Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 2 of 3  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 »
Author Message
Tobius
Post subject: Re: Argentina and the MalvinasPosted: January 25th, 2017, 9:36 pm
Offline
Posts: 545
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 2:10 pm
Krakatoa wrote:
How closely did anyone read the fluff?
Rather closely.
Quote:
In 1919-21 the German Navy via the Versailles Treaty had to reduce its complement not only of ships but also of men. That's all types of staff from the top down. What happened to all those unemployed people? If Argentina offered to transport you (and your family) to be employed and help set up the Argentine navy from a two ship wannabe to an integrated battlefleet, would you accept the offer rather than starve or die from the Spanish Flu? How its paid for in an AU is always easy. Some good commodity(s) is available to fill the coffers to obtain the ships.
Alpha; The migration of top brains did take place RTL, to the US, Sweden and Switzerland, where all those German Wunderwaffen were born. In the case of the US, that ended in the atomic bomb and the Ford buzz bomb. End of Argentina. That is RTL.

Beta: No steel industry.

Gamma: In a more recent example, the Soviet Union's navy sort of died at its piers. All those admirals drew pensions. The US then swooped in and made sure the Red Fleet stayed scrapped. Russia still has not recovered. Part of that process was a healthy dispersal of the rank and file into Russian private enterprise so they could not form soviets like the Tsar's navy and the German Kriegsmarine did post WW I in the RTL. Those guys did not emigrate. They stayed home and raised hell.

Ipsilon: No Cochrane, no Colbert, no MAHAN!
Quote:
Yes JSB the opponent for Argentina will be the Commonwealth, but if the Commonwealth is at war with Germany when Argentina takes over the Las Malvinas/Falkands (say November 1939), where do these mythical Commonwealth battlefleets come from? The Commonwealth I use is my Fisherless version. The end result is some close battles with the Commonwealth prevailing. But it is actually Brazil that makes the difference by its land forces entering Argentina and forcing a surrender.
Zeta: No Sims and no FISHER!

Zeta sub nought: Paraguay is the reason Brazil did not a'conquering go. The Atacama is why Chile is the bad boy on the South American Pacific coasts. The War of the Pacific and the War of the Triple Alliance are must studies for anyone trying to AU South American history.
Quote:
The Washington treaty does take place. The only ships that Argentina builds that abrogate the Treaty are their first two cruisers. Not enough to break the treaty. By the time the second pair of cruisers is built and join the fleet in 1935 the Japanese have already said they are withdrawing and the Treaties are dead anyway. The only class of ship that Argentina could have built that would have worried the Major powers was 45,000+ ton battleships, like the Japanese did. They would have had to build monster battleships 1930-35 to break the Treaty.
Why do you need a Washington Treaty if you don't have a three cornered naval arms race? Why do you think the three carrier using powers became the carrier using powers?
Quote:
Carriers? When the first carrier is converted 1921-27, nobody knew much about carriers (including the Japanese), so whichever nation I choose to provide the ship with a conversion is going to learn about carriers. I could have had the Columbus towed/steamed across to the US who would probably have done the job (Argentina is a BB customer). For all anybody knew in the early 20's they were creating white elephants. Why did I want Germany in particular to have some early knowledge of carriers? So that Germany could build better carriers than what they did design in the late 30's.
1. By 1918 the USN knew what an aircraft carrier should look like. They'd known since 1911, (Eugene Ely experiments) but a few things got in the way like the Panic of 1911 and WW 1. Once Wilson was safely out of the way, Moffett and company, took a collier named the Jupiter and turned her into the Langley (1921). Meanwhile, after playing around with the Wakimaya and bombing the Germans at Tsingtsao from it, the Japanese laid down Hosho (1922). The British did them both better by laying down HMS Argus as an ocean liner and turning it into a functioning aircraft carrier during WW I (1918).

2. If you have never operated a seaplane component from ships, (and the Germans didn't, they used land bases in WW I) then you don't know enough about ship to plane handling to understand how cranky ships are, what aviation at sea means and why Glenn Curtiss is so important to all three carrier using navies of the era.
Quote:
Now then guys and Tobius. Rather than making uninformed comments, how about you supposedly adult people ask some intelligent questions. I know that most of you prefer to tear things down rather than help people so why don't you try again with your comments/questions?
a. Where is the great Argentine naval aviation pioneer? Moffett for the US. In the case of Japan, it was William Forbes Sempill, an RN officer, Japanese spy and British TRAITOR, who if the Americans could have caught him before WW II, they would have killed.

