure the sizes of fleets required by looking at what assets allies have. But that seems not to be so.
In view of the above and the safety of Europe being over-insured and war seemingly highly remote and that AEGIS has effectively ceased to exist, whether now there is the European willpower from all the major powers to come together and create a new European Cleito-style naval treaty (perhaps without building tonnage restrictions) to limit fleet sizes and reshape European naval power to ensure adequate defences for all and allow for more overseas basing?
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH