StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I've recently taken a liking to WWII battleships, and would like to ask the Drakafic staff a few questions relating to naval warfare in the Drakafic setting:

How long did it take for the Drakan navy to be eliminated as a serious threat?

How many large naval battles between Drakan and Allied surface fleets occured?

What was the ratio of serfs to citizens on Drakan warships?

http://home.comcast.net/~mksheppard/Dra ... riotic.htm

Chapters 5 and 6 deal with a naval engagement between the Red Navy and the Draka Navy, to whet your thirst for the time being, and should give you an answer to your last question there.



So, what do you define as a "serious threat"? The Drakian Navy was never a huge threat - their main stomping ground is the Mediterranean, where they can more often than not operate under cover of land-based air.

Reading the Writers Bible on the Drakan navy gives one the impression that they weren't even really trying. Their battleships are old, or commerce raider types, their submarines are impractical shallow depth steam powered monsters and there seems to be a total lack of Carrier Doctrine of any sort. Shep theorized the existence of a Montior type vessel, but that is something we have no data on at the present time..

While it is stated in the timeline that the Snakes did not deside to go down the carrier route, i think it would have made sense for the Draka to field a class of Torpedo bombers for Coastal Defense during the war, most likely named Ospray or something on that line. They do have a rather close conection with the Japanese and with coastal airfields in north africa they could cheaply use them to patrol the Mediterranean, as Klavo has sugjested.

Zor

I've generally expected the Draka Fleet to have a mix of ships comparable to the Kriegsmarine, Regia Marina, French Navy and Red Navy, but larger in scale.

montypython wrote:I've generally expected the Draka Fleet to have a mix of ships comparable to the Kriegsmarine, Regia Marina, French Navy and Red Navy, but larger in scale.

Could you explain on what you mean by that?

Zor

KlavoHunter wrote:http://home.comcast.net/~mksheppard/Dra ... riotic.htm

Chapters 5 and 6 deal with a naval engagement between the Red Navy and the Draka Navy, to whet your thirst for the time being, and should give you an answer to your last question there.

Thank you for pointing me there. It answers a lot of my questions, plus I caught the diss towards RSA.

So, what do you define as a "serious threat"? The Drakian Navy was never a huge threat - their main stomping ground is the Mediterranean, where they can more often than not operate under cover of land-based air.

Thanks for answering my question.

Zor wrote: Could you explain on what you mean by that?
Zor

As the Draka aren't normally expected to operate far from their territorial waters, their ship design philosophy should resemble the Germans, Italians and Soviets rather than British/US/Japanese formats.

The Draka fleet as I see it should be broken down into 3 major commands: Med Fleet, Atlantic Fleet and Indian Ocean Fleet. The fleets would be balanced groups of Capships and subs, with battleships comparable to OTL Bismark/Littorio and H-class/Sovietsky Soyuz classes in layout, with some Japanese technical input added. The subs should be comparable to mainstay units such as the German Type VII, Soviet L-class et al, also with Japanese input.

This is the highly incomplete OOB information for the Drakian navy at the start of the war.

It doesn't include two battleships built in Japanese yards, halted during the great Kanto Earthquake, and then finished for the Draka, which have many severe mechanical problems because they were basically sitting rusting on the slips for a decade before being finished due to the Japanese fiscal crisis related to the Kanto Earthquake.

Along with a lot of the light ships, of course.

And there's numerous corrections that could use to be made.

Coiler wrote:Thanks for answering my question.

Oh, I'm not saying the Draka Navy is anything to sneeze at. It's more of a threat than the Kreigsmarine was in WW2 OTL - the Draka turn the Mediterranean into a cauldron of savage battle - They're duking it out with the French, the Italians (What's left of them, at any rate), the Spanish, the Greeks, the Russians... And we're not even including those who join in later!

Plus the Draka have a submarine fleet that keeps things interesting in the Atlantic.

Vehrec wrote:Reading the Writers Bible on the Drakan navy gives one the impression that they weren't even really trying. Their battleships are old, or commerce raider types, their submarines are impractical shallow depth steam powered monsters and there seems to be a total lack of Carrier Doctrine of any sort. Shep theorized the existence of a Montior type vessel, but that is something we have no data on at the present time..

