WesWorld

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
What qualifies as "obsolescent" and is there a d-i-s-c-o-u-n-t?

To sum up; lots.

Not much of what I might consider good stuff. With refits/rebuilds most would be ok though. Will post details soonish.

The Philippines seconds this query.

I find it curious that the Italian report concludes that it can 'reduce tensions' by dispersing it's fleet beyond the Med, when most instances of the Italian Navy deploying abroad in the past hasn't been warmly recieved beyond her AAMN/AEGIS allies.

I don't speak for the Crown of course, but a logical assumption on my part would be that any reduction to the RN's Med fleet in response to this kind of redeployment would be to essentially follow wherever the Italians are going; Specifically, if the Italians are bolstering a presense in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, I'd assume any assets diverted from the Med will end up there.

The above, also, assumes that the RN redeploys at all; Hood may decide that Alexandria is close enough to cover the Med and the Red Sea without needing to disperse his assets.

It was more a case of: If Italy has fewer ships, there's less need for competitors to have as many ships. There's some logic in there somewhere. I don't really see why the UK would follow Italian ships to the Red Sea. Aden is a pile of sand with no real value apart from where it is.

Quoted

when most instances of the Italian Navy deploying abroad in the past hasn't been warmly recieved beyond her AAMN/AEGIS allies.

That's because everyone else is out to get me

Abuse Treaty by example.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
That's because everyone else is out to get me

Well, if you can get permission to transit the Straits, I'm sure the Tsaritsa Ioanna (A.K.A. Princess Giovana of Italy) would be delighted to welcome some Italian ships to a Bulgarian port. The rest of Bulgaria would be equally delighted, particularly if the Italians bring some pizza and booze.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
It was more a case of: If Italy has fewer ships, there's less need for competitors to have as many ships. There's some logic in there somewhere.

A better way to pursue a mutual reduction goal would be negotiation. Hoping your neighbors follow suit might be a bit too much to set as policy, IMHO

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
I don't really see why the UK would follow Italian ships to the Red Sea. Aden is a pile of sand with no real value apart from where it is.

I may be rusty on my British Imperialism, but one of the major factors for British presense in the Med and specifically around the Sinai is to maintain control of the Suez for maritime traffic reasons. Those motivations will result in serious concerns if the British then percieve the Italians as holding or threatening the chokepoint at the other end of the Red Sea.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
That's because everyone else is out to get me

Only on weekends and alternate Fridays.

Negotiation is never going to work in the current climate of everyone building their asses off. Unlikely the Greeks would join in either; with the need for a bit of superiority over them, there isn't a great deal to negotiate. Four battleships or five?

Quoted

Those motivations will result in serious concerns if the British then percieve the Italians as holding or threatening the chokepoint at the other end of the Red Sea.

Well Italy holds the other chokepoint across the middle of the Med, and could make a fair attempt at Gib as well... Realistically the scenario is moot as Italy is an equal partner in the canal with the UK and France, with some forces in Sinai. Italy doesn't perceive the UK to be a threat, and if they are, diplomatic resolution is the only way. The RN Med fleet now basically exists because the UK needs somewhere to show it's fleet and Singapore isn't big enough.

I don't get how manpower is a problem for Italy. In 1937 the population was 42-43million, and WW Italy is a bit larger than OTL. The proposed revision in manpower is roughly 0.3% of population, which should not make a huge difference in employment figures. For a maritime power to halve her navy on that basis seems strange.

I'm also not sure I get the rationale behind the small carrier + escorts. Wouldn't the Hammer episode make one think twice about sending a CV off on it's own?

Quoted

I don't get how manpower is a problem for Italy.

The workforce is significantly smaller than the overall population. I've been reading Vanguard to Trident by Grove recently which gives an excellent account of manning and budgeting problems. I realised Italy's navy was too large when I found out that the RN in 1938 had 138,000 personnel. Its time for a slimmed down, more economical force, instead of just building as much as possible like most people. Eventually I'd aim for around 100,000 by 1950 with further reductions, though a major war would change things a bit. Altogether, I thought it better to start going for something more reasonable.

Quoted

I'm also not sure I get the rationale behind the small carrier + escorts.

Most likely one of the Pisa conversions (only two at the moment) fitted out for anti-submarine duties. They're not particularly valuable ships so there's no need to tie down a cruiser or larger ship. Remember that the primary adversary is expected to be submarines and aircraft. The task force as cover should keep larger surface vessels away.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

I don't get how manpower is a problem for Italy.

The workforce is significantly smaller than the overall population. I've been reading Vanguard to Trident by Grove recently which gives an excellent account of manning and budgeting problems. I realised Italy's navy was too large when I found out that the RN in 1938 had 138,000 personnel. Its time for a slimmed down, more economical force, instead of just building as much as possible like most people. Eventually I'd aim for around 100,000 by 1950 with further reductions, though a major war would change things a bit. Altogether, I thought it better to start going for something more reasonable.

