Naval aspects of War Plan Red

The Discussion Board For The True Queen Of The Seas
Joined: 17 Feb 2005, 05:54

14 Feb 2018, 00:32 #1931

edgeworthy wrote:
MarkLBailey wrote: Edgeworthy:
Not to mention that Portsmouth Royal Naval Dockyard built HMS Sirius, a Dido Class Cruiser, whilst simultaneously being bombed by the Luftwaffe. And from much closer airfields with more advanced planes.

Or that Malta remained operational, HMS Illustrious docked for emergency repairs at the time of greatest hazard. While being the most bombed spot of WW2. And the Sicilian Narrows are a considerably shorter distance than that of any between a US airbase and a British Dockyard.
Its 776 miles from Bar Harbor to St John's by air, the word Ludicrous is completely applicable for any air arm in the 1920's.
(Its 619 miles from San Juan to Port of Spain, Trinidad ... or about twice the distance between Scapa Flow and Norway.)

I would try to argue that the phrase "with any sort of preparation" does imply deployment in a pre-war time of tension, but what would be the point?
(Or that any wartime re-deployment would obviously be escorted ... or "If the enemy is in range so are you!")
So Ikky got it wrong again. Will marvels never cease. The best US bomber of the era has an effective combat radius of not more than 150 miles in perfect conditions. Ikky's apparently a pilot, and ascribes to aircraft in the 1920s the operational characteristics and procedures of modern aircraft. If he bothered to read any of the stories of 1920s aviation, he'd quickly find out that flying on very dirty and waxy 70 octane straight run petrol to ~82 octane leaded fuels was a chancy business. It was quite common to be forced down by fuel blockages, for example. And metallurgical failures under vibration were very common.
Cheers: mark
Ah well a 150 Combat Radius would put Halifax outside operational parameters as well.
Its 244 miles from Bar Harbor.
(Should we mention that the Vickers Virginia, the successor to the Vimy and in service by 1925-27, has over twice the range and a greater payload than the Martin NBS-1)
And how is the USN supposed to launch a carrier attack on Bermuda when to do so would mean passing the RN, it is afterall the Homeport for the North America Station, and the Royal Navy will be seeking a decisive engagement. And with only 1 Carrier, and that Langley?
Whatever you do, don't mention the Vickers Virginia, with twice the range and a greater payload than the Martin NBS-1, erm, "heavy" bomber. That might be unkind.


What I don't get is the way a few blokes just ignore facts and reality, when the information is there to show the reality of the situation. Why ignore facts? Debate them, sure, but ignoring them? What's the point of doing that?

When someone presents me with new facts which disprove a view I hold, I change my mind on the matter in accordance with the new facts.

it is not hard.

Cheers: mark

Joined: 11 Aug 2013, 03:08

14 Feb 2018, 04:35 #1932

Didn't the Vickers Virginia suffer from high attrition? Something like 2/3rds of the production run as written off in accidents.

Joined: 17 Feb 2005, 05:54

14 Feb 2018, 07:29 #1933

Vickers Virginia 124 built. Entered Squadron operational service in 1924 and left operational bomber service in 1938. Continued in second line service until 1941.

Only have one source, which says that some were lost on the ground (fires when fuelling? Wrecked by high winds?) and about 70 lost in operational accidents.

That was also common with the Vickers Vimy. These aircraft had very low wing loadings, and a small amount of unexpected wind in the last stages of landing  would cause them to have a landing mishap. Most were apparently 'reduced to components' after such landing accidents.

A replica Vimy was flown out to Australia years ago, and the pilots said that was their most dangerous problem. On a modern airfield, the exhaust from a B747 turning on the taxiway a mile away in still air was enough to lift their unladen Vimy off the ground!

This was a problem with all of these big biplanes. I'd be surprised if they all did not have a similar loss rate, and for the same reasons.

Cheers: mark

Joined: 13 Nov 2008, 22:19

14 Feb 2018, 13:49 #1934

"Planes like Grandad flew!  Mahogany turnbuckles!"   Real Aviation.
"Be harmonious, enrich the soldiers, and scorn all other men"

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster himself."

"We take pride in the terminatory service we provide"

Joined: 10 Apr 2005, 14:54

14 Feb 2018, 13:50 #1935

stevep59 wrote:
ChrisPat wrote: An advance from the south in 1918 might be easier to say than do but the prospect of one is obvious and the leaders of Germany wouldn't have missed their entire southern flank dissolving.

  True but its a potentially very large flank and where are they going to find troops to cover it.  That I think was the original point, although we may have drifted a bit.  The threat of such an advance, when Germany is already seeing what's left of its army starting to crumble means their stretched even thinner.
I think we're probably all in agreement that regardless of how practical we might think an actual advance from Italy and Greece might have been, the Germans cannot ignoe the threat and must deploy accordingly.  It also would have a serious effect on the willingness of leadership and people to continue.

IRL, with conditions on the Western Front a bit worse than I think the scenario expects, Ludendorff just about had s complete breakdown and wanted to give up.  Unlike 1945, there seems to have been no one in November 1918 willing to fight it out.

Joined: 10 Apr 2005, 14:54

14 Feb 2018, 13:54 #1936

ChrisPat wrote: "Planes like Grandad flew!  Mahogany turnbuckles!"   Real Aviation.
With an onion tied to their belts, as that was the style in those days.

And they all died in ground training even before they saw an aeroplane, and they were happier for it! But, tell that to kids today . . .

Joined: 13 Nov 2008, 22:19

14 Feb 2018, 14:19 #1937

Steve, Dave -
I meant won't have missed their southern flank dissolving and will jack it in at that point.
"Be harmonious, enrich the soldiers, and scorn all other men"

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster himself."

