Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
anonym_Hf93Jbjm9WjT

WW2 Swedish neutrality and how to squeeze a battleship into a light cruiser

18 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
4,302 posts

https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/history/assembly-instructions-inside/

Link to the EU website, NA website will probably have it up soon, and I'm sure it will be officially PSA'd when it is.

But being confined to house and garden, lacking people to argue with, or things to do, (thanks Covid) I am in a dangerous mindset. So this is a distraction!

teaser : 

5fcac8dc-bb3a-11e8-883c-ac162d8bc1e4_120

question : can we (neutrally) thank/blame Sweden for Bismarck's demise?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
235 posts

Ironically talking of neutrality this being St Patrick's week and all the RAF Catalina flying boat that found the Bismarck was flew from the Irish Republic.

 

Pointless fact of the day!

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
798
[HELLS]
Members
2,663 posts
27,182 battles

No. They informed the UK naval attaché in Stockholm when and where the Bismarck was seen, but RAF Coastal Command, in abominable weather conditions, confirmed where Bismarck was and approximately when she had left Norweigan waters. The rest was a crap shoot, with RN cruisers doing the scouting job and initial detection at sea. The first round of battle went to the Germans, with Hood sunk and Prince of Wales damaged.  The RAF and FAA aircraft did their thing, and the second round of battle went to the Brits, with Bismarck's sinking. This was the first open ocean battle where shore-based  long range patrol aircraft and carrier-borne aircraft showed their true capabilities.

The RAF Catalina pilot was a serving officer in the United States Navy BTW. Present for ''transition training'' for RAF aircrew!

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
269
[B-G-N]
Members
381 posts
539 battles
32 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/history/assembly-instructions-inside/

Link to the EU website, NA website will probably have it up soon, and I'm sure it will be officially PSA'd when it is.

But being confined to house and garden, lacking people to argue with, or things to do, (thanks Covid) I am in a dangerous mindset. So this is a distraction!

teaser : 

5fcac8dc-bb3a-11e8-883c-ac162d8bc1e4_120

question : can we (neutrally) thank/blame Sweden for Bismarck's demise?

I wish they would add the Sverige and Gotland into the game.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
23 minutes ago, Bluemoon51 said:

Pointless fact of the day!

 

but a cool fact.

16 minutes ago, GrandAdmiral_2016 said:

The RAF Catalina pilot was a serving officer in the United States Navy BTW. Present for ''transition training'' for RAF aircrew!

So after a tip off from the neutral Swedes, an American US Navy pilot took off from neutral Ireland in an RAF Catalina..

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
798
[HELLS]
Members
2,663 posts
27,182 battles
33 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

So after a tip off from the neutral Swedes, an American US Navy pilot took off from neutral Ireland in an RAF Catalina..

From Ulster, not from the Irish Free State. RAF Coastal Command had several air bases in the Belfast, Londonderry and Lough Swilly areas for intermediate range patrols with Hudson, Whitley and Wellington bombers and long range patrols with Catalinas and Sunderland flying boats. The long-range Liberators did not enter RAF Caostal Command service until early 1943, and then only in a single squadron strength. Bomber Command consistenly refused to allocate any long range 4-engine bombers for Coastal Command use, even under intense pressure from Churchill and the Admiralty, because they wanted maximum concentration in the bombing campaign against Germany.

This situation was not helped by Admiral King, who refused to allocate any long-range aircraft to the Atlantic ocean and sent USN Liberators to fight the Japanese in the Pacific, leaving the USN unable to help their RN Allies on the other side of the ocean. Even the number of Catalinas was limited until Canadian production of Cansos (the Canadian designation) kicked in later in1943. King wanted to fight the war in the Pacific first and did not realize the dangers until U-boats crippled US shipping in 1942.

The single squadron of Liberators that Coastal Command got was during the main crisis during the Battle of the Atlantiic in late March 1943. The brits were almost on their knees due to shipping losses at that point. Sir Arthur ''Bomber'' Harris was livid when his B24s were allocated to Coastal Command, and made his opinion know in writing to the Air Staff (who supported Harris' position), to Portal, the head of the RAF, the Admiralty and Churchill himself.