Admittedly, we haven't finished fleshing out the Draka Navy - We were messing about still with crafting together a "Large Raiding Cruiser" concept using parts off the Invincible-class battlecruisers that the Draka owned, much less having figured out precisely what we want them to be able to build later on.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: Along with a lot of the light ships, of course.

And there's numerous corrections that could use to be made.

Yes, for instance, when we were doing work on the Draka navy, we were dicking around with Springsharp a bunch, and came up with some innovative light-ship designs. I rather liked the DDAA concept I came up with.

Anyway, at the start of the war the Draka had twelve battleships, which is the name number that Japan had OTL. 5 armed with 8 x 15in/42, 2 armed with 10 x 16in/45, and 5 armed with 9 x 16.25in/56, while another 5 with 12 x 16.25in/56 were under construction, all of which were ultimately finished. A repeat class of that type was laid down, but most of these were never finished.

As for monitors they primarily used elderly pre-dreadnoughts.

Of course the USN, Marine Nationale, Regina Marina, Royal Hellenic Navy, etc, are all much larger than they were historically.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Anyway, at the start of the war the Draka had twelve battleships, which is the name number that Japan had OTL. 5 armed with 8 x 15in/42, 2 armed with 10 x 16in/45, and 5 armed with 9 x 16.25in/56, while another 5 with 12 x 16.25in/56 were under construction, all of which were ultimately finished. A repeat class of that type was laid down, but most of these were never finished.

That requires a minor amount of tweaking in terms of metric-izing those numbers - 16.25" seems to be a uniquely Drakian calibre, and would probably be rounded off to something like 412mm from the start.

As for monitors they primarily used elderly pre-dreadnoughts.

Or, rather, probably the guns off those predreads, affixed to smaller, cheaper-to-operate new platforms?

Of course the USN, Marine Nationale, Regina Marina, Royal Hellenic Navy, etc, are all much larger than they were historically.

Naturally.

For example, the USN has a reserve fleet if 6 standard battleships, one with 10 x 14in guns, and the rest with 12 x 14in guns, all steam turbine and capable of similar speeds. Oklahoma is reduced to the fleet's training ship, as are Wyomings. Five other old battleships were sold, and three scrapped. The main active duty fleet consists of 6 standards armed with 8 x 16in/45cal guns, 6 SD Mk.Is with 12 x 16in guns, two repeats of that class with slight improvements, for a total of eight, plus two more repeats with 8 x 18in/48cal guns, a class of six improved ships on those lines, (the Arkansas class), and six Florida class battleships with 9 x 18in/48cal guns. This means that in wartime the USN can bring 34 dreadnought battleships into action with 70 x 14in, 144 x 16in, and 118 x 18in guns into action in the summer of 1941.

Probably another two to four ships of the 26kts, 9 x 18in gun type, repeats of theFloridas with some improvements, are built slowly over the rest of the 1930s, the first commissioning in late 1941 and the last in late 1943, after of which the first of the Virginias, also 9 x 18in guns but capable of 28kts, are commissioned. There are also a total of 9 battlecruisers in service in the USN in the summer of 1941.

In comparison to that the Japanese have only five battleships with a cumulative of 46 x 16in guns, nine with 8 x 18in guns, and four with 9 x 18in guns in commission (Izumo class, 30kts, all turrets grouped forward, and Yamato class, 27kts, regular turret arrangement), and an improved Yamato with the same armament, for 117 x 18in guns.

The four Kongos have been rebuilt as cruiser-killers, since most cruisers these days are very large and armed with 12in guns, since there was no Washington treaty, making rebuilt battlecruisers a considerable asset. The four Fuso and Hyuga type vessels are in reserve or training roles. This means that the total Japanese fleet strength in guns is 48 x 14in + 46 x 16in + 117 x 18in guns, against 70 x 14in, 144 x 16in, and 118 x 18in. In battlecruisers the Japanese have 90 x 16in guns vs. 72 x 16in guns on the American side.

