WesWorld

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

I imagine Germany trying to conquer Canada with sausages and proper beer.

German Army, strong like beer!

The louder Germany proclaims it's "force for peace in the world" rhetoric, while continuing to arm themselves to the teeth and expand their operations beyond purview of their own defense, the less sleep anyone in Toronto, Ottawa, Halifax, and other relevant munincipalities find themselves capable of.

But that's an issue for discussion elsewhere, I'm sure.

I'll encourage any dismissal of "Well, why build a Navy at all then?" arguments, having been on the receiving end of them before. National Defense is the number one obligation of a government, something to be pursued to the best of their ability....even if said ability may not be obviously whelming enough. Also, kind of boring from the gaming standpoint.

On another tangent, every discussion about Nordic capabilities and strategic aims seems to come down to a complete dismissal of Canada as a possible opponent, a view which Canada no doubt finds agreeable, but on an OOC note, I have to say is quite dangerous. You generally cite support from the Crown as a reason not to entertain any scenarios, simply because you feel there's no way to combat the British. If you view conflict with the Commonwealth at all likely, you should not be trying to match them on their terms, but rather examine asymmetric means of combat.

In short, you list a lot of difficulties to be overcome in various scenarios, but rather than attempting to find a way to work around them, your national policy is to hope they don't manifest, and give up if they do.

Using economic and manpower shortages as a reason to downsize the navy rings somewhat false when you then propose carriers as a viable substitution...Carriers are immensely expensive and manpower intensive, not just for the ships themselves, but for all the establishments that must be created, run, and maintained to support their existence.

I'll follow this up with pointing out there's nothing wrong with factoring cooperating with an allied force in your design philosophy; Canada has done this, but it has also made the best effort possible to ensure it's navy is also capable of operating independently. And that's with allies with far closer and reliable relationships than Nordmark has.

ShinRa_Inc wrote:

Quoted

The louder Germany proclaims it's "force for peace in the world" rhetoric, while continuing to arm themselves to the teeth and expand their operations beyond purview of their own defense, the less sleep anyone in Toronto, Ottawa, Halifax, and other relevant munincipalities find themselves capable of.

But that's an issue for discussion elsewhere, I'm sure.

Discuss it where you wish. :rolleyes:

Quoted from "ShinRa_Inc"

If you view conflict with the Commonwealth at all likely, you should not be trying to match them on their terms, but rather examine asymmetric means of combat..

Exactly correct.

You can also use carriers to do a hell of a lot of different things; an Air Group running patrol sweeps from their mobile base can cover a lot more sea than a squadron of anti-raider vessels, for instance.

Nordmark ranks its potential direct threats as, in decreasing order of plausibility...

1. Russian invasion over the Finnish border
2. Locally grown far-right coup attempt
3. Poland picking a fight in a fit of self-destructive paranoia
4. Danish invasion across the straits into southern Sweden
5. Supervillain rampaging through Stockholm with a titanic drill-spider mecha
6. Canada going insanely off the reservation and attacking Vinland without British approval
7. Invasion of Sapient Polar Bears sweeping down from the north
8. Actual straight-up conflict with Germany, France, the Commonwealth, or more than one of the above
9. The United States of America

and

10. Santa Claus

And rates an intervention in trouble the rest of the GNUK circle has gotten into as substantially more likely than any of those.

Looking at the Canadian OOB, since Canada seems to consider Scenario 6 more plausible than I do, I see a fleet balance of 3 CVs, 2 BBs, 4 CAs, 6 CLs, and 36 DDs between the Canadian Home and Atlantic fleets, vs Nordmark's 4 CVs, 8 CAs, 28 CLs, and 56 DDs available in the North Atlantic. These are, IMHO, perfectly reasonable odds for Nordmark to believe it can achieve victory.

A long runup to war, where both sides know to mobilize ahead of time, lets Canada bring in its Pacific fleet - another two CVs, 3 BCs, 4 CAs, 6 CLs, and 32 DDs - and its reserve of 1 CV, 5 CAs, and 6 CLs, but also allows Nordmark to reactivate 2 CVs, 5 BBs, 3 BCs, 16 CLs, and something like 40 DDs. Again, perfectly reasonable odds for Nordmark.

I'm inclined to think carriers are the more useful than capital ships in cases 5, 7, and 10, but profess no operational experience with these threats.

Quoted

5. Supervillain rampaging through Stockholm with a titanic drill-spider mecha

Sounds like

to me!

The more tasks you envision your carriers performing, the more expensive and manpower intensive they become; the differing aircrafts and armaments required, the specialized training for pilots and support crew, while diluting their strike power.

Canada prefers to accept various conflict scenarios as plausible, and plan accordingly, rather than dismiss them and find themselves in the unfortunate position of having them come to pass and being curb-stomped. But then again, most scenarios involve direct threat to the homeland, rather than more nebulous concerns like defending distant colonies and outposts.

It's also worth noting that your predecessor made a point of pursuing a nonaggression pact (which has since lapsed) with Canada first thing when it became playable, and was concerned enough to pursue an amendment that dictated fleet ratios in regards to basing in the Western Atlantic.

The force analysis is not quite as rosy when you look at the details...The Nordmark OOB is far out of date and not needs a lot of crosschecking to find out what's in the actual squadrons, but by and large most of the assets listed are older and smaller than the equivalent Canadian classes, especially the carriers (your primary assets) and CLs.

Yes, Nordmark's fleet pages are obsolete - that's one OOC reason for this new plan, since it cuts them down to a reasonable number of types for me to repost and track. For instance, the 30kton Gam class fleet carriers, already complete and in service, do not appear on them despite their having been designed, built, and paid for. The CLs and DDs will probably vary - fleet types, like the DD46s and the Luleas, will outgun their Canadian counterparts, while raiders won't. The same difference will show up on the flipside among CAs - the 21cm guns Nordmark uses as standard will leave the non-Serapis types convincingly outgunned.

All in all, it'd mostly come out in the wash.

I'm...not sure where you draw the conclusion that Nordmark's destroyers outgun RCN counterparts in anything other than number of barrels. The first batch of Tribals only have 4 guns, true, but still have a greater broadside weight than any of your DDs. There's a whole debate in the comparison of whether number of guns vs heavier guns, sure, but I would be very reluctant to make a blanket conclusion on superiority either way.

Likewise, The CA comparison is not quite as cut and dried, imho; The Ontarios are brand new, comparably armoured (or better), and they have the automatic 7.5" guns firing a superheavy shell. The Falun class has them outgunned, but they're more likely to have to deal with the my Frigates or capital ships.

Quoted from "ShinRa_Inc"

There's a whole debate in the comparison of whether number of guns vs heavier guns, sure, but I would be very reluctant to make a blanket conclusion on superiority either way.

This was more or less my entire point from the start. Nordmark cannot, with its current fleet mix, predict a conclusive victory over Canada. The reverse is also true.