Neutral Navies



  • For the sake of some game flavor and historical accuracy, I like the idea of adding some neutral navies to the mix. Having done some research on my own and on this and Larry Harris’ forums, each navl unit in A&A 1940 roughly breaks out to the following historical numbers:
    CV: 4-6
    BB: 4-6  –exception: USA with only one battleship unit to represent a historical 15 in 1940
    CA: 8-12
    DD: 25-30
    SS: 50-60 --exception: Germany, which only had 50-60 operational U-boats in June 1940.

    Bearing that in mind, I came up with the following true neutral naval recommendations:

    Argentina: 1 cruiser
    Supposedly the 8th largest navy in 1940. They had a couple old but modernized dreadnoughts, three modern light cruisers, and 12-16 destroyers, and three subs with the usual array of smaller ships.

    Sweden: 1 cruiser
    With six cruisers, including three heavily-armed Sverige class coastal defense ships, 18 destroyers, and ~8 subs.

    Brazil: 1 destroyer?
    I found it hard to get data on Brazil. I know they had two antiquated dreadnoughts that were relegated to training/shore defense duty, as well as at least two cruisers. Past that, I don’t have numbers. I know they played a part in WWII as a convoy escort/ASW naval force.

    Greece: 1 destroyer/nothing?
    This is a slight stretch. The Greeks had two cruisers, 10 destroyers, and six subs, as far as I can tell. This is pretty borderline for inclusion in A&A, I’m inclined to put nothing. However, if Italian sub numbers are accounted for, a single destroyer for Greece might be a balanced addition.

    Unfortunately, no other navies (including the depleted Spanish navy) came close enough to merit A&A representation.

    Any thoughts?



  • I’m sure your thread will get moved to the house rules forum.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    No swiss navy is represented!  This is hogwash!

    On a serious note though…. if you are going to include neutral navies… what about neutral armies?  Spain Turkey etc, had better than just plain old inf.



  • The reason USA battleships are under represented in this game is because most were old decrepit models and were no match for the “modern” units being built by other contrys of the time.


  • Customizer

    @Peck:

    The reason USA battleships are under represented in this game is because most were old decrepit models and were no match for the “modern” units being built by other contrys of the time.

    That may be true when compared with battleships built by Britain and Germany, perhaps even Italy and France as well.  However, many of the Japanese battleships of the time were easily as old as the US battleships.  With the exception of Yamato and Musashi, the battleships in the IJN were built back in the teens and twenties, most of which were outclassed by the US battleships.



  • @Gargantua:

    No swiss navy is represented!  This is hogwash!

    On a serious note though…. if you are going to include neutral navies… what about neutral armies?  Spain Turkey etc, had better than just plain old inf.

    I wanted to take a look at both neutral armies and navies. Haven’t really done much research on Turkey but I did on Sweden and Spain. Spain was in a terrible place militarily in 1940, their units were under-equipped and under-supplied. They had very little in the way of modern tanks or artillery. At best, I could see them with an artillery or mech unit in place of an infantry piece. I think their total air strength was about 450-500 aircraft of various obsolete and modern models in 1940. I guess I can’t post links here, but do a search for “The Spanish Military During World War II”, “wayne h. bowen”.
    I believe I saw Imperious Leader post a rough scale of 1000 or so aircraft to equal a piece in A&A. Of course, scale isn’t everything, capability plays a huge part as well in determining what armies get pieces. I’m not so sure Spain would make the cut via scale or capability for air representation in A&A.

    I could see Sweden with an artillery unit, but their air force in 1940 was pretty small. I think their air force quadrupled between 1940 and 1945 though. It’s a tough one to call.



  • @knp7765:

    @Peck:

    The reason USA battleships are under represented in this game is because most were old decrepit models and were no match for the “modern” units being built by other contrys of the time.

    That may be true when compared with battleships built by Britain and Germany, perhaps even Italy and France as well.  However, many of the Japanese battleships of the time were easily as old as the US battleships.  With the exception of Yamato and Musashi, the battleships in the IJN were built back in the teens and twenties, most of which were outclassed by the US battleships.

    Exactly. Actually, Italy entered the war with four WWI era battleships (Andrea Doria class and Conti di Cavour class), France with three (Bretagne class), Germany had the Schleswig-Holstein, and I’m quite sure UK had some holdovers as well.

    I imagine the USA’s naval power in A&A is reduced for gameplay balance reasons.



  • @jared:

    Brazil: 1 destroyer?
    I found it hard to get data on Brazil. I know they had two antiquated dreadnoughts that were relegated to training/shore defense duty, as well as at least two cruisers. Past that, I don’t have numbers. I know they played a part in WWII as a convoy escort/ASW naval force.