The Liberators closed the air gap in the Atlantic and their presence had an immediate impact on the U-boats' performance. The arrival of the escort carriers later in 1943, which allowed through air cover for convoys, crippled the U-boats even further. The lack of long range patrol aircraft almost cost the Allies the war.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
235 posts
33 minutes ago, GrandAdmiral_2016 said:

From Ulster, not from the Irish Free State. RAF Coastal Command had several air bases in the Belfast, Londonderry and Lough Swilly areas for intermediate range patrols with Hudson, Whitley and Wellington bombers and long range patrols with Catalinas and Sunderland flying boats. The long-range Liberators did not enter RAF Caostal Command service until early 1943, and then only in a single squadron strength. Bomber Command consistenly refused to allocate any long range 4-engine bombers for Coastal Command use, even under intense pressure from Churchill and the Admiralty, because they wanted maximum concentration in the bombing campaign against Germany.

This situation was not helped by Admiral King, who refused to allocate any long-range aircraft to the Atlantic ocean and sent USN Liberators to fight the Japanese in the Pacific, leaving the USN unable to help their RN Allies on the other side of the ocean. Even the number of Catalinas was limited until Canadian production of Cansos (the Canadian designation) kicked in later in1943. King wanted to fight the war in the Pacific first and did not realize the dangers until U-boats crippled US shipping in 1942.

The single squadron of Liberators that Coastal Command got was during the main crisis during the Battle of the Atlantiic in late March 1943. The brits were almost on their knees due to shipping losses at that point. Sir Arthur ''Bomber'' Harris was livid when his B24s were allocated to Coastal Command, and made his opinion know in writing to the Air Staff (who supported Harris' position), to Portal, the head of the RAF, the Admiralty and Churchill himself.

The Liberators closed the air gap in the Atlantic and their presence had an immediate impact on the U-boats' performance. The arrival of the escort carriers later in 1943, which allowed through air cover for convoys, crippled the U-boats even further. The lack of long range patrol aircraft almost cost the Allies the war.

It was flying out of Lough Erne that's in the Republic, totally unrelated side note my dad flew for Coastal Command out of RAF Ballykelly which is one of the bases that had Liberators during the war, the only airbase he was stationed at that had a railway track that run across it and you have to get the trains to stop before taking off

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
798
[HELLS]
Members
2,663 posts
27,182 battles
50 minutes ago, Bluemoon51 said:

It was flying out of Lough Erne that's in the Republic, totally unrelated side note my dad flew for Coastal Command out of RAF Ballykelly which is one of the bases that had Liberators during the war, the only airbase he was stationed at that had a railway track that run across it and you have to get the trains to stop before taking off

Never admitted to by either the UK or the Irish governments at the time. Eamon DeValera was nobody's fool and was well aware that if the U-boats won, Ireland would starve along with the Brits. Turn a blind eye to a seaplane tender and landing site verbally agreed to by both countries. The locals knew what was going on and why, and accepted it for what it was. A survey of debates in the Diàl for that period will come up empty on this. Everyone knew and no one said anything because the Germans had their own intelligence assets (and supporters) in Ireland and they had to be bamboozled. The extra 100 miles further west counts enormously for on-station patrol time or maximum range because for a Catalina that adds two hours extra in the air where it counts.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,024
[ARGSY]
Members
20,113 posts
14,323 battles
2 hours ago, JackSparrow_665 said:

I wish they would add the Sverige and Gotland into the game.

Balance would be interesting. Their armament is on the level of the Mikasa, so they belong technologically at Tier 2, but they are significantly faster and I suspect the final iteration of their AA would give a Hosho serious problems. Tier 3 would be an interesting place for them. Problem is, would you like to face Tier 4 battleships in this thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
269
[B-G-N]
Members
381 posts
539 battles
2 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Balance would be interesting. Their armament is on the level of the Mikasa, so they belong technologically at Tier 2, but they are significantly faster and I suspect the final iteration of their AA would give a Hosho serious problems. Tier 3 would be an interesting place for them. Problem is, would you like to face Tier 4 battleships in this thing?

Well the Gotland has the exact same armament as my Huanghe. It has 6 152mm guns, just like the Huanghe, and 6 533mm torpedo tubes, also just like the Huanghe. The Gotland would just be a Pan-European Huanghe. The Sverige would be a downtiered Graf Spee with 4 11-inch guns instead of the Graf Spee's 6 11-inch guns. 

 

Basically, Gotland= Pan-European Huanghe

Sverige= downtiered Graf Spee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,752
[WG]
Administrator, Developers, Community Department, WG Staff, In AlfaTesters
3,534 posts
13,903 battles

@LoveBote please make sure you change the linky to the NA forums when this goes live.

