WesWorld

In Q3/37 the war will be over so that should not cause problems regarding delivery....

And SAE wont be caught in the middle of re-armament?

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
I believe that you are wrong for the following reasons:

1) There are a number of nations that have interests in the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean that cant force the Persian Gulf

2) Persia is unlikely to be in a one on one war, any war is likely to be an alliance war

3) A war in this area is not going to primarily a war of Battle lines and Carrier groups but a war of sealanes either defending or attacking them.

4) Since Persia can not build a modern Capital ship a CVL becomes a cheap force multiplier

That's fine, you can disagree with me - it's your navy. I'm just trying to offer some constructive criticism to help you make it better.

Point four is the only point I really have issue with. As of Q3/36, Persia's ORBAT claims you have one CA, two CL (really more DDLs in my view), four destroyers, and two more DDs on the ways. The cruiser you're looking to convert to a CVL appears to be 5,161 tons in its current incarnation, with 700 tons of miscellaneous weight assigned. This IS good for 24 aircraft according to our formula, however, I have a bit of skepticism about it.

In our timeline, the American Casablanca-class escort carriers are the closest in size to what you're trying to achieve. They were listed at carrying 28 aircraft... on a hull that was basically minimalist: despite being fifteen feet more beamy and four thousand tons heavier at full load, they only ran at twenty knots, whereas you're hoping this ship will run at thirty. Technically the rules might permit it and let you run the aircraft off the deck, but I confess I'm skeptical of a five thousand ton CVL being capable of flying off an air wing 85% the size of a Casablanca air wing despite being 50% smaller in weight, 15' narrower in beam, and meant to run 33% faster.

These factors lead me to believe that your current carrier conversion is far too small to provide the kind of air power you'd need to carry out the mission you apparently want it to do.

Furthermore, a carrier will require escorts to protect against submarines, surface ships, and aircraft. Your current surface forces, IMHO, might be sufficient - but that leaves them doing nothing else but escort work. IMHO, you're robbing yourself of valuable forces, clustering them up in a task force which, whatever successes it manages to make, will sooner or later end up getting annihilated. In that event, you have neither a blue water navy since it got sunk, nor a green water navy since it got ignored to build the blue water navy.

I don't think a Persian carrier is entirely a bad idea. I just don't think it's a good idea right now. I'd be building up my coast defense forces and collecting a fleet of possible escorts to run with a CVL. Your allies already have carriers which CAN do the job, so there's not a desperate hurry. Build stuff which ADDs to the Persian fleet and fills the role the Persian navy ought to be filling.

As I said before, if I were looking to war with Persia, there's nothing I'd rather see the Persian Navy building for my own ships to sink.

I will repeat: it's your navy, and it's your decision, but I think the plan is unsound at this point.

I am trying to understand your position.

I agree that the Isfahans are really DDL´s but they were built before my time.

So what can the Persian navy hope to achieve in case of war? If the UK is involved, die valiantly the heavy fortifications at the mouth of the gulf preclude any attempt to enter or exist the Persian Gulf.

Persia can not match the build up of hostile forces in the Caspian Sea.

That leaves any forces that are based outside those areas to operate as support for other allied forces.

A build up of a brown water navy would not be able to operate in any useful way in support of allied forces nor can they ever hope to challenge the potential adversaries.

But I am open to suggestion, how does MTBs challenge the Royal Navy its only potential adversary? it also carries a political price to build a navy that can only be used against one other country. I a few years Yemen and Saudi Arabia may build up their fleet with continued UKN/Turkish supplied ships.

I go back to the suggestion I offered before: build four more Vouruskashas, two more Burijas, and then build two new CLs - perhaps the Indian Ahmadabad design. Also, build some submarines, perhaps coastal 500-ton boats.

For that matter, copy the Indian Navy's daakuui instead of Burijas and Ahmadabads.

The Burijas were built specifically to escort the Kaveh so no more of those.

And what will be the mission for the four DD´s and two Cls?

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
And what will be the mission for the four DD´s and two Cls?

Depends on who SATSUMA's going to fight. Against the SAE or Italy, you can join Indian task forces to bolster ASW and AAW coverage, or patrol against enemy submarines. They can do trade protection or intercept oil tankers in the Straights of Hormuz. They can scout for an allied battle fleet if one forms up. They can cover coastal or oceanic convoys. They can bombard coastal targets in Saudi Arabia. They can destroy MTBs in the Persian Gulf. They can guard a cross-Gulf invasion convoy.

But you just said that forces operating outside the Gulf are target practice? And yet you find the idea of spending ~20,000 tons ( 4x 1600tons + 2 x 6-8000tons) a good idea but spending 3-3,500 tons on a CVE a bad idea?

I was referring to your current forces. You'd need to build more escorts in any case - why not build them first? That way, when or if you build or convert a carrier, she comes into the fleet already having her escorts on hand and roughly practiced. Building the carrier first, and clumping up all your escorts to guard the investment... that's putting the priorities backwards.

