WesWorld

Since it's been deathly quiet on the board this week, I have two questions for y'all.

1. Given what we know of the Royal Navy, where are its forces deployed in 1923?

2. If your country found itself at war with Great Britain, what would be your strategy for dealing with the Royal Navy?

Just curious,

J

Q1) Singapore, Gibralter, Scapa.

Q2) Make the best peace I could, as fast as I could.

Russia especially has touchy relations with both the UK and US, because Kerensky repudiated the Russian war debts when he made the separate peace. Russia still honors the prewar French loans that built the railroads, so Russian bonds are welcome on the French market, but the City and Wall Street are still very suspicious. The Coolidge Administration in the US ("They hired the money, didn't they?") is quite hostile, due to this financial factor. With the British, opposing the more powerful Continental Powers is the standard proceedure, and with Germany defeated, France/Russia take that role. Therefore Russian/French policy is to seek to remove sources of friction with the UK, and be as conciliatory as possible without sacrificing a vital interest.

Q1: as mentioned + Cairo and Calcutta

Q2: avoid doing it. There is now way I could take on the RN.

Calcutta's in India. I'm fairly confident there are no RN ships based there.

Interesting thoughts on British diplomacy - so with one major alliance (France/Russia/Atlantis), one new alliance (Iberia/Italy/Denmark) and two strong unaligned nations (Nordmark, Germany) all in Europe, is this a diplomatic nightmare for Britain? Or an opportunity to play different alliances against each other?

Well, Nordmark is not entirely unaligned even though I don´t know of any allies in Europe. Same for the Netherlands.

I also wonder if Atlantis is really fully allied with France/Russia... Would Atlantis allow itself to get dragged into a war with the UK?

Britain might get into trouble should two other powerful nation form an alliance: Japan and the SAE. I doubt Britain alone (!) will be powerfull enough to deal with both and secure its colonies and possessions in the far east. But there is no such alliance right now (IIRC, *g*) and as it is there is little reason why the UK and the SAE should collide.

The biggest bang that could happen in WesWorld will not include either the USA or UK I think. The worst case scenario sets France/Russia/Atlantis against Iberia/Itlay/Denmark. THAT would be a nightmare - and quite interesting. :o)

Regards,

HoOmAn

Calcutta - oops, wasn't thinking. apologies Rocky.

and different wars that might be interesting could come to mind ...

Quoted

I also wonder if Atlantis is really fully allied with France/Russia... Would Atlantis allow itself to get dragged into a war with the UK?

Perhaps if something was to be gained from it all. But if Atlantis would do it, I do thing the UK would have big problems, similar to your example of an alliance between Japan and the SAE... maybe even worse.

Quoted

The worst case scenario sets France/Russia/Atlantis against Iberia/Itlay/Denmark. THAT would be a nightmare - and quite interesting. :o)

Why would that be the worst case scenario? (because it all depends on how you look at it). I agree that it would be interesting.

As for question 2 and Japan, I'll just make use of some briliant (and, of course, evil) plan and make sure that it seems that someone else attacked the UK and not me. Let those two sides fight each other and wear each other down and in the end finish off the survivors.
:-)
I wouldn't be surprised that when France, Russia and Atlantis were to duke it out with the UK, even a small navy nation like India could easily wipe out what is left of either side's navy once the fighting has stopped (or perhaps I am too optimistic about that).

Walter

Well seeing as atlantis has been mentioned here a few times I thought I should comment.

Q1) Singapore, Gibralter, Scapa and Cairo.

Q2) I wouldn't want to prevoke the UK outright and if I did find myself at war hopefully the FAR alliance would be intact and aligned fully against the UK, otherwise I'll have quite a war on my hands. Numerically I'd come up short and those new G-3 variants Britain is building would likely outclass Melampus while Hood, Renown and Repulse would give Vengeance and Glory some headaches. My Posiedon, Atlas and Tyrrhenia class BB's would be slightly inferior to the R's and QE's in both speed and in numbers. Throw in the Tiger and some of the older BB's and the UK has more ships than Atlantis.
One just has to look at the CT limits to get an idea of the power distribution. The only class of ships that Atlantis rivals the UK with is in the CV catagory.

All this being said I could give the UK some headaches but I don't think it would be worth the trouble without a partner in crime to help out and I would eventually have to find a peacefull resolution to the conflict. If the FAR alliance was intact and aligned against the UK I think the outcome would be in favor of the FAR alliance.
A conflict with the UK is unlikely given there are no points of friction between us at least currently, it would take an act of agression against a FAR alliance nation to prevoke Atlantis to side against the UK and I won't even comment on the possibility of a war with the U.S.!
I think it would take all the current aliances combined to take on the U.S. and hope to have a favorable outcome.

Easy to see the differences between the USN, the RN, and the combined navy of FAR. And with the use of some good tactics, I think that FAR alone can take out the USN.

BB
UK ==> 20 hulls, 600,000 tons
US ==> 21 hulls, 640,000 tons
FAR => 34 hulls, 1,080,000 tons

CV
UK ==> 150,000 tons
US ==> 160,000 tons
FAR => 270,000 tons

CA
UK ==> 180,000 tons
US ==> 192,000 tons
FAR => 324,000 tons

CL
UK ==> 420,000 tons
US ==> 448,000 tons
FAR => 756,000 tons

DD1
UK ==> 48,000 tons
US ==> 51,200 tons
FAR => 86,400 tons

DD2
UK ==> 192,000 tons
US ==> 204,800 tons
FAR => 345,600 tons

SS1
UK ==> 32 hulls, 39,450 tons
US ==> 32 hulls, 39,450 tons
FAR => 80 hulls, 99,600 tons

SS2
UK ==> 39,450 tons
US ==> 39,450 tons
FAR => 99,600 tons


... come to think about it, why is it that US and UK have more tonnages in all categories of ships except submarines? With submarines, they have equal tonnages with RSAN, AEN, and RFN. Shouldn't the submarine tonnages for the USN and RN be higher than that of the RSAN, AEN and RFN?