The British of course had George Bertram Cockburn and the "gentlemen's flying club" et al. Refer to Sempill.

b. Where is the money to come? Carriers, unlike battleships, are evolving warships. They have to be as the planes they operate change faster than the hulls do. This makes ships like Lexington four times as expensive to operate as say a Colorado. And here Argentina has THREE of them, when the US was struggling to operate two.

===========================

Addendum: While I have taken some liberties with Mister McKinley's Navy, especially with submarines [Plongeur is the start point] and dirigibles (Solomon Andrews; US aeronaut 1870s), I've tried to be mindful of such things as political movements, social trends, technology limits (no metal link belt fed machine guns for Spain or the US as an example.)

A South American confederation has to emerge from the first Paraguay War Triple Alliance to have any hope of equaling France, much less an extremely hostile United States.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
garviloken46
Post subject: Re: Argentina and the MalvinasPosted: January 26th, 2017, 4:45 pm
Offline
Posts: 8
Joined: August 2nd, 2016, 3:14 pm
Having read your website I'll admit that this now makes a lot more sense. You design a good ship and some of your refits of older ships look really good.

However, your fleet as listed is jumping into the ring weighing in at well over 400,000 tonnes (just in BB and BC) and as such you'll either nullify the Washington Treaty before the ink gets chance to dry or you'll be asked to attend and not get a chance to build any of your later designs.

Also if all the talent from Germany heads to Argentina (instead of the US because...reasons?) I don't imagine Germany ever gets its navy working again, leaving the RN free to retake Stanley in short order.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Krakatoa
Post subject: Re: Argentina and the MalvinasPosted: January 27th, 2017, 6:31 pm
Offline
Posts: 2495
Joined: July 1st, 2014, 12:20 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact: Website
If you have had a look at the offsite website, then you will realise that Solarium AU is very well advanced.

What Tobius has not noticed is that all of those people he goes on about do not exist. The USA does not exist. Actually the Washington Treaty does not exist. It is the Geneva Arms Limitation Treaty. All of the rubbish you have banged on about is solely in your imagination. It is hard for the US to be hostile if it does not exist.

Referring everything back to the Real Time Line, presupposes that any part of that history exists. The moment I gave you the link to the full offsite address, everybody should have stopped mouthing off and gone and found out what the parameters for further discussion might be.

Do any of you realise that the figures you are quoting at me, 400,000 tons (actually less than 200,000), 3 carriers, do not happen instantly? The period those ships I have chosen to share the drawings of reflect the period 1919-1939.

Quite frankly I do not give a toss for your comments unless they are about the ship drawings I have posted.

I got told off by the powers that be for having a go at other peoples concepts of reality in their Alternate Realities. The same applies here.

Actually Tobius you are banned from commenting in any thread that I may create now or in the future. Your sort of know-it-all posting just pisses people off. We do not have to justify ourselves to you. Stick to your cartoon thread.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
RegiaMarina1939
Post subject: Re: Argentina and the MalvinasPosted: January 27th, 2017, 9:20 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 407
Joined: January 12th, 2016, 8:57 pm
Location: Wilmington, North Carolina
Whoa there pal hold your horses there! No need to get mad about it! Like garviloken said, why would the Germans go to Argentina and not the USA, like they did after ww2. I'm sure the USA would have paid to get German designers to come work with them anyway, especially since they were on the brink of a naval race with Britain.

_________________
Best regards,

RegiaMarina1939

Current Worklist:
-Real designs
-Nicaragua AU
-Emperia Group AU
-FD scale diesel trucks


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
DG_Alpha
Post subject: Re: Argentina and the MalvinasPosted: January 28th, 2017, 8:42 am
Offline
Posts: 759
Joined: January 1st, 2012, 7:01 pm
Location: Germany
Quote:
2. If you have never operated a seaplane component from ships, (and the Germans didn't, they used land bases in WW I) then you don't know enough about ship to plane handling to understand how cranky ships are, what aviation at sea means and why Glenn Curtiss is so important to all three carrier using navies of the era.
ggling to operate two.
Not entirely true. The Germans operated several seaplane carriers (converted freighters) and experimented with ship-borne aircraft from warships. As far as I know the reason to convert several cruisers into cruiser-carriers was so to have a carrying ship that could keep up with the fleet. Lets also not forget Dr.-Ing. Jürgen Reimpell: In his thesis in 1917 he suggested the conversion of the liner Ausonia into a hybrid seaplane-land aircraft carrier, a design that had many modern features, like an island structure.