That's the problem I have with Bulgaria. I got overexcited starting the game, and ordered two CLs straight off the bat. What I should have done was order four DDs and some more support ships - MTBs, MSWs, and subchasers. Now my CLs are nearly done and I have to build DDs to escort them, or risk the investment without having a proper escort.

If I had run the DDs first, I could have finished them by Q3/36 (I picked up Bulgarian in Q3/35) and I'd have a load of MSWs and MTBs on the slips, prior to ordering a set of CLs. But now I'm having to work around DD production.

A CVE is easy meat and rather limited in its capability's (particularily this design) when compaired to escorts.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
I was referring to your current forces. You'd need to build more escorts in any case - why not build them first? That way, when or if you build or convert a carrier, she comes into the fleet already having her escorts on hand and roughly practiced. Building the carrier first, and clumping up all your escorts to guard the investment... that's putting the priorities backwards.

This is something the Chileans (both players) figured out.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
I was referring to your current forces. You'd need to build more escorts in any case - why not build them first? That way, when or if you build or convert a carrier, she comes into the fleet already having her escorts on hand and roughly practiced. Building the carrier first, and clumping up all your escorts to guard the investment... that's putting the priorities backwards.

This is something the Chileans (both players) figured out.

Heh, thanks.

Wes can say that because he's seen my Chilean five-year naval plan. Basically, I designed a carrier task force from the ground up, tailoring each unit to work together as an integral part of the task force. The carrier, which will take the longest to build, will also be the last unit in the plan which is laid down.

By the time the carrier hits the fleet, her escorts will have worked together as a task force for almost a year and a half. I didn't make that timeline randomly: while the carrier is being completed, those escort forces are going to be practicing their propellers off to work with her and everybody else in the task force.

I'm not seeing that kind of planning for Persia. It came across as "Hey, let's get a carrier, that'd be cool. What mission can we give her?" I'm not saying it's a dumb idea to have a Persian carrier, I'm just not seeing any planning or process being applied.

The escorts are already in place for the CVE, 1 BC and 2 DD.

It isnt that Persia like has a merchant fleet or other capital ships that need escorts. Comparing Persia and Bulgaria is miss leading Persia has a much worse strategic situation.
Bulgaria can make up shortages in the Navy with airpower, Persia doesnt have that luxury

As for planning, well Q1 1937 was supposed to be my last report that will now be Q3

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
The escorts are already in place for the CVE, 1 BC and 2 DD.

Well, if you want to escort it with that little, I suppose that's your decision.

My own personal aim is to build a destroyer division (4 ships) for every cruiser I build, and at least two cruisers (if not four) for every heavy warship I build.

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
You will escort CVE´s with 2 cruisers and Eight destroyers?

No, that's the overall ratio in the fleet that I'm looking for.

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
And SAE wont be caught in the middle of re-armament?

Probably, probably not. In any case such low number of planes hardly causes any problems to the SAE air industry. In fact, it helps to find a way from war industry to normal business.


Regarding that discussion about the need for an CVE - if Persia really as friends/allies that expect Persia to help in blue water business I´d say Persia doesn´t need any foes anymore. We´re talking Persia here after a.. Persia! There is no industrial base for a fleet (if not for our WesWorld rules and the dedication of a factory or two) and as you said there is no merchant fleet to protect. The only purpose I see for a Persian fleet is border and fishery patrol in general, anti-smuggler and anti-piracy operations in particular, probably some army support too (transport, fire cover). Therefor you need numerous vessels that are either stoutly build and have some transport capacity or light, fast and manoverable vessels that let you catch pirates and smugglers. Everything else is - at least to me - not necessary even if that´s not good for my aircraft business.... ;o)

If you look at the map above you'll Britain can base shore-based torpedo bombers and MTBs in Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Arab Emirates and Oman. Any hostile Persian fleet ain't going no where. Even if they get past all that and the guns at the homuz Straits they'll be a task force of RN BB's and CV's waiting on the other side...

No way would the RN risk BBs and Carriers in the Persian Gulf without serious aerial and surface escort forces. On the other hand I can see that Persia may feel a carrier is useful, it can be used to scout and make raids on British shore installations. Overall the Admiralty will ignore the carrier for now as an expensive toy. British carrier based planes will not be supplied due to political influence.

One other question, what if Persia and GB don't fight each other? You still have a useless ship.

Well arent all Warships useless without a War? And as has been stated the carrier is built to fight other nations than the UK. I am surprised that the UK in case of an overall war feels that it can deploy BB´s and CV´s against Persia, I would have suspected that they would be reserved for service against some much more dangerous threats farther east.

The IDC has placed orders for 20 Japanese fighters and 20 DeBroek TB-9A "Petrel".