[quote]Originally posted by |-|05|:
[b]
dun worry pal u dun insult me i dun insult u..
if you disagree state your point and if possible a nice
piece of reading material for me to go look at and analyse myself
The thing about the RN during the inter war years is that the
british already had some ships being built and the cost of scaping
those ships would be more then to finish building them....so they
continued even if those ships were outdated.Thus ensuring that even
though they might have more ships those ships are not worth half of
an enemy ship.Also the british were very weary of Japnese ambitions
in the pacific that was why they built the Singapore Naval base.To
house an emergancy response squradron should it to be needed.But
yea the USN was a major player in the Pacific but their Fleet was
stationed on their home shores and not in Pearl thus making their
fleet way to far away.Also some pacific fleet ships were rotated to
the Alantic.
As for the Kerigmarine well Plan Z and the ships that were borned
out of it was light and good for the Norway attack though not built
for it.However navy as always in Germany never got the funding it
needed!Z Plan's completetion would not have meant that the German
fleet was a threat it was made to simply enable Germany to have a
fleet that would be able to mantain Germany's power in it's own
waters.The Germans were moving alot into the area of using commerce
raiders more then a big surface fleet action which would not be
good.Also i disagree about the German's having lesser naval tech,as
the German ships generally had better fire contorl,sighting
system,navigation and detection system.
The British did recognised that the Japanese would be a threat to
their Asian colonies in the interwar years and I agree with you
that the construction of the Singapore Naval Base was in
recognition of that threat. However the construction of the base
does not neccessarily means that the British feel that they have
the capability to defend their asiatic colonies. The construction
of the base was slow in the 1920s and only picked up in the 1930s
under recognition of Japanese expansionistic tendencies especially
in the 1933 Manchurian Incident. The fact the British refused to
base their a fleet here and instead intend to dispatch a fleet here
was illuminative of British strategic thoughts. In view of the
political situation of the 1930s, the British began to appreciate
that the possible prospect of a renewed war with a rearmed Germany
and a resurgent Japan. There was implict recognition that a strong
fleet would only be sent to Singapore should there not be a
requirement for their basing in the Home Islands in a European
conflict. If the British had not abandoned their global defense
concept of the 19th and early 20th century, a fleet would probably
be assigned on permanent station in Singapore togather with the
base. What good would be a base without a fleet? In the end, Force
K was dispatched to Singapore and in retrospect it was difficult to
envisioned what the British hope to achieve against a Japanese
invasion fleet covered by a task force involving at least 2 Fleet
carriers. I bring up this point in support of my argument that the
RN has switched its focus to the security of its home waters as
mentioned in my earlier posts. The building up of its Eastern Fleet
from 1943 onwards should be viewed in light that the European naval
threat has subsided sufficiently for the build up of this fleet.
After all, what good are battleships and fleet air craft carriers
in the anti submarine war? An interesting side note to this was
that in 1940/41 before Pearl Harbor, the British mooted to the
Americans that they should shift their Pacific Fleet to Singapore
but fortunately for the Americans, they turned down the
offer.
It should be noted that the USN shifted its Pacific Fleet from the
West Coast to Pearl Harbor in the mid 1930s in recognition of the
Japanese threat and a view of the ORBAT would indicate that the
majority of the principal surface combatants such as battleships
and aircraft carriers were on rotation to the Pacific Fleet for a
significantly longer period than they were to the Atlantic
Fleet.
As for the Kriegsmarine, it is not surprising that the Kriegsmarine
never did received the amount of funding it received. It is rare
for a country to maintain both a strong navy and a strong army at
the same time and you or Doenitz did mentioned that Germany
recognised that she is first and foremost a landpower. I do not
think Plan Z was meant merely for the protection of her home
waters. Germany natural homewaters would be the Baltics and in the
confined waters of the Skagerrak, perharps a different fleet
structure instead of one with ocean going U Boats, aircraft
carriers and battle ships would be more appropriate. However if you
view the North Sea as Germany homewaters, the perharps your
argument would be justified in view of the Germans experience of
the British WW1 blockade. How can it be that a fleet envisioned
under Plan Z is not viewed as a threat by the British? It is
analogous to building 4 modern 12000 tons amphibious assault ships
and claiming that they were meant for army transport and training
The local media description of their role is
simply hilarious sometimes but I think the word Amphious Assault
Capability is a rather dirty word in the language of the SAF which
it is euphemistically termed "Land - Sea" movement. Naval
technology wise, I am not saying that the Germans were inferior but
me stating that the Germans lost the technological war should be
viewed in context of the post which I mentioned - The U Boat war.
The developement of the the shipboard centrimetric band radar,
shipboard high frequency radio direction finding, escort carriers
and long range ASW aircrafts all spelt the death knell of the U
Boat arm. I recommend 2 books if you are interested in the U Boat
War, both of which were written by this author called Clay Blair.
(The Hunter - 1939 to 1942) (The Hunted - 1943-1945). These 2 books
are comprehensive histories of the U Boat campaign. I share your
sentiments on the superiority of the Germans technology you
mentioned - The engagement between the Bismarck and the Hood/Prince
of Wales is the best example of the mentioned
superiority.