Walter

Your stats are interesting but hiding that things are even worth for the USA and to some degree for the UK.

A conflict between USA and FAR would most likely focus on the Atlantic Ocean and the USN will have only half its strength in that region at the beginning. On the other side both Atlantis and France can focus on the Atlantic more or less while Russia secures the far east and support the FAR forces elsewhere.

No idea on the subs...

HoOmAn

Quoted

Your stats are interesting but hiding that things are even worth for the USA and to some degree for the UK.

I deliberately did not mention that. But it is absolutely true that both USN and RN are split up, but wouldn't that be true for France as well? Atlantis has all its territories around the Atlantic so their whole Fleet would be there. As for the Russian Federation, the pacific part of its fleet is pretty small. Most of the RFN force is concentrated on the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea and a bit at Murmansk if I'm correct.

Quoted

A conflict between USA and FAR would most likely focus on the Atlantic Ocean and the USN will have only half its strength in that region at the beginning.

Yes and it'll take some time to get forces from the Pacific to the Atlantic theater. If FAR forces plan it well, they'll have their hands on the Panama canal so US Pacific forces will either have to sail around South America or stay in the Pacific. And should the US send forces to liberate the Panama Canal, FAR only has to blow up all the locks or sink a few ships in the canal to make the canal useless for a while.
I seem to remember from the images of the Panama Canal Locks that at some distance from the Miraflores Locks, they are currently building a bridge and that on both sides of the canal are high rocky areas (will have to check out the images again but at this moment it is about 4:28 AM over there and still dark). But if you were to blow up such rocky bits, you'll block the Canal and make it useless for quite a long time.
Using a trick like that would mean you would destroy the USN in two phases. By the time the Pacific forces would reach the Atlantic battle area, the US Atlantic Fleet could have been destroyed and its east coast facilities in the hands of the FAR forces.

Walter

how about using a few subs to blow up the locks? Mind you the Panama canal is on _Iberian_ territory and under joint _Iberian_/US control. I might take a somewhat dim view of any actions there ...

Nah, just blow up those locks. We'll just blame someone else.
:-)

Walter

"A conflict with the UK is unlikely given there are no points of friction between us at least currently, it would take an act of agression against a FAR alliance nation to prevoke Atlantis to side against the UK and I won't even comment on the possibility of a war with the U.S.!"

My faithful Atlantean ally is entirely correct. FAR is a defensive alliance in which all High Contracting Parties may place full confidence. And given British propensity for "Copenhagens", war with British Empire is a contingency against which FAR are prepared. With this in mind, when Murmansk was selected as Russian Federation's main naval base, powerful coast artillery, air defenses, harbor defenses, and facilities to support aerial, surface, and subsurface patrol were prepared before Izmails sailed from Kronshtadt. French and Atlantean navies are similarly prepared, so FAR Alliance have reason for confidence in outcome of a war provoked by British Empire. Nevertheless, all High Contracting Parties understand that if they choose policy of aggression, they are on their own.

Walters stats do also tend to hide the fact that the Atlantian fleet, in its current state is below those tonnage tallys significantly in some areas. As for a war with the U.S. the Panama canal situation makes it tough for the U.S. to bolster its Atlantic without forcing Iberia to react in some way to the hostilities. If Iberia allows U.S. warships through the Panama canal it threatens its good relations with the FAR alliance, if it deny's the U.S. access it ruins relations between Iberia and the U.S. in respect to the Panama canal, so its a touchy situation.

I tend to think that in Iberia's own interests she would let the U.S. through and take a nuetral stance in order to retain use of the Panama canal, and do the damage control to relations with the FAR alliance, thats if Iberia isn't interested in taking on the FAR alliance along side the U.S. Keep in mind the remenants of the South American alliance are not on good terms with either Iberia or the FAR alliance (or Nordmark for that matter) so they could add some minor setbacks to the mix. Just who they would side with would be anyones guess, it all depends on what state they are in AFTER the Nordick conflict and if they are capable of taking ANYONE on.

In any event Maracaibo, Venezuela is a significant naval base and would likely have a sizeable fleet stationed there to defend against the U.S. and could attack the re-enforcements as they leave Iberian territorial waters or set up minefeilds to slow them down. Atlantian subs would also be on the prowl.
Like the japanese situation though, I would want to make it a quick, decisive war in order to keep the U.S. industrial advantage in check.

Either side would have to prepare for some time for a war with each other as fleet movements would have to happen in peace time but would still raise eye brows if moved in significant numbers. Both sides would want to maintain fleets in reserve to prevent another power from taking advantage of the situation.

FAR might be in trouble once at war with the USA because I forsee the UK to join the Americans. Throughout centuries it was common politic in the UK to make sure there is a balance of power in Europe and nobody was allowed to question the UKs position as te world leader. Things changed a bit by WW1 but together with the USA the UK would be able to reach the old status quo. Together they can handle any known alliance should it be necessary - and FAR could be seen as a real thread (to both of them) that has to be countered. With the UK not interested to ally with player nations (accourding to our rules - otherwise Nordmark, Japan or the SAE surely would offer an option) I have no doubts that the USA and the UK will stick together.

Does anybody agree?

HoOmAn

yep, pretty much. It would take a humongous effort to wrestle them both to the ground - interesting theme for a different sim tho!

I agree on this one, we would all literally need to band togeather to defeat the combined U.S./UK alliance.