In 1921 The Washington Naval Conference is called and Germany goes

You are doing a lot of fancy footwork to avoid the fact the UK never had the best carriers in the world.
Never is a very strong word, just what better carrier in the world would you like to challenge say HMS Furious or Argus in 1918?
 

BlondieBC

Banned
great reference, something you wrote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Naval_Air_Service
The most basic references
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_German_Navy
go to airpower for the german navy link.

So what do you think these links show? You have to add a bit more detail. The RNAS existing does not mean that the Germans did not have quality land based naval aviation. It does not change that the German aviation industry generally had a win during the war. And that in a German win scenario where there is ample funding for the navy, that that Germany will not continue and expand this lead.

Note: Even in a German win, I don't consider even flat naval spending a given.

I think there may also be some confusion. It is my position that at any point from 1914 to Today that either the IJN or the USN has the best carrier based aviation. The UK is not in the discussion. My related position is that in WW1, that Germany as the best land based naval aviation. And that in WW2, the best land based naval aviation is either Japan (early) or the USA (later). The UK is not a leader here. I have no strong position on who had the best land based naval aviation from 1920 to 1938.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Germany Has her African and pacific colonies in this time line .

How did you get there with a mid-1916 POD?

Really hard to see Japan giving back anything. Really hard to see South Africa giving back SWA, unless I have the dates of losing SWA wrong. I guess I could see France giving back parts of West Africa. And I could see maybe east Africa for some concession in Belgium. I just can't see Pacific colonies for Germany with some major pre war POD. How can Germany hold unless Tsingtao holds? And it takes a lot for an isolated Tsingtao to withstand the full might of the Japanese Empire. While Japan only used one division, Japan could have used its entire army if it needed too. Same with its navy.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Never is a very strong word, just what better carrier in the world would you like to challenge say HMS Furious or Argus in 1918?

Here is the issue. I have looked a lot of projections of performance before battles. They are almost never correct, so I put a lot of weight on actual performance. Which battles did these ships win that will impress me?

Also "Japan is best" is not equal to "UK is bad".

Japan had a well organized campaign where the carrier worked well, then a lack of targets for the rest of the war. Japan 1-0-0

UK had a 1914 attack that did nothing. Then to the Ottomans it loses a carrier to gross stupidity. And the British had some big plans for 1919. So to put in football terms, the UK was 0-1-1 for the war but saying the off year acquisitions would have been a championship team in 1919. And the loss was a blow out. I need a couple of clear UK carrier battle wins to get the UK in the conversation.
 
So what do you think these links show? You have to add a bit more detail. The RNAS existing does not mean that the Germans did not have quality land based naval aviation. It does not change that the German aviation industry generally had a win during the war. And that in a German win scenario where there is ample funding for the navy, that that Germany will not continue and expand this lead.

Note: Even in a German win, I don't consider even flat naval spending a given.

I think there may also be some confusion. It is my position that at any point from 1914 to Today that either the IJN or the USN has the best carrier based aviation. The UK is not in the discussion. My related position is that in WW1, that Germany as the best land based naval aviation. And that in WW2, the best land based naval aviation is either Japan (early) or the USA (later). The UK is not a leader here. I have no strong position on who had the best land based naval aviation from 1920 to 1938.
They show the British clearly had quite a substantial force regarding naval aviation in WW1.
Meanwhile, the Germans only had a few seaplane carriers, only capable of carrier two to four aircraft and too slow to operate with the HSF.
The only major CV design the Germans had was the Ausonia, a converted passenger liner. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_aircraft_carrier_I_(1915)
The Germans Weren't impressed with fixed aircraft, and much preferred Zeppelins.
You still give nothing to prove your point.
And why are you bringing the Japanese and Americans?
The Japanese were ahead of all other navies, especially in naval aviation, during the 30s, the Americans superior by 1942/3
This is WW1. Britain is far superior, and remains so until the Early 20s.
during WW2, Britain didnt have an enemy like the Japanese at the door, as Germany had limited naval aviation during WW2.
By the time Japan did declare war, most of the fighting was done with the Americans, major British forces only arriving en masse in 43/44
 
Wait, wait, wait, are we talking about the zeppelins as being the most effective arm? Blondie, I don't have a clue what you're talking about by continuing to refer to them as having the best naval aviation. And, if it's the zeppelins we're talking about, that's a dead-end technological route that will eventually cease to pan out.

And if the war ends in 1916, in that timeframe, the most successful (there is a difference between most successful and most advanced) naval aviation would have been the Russians, seeing as they were the first to actually sink a ship with naval aircraft. And that ship was an unarmored merchant vessel that was sitting at port. It was hardly a warship moving at speed during an actual battle.

As for the potential carrier conversion, it was for a cruise liner that, after conversion, would have weighed about 10k tons and carried a grand total of 10 aircraft. The plans for the conversion took three years to draw up as well, so while they at least were planning to convert, it will wouldn't have even been put to sea until 1920 at earliest (the plans were only finalized in 1918, and not a single thing had been actually done to that interned cruise liner) and such a vessel would have been inferior in every way to, well... every other carrier in existence. It's rather telling when it'd be inferior to Langley save for likely being launched first. (assuming nothing else changes, which it would).
 