    2 obsolete battleships
    2 obsolete light cruisers
    6 very old destroyers
    1 somewhat modernized destroyer
    3 new destroyers were built on 1940-41
    4 new subs, Italian built

    Data from this site (in portuguese): http://www.segundaguerramundial.com.br/novosite/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=136:a-marinha-do-brasil-na-sgm-parte-1&catid=78:a-marinha&Itemid=34



  • Thanks for those numbers. I’m inclined to say nothing then to represent the Brazilian navy in A&A, especially considering how limited their battleships were.



  • @Peck:

    The reason USA battleships are under represented in this game is because most were old decrepit models and were no match for the “modern” units being built by other contrys of the time.

    All of the US ships were modernized in the 1930s with increased deck armor, increased gun elevations, increased AA batteries, and improved fire control.  The action at Surigao Strait Strait against the Japanese Southern force of Yamashiro and Fuso was fought by 6 of the old battleships:  West Virginia, Maryland, Mississippi, California, Tennessee, and Pennsylvania.

    The West Virginia, Maryland, and Colorado mounted eight 16 inch guns, and were equivalent in everything but speed to the Japanese Nagato and Mutsu, with the California and Tennessee being viewed as the equals of the three 16 inch ships, but mounting twelve 14 inch guns.  The Idaho, Mississippi, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Arizona also mounted twelve 12 inch guns.  The Nevada and Oklahoma mounted ten 14 inch guns in 4 mounts, the Texas and New York mounted ten 14 inch guns in five twin mounts, and the Arkansas, the oldest active US battleship mounted twelve 12 inch guns.

    The Yamashiro, Fuso, Ise, and Hyuga all mounted twelve 14 inch guns in 6 twin mounts, and saw virtually no combat in WW2 prior to the Battle of Leyte Gulf, where the Yamashiro and Fuso were sunk, and by which time the Ise and Hyuga had been converted into battleship-carriers, loosing two 14 inch mounts.  The most used of the Japanese battleships, the Hiei, Kirishima, Kongo, and Haruna, were originally built as battlecruisers with eight 14 inch guns, 26-28 knot speed, but only 9 inch armor.  The Hiei, as a consequence, was crippled by US heavy and light cruiser fire in the action of 13 November 1942 at Guadalcanal, taking at least 40 hits from very close range cruiser and destroyer gunfire, and then sunk the next day by US aircraft.  The Kirishima was sunk on 15 November 1942 by at least nine 16 inch hits and about forty 5 inch hits from the USS Washington and South Dakota.  Kongo was sunk by two submarine torpedoes in November of 1944, while the Haruna was sunk in the Inland Sea by US air attack in July of 1945.  The  Mutsu was destroyed by an internal ammunition explosion on June 8, 1943.

    While the Texas, New York, and Arkansas were not comparable to the Japanese ships, clearly the remaining 12 US ships were at least equal to their Japanese counterparts, and superior to the Kongo=class ships in armament and armor.

    The Italian ships in 1940 mounted ten 12.6 inch guns each, and had good speed but lighter armor.  Cavour was knocked out of the war completely by a single torpedo hit during the British Attack on Taranto in November of 1940.

    The older British ships, dating from WW1, were the Queen Elizabeth class of 5 ships, the 5 ships of the Royal Sovereign class, and the battlecruisers Hood, Renown, and Repulse.  The 5 Royal Sovereigns never were rebuilt between the wars as completely as the Queen Elizabeth ships, the Renown, or the Repulse.  They would be more comparable to the US Texas and New York.  The Nelson and Rodney were the only post-WW1 battleships that the UK had in 1940, with the Rodney contributing in a major way to the sinking of the Bismarck.

    The best single source for information on WW2 Warships is Conway’s All The World’s Fighting Ships, 1922 to 1946, and for the older WW1 ships is Conway’s All The World’s Fighting Ships, 1906 tl 1921.



  • If the Axis take Greece, do they get control of the boat? Or does the boat automatically become Allied controlled as Greece is now at war with the Axis?


  • Customizer

    Timerover,

    I just wanted to take a moment and commend you on the excellent points you make here and the intelligent way you presented them.  Well Done, Sir.

    The only thing I might add to this is that the “action at Surigao Straight” was more along the lines of an “ASSASSINATION BY AMBUSH” than most people realize.  The US Navy had many more Battleships and Cruisers than did the Japanese as well as having SURPRISE and POSITION on their side, too.  It was simply a Massacre.

    If this “action” interests you, the book “BATTLE OF SURIGAO STRAIT” by Anthony Tully is an informative as well as entertaining exastive study of this “action”.

    “Tall Paul”


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    All of the US ships were modernized in the 1930s with increased deck armor, increased gun elevations, increased AA batteries, and improved fire control.  The action at Surigao Strait Strait against the Japanese Southern force of Yamashiro and Fuso was fought by 6 of the old battleships:  West Virginia, Maryland, Mississippi, California, Tennessee, and Pennsylvania.

    Yamashiro and Fuso both could make 25 knots and had 14 inch guns and were both modernized.

