Naval History Forums

he point I was making is that a fleet air arm isn't just carrier based - it can be land based as well, using coastal airfields to operate in the waters close to Britain, particulary with torpedo bombers to attack ships at sea and in harbour. The overall experience of WW2 is that naval aviation is v...

The problem I see with both the last couple proposals is that they require so many additional resources that there's a very good chance that Germany doesn't take France out of the war in 1940. That means no French bases for the Uboats or German raiders returning to Europe as well as the French flee...

This is an interesting and very well thought out post. Certainly this looks like a navy with some hitting power. Thanks, thanks. This is a lot of fun for me. However three immediate points spring to mind in terms of your fleet, plus one other point I have mentioned in my previous post. Firstly this...

Sorry to come a bit late to this subject, which fascinated me for years. IMO, no historical WWII navy has it more challenging, yet there is a real chance for success, I believe - and by success, I mean helping Germany win the war, not merely naval battles. I think it's vital for Germany to maintain ...

A quick thought: 24 knots speed in reality might have meant destruction at sea - inabilty to outrun more powerful British battleships. If Guilio Cesare only had 24 knots she might have been sunk at Calabria or even at Spartivento (unless Vittorio Veneto was allowed to defend her in the latter case)...

[Italy needed long-legged, tough escort cruisers and destroyers] Why? She had few, if any, global and/or colonial interests; she therefore had no need of a far-reaching navy (unlike the Netherlands, UK, and France) to serve, defend, and maintain communications with. Sure, Mussolini siezed Abyssinia...

I think rebuilt two of them instead of four would have been enough. The rebuilt in itself was excellent - these ships would have worked great in a place like the Java sea, or in the North Sea as muscular coastal battleships, but they were hardly what Italy needed. Italy needed long-legged, tough esc...

Coming in late, I voted a bit hastily for Jutland, because it is the quintessential naval battle. Don't unedrestimate the result of the battle; A draw was all that Britain needed, lest Jellicoe lose the whole war in a couple hours. If the German fleet had won (more decisively, that is), England's wa...

Do you believe that Yamato´s was that old fashioned? It had, as in the Iowas, their main armor concentrated in the citadel, and their hulls were very similar (it was, at least, more similar than those of the German and British capital ships). "Old fashionned" in the sense that speed playe...

The only thing I feel mising is one classification that I don´t believe is an "outlaw" or a supercruiser: the Fast Battleship. As a matter of fact the Iowa class is often considered a Fast Battleship. In this case we can define it the following way: Fast Battleship : a Batteship with the ...

First, I would specify a post-1945 view, as the definition of things change with time. - Battleships; Ships that floats the heaviest possible weaponnery and armor. Classic ships of the line, subdivided by classifications of their time; Pre-Dreadnoughts, WT battleships, "outlaws" and in bet...

I like how the anglo saxon and continental catagories work very nicely for the WW I era, but I can't really see extending these catagories into WWII eras and beyond. The USA and Britain (and the Germans) largely superceded the large BC concept with the fast battleship concept by WWII. True. Like I ...

So, first things first. What´s a battlecruiser? Basically, I would say that it is a battleship which trades armor (most often) for machinery. That being said, I think there were two distinct kind of battlecruisers: a) Tha "Anglosaxon" battlecruiser, long thinclads with high speed and batt...