If we had maintenance rules, this would already be taken care of. But, alas, those were vetoed a while back.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
If we had maintenance rules, this would already be taken care of. But, alas, those were vetoed a while back.

I decided to limit myself instead and see what would happen with a more rational and reasonable building program.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

I don't get how manpower is a problem for Italy.

The workforce is significantly smaller than the overall population. I've been reading Vanguard to Trident by Grove recently which gives an excellent account of manning and budgeting problems. I realised Italy's navy was too large when I found out that the RN in 1938 had 138,000 personnel. Its time for a slimmed down, more economical force, instead of just building as much as possible like most people. Eventually I'd aim for around 100,000 by 1950 with further reductions, though a major war would change things a bit. Altogether, I thought it better to start going for something more reasonable..

The Pisas make excellent sense in that role. I had expected some sort of scout role was reasonable, the proposed set up puts that to good use.

As for the RN, interesting information. Is that active duty only or Active + Reserves?

Generally one sees 10% of the population as of prime fighting age, (closer to 20% for effectives) and of that 4million or so, the Navy would be a bigger amount, roughly 5% of the potential manpower

I also wonder if 1938 is a good comparison point. Not only is it the Depression, but poking about the web it seems defense was a near it's lowest expenditure and it wasn't until after Munich that it picked up again.

I generally try to calculate my standing army strength at between 5-20 soldiers per thousand citizens. That's about the ratio seen in modern armed forces. It depends a bit on which country I'm calculating, though: I calculated Ireland with a small standing army and larger reserves, while I calculated the Bulgarian army with large reserves AND a large standing force. Chile's about in the middle, as I recall.

I too am thinking about manpower and it seems likely that the RN will shrink with some mass decommissionings next year.

I don't think the RN will follow Italian ships. Even if they impeded the transfer of ships in the Red Sea in wartime (not very likely if its against Satsuma but more likely if its against AEGIS) I still firmly hold the northern end and can block the canal for months thus forcing the Italians around the long way via a warm greeting from Atlantean warships (if its a NATO Vs AEGIS shooting match) and the Cape to get to its Eastern African colonies.

Quoted

As for the RN, interesting information. Is that active duty only or Active + Reserves?

Total active including conscripts etc. with those manning the reserve ships/on leave/sick/training included. There would be a pool of ex conscripts to call on in wartime to man the reserve ships. In 1945 there were 665,000 men in the RN. Half of that from a smaller country in peacetime is pushing things. In 1947 with postwar reductions it was 182000, but with fewer personnel on active ships.

I'll pull up a list of what ships are being decommissioned and which are being scrapped later today.

Heh, sounds like the next couple years could be good for those countries interested in buying some used equipment......


Germany's not currently in a manpower crunch, but the KM is going to be slowing it's rate of growth as it reaches what it thinks it needs for it's current tasks.

Ships for Disposal

Generally vessels in poor material condition, unsuited to current needs or too expensive to keep in reserve.

Battleship Caio Duilio [Old, unmodernised, crew transferred to Vittorio Veneto]
Battleship Andrea Doria [Old, unmodernised, crew transferred to Roma]
Floatplane Tender Guiseppe Miraglia [increased number of newer aviation ships available]
Cruiser Quarto [old, poor condition, end of use as trials ship]
Minelayer Bari [old, hull strained]
Leone Class Destroyer Leaders [very heavily used over the past decade without refit]
Generale Class Destroyers [unsatisfactory design, heavy use in Atlantic lead to hull problems]
A Class Frigates [old, worn out]
B Class Frigates [old, worn out]
L Class Torpedo Boats [unsatisfactory design]
S Class Submarines [old]
A Class Submarines [poor stability and habitability, more modern boats available]


Ships for Decommissioning

In various states of readiness from a few weeks to 12 - 18 months.

Aircraft Carrier Aquila [expensive to run, enough carriers available for peacetime duties]
Aircraft Carrier Europa
Aircraft Carrier Barbiano
Aircraft Carrier Colleoni
Aircraft Carrier Bande Nere
Capitani Romani Class Cruisers [lack of need for scout cruisers]
Elba Class Coastal Defence Ships [lack of need for coastal defence ships]
V Class Destroyer Leaders [Old, more modern ships available]
Turbine Class Destroyers
Dardo Class Destroyers
Giovanni Berta Type Trawlers [limited usefulness]
D6 – D20 Class Escorts [manning problems]
P11 – P40 Class Submarines [manning problems]

An interesting list

The Filipino Naval Attache in Rome makes discreet inquiries regarding Guiseppe Miragli, the Romanis, and the Elbas...