To balance the four Japanese Kongos, the USN has the eight immense Baltimore-class CBs with 7 x 12in/50cal guns each. The Japanese still built their heavy cruisers about as historical, since the USN up until the Baltimores also stuck with the 8in gun, and went up in response to the hordes of foreign 10in-armed commerce raiding cruisers. The Japanese solution, as noted, was to rebuild the Kongos, though a further design class of four ships with 9 x 12.2in/60cal is under construction in 1941, to be followed with another two ships with 6 x 14.4in. Of course, of these vessels, they're to little, to late, as the USN by that point builds, immediately before and during the war, something like 14 more CBs with a 9 x 12in gun armament, and another nine were ordered that were converted to carriers or not finished until postwar as CBGs.

In comparison, the Royal Navy is in a weak position. In commission are five Lion-class and one Queen Mary-class battlecruisers, all rebuilt to be armed with 6 x 13.5in guns as cruiser-killers on largely identical lines, plus the two Tigers (Tiger and Panther) with 8 x 13.5in, also rebuilt as cruiser-killers like the Kongos. There are two Renown-class battlecruisers with 6 x 15in, also used in the cruiser-killing role. The main battlecruisers are the 4 x Hood-type, and 4 x G3 type. Two proto-Orions with 8 x 13.5in guns have been scrapped. One Coloussus and one Neptune-class older battleships are in service as training ships; all the other old 12in gun ships have been scrapped. A total of two of the 10 x 13.5in gunned ships were lost in the war; two seized from Turkey replace them, so 12 of them are still in service. They've all be heavily rebuilt to serve as second-line ships. In total 8 x QE, 6 x Revenge-type, and 4-improved QE type vessels were built by all the Imperial components; all in service. The four N3s were built, but Britain was left bankrupt at that point; they reverted to a smaller, 10 x 15in/55cal gun armed design, of which four were built. This was increased to a 12 x 15in/55cal gun design using three quadruple turrets, and then a 12 x 16in/45cal gun design. The quadruple turrets have proved unsatisfactory, but were an economy measure. This gives the RN battle line a very aenemic 96 x 13.5in, 232 x 15in, 48 x 16in, and 36 x 18in gun arrangement with 46 battleships in all, outnumbering the USN, but being very seriously deficient in heavy guns compared with the USN and IJN. They have eight battlecruisers versus nine in the USN and IJN each, with a total of 36 x 16in and 32 x 15in guns.

In cruiser killers they have the best force, though, with not just the ten old WW1 vintage ships but four new ships, two armed with 6 x 13.5in, and two armed with 8 x 13.5in, recycled from the older scrapped ships and the turrets removed from the BCs.

Note that a large part of this force, the East of Suez Fleet tasked with guarding the further Imperial possessions, which must be permanently stationed due to the Draka closing the Suez Canal, is crewed almost entirely with Australians, New Zealanders, Malaysians, and Indians. This force includes eight of the CBs, all of the Battlecruisers, the N3s (which have difficulty operating in England due to the lack of deep harbour facilities), and the QE-variants. It has 22 battleships against the Japanese 19, but the British battle force is qualitatively inferior in all respects except numbers, though its battlecruiser force matches the Japanese and it has more cruiser-killers. The other 24 British battleships comprise the Home Fleet, along with 6 Cruiser-killers.

In carriers, the British have 13 modern, 7 in the Indian Ocean and 6 in the Grand Fleet, and two old carriers used for training. The United States in comparison only has 8 modern carriers and one old training carrier, though another 2 are under construction. This means that the British have nearly the best carrier force in the world. The Japanese have basically their historical carrier force, conversely, except with four more medium/light carriers than they did historically.

Together in 1941 if Japan was allied to the Draka in the war they'd have a cumulative of 31 battleships, 9 battlecruisers, 4 cruiser killers (old BCs), 15 - 20 large cruisers (the Draka loved building these), 4 heavy carriers, 4 medium carriers, four light carriers, and two old carriers for training.

The USN, other than being weak on carriers, is the best fleet in the world in all respects; the British fleet is larger, but is overstretched and mostly made up of old and obsolete forces. The Japanese are very good, and in the running for the best carrier fleet in the world, near to tied with the British and having a larger landed aircraft capacity in fact.

KlavoHunter wrote:
That requires a minor amount of tweaking in terms of metric-izing those numbers - 16.25" seems to be a uniquely Drakian calibre, and would probably be rounded off to something like 412mm from the start.

It's an old British calibre, and the Drakian navy is very British.

Or, rather, probably the guns off those predreads, affixed to smaller, cheaper-to-operate new platforms?

I'm not sure. Plenty of serfs for the ratings, after all, and those ships would always be in reserve absent of a war. Why pay the money for a new hull?

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:It's an old British calibre, and the Drakian navy is very British.

Ah, yes, but it's a new gun entirely, yes? The Dominate operates on the Metric System.

I'm not sure. Plenty of serfs for the ratings, after all, and those ships would always be in reserve absent of a war. Why pay the money for a new hull?

True enough, the Draka can afford waste like that, and plus there's the added bonus that said predreadnoughts can defend themselves far better than some stripped-down monitor that lacks secondary guns.

True, we could make them 415's--412 is to small. 16.25in = 416mm.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:True, we could make them 415's--412 is to small. 16.25in = 416mm.

No, 16.25in = 412.75mm.

Jannies aboard a ship is going to be a bit of a tricky issue for the snakes due to the threat of mutiny, which if it did sucseed, could easily have a cruiser or destroyer fall into enemy hands. I can see 2 routes the snakes could do to minimize the danger...

1-Jannies are used in limited numbers by the Drakian and only to really unpleasant dirty hard grunt work jobs aboard ships.
2-The Draka make largescale use of Jannisaries aboard their ships and keep a good sized garrison of citizen enforcers aboard to make sure that the Serfs stay in line, most likely alot of redundant serfs in this case because a few are inevitably going to get thrown overboard or end up getting impaled, or whatever the snakes do to rebellious serfs aboard ships.

So how do the snakes adress this problem?

Zor

Considering the major fleet expansions compared to OTL, I'm surprised a Tillman-style 18" 15 gun behemoth wasn't built for the USN.

Also, a Taiping naval list would be interesting to have, wrt an Enigma Rising Tide-type scenario build.

montypython wrote:Considering the major fleet expansions compared to OTL, I'm surprised a Tillman-style 18" 15 gun behemoth wasn't built for the USN.

Also, a Taiping naval list would be interesting to have, wrt an Enigma Rising Tide-type scenario build.

The simple fact is that there is no reason to mount more than twelve guns on a ship, and the largest calibre is 18in. There's a variety of reasons why a 12 x 18in gunned battleship was never built, however, mostly relating to cost and harbour size.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: The simple fact is that there is no reason to mount more than twelve guns on a ship, and the largest calibre is 18in. There's a variety of reasons why a 12 x 18in gunned battleship was never built, however, mostly relating to cost and harbour size.

HMS Agincourt, anyone? The only Battleship to ever exceed 12 main guns?

KlavoHunter wrote:

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:True, we could make them 415's--412 is to small. 16.25in = 416mm.

No, 16.25in = 412.75mm.

Oh bleh, you're right. I hate conversions.

KlavoHunter wrote:

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: The simple fact is that there is no reason to mount more than twelve guns on a ship, and the largest calibre is 18in. There's a variety of reasons why a 12 x 18in gunned battleship was never built, however, mostly relating to cost and harbour size.

HMS Agincourt, anyone? The only Battleship to ever exceed 12 main guns? :twisted:

No, it wasn't. There were also no less than five Italian battleships with 13 x 12in main guns.

None of them were really worth it, however.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: The simple fact is that there is no reason to mount more than twelve guns on a ship, and the largest calibre is 18in. There's a variety of reasons why a 12 x 18in gunned battleship was never built, however, mostly relating to cost and harbour size.

Considering how the OTL Montana class is very similar dimensionally to the Tillman design proposals, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to build a 12x18in BB even if 15x18in seemed a little excessive.

montypython wrote:

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: The simple fact is that there is no reason to mount more than twelve guns on a ship, and the largest calibre is 18in. There's a variety of reasons why a 12 x 18in gunned battleship was never built, however, mostly relating to cost and harbour size.

Considering how the OTL Montana class is very similar dimensionally to the Tillman design proposals, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to build a 12x18in BB even if 15x18in seemed a little excessive.

Speed and armour requirements had gone up extensively, however. A 21kts battleship would be worthless by the time they'd be considered.