    Maryland and west Virginia was not modernized till 1942 and could only move at 21 knots. It had 16 inch guns but very old fire control. Mississippi was modernized.  California was not modernized till 1942 both these ships could only make 21 knots. Tennessee was not modernized till 1942. Pennsylvania was never modernized, but repaired in late 1942. Both these ships could also make only 21 knots.

    The West Virginia, Maryland, and Colorado mounted eight 16 inch guns, and were equivalent in everything but speed to the Japanese Nagato and Mutsu, with the California and Tennessee being viewed as the equals of the three 16 inch ships, but mounting twelve 14 inch guns.  The Idaho, Mississippi, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Arizona also mounted twelve 12 inch guns.  The Nevada and Oklahoma mounted ten 14 inch guns in 4 mounts, the Texas and New York mounted ten 14 inch guns in five twin mounts, and the Arkansas, the oldest active US battleship mounted twelve 12 inch guns.

    Japanese modernized both Nagato and Mutsu in 1936 and could make 27 knots and had 16.1 inch guns, while the older non- modernized US BB’s were stuck with 21 knots. They are not equal in the slightest.

    The Yamashiro, Fuso, Ise, and Hyuga all mounted twelve 14 inch guns in 6 twin mounts, and saw virtually no combat in WW2 prior to the Battle of Leyte Gulf, where the Yamashiro and Fuso were sunk, and by which time the Ise and Hyuga had been converted into battleship-carriers, loosing two 14 inch mounts.  The most used of the Japanese battleships, the Hiei, Kirishima, Kongo, and Haruna, were originally built as battlecruisers with eight 14 inch guns, 26-28 knot speed, but only 9 inch armor.  The Hiei, as a consequence, was crippled by US heavy and light cruiser fire in the action of 13 November 1942 at Guadalcanal, taking at least 40 hits from very close range cruiser and destroyer gunfire, and then sunk the next day by US aircraft.  The Kirishima was sunk on 15 November 1942 by at least nine 16 inch hits and about forty 5 inch hits from the USS Washington and South Dakota.  Kongo was sunk by two submarine torpedoes in November of 1944, while the Haruna was sunk in the Inland Sea by US air attack in July of 1945.  The  Mutsu was destroyed by an internal ammunition explosion on June 8, 1943.

    Ise was an older Battleship and considered old due to her speed of only 23.3 knots ( compared to 21 knots of the slow non modernized US Battleship barges). She was in the attack at Hawaii
    Hyuga was modernized to get 25 knots in 1936 was was better than most US battleships in this regard.
    Hiei, Kirishima, Kongo, and Haruna where called the fast Battleships of which the US had NONE. These used much greater speed as an advantage over armor plating, but could easily outclass the non- modernized US battleships moving at 21 knots vs 30.5 knots of the Japanese ships. They where designed for this advantage so they can kill slow moving WW1 ships in open seas.

    While the Texas, New York, and Arkansas were not comparable to the Japanese ships, clearly the remaining 12 US ships were at least equal to their Japanese counterparts, and superior to the Kongo=class ships in armament and armor.

    But weaker than the Kongo class warships in overall battle effectiveness by Dec 1941. The japanese Battleships clearly outclassed the US Battleships in speed, range, and equal to firepower and all modernized vs. nearly a total US fleet of non-modernized ships. The japanese had greater quality vs. a Material US advantage.

    After Dec 7th attacks, the US were far inferior to the japanese in terms of Battleships. It was not until mid 43 when US can got back equality in this regard.


  • Customizer

    Yes,

    I think the Japanese “Kongo” class Battleships had about 30+ feet added to their length in order to give them additional speed.
                                                                                          “Tall Paul”


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    Wasn’t one of those expansion games on the cloth maps that came out for Classic one that had some neutral navies?  I am thinking about the one where if France falls you roll a die to find out if the remaining units are Allied, Neutral or German on a unit by unit basis.

    Couldn’t you hvae neutrals about the same way?  I would say do something akin to countering the ground forces so you could either have bonus ground forces, or navy.

    We’d have to develop some convergence rates…I’d think converted 1 infantry into 6 IPC worth of fleet should about cover it.

    Example:  Turkey.  Turkey has 8 infantry on it.  Perhaps it is being amphibiously assaulted but there are not enough warships to protect the fleet from SZ 99 (for arguments sake.)  Your oppenent could choose “navy” instead of “army” to defend Turkey with.    So instead of 8 infantry, Turkey would get 48 IPC worth of fleet ships, or approximately 6 destroyers.

    Once the choice is made, it cannot be changed.  And you dont have to declare army just because the only attack comes from land.  You might declare Navy so you can annex the survivors on your turn.



  • How did you get from 8 infantry to 48 IPCs?


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 4
  • 8
  • 5
  • 3
  • 3
  • 3
  • 1
  • 8
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

51
Online

14.8k
Users

35.4k
Topics

1.4m
Posts