AHC: Make A Minor Navy Larger/More Effective Prior To WW2

I'd prefer the Hermes, IIUC there was talk of us getting it in 1942, but the inconsiderate IJN ruined that for us.
It depends when it's done. Argus was in reserve for much of the 30's so could in theory be lent to the RAN without effecting RN operations elsewhere. (When she was reactivated it wasn't supposed to be as an operational carrier, but rather as one for target drones.)
 
Last edited:
I'd like to see the RAN maintain its Submarine Arm between the wars and possibly take over HMS Argus instead of the RN putting it into reserve, even if it requires some funding and support from the UK.
I would like to see a few Australian state railways licensing diesel electric locomotive construction from the US to run on the more arid lines :angel:

High pressure boiler making is already reasonably common. The Tote machine was invented in Australia so they can build their own targeting systems. Armor isn't really an issue as smal lships and subs don't need it.

That just leaves guns. Pick a 4" and a mounting. Likewise some sort of 20mm cannon for Lithgow to play with.
 
I'd like Australia to build fleet units, even if only destroyers, rather than more sloops like the Parramatta and Bathurst classes. We started with 5 and ended the war with 11 destroyers, I'd like to see us build a few of our own as well as getting British ships.
 
On another note, if the allied powers allow the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs to to keep the navy it inherited from Austria-Hungary then Yugoslavia has quite the navy which is either captured in port or may be able to break out of the Adriatic to join up with the British in the wider Med.

Can Yugoslavia afford such a large navy?
 
I'd like Australia to build fleet units, even if only destroyers, rather than more sloops like the Parramatta and Bathurst classes. We started with 5 and ended the war with 11 destroyers, I'd like to see us build a few of our own as well as getting British ships.

My big concern there is the turbines. At least when building guns you can be making them for the Army as well. Even triple expansions have multiple uses. With a big, cruiser hulled, ever evolving, ocean going sloop you can keep punching them out slowly every year from 1918 without scaring treasury too much.
 
On another note, if the allied powers allow the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs to to keep the navy it inherited from Austria-Hungary then Yugoslavia has quite the navy which is either captured in port or may be able to break out of the Adriatic to join up with the British in the wider Med.

I like the possibilities with this. The "Royalist" faction lost favor with the Allies because of its incompetence and ineffectiveness. Tito's Partisans were more active and so got more and more aid as a result. A detachment of Yugoslav ships making it to Egypt and joining the Allies could change that perception and possibly get the Allies to stick with King Peter. It might make things worse though as in 1945 when the Soviets arrive Tito might have to make a deal with Stalin to defeat the Royalists. A post-WW2 civil war between the Royalist and Communist factions would be ugly. Instead of an independent Yugoslavia as the leader of the Non-Aligned Movement Yugoslavia could become another Soviet puppet state. Then again Stalin didn't give the Greek Communists any support so maybe the Royalists win and Yugoslavia joins NATO.

The big question is what would the Yugoslav Navy look like in 1941? How many of the Austro-Hungarian ships did they have to surrender after WW1? How obsolete would they be by 1941? Could they even afford to keep the navy running during the interwar period? Following the Polish example, all you would really need is enough Yugoslav sailors to make it out so they can have a few Lend-Lease ships from the British.
 
Without WW1 the world was heading for 400 dreadnoughts by the mid 1920s. Countries like Spain, The Netherlands, Australia, Argentina and Turkey would have 6 to 8 capital ships each. The largest navies would rank themselves by battle squadrons of 8 ships, the largest being the RN with 8, Germany 5, France and Russia 4 each etc.
 
Can Yugoslavia afford such a large navy?
They'd want to downsize to some extent, but given the nature of the Adriatic Question Yugoslavia is one of the few minor states with a very clear need for a strong navy.

How many of the Austro-Hungarian ships did they have to surrender after WW1?
Anything larger than a torpedo boat.

How obsolete would they be by 1941?
Italy was still using the Tatra class destroyers as late as 1937, and if Yugoslavia still develops its OTL military industrial partnerships with the UK and the Czechs then it maybe able to upgrade them to keep them relevant.

The submarines are probably best sold off. Though if the U-48 and U-50 classes could somehow be completed post-war they could still be barely viable come 1941.

Of course then the question comes to the two dreadnoughts. They can probably afford to keep one of them in good order and sell/scrap the other.
 
Yuan Shikai does a better job in China and avoids the Warlord Era. China begins to develop a more potent navy than the coastal force than had prior to the Second Sino-Japanese War.
 
Somehow tweak the domestic conditions in Finland in the late 20s and early 30s that the Navy can secure the (additional) funding to buy/construct maybe 2-3 (coastal) destroyers and 10-20 more modern MTBs than IOTL, as per the Finnish plans at the time. During the war, even this limited addition of lighter vessels would allow the OTL coastal defence ships to be used in a more versatile fashion, and there would be better options for protecting convoys from Soviet submarines on the northern Baltic.

The thing is, though, that the benefits brought by these vessels would be quite limited during the short Winter War (for a big part of which the sea was iced up anyway) and would mainly be realized after 1940, so comparatively the improvement of the Finnish Navy would be a boon to the Axis side of the equation.
 
I'd like Australia to build fleet units, even if only destroyers, rather than more sloops like the Parramatta and Bathurst classes. We started with 5 and ended the war with 11 destroyers, I'd like to see us build a few of our own as well as getting British ships.

How does one justify that in the 1920s when there is no real threats?
 
Of course then the question comes to the two dreadnoughts. They can probably afford to keep one of them in good order and sell/scrap the other.

Which means the Dreadnoughts would only be availble 1/3 time. Do not forget large capital ships need many manpower, further increasing the costs.
 
How does one justify that in the 1920s when there is no real threats?

I think the RAN was good for ships in the 20s receiving destroyers from the RAN, I would think the first Australian built destroyers could be started in the late 30s while Britain was rearming.
 

HJ Tulp

Donor
Did the Dutch develop the doctrine of coordinating their air forces specifically with the submarine forces in the DEI, or am I remembering someone's AH suggestion?

Even if that wasn't historically done that could be a useful idea. Give their estimable sub fleet more eyes, as well as being able to deliver an aerial punch of their own.

Yes that was the Interbellum doctrine. It didn't really pan out for three reasons:

  1. The submarine was replaced by the light cruiser as cornerstone of Dutch naval doctrine.
  2. The RNLN air service was integrated into ABDACOM. ABDACOM being led by the Britons put them under control of the RAF. By the time the information reached the RNLN it was often outdated.
  3. The defensive strategy for the DEI was changed from focussing on keeping control of Java, to defending everything. Urged on by the Commonwealth nations, a ton of airfields were build throughout the archipelago. They were defended lightly and were were vastly more useful to the Japanese than they were for the Allies.
 
The submarine was replaced by the light cruiser as cornerstone of Dutch naval doctrine.

Why was this? Was it because the Dutch Govt wouldn't fund the big ships that the Navy wanted? Because IIRC there were design proposals for Dutch capital ships in the late 30s.
 

HJ Tulp

Donor
Why was this? Was it because the Dutch Govt wouldn't fund the big ships that the Navy wanted? Because IIRC there were design proposals for Dutch capital ships in the late 30s.

The biggest reason is probably that, because of the brutal budget cuts of the 1930s, interservice rivalry in the Netherlands was like Japan but without the murders. There was no attempt to build a joint, balanced strategy for Army, Navy and Air Service, because noone wanted to share the limited resources with the others. To give an example, an former admiral who supported expanding the bomber force was publicly called a traitor to the country by his former colleagues.

When the Naval Air Service was capable of doing the recon for the submarine arm, the light cruisers were redundant. To save them a case was made that they could defend the DEI just by existing. To do this, Dutch naval thinkers embraced the thinking of German admiral Tripitz. Basically the idea was that all the capital ships of the IJN would have to be fighting the capital ships of the RN and the USN. Because of this light cruisers would be enough. Of course it was poppy cock but it saved the cruisers. It only became a problem in 1940 when the cruiser-doctrine had totally taken over Dutch naval thinking and reached the DEI with Helfrich. That was the moment when the submarine was relegated to second or third position. It was also the moment that the Dutch government decided to buy mediocre battlecruisers. Made in Germany, can you figure that? The change in Dutch naval thinking also in part explains the suicide runs of the Combined Strike Force. Helfrich had spent his career convincing everyone that light cruisers were enough to do the job.

EDIT: There is a bit more to this but I'm on my mobile right now. This is the main thing though :)
 
Top