_________________
My worklist
Any help and source material is always welcome.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Krakatoa
Post subject: Re: Argentina and the MalvinasPosted: January 28th, 2017, 8:58 am
Offline
Posts: 2495
Joined: July 1st, 2014, 12:20 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact: Website
1919-1923 millions of Germans unemployed, inflation rampant - wheelbarrow full of marks to buy a loaf of bread. Spanish Flu kills 19 million worldwide during same period. More than the death toll from WW1.

If you were offered immigration to another country to escape that, would you accept?

All of you have been talking in absolutes. All of the Germans will do this - all of the Germans will do that. I am talking 15,000 to possibly 20,000 out of hundreds of thousands available. Enough to man the ships, help train others. Show the Argentinians how to do things.

Why would Germans go to Argentina rather than US. There is no USA for a start. In RTL the US had just helped beat the Germans in WW1. After WW2 there was a choice between Russia and US, your choice would be? There is a huge difference between 1919 and 1945.

To do good AU work you do need to learn about the eras you are wanting to change and what might happen if you do make changes.

I asked for intelligent questions - the first question from anybody should have been what was the response from Chile and Brazil? Argentinas arch rivals in South America.

Thanks for that info DG_Alpha, that person could well have had some input into a conversion of the liner Columbus to a carrier.

But as I said it is about the ships, not the background.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
JSB
Post subject: Re: Argentina and the MalvinasPosted: January 28th, 2017, 5:14 pm
Offline
Posts: 1432
Joined: January 21st, 2014, 5:33 pm
OK about the ships my totally uninformed judgemental first impression,
Krakatoa wrote:
[ img ]
Nice but a bit light in surface fire power, pre radar I would want anti DD guns at least say 6"min.
I would also maybe add some less than ideal features to make it more realistic for a first CV say a taking off deck and Sea plan handling facilities at the stern or side to lift planes into the hangar?
[ img ]
I think you have added lots of weight gun wise and lost nothing? (would work if you add 6" to first ship and then plate over later?) Apart from that the island looks light and I would add space for command space and officers.

[ img ]
I don't think twin shafts is a good idea for such a fast ship as a CV and maybe longer funnel?
Not sure about the boat and other overhangs so low down in any sea state (going round to fight Chile!)
Lots of light AA for 39?

[ img ]
[ img ]
Don't really get these ships. Basically I think this gives you very little compared with a civilian sea plan carrier at greater cost. I would pull all the 12" on the first and make it pure seaplan hulk with AA guns or at least leave 2x2 12" so they could be counted as some preDreads for shore bombardment as one twin gives you nearly nothing?

[ img ]
Like, maybe add a big bulge for underwater protection and more boyancy to balance added weight over the years?
[ img ]
O how shipbucket has got better over the years....
[ img ]
I question if such an old hull form (21Kn) is going to be easy to get that fast...I would not both with this or go full Vanguard 'rebuild'.
Why does this have a different secondary armament to the ex Konigs?

[ img ]
Why you are not a second rate power and have plenty of old BBs above to do this job, this is a waste of cash that should have been spent on new fast ships.
AND why does it say from USA if no USA in back story?
[ img ]
Generally like it, good fast late 30s BB.
Why you would replace year old 5" is beyond me?

[ img ]
Why different from above class? (ok 12"/14" but very different feel ?)

[ img ]
I would cut her to a sea plane hulk with AA guns at each end, 4 guns is just to weak and she is old.
[ img ]
Ok but a heavy rebuild bill with not much reason due to new ships available.

[ img ]
Like (only thing might be 3"/4" AA guns close to each other?)
[ img ]
nice (might look nicer if you changed the funnel caps to match visually?)

[ img ]
[ img ]
Nice, I question the belt hump and its relation to the funnels? As well as to much heavy AA for 34?
[ img ]
My favourite. (would lengthen belt hump)
IMO Overall,
I think as a fleet its to much a mix and match of export stuff without the 'corporate trends' a large navy with its own design office would have?
It has to many lightly gunned ships (12" BB/ BC/ Coastal BBs), to many raiders to pay for a weak power and a weak heavy battle line for a major player.
http://www.alternateuniversewarships.co ... 201919.htm Me thinks RN would go nuts :-P
Looking forward to more.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
RegiaMarina1939
Post subject: Re: Argentina and the MalvinasPosted: January 28th, 2017, 5:34 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 407
Joined: January 12th, 2016, 8:57 pm
Location: Wilmington, North Carolina
Also, the amount of HUGE ships you have would be a major strain on a country as undeveloped and underfunded as Argentina. I could see this maybe with a nation like China or India, which has the manpower to develop infrastructure and man ships, but Argentina is not heavily populated, its population is spread out over a very rugged interior and it has only a few ports that can handle multiple enormous ships like you have here.

