WesWorld

THE NAVALIST
- South Africans Official Navy Newspaper -
20th July 1925

The Royal South African Navy (RSAN) has grown during the past few years despite international efforts to stop an ongoing arms race and limit fleet size in general. With the exception of the total number of capital ships available all over the world the so-called Cleito Treaty had little or no effect on countries naval budgets. True, technically the limitations set by that treaty have their influence on warship design but within the boundaries of those limits fleets are still growing. Some experts expect the destructive potential to have nearly doubled by the end of this year compared to what was available by the end of the Great War.

Beside the influence on naval budgets in general by increasing costs for new material and keeping older ships up to date this development also has another side effect. All those new vessels need crews and as it turns out the capability of a country to provide such trained crews could be the limiting factor bringing further growth of fleet size to an end. This is true at least for the RSAN. While personal costs are increasing day by day on one hand it also has become more and more difficult to find men to crew modern units, especially technical personal capable of dealing with delicate and advanced technology. Time for training had to be increased lately and the pace at which personal can be provided has slowed. Hence it was decided by the King on 26th of June – after several meetings with South Africa´s Minister for Defence Mr. Paul Hijmer, Vice-Admiral (retired) Graaf Gerrit van de Haartlijners, K.D.T., Lord Administrator of the Navy and Commissary Extraordinary for Naval Affairs and several navy experts and naval architects – that the RSAN will be re-organized and down-sized to fit modern needs but free human resources and decrease costs.

In a first step battleship Madagascar will be scrapped as well as the 2nd Cruiser Squadron with cruisers Wankie, Blantyre, Pietermaritzburg and Beira (all type CL10). Only RSAN Douala, currently flagship of the 1st Torpedoboat Flotilla and newest of the class, will remain but probably retire in 1926 or 1927. Plans to rebuild those cruisers along the lines of the four cruisers of the CL08-class had been made but are now thought to be obsolete. The already mentioned 1st TB Flotilla, consisting of 10 Bird-class torpedo boats, is also expected to be taken out of service. Its fate will be shared by the remaining 7 units of the Planet-class sloops which currently form the 2nd Sloop Flotilla. Some of those torpedo boats and sloops may be used as targets for life fire tests or de-armed and sold to private owners. All others will be scrapped

Further units are expected to follow but yard time, docks and human resources necessary for scrapping those vessels are limited so it may take several month before phase two can be started.

Scrapping old units is not the only action necessary however, as those components of the RSAN giving away parts of their forces need some kind of compensation. Therefore re-grouping existing units and a new organisation for the RSANs various fleets seems appropriate. Nothing has been revealed regarding these points so far but it can not be for long until such information will be made available.

Most interesting.

India's starting to find itself considering similar questions - hence the recently deletion of some older destroyers and torpedo boats, a move that will continue into 1926. That's despite being below my tonnage limits in destroyers and the torpedo-boats not being restricted at all.

Refits and rebuilds - especially with cruisers and the two old battleships once the Akbars are in service - will drain my resources and make it that much more difficult to build to my limits. Ditto the need to add critical infrastructure (namely, drydocks).

Manpower's certainly an issue for me, at least in terms of training. By my reckoning, the Indian Navy's manpower has more than tripled since 1918. That makes for young, inexperienced crews (although occasional skirmishes and exercises help).

I'll be curious to see what the reorganized fleet looks like.

Its nice to see someone acctually doing what I too was considering. I can see why smaller country's would want larger navy's but its ironic that larger ones are considering streamlining theirs.

Speaking as the player of Atlantis, this together with the non-agression pact with the SAE will make my own considerations on this idea a very distinct possibility.

Then of course there are counties like Chile that are doing the opposite, and are not held back by any treaty. Countries that even if the major powers scaled back, could not hope to stand on an even footing with them in a battleline verses battleline duel. But will try to match them with more radical and unique (though not altogether better) designs over numbers, as even at full production they could not hope to come close to equaling even some of the medium powers.

Chile, who of course in the real world did not build or have built many ships larger than destroyers between 1920 and 1940, and only later acquired World War II era cruisers and destroyers from the United States and the United Kingdom. But this is not that Chile...but a slightly more powerful Chile. One that believes it needs a new navy to hold a status of (the/a) South American power.

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
India's starting to find itself considering similar questions - hence the recently deletion of some older destroyers and torpedo boats, a move that will continue into 1926. That's despite being below my tonnage limits in destroyers and the torpedo-boats not being restricted at all.

Same here. I´ve always been short of DDs and other high speed escorts and attack vessels such as ocean going torpedo boats. I was just close to having a number suffice for the RSANs tasks but for realisms sake I think it is necessary to reduce the size of the RSAN somewhat at the costs of older, less capable units.