"We take pride in the terminatory service we provide"

Joined: 10 Apr 2005, 14:54

14 Feb 2018, 18:09 #1938

Agreed. We're all on the same page here.

Joined: 24 Aug 2007, 23:14

14 Feb 2018, 21:51 #1939

ChrisPat wrote: Steve, Dave -
I meant won't have missed their southern flank dissolving and will jack it in at that point.
  Ok thanks.  Sorry, mis-understood what you were saying.😚

Joined: 17 Feb 2005, 05:54

14 Feb 2018, 22:45 #1940

Dave AAA wrote: Agreed.  We're all on the same page here.
Which is kinda what we discussed a while back, with Italy being forced to sue for peace from Austria-Hungary, then Austria-Hungary being forced out of the war by its own internal turmoil and economic failure. So we have a pretty solid line of reasoning for how WWI ends in this scenario and yes, it means Austria-Hungary will survive in a reduced form.

I'd think that it would be a much looser Empire, still Hapsburg (they are, we must recall, the most successful ruling family/ clan in human history) and based on an economic free trade and mutual customs zone, with local autonomy for local affairs. So the Czechs run themselves, so do the Slovaks and so-on and so forth, with an 'Imperial Army' to which all contribute on the basis of mutual self defence.

It has to be noted that the Austro-Hungarian Army was well known by everyone to be a major mechanism in defusing communal tensions between ethnic groups. It was more difficult to hate Ethnicity X when the Ethnicity X guy in your squad, Joachim, was a pretty good bloke who pulled his weight, talked about his family and his hopes to marry the pretty girl next door.  This was a deliberate and longstanding Austrian policy.

What this means if that you have validated the end of WWI which underlies this (preposterous) Anglo-American war scenario. That's good work.

Now, this has severe ramifications from ~1923.

From Infogalactic: 

First Armistice (11 November 1918 – 13 December 1918)
First prolongation of the armistice (13 December 1918 – 16 January 1919)
Second prolongation of the armistice (16 January 1919 – 16 February 1919)
Third prolongation of the armistice (16 February 1919 – 10 January 1920)
1920: Foundation of Inter-Allied Rhineland High Commission (10 January 1920, Versailles Treaty paragraphs 428–431)
1930: under the terms of the 1925–26 Locarno Treaties, Allied troops withdrew
1936: Remilitarization of the Rhineland by German troops under Hitler, on March 7
Occupying forces

A Belgian soldier guarding the Ober-Kassel-Düsseldorf bridge in February 1919
Belgian forces
This consisted of 20,000 soldiers (five divisions) with its headquarters at Aachen, and with its troops stationed in Krefeld.[3] They were commanded by Armand Huyghé.

British forces
The British Army entered German territory on 3 December 1918.[4] The British Army of the Rhine was established as the occupying force in March 1919. Based at Cologne, they published The Cologne Post.

French forces

French troops observing the Rhine at Deutsches Eck, Koblenz.

Chicago Daily Tribune, 6 March 1923, announcing French troops killing 5 resisting Germans on its front page
The French Eighth and Tenth armies originally constituted the French forces involved in the occupation. On 21 October 1919, they were combined to form the French Army of the Rhine.

In 1919 France stationed between 25,000 and 40,000 French colonial soldiers in the Rhineland.[5] Some German women married African soldiers from the occupying forces, while others had children by them out of wedlock (hence the disparaging label "Rhineland Bastards")[6] and were considered by right-wing Germans to constitute a public disgrace.[7] General Henry Tureman Allen reported to the US Secretary of State that from the start of the occupation until June 1920 there were 66 cases of formal accusations against colored colonial troops, out of which there were 28 convictions, and admits there were many more unreported cases.[8] Despite these occasional cases, "the wholesale atrocities by French negro Colonial troops alleged in the German press, such as the alleged abductions, followed by rape, mutilation, murder and concealment of the bodies of the victims are false and intended as political propaganda".[9]

Frankfurt occupation, 1920
Main article: French occupation of Frankfurt
French occupation of Frankfurt occurred from 6 April to 17 May 1920. On the second day nine civilians were shot by Moroccan troops in an incident outside the Hauptwache. This incident was used to launch a racist campaign against the French use of colonial troops, linking the incident with allegations of wide spread assaults by Black soldiers in the French occupation army on local women[8] including accusations of systemic rape and other atrocities targeting the German civilian population and attributed mainly to Senegalese Tirailleurs.[10] The events resulted in a widespread campaign by the German right-wing press, which dubbed them as "The Black Shame" (Die schwarze Schande or Die schwarze Schmach) and depicted them as a form of French humiliation of the German nation.[11]

Ruhr occupation, 1923
In 1923, in response to German failure to pay reparations under the Treaty of Versailles, France and Belgium occupied the industrial Ruhr area of Germany, most of which lies across the river on the West bank of the Rhine, until 1925. Many Germans were killed during civil disobedience protests. e.g. against dismissal of German officials.[12][13]
So from 1923 the US Administration (President Cox) which has continued the 1916 program and built a lot of DD starts to look at seizing territory if people cannot pay off debts, using the French occupation of the Ruhr as a pretext.

This will strongly affect the French, who I think will withdraw early - but the damage will be done.

In the 1924 election who knows, I'd assume Cox keeps the job and builds on that policy.

So, important question 1924-27.

Where will Germany stand politically here? What about Austria-Hungary? What about Poland?

If Germany wants to play both ends against the middle, well, it can't. It cannot support the US policy as much as it might hate the Anglo-French. That's important because Germany is the only source of some of the miltech the USN sorely needs (ammunition, war experience in ship design, aircraft).

But this US policy is anathema to them, and there's the chance to abrogate the debts if the USA tries to implement it.....

Cheers: mark