_________________
Best regards,

RegiaMarina1939

Current Worklist:
-Real designs
-Nicaragua AU
-Emperia Group AU
-FD scale diesel trucks


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Krakatoa
Post subject: Re: Argentina and the MalvinasPosted: January 28th, 2017, 11:13 pm
Offline
Posts: 2495
Joined: July 1st, 2014, 12:20 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact: Website
RegiaMarina1939 - why are you fixated on the Real Time Line? Surely you realise by now that the Argentina in this Alternate Reality DOES have the capability to provide the infrastructure required for the HUGE (biggest are only 30,000 tons - that's enormous?) ships. I make Argentina a country with the capability to do what I want, which is to have battles around the Falkands. It does not matter if they win or lose. In this case they win some battles and lose their war. It is also about the ships that I supply them with. How they do against the ships that I send against them from Brazil, Chile, UK and other Commonwealth forces. It is NOT the real time line!!

JSB - The different ships have different parts to the plan to take the Malvinas/Falkands. There are the harbour support ships for taking and holding Port Stanley. There are the convoy escort ships for the initial strike force. Then those ships escort the re-supply convoys. There are the two battle raiders to attack enemy shipping in the northern South Atlantic to draw off ships that might have been sent against the Falkands. Think about how much effort was required to track down and put the Graf Spee out of action. Then there is the cover force that would intercept and fight the forces trying to interfere with the convoys or trying to retake the islands. But all those ships have to have peacetime occupations up to the time that the strike is launched. Training ships, fleet in being, showing the flag, all the general peacetime duties.

I called the place that the three pairs of BB's CD's come from 'USA' so I would not have to explain to everyone that the USA was not actually there anymore. I get quite a lot of correspondence from interested observers of my site. I got a deluge when I posted the split Americas from US citizens wanting to know why I had disappeared the US "How could I", "You are an idiot", and some much less complimentary comments. People forget that the reasons I have built a ship, given a set of ships to a country, made a country where none was before, disappeared a country, are all from my imagination to fuel the battles that I will write about. But first I draw the ships. Once I have the navies drawn up I can then have all the fun of sinking them in glorious battles and instances of derring do of David versus Goliath.

JSB - the second drawings of the older ship will give the build date - (CA-1934) refits to 1939 - so that all the modern drawings should be to the same 1939 date. Wars start. Those later CV's do have a bit more 37's than they probably should. But they were on GD's drawing so I left them there. The reason the single 5" are removed is simple - they are the only ones in the fleet. Replace them with a common gun that is just as good. What you would put on a ship is your choice. But I would ask if a 6" type gun is important on an early carrier - why does your CV-4 not have the same 8' that were put aboard Lex and Sara?


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
JSB
Post subject: Re: Argentina and the MalvinasPosted: January 29th, 2017, 12:18 am
Offline
Posts: 1432
Joined: January 21st, 2014, 5:33 pm
Why does your CV-4 not have the same 8' that were put aboard Lex and Sara? -weight limit,tactical considerations, doctrine ,er I'm to lazy to draw it :-P

My apologies if its to negative (feel free to take apart my 100m river etc) I just like arguing over fleet compositions. Please do correct me if I'm getting it wrong not understanding your website.

I think numbers wise you have a lot of ships (always good :-))

CVs 2 full + 1 conversion
BBs fast 2x 14", 5x 12", 2x 12", 1x12" Slow 2x 14", 2x12", 2x12" = total 16 (10 fast 6 slow)
CBBs 2x12", 1x11" total 3

This fleet has very good points and very bad points.
It would be great for raiding as its mostly fast ships (the fast 10 v RN 3 ships in 39), but its not very good for a large battle as its throw weight is by late 30s very low to many 12" guns and nothing over 14".

Main fleet throw weight,
92x12" (I think some are 11"? not that it changes numbers for the better)(415 kg) and only 28x14" (680.4 kg) guns
57231.2Kg per salvo
v say RN from 15 ships (11x8+2x6 x15"(879 kg) +2x9x16"(929 kg))
104622Kg per salvo
So RN will have more than double your shell weight. (note this is for the OTL cut down RN from LNT your RN is significantly bigger)

This makes it very weak for invading an island against the RN, For an invasion you would need a slow battle line to be able to defend convoys, even unmodernised R class ships would be very dangerous to the majority of 12" ships and nothing can stand a fight a Nelson.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 2 of 3  [ 30 posts ]  Return to “Alternate Universe Designs” | Go to page « 1 2 3 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Amartus and 11 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]