Of course power gaming would also be an option but considering the value of a ~1300ts TB, armed with 4x 88mm guns and 10+ years old, made me think that there is no reason to keep them. Re-building is not an option as one has to expect such small, weakly build hulls to have weathered so much that their hulls and machinery have suffered from all the stress. Those TBs were no longer capable doing their job,

The CLs however are a real loss. I had a useful design at hand, a full scale re-build along the lines of the CL08-class resulting in vessels 32kn fast with 8x 15cm guns in the well known twin shields. Perhaps I´ll re-build the last remaining unit of that class that way but then again: what to do with a single cruiser of that kind? So I´m not really sure if it wouldn´t be better to just scrap that one too. Too bad one can´t sell ships because of the CT. At least once re-build that cruiser surely would be an option for many other, smaller navies...

Regards,

HoOmAn

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Speaking as the player of Atlantis, this together with the non-agression pact with the SAE will make my own considerations on this idea a very distinct possibility.

Well, it´s is up to you but honestly, what is in the southern hemisphere or southern Atlantic that Atlantis needs to fear? The only major power around is the SAE and currently a concflict between those two would be very unlikely. So yes, perhaps this is indeed a chance for Atlantis to get rid of some older units of questionable value.

However, keep in mind that such reduction in size should not impair a fleets power too much. The RSAN will get rid of some less capable units but should there be a major conflict within the next years modern and large units will be capable of operations without taking care of their older brethren which would limit fleet speed, range or whatever. The "new" RSAN will be capable to react quicker and hit harder than any time before. At least that´s the goal...

This is a point I thought of quite some time ago. Since the game started the Netherlands has expanded its fleet by this ammount:

2 BBs
4 CAs
6 CLs


and there are 2 BBs, 8 DDs under construction, and a carrier being converted.



However, of those only 4 CAs and 4 CLs were started and finished while in-game (the others were in different stages of completion when the game started), so I assumed the crew problems would be more or less sorted up. The list of stricken ships while in-game is:

2-PDs
4-DDs (not yet scrapped)

so I guess I had quite many of the crews for the new ships covered.

The remaining PDs in my fleet can give the basis for the future BB crew, relying on new promotions to complete the ranks on them.

The DD expansion plan of the Dutch navy is quite directly linked with the fact that there's a whole DD flotilla dedicated to Training on Amsterdam, and another one planned for the future, thus creating enough manpower to add to that of old, stricken ships (and I have a crapload of old DD and CLs to replace). Those two sources will be used to crew the new small ships to be built in the future.

In a similar fashion, a whole cruiser division of the Dutch fleet (based in amsterdam, too) uses the elderly "amsterdam" class cruisers for,almost excusively, training and creating a good reserve for when new cruisers are built.


So I think that for now and at this rate of building/replacement Netherlands hasn't too many problems of manpower .

Quoted

Originally posted by Ithekro
Then of course there are counties like Chile that are doing the opposite, and are not held back by any treaty. Countries that even if the major powers scaled back, could not hope to stand on an even footing with them in a battleline verses battleline duel.

True. Nevertheless, the modifications to the organisation of the RSAN are not based on foreign influence at all. They are a result of "internal considerations". Of course they will have some influence on other navies or the way the RSAN will deal with other but in first place they were initiated because of realism (players view) and the wish to have a navy capable to use their most modern units full potential (roleplaying view).

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
I'll be curious to see what the reorganized fleet looks like.

Me too. The whole plan is not fixed at all. I´ve not yet decided what will be put into reserve or scrapped during phase two from a material point of view. From an operational point of view I am thinking of something that will make it possible for the RSAN to adopt the Task Force concept in the future.

Right now I think the TF concept is ahead of its time so I won´t use it. On the other hand time for old school battleline units of large scale is also running out. So probably an organisation based on smaller groups of ships is an interesting concept. The RSAN already has divided her forces into several fleets and single squadrons of all kind aren´t as big as known from (real worlds) Great War. I´ll probably push that concept to it´s limits. Not sure yet. I first have to get rid of all the old stuff that doesn´t fit my needs any longer...

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn

Well, it´s is up to you but honestly, what is in the southern hemisphere or southern Atlantic that Atlantis needs to fear? The only major power around is the SAE and currently a concflict between those two would be very unlikely. So yes, perhaps this is indeed a chance for Atlantis to get rid of some older units of questionable value.

However, keep in mind that such reduction in size should not impair a fleets power too much. The RSAN will get rid of some less capable units but should there be a major conflict within the next years modern and large units will be capable of operations without taking care of their older brethren which would limit fleet speed, range or whatever. The "new" RSAN will be capable to react quicker and hit harder than any time before. At least that´s the goal...

The main consern of Atlantis isn't nessasarily the SAE, as you said there is no tention between the two powers. However in the past Atlantis was keeping a watchfull eye on the rest of South America in addition to Iberia . Now that the Nordish/Argentinian war is over Atlantis can rest easy knowing that Argentina along with its nabours won't pose a threat to Atlantian possesions in the north. This together with the creation of the FAR treaty makes downsizing a possibility.

I still have several older CL's and DD's that are outliving their usefullness.

The smaller navies would like to be bigger; that's the natural order of things. However, they have to be smart about it. Fewer resources and less infrastructure makes a mistake harder to live with.

Speaking of manpower, I find that over half my requirements are being eaten up by the small stuff - destroyers, small craft, and auxiliaries. And unlike capital ships, which take long enough to build that I can expect to crank out a couple years' worth of sailors for them, I can put eight destroyers - with a similar total crew figure - in the water in less than a year. Harder to plan for if you're the navy's HR manager.

Managing resorces for both a large and small navy is helping me learn a few lessons. Turkey is in no possition to expand its navy on a large scale, even if it contracts the work to another country's yards.

Thats what 6 factory's will do to ya...

Quoted

This together with the creation of the FAR treaty makes downsizing a possibility.

Collective security does make it possible to downsize in some cases - though the formation of counter-alliances does perhaps make it questionable in some cases.

I think it also helps as players that we've now spent (in some cases) a couple of years thinking about how to see to our country's maritime interests. We've got a better handle on things, and know where to get the most bang for our bucks.

The Philippines has a small advantage, in that our capital ships are being replaced on a one-to-one basis:
Angeles -} Fernando
Mindoro -} Presidente Malvar*

And in the future:
Manila** -} Samal
Luzon -} Bohol

* - May or may not be purchased in 1929 when the lease expires
** - May be kept as a training ship...or something else. Stay tuned.

Of course we're also adding on a lot of ships, but since in the period ~1908-1921 there was exactly ONE ship added to the MdF (Palawan), one can make the case that a sizable cadre was built up during that time.

I'm also toying with the idea of not building a 1932 Battleship, and instead springing for additional CLs. Ve shall see.

Quoted

though the formation of counter-alliances does perhaps make it questionable in some cases.

*whistling innocently*

It´s good to see I was not totally off the aim when I wrote that article....

Italy still has a very large fleet of ancient destroyers. I think you've raised a valid point here; our navies are too big.

Looks like the run up to a treaty amendment is begining.

If I remember my history correctly, the United States of America had envisioned after the Great War the possibility of a war with Great Britian or Japan. This war would be over trade routes and markets. All future wars between the great powers were going to be based on this theory. Naval buildup in the early 1920s reflects this to some extent if one looks at what these three powers were building or had planned on building. In WesWorld, who knows why wars start. It could start with some sort of disturbance in Central Africa or Brazil...some rebellion or trade disruption that starts the seeds of distrust and the fires of hate. The greatests of allies one decade could be the bitterest of enemies within twenty years. We have seen it happen. Old alliances die, and new ones are formed. Look at today. All the alliances of World War II are shattered and reformed in different ways and it has been less than 60 years, and many of these breaks and reformations took place in 40 years.

So we must think about what might be....and what will be....

Quoted

Originally posted by Ithekro We have seen it happen. Old alliances die, and new ones are formed. Look at today. All the alliances of World War II are shattered and reformed in different ways and it has been less than 60 years, and many of these breaks and reformations took place in 40 years.

So we must think about what might be....and what will be....

I want to talk a bit about that...in the last 2 centuries we've seen only two major alliance broken: Germany's (then Prussia) with England in the late XIXs, and that of Italy with the Central Powers during WWI.

The URSS was never a strong ally of USA or the UK, in fact in 1939-41 it was seen as a potential enemy and it was because circumstances that the URSS got into the allied side. An aliance, BTW, which was never strong enough -mostly on the Soviet side, but also between the western allies.

The rest of the original alliances were either respected, or faded away. Those which faded away did so because they were forced on the first term by major reasons (for instance, Austro-hungarian empire with England forced by the Napoleonic threat) and there were mere tools of survival at the time being. When the threat was removed, the alliance was no more.


We've seen old foes uniting into alliances, that is true. France with England in the Entente. Germany and (to a lesser extent) Japan with the Western powers after WWII. But those were also forced by survival, the Entente was created because Germany's pace of development and potential expansionist threats, and the German entering NATO because the Soviet block threat.

We're seeing today that Germany is not that fond of USA, for instance, because there's no immediate threat for their survival anymore. It's been a long while since France parted ways with NATO, and in many ways it has been US most anthagonistic nation in the world, aside of the old soviet block...because after WW2 there was no real reason for France to stay allied with nations it despised (french national character is something worth knowing well...with all due respect to any french reader looking at this paragraphs)


The big spectre of diplomacy and alliances on the world scenario has changed a lot, that is true. But has changed only when alliances were set because survival reasons: true nature alliances (such as US-UK, to put an evident example) have been kept strong and will be kept that way in the future because genuinelly friendly nations don't break links easily.

The only alliances which died, did so because they weren't "friendly" alliances on the first term ,and were forced by circumstances.

A good note, RAM. So do we have any alliances of necessity out there that we might expect to see broken in time of stress? Or just fade away?

I don't know that we're suddenly heading for a treaty amendment - because while the larger powers might be inclined to agree to lower limits, good luck convincing the minor powers to take even less than what they have.

Instead, I think we've just got an awareness that a balanced fleet, with adequate infrastructure, is not as easy to create and maintain as we might've thought when this exercise started. Swampy talks about having four capital ships and adding two carriers, but he hasn't really got the cruisers and destroyers he needs to protect them. I'm just starting my sub fleet. Gavin has heaps of elderly destroyers. Each of us has to do something about these essentials, but it requires compromise somewhere else...