German news and events, Q2, 1932

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Sunday, October 15th 2006, 9:14pm

Why should any signatory with a large fleet alotment - which it got for a good reason - give up its advantage over its advisories?

Those with a large fleet often also have to cover a wide area for which they need that fleet size because locally they want to be on even terms or at least close to with their opponents and they need to protect wide spread sea lanes. There is no reason why such a power should accept others that could pose a threat to become more powerful.

Go to the top of the page

Earl822

King of the Nords

Posts: 1,351

22

Sunday, October 15th 2006, 9:26pm

Unless they too recieve an increase in they're limitations

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

23

Sunday, October 15th 2006, 10:21pm

OOC: The Government of Atlantis would agree for the most part with the SAE. Several nations have good reason to request greater limits but this certainly wouldn't warrent all nations under a certain teir recieving greater limits.

This would greater pressure on the upper teir nations who have already taken huge cuts to their fleets.

A general reduction or increase for all signatory's with some nations possibly recieving proper parity with others would be the only acceptable solution. A general increase in limits for all nations would seem to go against the very nature of a "limitations" treaty.

Those nations wishing to increase their limits would first need to demonstrate the need for this.

I also think its about time Turkey examined the possibility of joining the CT, while Atlantis would explore the possibility of nations allocated "Greek limits" should be able to leave the treaty if threatened by smaller nations or as Germany suggested, remove Greek limits from the treaty alltogeather.

Go to the top of the page

ShinRa_Inc

Mad Scientist at Work

Posts: 4,307

24

Monday, October 16th 2006, 2:06am

I think the upcoming cowes conference will be about as big an event as the copenhagen conference; it might be useful to similarly create a seperate section of the forums for it, or at least a single thread. Canada will have an opening statement for the conference when I get around to writing it <<

Go to the top of the page

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

25

Monday, October 16th 2006, 9:46am

To: Foreign Ministry, Berlin
From: D Grandi, Roma

Although Italy finds your proposal interesting, it can never be accepted as at a single stroke it vastly changes the balance of power in the Meditterenean. Any increase in limits for any power is unacceptable for Italy. We wish either for lower limits or retention of the status quo ante. Perhaps lower limits overall on a sliding scale from the largest countries downwards?

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

26

Tuesday, October 17th 2006, 2:15am

OOC:...just when I acctually thought I might agree with Italy....

Quoted

Perhaps lower limits overall on a sliding scale from the largest countries downwards?

It seems Italy is not content with losing some of its stranglehold on smaller nations yet thinks its perfectly fine for larger ones to do just that.

Go to the top of the page

Ithekro

Sage

Posts: 3,661

27

Tuesday, October 17th 2006, 2:23am

Britian has shown the way by reducing its limits.

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

28

Tuesday, October 17th 2006, 2:48am

As has America, Atlantis, Russia and the SAE "on a sliding scale from the largest countries downwards".

Go to the top of the page

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

29

Tuesday, October 17th 2006, 12:30pm

Quoted

It seems Italy is not content with losing some of its stranglehold on smaller nations yet thinks its perfectly fine for larger ones to do just that.

A 25% for the largest country to 10% for the smallest still means that the largest are most powerful. However it makes more sense to do it by hull numbers and adopt 30,000tons per hull uniformly;

old hulls > new hulls > new tonnage
4 > 3 > 90,000
6 > 5 > 150,000
8 > 6 > 180,000
9 > 7 > 210,000
12 > 9 > 280,000
14 > 11 > 330,000
16 > 12 > 360,000

Go to the top of the page

RLBH

Professional

Posts: 762

30

Tuesday, October 17th 2006, 2:20pm

OOC:

Quoted

Originally posted by Ithekro
Britian has shown the way by reducing its limits.

And isn't likely to do much more unless everyone else does so on a pro rata basis.

Go to the top of the page

Hrolf Hakonson

Scooby-Doo

Posts: 6,178

31

Tuesday, October 17th 2006, 3:37pm

Arguably, from the standpoint of the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth actually GAINED tonnage allocation from the shift of tonnage from the UK to Canada and Australia. After all, the Canadian/Australian limits are 85,000 tons of capital ships, while the UK limits went down by only 60,000 tons each time, for a net gain to the Commonwealth of 50,000 tons.

