Optimal Charisian Navy (IMHO)

Dilandu wrote:
Generally, even the single KH would be more than Charis could bite. Let's not forget, that the Charisian machinebuilding industry is pretty limited - by the fact, less than a ten years ago it didn't existed at all. And the single KH would consume almost all avaliable industrial reserves, because:

- It's big
- It's pretty complicated
- It must be build with the highest possible standards, or it would simply break apart during launch, or blew boilers during engine tests, or foundered in heavy seas because the quality of work.

And the Charis have only a few factories that could even try to produce the machinery needed (and, frankly, they haven't tools to do it, so firstly the tools should be produced!), and their supply of skilled workforce is pathetic. Moreover, their supply of skilled workforce isn't generally free from other projects; to work on KH's machinery, they wpuld be forced to draw literally all expirienced workers from Charis.

And even to man this ship... They simply have too few steamships in comission, to train mechanics in real numbers. They probably would be forced to take all experienced crews from coastal ironclads, just to have enough mechanics on single KH.

I think you underestimate the skills base of Safeholdean society. The closest historical parallel is Shogunate Japan which had a skills base, values and institutions which facillitateb rapid industrialization. Safehold has that situation but exaggerated.
Even so I think that RFC is too optimistic about the rate of industrialization.

JustCurious wrote:
I think you underestimate the skills base of Safeholdean society. The closest historical parallel is Shogunate Japan which had a skills base, values and institutions which facillitateb rapid industrialization. Safehold has that situation but exaggerated.
Even so I think that RFC is too optimistic about the rate of industrialization.

No Japan, not even the Soviet Union industrialized that quickly. In case of soviet industrialization we could see something similar in therms ot time, but:

- The soviet industrialization was commenced by the socialistic country, that was able to control internal resources on much greater scale than early-capitalistic Charis.

- The Soviet Union, even prior the industrialization, was a significant industrial power - pretty weakened by civil war and interventions, of course, but still significant. Simply speaking - the USSR already have SOME factoriers, that were capable of building tools to build more factories.

- The Soviet Union didn't exist in vacuum, and hovewer the Soviet surrounding was pretty much hostile - Poland on the west, with her dreams of eastern-european domination, Japan on the east, with a lot of desire to bite the Siberia - they could still buy the things that they need to make industrialization possible. Of course, due to the international isolation the prices for the industrial equipment skyrocketed, but there was at least the possibility to obtain equipment and trained engineers.

- The Soviet Union didn't fight the war to survival during the industrialization stage. Actually, the Red Army of 1920-early 1930 was pretty small, and generally territorial-based. Yes, they spend a lot of money on new weapons, but generally to have the supply in case of war - because they feared that their industry would not be able to comprehed the need of big warfare.

Charis have all the opposite points, and quite a few "contra". Yes, they have a few of "pro" - for example, the much more global literacy - but still, they are in many therms far behind even the XIX century level. Their scientific school just didn't exist at all, their mechanic, chemistry and other key directions was rigidly locked by the therms of "Holy Writ".

The industrialization is hard. The industrialization of capitalistic country on just internal resources is very hard. The industrialization capitalistic country on just internal resources in the middle of global war is enormously hard. They couldn't simply divert the manpower and resources by centralized control; the Cayleb couldn't just order "stop building this, and go and start to build that".

JeffEngel wrote:Quality control isn't a brand new concept.

Yes, yes, quality control. May I tell you a story about the mighty battleship "Sovetskaya Belorussia", laind down in USSR just before the war? After several years of work, the construction was halted - because it became clear, that a lot of metal delivered was of unsufficient quality, and the shipbuilding industry couldn't produce enough components in time.

And this was in Soviet Union. Where the "control" could impress even the Clyntahn, and which was industrialized country for a century at least. By the way, there was no capital punishments for the problems of "Soviet Belorussia" - because goverment clearly understood that they couldn't demand too much from their newly build industry.

The quality control wouldn't solve the problems, even if Cayleb personally invite Clyntahn to supervise the workers. If the workers didn't have any real expirience with large iron ships, they would screw a lot. There would be a awful lot of substandrad materials, wrongly constructed components, rivets, placed inproperly - enough to make the ship a general disaster.

The US production capacity at its height was 6 times that of Japan, building 3.2 million tons of warship annually to Japan's 550 thousand. Even if the us devoted more production to better ships, the US could have still out built the IJN by a decisive margin. Once they sprung the trap at Midway, Japan was done. They could not replace their losses.