I am not so sure why you think the "All or Nothing" invalidates the UK test. They are are response to UK test and lesson from battles. I will leave out steps, but it roughly as follows:

  • As we move into the modern age (dreadnought age), ships were armored to defend against their main gun. i.e. 12" gunned ship can take a bunch of 12" shells. It was often what is called "medium" armor or probably more accurate "all around" armor. The engines, the main magazines, and the gun turrets were protected to this standard. So even if heavily pummeled, the ship should be able sail back to port for lengthy repairs. Now I am not so sure this is true, but it was believed.
  • Gun technology advance faster than armor. Or put another way, it is much easier to build a good 16" gun if you can build a good 12" gun than to figure out how to do medium armor versus a 16" gun.
  • Post war test showed the rule of thumb of "Two gun size down can't survive in battle".
  • IOTL, there is a emerging understanding that you can't effectively medium armor a 15" or 16" ship. All or nothing armor is a response to this understanding. So it the concept of "immunity zone". These reaction to the findings in the studies that I cited plus other factors highlight the process.
  • There is an open debate on this forum about if the Japanese 18" gun was a quality gun. I have no strong view on this matter.
  • My position is that if all/most major powers have built 18" guns, then yes, 15" ships are obsolete and likely death traps. The USA 16" seems to be the most popular 15" or 16" gun on this board, so to take an example. If the USA builds a 18" gun with the same quality and then builds a Montana class or bigger ship with said guns (8X18"), the the QE are death traps if used in the main battle line. So in the battle where 5 Montana line up against 5 QE or R, I would not expect the QE to survive. 3" is a lot in gun size. Would you expect a 12" gunned British dreadnought to be able to out slug a QE? In a 5 on 5 battle of these type of ships, how damaged do you think the QE would be? Would you expect any of these QE to be sunk? Same idea.
Because the UK was testing ships with a different armor philosophy, be like using tests on predreadnoughts to get a rule for dreadnoughts, get a flawed result. The 14" armed All or Nothing US ships were better armored than 15" armed British ships (unless you count Vanguard), so a rule created for one would not necessarily hold for the others. If nothing else different nations judge survivability versus ones own guns by different standards, and those standards can change as combat ranges change.

All or Nothing is not a response to the understanding that it is impossible to "medium" armor a 15" or 16" ship. It came about before any 15" ship hit the water, or was even ordered, with the Nevadas ordered in March 1911, the Queen Elizabeth's were ordered in 1912

The idea is not that QE or R is comparable to a hypothetical 18" Montana, but that the contribution that a QE or R would bring to such a fight is worth slowing the fleet of 18" ships to take them along.
 
Here is the issue. I have looked a lot of projections of performance before battles. They are almost never correct, so I put a lot of weight on actual performance. Which battles did these ships win that will impress me?

Also "Japan is best" is not equal to "UK is bad".

Japan had a well organized campaign where the carrier worked well, then a lack of targets for the rest of the war. Japan 1-0-0

UK had a 1914 attack that did nothing. Then to the Ottomans it loses a carrier to gross stupidity. And the British had some big plans for 1919. So to put in football terms, the UK was 0-1-1 for the war but saying the off year acquisitions would have been a championship team in 1919. And the loss was a blow out. I need a couple of clear UK carrier battle wins to get the UK in the conversation.
And once again, you are talking about the Japanese navy during WW2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Navy_Air_Service
 
Astrodragon. I have seen your type of challenge before. And I used to respond and spend several hours writing long, cited replies. Then, generally speaking, the other side will not respond with any cites of their own. I have concluded that this is a waste of my time in more than 90% of cases. And it makes the thread less enjoyable for others.

As to "But then, what do I know about British Naval Aviation, right?", I guess I will have to be blunt. I do not consider you an expert in British naval aviation. Have you done something that I don't know about such as publish well know books on this topic? Or have you taught at the US Naval Academy? Have you reached flag rank in a major navy of the world? I know this sounds harsh, but most of the sources that I have read on this topic are either primary sources (fought in the battle being discussed), are widely accepted sources (Churchill, Official British Pre-war Naval review, tenured professor of warfare) or they have both achieve the rank of Captain and fought in a war by command a cruiser or larger ship.

The fact that you do nothing to answer questions raised other than resort to ad hominem attacks shows the quality of your arguments

I'm sorry that we are unable to comment here unless we are ex-teachers of the US Naval academy or ex flag rank officers, I guess I missed that part of the site rules.
 
I would like to know just how many battles the Ex Flag Rank officers have fought using WWI ships . I do believe that my
friends all naval miniature gamers who have fought naval battles for over 38 years might know something also .We fought the battle out last summer using SEEKRIEG rules and the British Battle Cruisers got sunk to the last ship
 
And? What toll was exacted on the German High Seas Fleet?
Most Germans ships were damage but they were able to get home . There loses were almost historical . It was like the Computer hated the British fleet for 4 of the British BC exploded with Turret hits and 2 of the QE went up with golden BB shots .
 
Most Germans ships were damage but they were able to get home . There loses were almost historical . It was like the Computer hated the British fleet for 4 of the British BC exploded with Turret hits and 2 of the QE went up with golden BB shots .

So a simulation where the thumb was pressed even more heavily on the side of the Germans than OTL. Hardly ASB, but it's extremely lucky for the Germans to do so well. Instead of only having Beatty overextend himself, you'd have to require the entire Grand Fleet to do so. And your OTL casualties for the Germans seem extremely lucky as well. Especially destroying the QEs so easily without them drawing any blood in return.

That's part of why the scenario is so improbable. It requires so many coin flips to land on heads that the coin would have to be weighted to achieve it.
 
Top