Go to the top of the page

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

32

Tuesday, October 17th 2006, 4:14pm

I like to point out that a general decrease of hull numbers and size per hull favours those powers not yet fielding many larger units, powers that concentrated on other assets so far - such as Italy with its AC concepts.

Once the units laid down lately the RSAN will field two ships of slightly over 30kts and 6 of more than 36kts. Those alone acount for more than 360kts of capital ship tonnage. So the RSANs newest 8 hulls already consume more than the 330kts allowed under Italy´s latest proposal. The rest is mathematics and a strategical desaster in a world where even third tier navies have capital ships.

Do I need to say more? The SAE will not support such a proposal if not every single power owning a capital ship is forced to sign and accept then-to-be-negotiated limits.

Go to the top of the page

Ithekro

Sage

Posts: 3,661

33

Tuesday, October 17th 2006, 5:14pm

OOC:

Didn't the London Treaty reduce the number of battleships a country could have historically? Somehow I recall Florida and Utah were part of the 1930 cuts in capital ship numbers for the United States...and I think Thunderer and Tiger for Britian.

Go to the top of the page

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

34

Tuesday, October 17th 2006, 6:35pm

In that case only the status quo ante is left, as Italy will veto any move to higher limits for any power at Spithead.

Go to the top of the page

Hrolf Hakonson

Scooby-Doo

Posts: 6,178

35

Tuesday, October 17th 2006, 7:21pm

Heh, all this will make for a short meeting, at least.

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

36

Wednesday, October 18th 2006, 2:03am

Atlantis would have to agree with Germany and the SAE, we could never accept the preposal by Italy because it would simply serve to benifit Great Britain, the commonwealth as a whole and Italy.

These nations enjoy various naval and political treatys that further increase the benifits of narrowing the tonnage gaps with other nations.

France would be at an even greater disadvantage vs. its comparative neighbour Italy who I might add has less territorial demands placed on its fleet that the French.

That is simply unacceptable....

Go to the top of the page

Hrolf Hakonson

Scooby-Doo

Posts: 6,178

37

Wednesday, October 18th 2006, 1:01pm

June 29, 1932 - Berlin

An agreement has been signed with the Bulgarian government covering the licensing of the T-1 torpedoboat design, and the potential sale of the battleship Helgoland. If the sale is completed, transfer to Bulgarian ownership would happen after the new year.

June 29, 1932 - Berlin

A proposal has been received by the Kreigsmarine from the Austrian Witkowitz firm to supply armor for future KM ships. To this point, all armor has been supplied by Krupp, but with the impending union between Germany and Austria the Austrian firm has seen a new market appear. It is expected that Krupp will try to hold onto its monopoly, whether it succeeds or not will only be known in the future. Krupp's monopoly is under attack from multiple directions, as Rheinmetall has been aggressively moving it's guns into KM service and is known to be working on projectile designs for guns it did not build.

Go to the top of the page

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

38

Wednesday, October 18th 2006, 2:19pm

Were Witkowitz still in business by the early 30s? The only Eastern European armour manfacturer of this period I can think of are the Czechs, who had large orders of thin plates for the UK, quality was insufficient in the thick plates compared to British own-made.

Quoted

That is simply unacceptable....

See my previous point.

Italy will send a delegate to Spithead, but don't expect them to say anything.

Go to the top of the page

Hrolf Hakonson

Scooby-Doo

Posts: 6,178

39

Wednesday, October 18th 2006, 3:19pm

Quoted

Were Witkowitz still in business by the early 30s? The only Eastern European armour manfacturer of this period I can think of are the Czechs, who had large orders of thin plates for the UK, quality was insufficient in the thick plates compared to British own-made.

According to Nathan Okun, Witkowitz was delivering armor plate to the UK during 1938-39. See here for details.

Go to the top of the page

WesWorld

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted