WesWorld

Gents,

I've taken up playing the Ottoman Empire in the Navalism 6 reboot.

The POD is that the Ottomans successfully start the transition to a parliamentary democracy in 1876, and so are in better economic, geographical, and political shape than historical; in contrast, Austria-Hungary goes downhill and has just (1900) been dismembered by Germany and others.

So I'm looking at an Ottoman Empire with the equivalent of 4.5 factories and, for now, the recently-added capability of building stuff up to pre-dreadnoughts. I'll be a bit slow adapting new tech, but could credibly build Nassau-style dreadnoughts - albeit no more than two at a time. In the 1910s, I should be able to catch up technologically, and increase my production capacity to the equivalent of around 8-10 factories.

The empire controls Libya, Egypt (less the actual Suez Canal), Sudan, Eritrea, its historical Asian holdings, and most of the Balkans (including Croatia, B-H, a grumpy Serbia, and Bulgaria). A lot of land.

Alliances are currently generally historical - Germany and Italy, France and Russia. Ottomans are orbiting Germany but there's a bit of friction with Italy, Britain and the Entente are circling each other a bit. We've agreed that the Russians and Otttomans don't like each other but no blows have been struck.

My question to you, then is: Given the limited production capability I have, and responsibilities in the Black Sea, Red Sea, Persian Gulf, Adriatic, Aegean, and Med - should I:

-Maintain the default approach of a balanced battlefleet capable of knocking heads with the Italian Navy or the Russia Black Sea Fleet

-Maintain a modest fleet-in-being but focus on sea-denial assets like torpedo-boats and submarines to keep enemies away from my coast

-Drop any notion of battlefleets and focus on the small stuff?

Any thoughts, input, or questions are welcomed.

-Maintain a modest fleet-in-being but focus on sea-denial assets like torpedo-boats and submarines to keep enemies away from my coast

It might be my preference for lighter ships and peruvian psycology but I say that is the best option, still keep some battleships if only to have a "heavy reserve" to be used as needed

Quoted from "Doorcf"

-Maintain a modest fleet-in-being but focus on sea-denial assets like torpedo-boats and submarines to keep enemies away from my coast

Without knowing the Navalism6 strength of Russia, I'd probably agree. I think the stronger the Ottomans appear to get, the higher they would rise on Russia's "problems to be eliminated" list. And so I think it would behoove the Ottomans to look, so to speak, like too much trouble to take out easily, and not strong enough to be a deadly peril at Russia's throat. Since Austria-Hungary has broken up, Russia will not have as much of a local counterbalance in the Balkans, and the Slavs there probably don't give a shake if the Ottomans are reformed or not; ten years of being nice doesn't erase four hundred years of terror and oppression...

Quoted from "Brockpaine"

Quoted from "Doorcf"

-Maintain a modest fleet-in-being but focus on sea-denial assets like torpedo-boats and submarines to keep enemies away from my coast

Without knowing the Navalism6 strength of Russia, I'd probably agree. I think the stronger the Ottomans appear to get, the higher they would rise on Russia's "problems to be eliminated" list. And so I think it would behoove the Ottomans to look, so to speak, like too much trouble to take out easily, and not strong enough to be a deadly peril at Russia's throat. Since Austria-Hungary has broken up, Russia will not have as much of a local counterbalance in the Balkans, and the Slavs there probably don't give a shake if the Ottomans are reformed or not; ten years of being nice doesn't erase four hundred years of terror and oppression...

True dat!

Also, given the wide range of Ottoman commitments, its industrial capacity is far too little to afford the construction and maintenance of a fleet of sufficient size to deter more than one of its potential enemies, and such a fleet could only be in one place at once.

Better to maintain sufficient naval deterrents in several of the areas of operation (Black Sea, Aegean, Persian Gulf) and hope that you can stand on the sidelines when your other potential enemies go to war with each other.

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

Also, given the wide range of Ottoman commitments, its industrial capacity is far too little to afford the construction and maintenance of a fleet of sufficient size to deter more than one of its potential enemies, and such a fleet could only be in one place at once.

Yeah, you don't want this to be the last conversation you hear... ;)

Quoted

Russia: "Hey Italy, can you make some trouble for the Couch Potatoes in Libya? When the Couches look your way, I'll liberate Bulgaria. In exchange, I'll distract them while you pick up Libya."
Italy: "Hey, o-kay!"
Britain: "Now wait a minute, lads, that's not very sporting!"
Italy: "We'll let you have the rest of Egypt..."
Russia: "And Sudan, if you can take it. It's a bit too far for me."
Britain: "Oh... well then... *ahem* give me a few minutes to foment something appropriate for the press."
Russia: "Okay, that's alright by us."
Italy: "Tell us when you're ready."
Britain: "Okay, got it!"
Ottomans: "Well, [bleep] my life..."

I'd have to say I agree with Brock, build a modest fleet but nothing that makes you look like a huge threat for Russia. For the ottoman empire to survive longer than it did it will need to reform faster than historical yet maintain a military stronger than historical as well. Historically the ottomans showed that they could defend themselves well with modest forces, good examples are the mine layer Nusret and the the Yavus causing all kinds of grief for the allies around the time of Gallipoli. With the proper reforms they could form a formidable army, navy and air force.

Yes, I think a littoral fleet makes more sense with perhaps some armoured cruisers as back-up.