This comparison doesn't work, my friend.

Dilandu wrote:

PeterZ wrote: Economical weapons are rarely as intimidating as uneconomical ones. They are the biggest, baddest hammer Charis could build to bring retribution home to its attackers. Crush one port thoroughly enough and others are intimidated into surrendering.

By some strange coinsidence, both world wars were won by economical weapons, not some kind of wunderwaffe (only the nuclear bomb came near, but when it became avaliable, the war was already won). The USA won the Pacific not by some kind of enormously supercarriers, but by a large number of usual, economical carriers and destroyers. The USSR beat Germany not by building some sort of thousand-tonn monster tanks, but by overwhelming number of steadily improved T-34.

PeterZ wrote:The US production capacity at its height was 6 times that of Japan, building 3.2 million tons of warship annually to Japan's 550 thousand. Even if the us devoted more production to better ships, the US could have still out built the IJN by a decisive margin. Once they sprung the trap at Midway, Japan was done. They could not replace their losses.

This comparison doesn't work, my friend.

It worked perfectly. What if, instead of building much-needed "Essex"-class, USN after Midway would decide to wait until "Midway"-class could be comissioned? With all respect, but if the USN would not obtain a lot of carriers in 1942-1943, the Japan would be pretty capable to replace their losses!

And Ok, what about the Soviet Union? Does Stalin need to invest money into the building the thousand-tonn tank-monsters to crush the Germany psychologically? Or it was still be more logical to go with an armada of T-34 and T-60, that ceushed Germans quite phisiologically?

Stalin had the manpower to support his strategy of attrition. He needed to spend lives like water to make it work. Again, not a good parallel to Charis.

Had the USN sacrificed building submarines and I would agree. They didn't have to. They could have still won with fewer larger hulls for both carriers and DNs. The losses at midway crippled the IJN. Had the US had bigger and better platforms, Japan would have lost their qualitative edge as well as still had fewer hulls.

Dilandu wrote:

PeterZ wrote:The US production capacity at its height was 6 times that of Japan, building 3.2 million tons of warship annually to Japan's 550 thousand. Even if the us devoted more production to better ships, the US could have still out built the IJN by a decisive margin. Once they sprung the trap at Midway, Japan was done. They could not replace their losses.

This comparison doesn't work, my friend.

It worked perfectly. What if, instead of building much-needed "Essex"-class, USN after Midway would decide to wait until "Midway"-class could be comissioned? With all respect, but if the USN would not obtain a lot of carriers in 1942-1943, the Japan would be pretty capable to replace their losses!

And Ok, what about the Soviet Union? Does Stalin need to invest money into the building the thousand-tonn tank-monsters to crush the Germany psychologically? Or it was still be more logical to go with an armada of T-34 and T-60, that ceushed Germans quite phisiologically?

PeterZ wrote:Stalin had the manpower to support his strategy of attrition. He needed to spend lives like water to make it work. Again, not a good parallel to Charis.

Really? So you think that if the USSR build one or two impressive thousand-tonn tanks instead of thousand of T-34, it would work better? Perhaps the germans would be so crushed psychologically that they would surrender because of just the impression of soviet monster-tanks?

Really, for some reason i doubt that!

. The losses at midway crippled the IJN.

And by 1944, the Japanese rebuild their carrier force on significant level and were in rough parity with USA. It was the quality of pilots, that make the Philippine Sea Battle victorious for USA. And, also, the sub that sunk "Taiho".

JeffEngel wrote:

Dilandu wrote:Generally, even the single KH would be more than Charis could bite. Let's not forget, that the Charisian machinebuilding industry is pretty limited - by the fact, less than a ten years ago it didn't existed at all.

This would be the Charis that built manufactured goods - including large commercial sailing ships - that were sold the world over?That Charis?

And the single KH would consume almost all avaliable industrial reserves, because:

- It's big
- It's pretty complicated
- It must be build with the highest possible standards, or it would simply break apart during launch, or blew boilers during engine tests, or foundered in heavy seas because the quality of work.

Quality control isn't a brand new concept. The standards for it have gotten a whole lot better since Merlin, but so have the means of enforcing it. It's also well established that Charisian industry has been increasing by leaps and bounds, and that of Emerald, Margaret's Land, and Chisholm haven't been standing still.

At this point, it's moving from what you think Charis ought to be building to claims about what they ought not to be capable of building. That one's another dead horse. You're welcome to flog the poor thing if you must, but I'd thought the basis of this discussion was at least taking RFC's standards for Charisian capabilities as a given and going from there.

And the Charis have only a few factories that could even try to produce the machinery needed (and, frankly, they haven't tools to do it, so firstly the tools should be produced!), and their supply of skilled workforce is pathetic.

Given what RFC's said about Charisian industry and effective tech base, none of these claims seem plausible. Maybe you figure they should be plausible or even incontrovertible, but again, in that case, you're treating yourself to claims that shouldn't even be on the table for this discussion.

Moreover, their supply of skilled workforce isn't generally free from other projects; to work on KH's machinery, they wpuld be forced to draw literally all expirienced workers from Charis.

That's not an impression I've taken from the text at least. If you've got numbers for that, please bring them on, but it still seems like you're reaching for a set of tenets outside this context.

And even to man this ship... They simply have too few steamships in comission, to train mechanics in real numbers. They probably would be forced to take all experienced crews from coastal ironclads, just to have enough mechanics on single KH.

Numbers, please?

As I have said before. Dilandu is the guy ( if any of you were old rpg/D&D type players ) that showed up and spent half the night arguing with your game master. And would get mad if you didn't agree that his OPINION was correct, over that of the person creating the world.

See this thread, before your post, and after your post, for more examples.

My friend, I agreed with you that Stalin's strategy worked. I simply don't think Charis can win the war taking the casualties Stalin was prepared to take.

Throughout the WWII, the US had 119 carriers of all types. I believe 10 were sunk and they started with 7. That means the US built 102 carriers during the war. Japan started with 10 had a total of 25 all of which were sunk. That means Japan built ont 15 carriers durring the war.

With that sort of production advantage the US could have built more Essex class ships AND a few Montanas for good measure and still built more hulls that Japan was capable of.

Dilandu wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Stalin had the manpower to support his strategy of attrition. He needed to spend lives like water to make it work. Again, not a good parallel to Charis.

Really? So you think that if the USSR build one or two impressive thousand-tonn tanks instead of thousand of T-34, it would work better? Perhaps the germans would be so crushed psychologically that they would surrender because of just the impression of soviet monster-tanks?

Really, for some reason i doubt that!

. The losses at midway crippled the IJN.

And by 1944, the Japanese rebuild their carrier force on significant level and were in rough parity with USA. It was the quality of pilots, that make the Philippine Sea Battle victorious for USA. And, also, the sub that sunk "Taiho".

Dilandu wrote:

SWM wrote:An awful lot of people seem to be assuming that Charis expending all its resources on the KH VIIs and not building smaller ships for convoy protection. I don't believe it. I don't think the KH VIIs are significantly impacting other shipbuilding. If Charis is using 6 of its slips to build the King Haarolds, they still have plenty of other slips to build other ships. Yes, each KH takes a lot more resources and construction crews than other ships. But Charis has improved its productivity and manpower a lot. At the same time, I suspect that if they were not building King Haarold's, it would only free up six more construction slips and let them build only six more ships. I suppose they could build two or three smaller ships in succession in each freed slip. If it is a choice between building twelve or eighteen smaller ships and building six King Haarolds, I think the KH is the way to go.

I believe that at this point Charis can have its cake and eat it, too. They can afford to put the effort into KH VIIs, and Cayleb has his reasons to do so.

Generally, even the single KH would be more than Charis could bite. Let's not forget, that the Charisian machinebuilding industry is pretty limited - by the fact, less than a ten years ago it didn't existed at all. And the single KH would consume almost all avaliable industrial reserves, because:

- It's big
- It's pretty complicated
- It must be build with the highest possible standards, or it would simply break apart during launch, or blew boilers during engine tests, or foundered in heavy seas because the quality of work.

And the Charis have only a few factories that could even try to produce the machinery needed (and, frankly, they haven't tools to do it, so firstly the tools should be produced!), and their supply of skilled workforce is pathetic. Moreover, their supply of skilled workforce isn't generally free from other projects; to work on KH's machinery, they wpuld be forced to draw literally all expirienced workers from Charis.

And even to man this ship... They simply have too few steamships in comission, to train mechanics in real numbers. They probably would be forced to take all experienced crews from coastal ironclads, just to have enough mechanics on single KH.

You are making claims about the level of Charisian industrialization, the skill level of the workers, the manpower of construction crews, and the manpower available to the Charisian navy that are far below what I believe is true based on the text. You are basing your argument on what you think Charis has available, not what the text says.