It won't be a PSA but will be up in announcements.

Mahalo,

-Hapa

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,024
[ARGSY]
Members
20,113 posts
14,323 battles
4 minutes ago, JackSparrow_665 said:

The Sverige would be a downtiered Graf Spee with 4 11-inch guns instead of the Graf Spee's 6 11-inch guns. 

Where would you put her? Tier 4 as a cruiser?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
269
[B-G-N]
Members
381 posts
539 battles
2 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Where would you put her? Tier 4 as a cruiser?

I was thinking Tier V. The trouble is that the ship is so gosh darn slow. If WG could raise the speed to 25-28 knts then it would be a viable option at Tier V.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,024
[ARGSY]
Members
20,113 posts
14,323 battles
8 minutes ago, JackSparrow_665 said:

The trouble is that the ship is so gosh darn slow.

Fine for a T5 BB, if you consider the Americans; useless as a cruiser. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1
[LEWD]
Members
4 posts
3 hours ago, JackSparrow_665 said:

Well the Gotland has the exact same armament as my Huanghe. It has 6 152mm guns, just like the Huanghe, and 6 533mm torpedo tubes, also just like the Huanghe. The Gotland would just be a Pan-European Huanghe. The Sverige would be a downtiered Graf Spee with 4 11-inch guns instead of the Graf Spee's 6 11-inch guns. 

 

Basically, Gotland= Pan-European Huanghe 

Sverige= downtiered Graf Spee 

HMS Gotland , yes, I am linking the swedish wipikedia page, due to that seems to have the correct armament. T6, would that be with the 1937 or the 1944 layout? 1944 would have quite nice AA for the size of the ship.

Huang He / HMS Aurora, Arethusa class light cruiser.

HMS Sverige, speed not great, but turning radius should be quite nice instead? Tier? no clue.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
5 hours ago, Hapa_Fodder said:

@LoveBote please make sure you change the linky to the NA forums when this goes live.

It won't be a PSA but will be up in announcements.

Mahalo,

-Hapa

wilco

1 hour ago, Shiva_EU said:

HMS Gotland , yes, I am linking the swedish wipikedia page, due to that seems to have the correct armament. T6, would that be with the 1937 or the 1944 layout? 1944 would have quite nice AA for the size of the ship.

Huang He / HMS Aurora, Arethusa class light cruiser.

HMS Sverige, speed not great, but turning radius should be quite nice instead? Tier? no clue.

Sverige at tier 5, speed set to an artificially boosted 25 knots (not much faster than trial speed). Absolutely amazing secondaries for her tier with a cruiser's worth of 152 mm guns strapped to her decks, should make her useful when bottom tiered versus t7s.

Gotland at tier ?, I would guess it would be much easier to place her, according to fit&fantasy, but anywhere from t5 to t7?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
210
[GAMMA]
Members
845 posts
15,435 battles
16 hours ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Where would you put her? Tier 4 as a cruiser?

Sounds about right. Either there or tier 3 as a cruiser. Then again I would like to see the either the USN's Tennessee class cruisers or the USS Brooklyn (ACR-3) put into the game at tier 3-4. But I'm odd because I want to see more low tier ships put in the game. Especially since there are a lot of odd-ball/interesting ships in those categories.

FWIW, the Swedes weren't the only ones who operated coastal defense ships like  Sverige. A whole lot of countries did in the late 19th and early 20th centuries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastal_defence_ship#Operators

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1
[LEWD]
Members
4 posts

HMS Sverige, not quite sure how to classify or tier that one. Weight is as Tier V cruiser Königsberg, while length is just a few meters longer than Dresden,Tier II.

Main turrets and Belts, more armour than Graf Spee, Tier VI, Deutschland-class. Speed 5knots slower than Graf Spee. Speed, faster than Tier VI Bayern, but slower than the tier +7 BB's.

Wargaming seems to translate HP by tonnage, so Sverige-class, could have similar troubles as Viribus Unitis.

VU has OK guns, but is short and therefore tonnage not great either and that affect the ships Health Points.

Ingame Graf Spee has a fire rate of 3 rounds/minute, wikipedia says 2,5 rounds/minute. Navweaps link.

Sverige class 3-4rounds/minute, Swedish wikipedia article says 4 rounds/minute.

Maximum tier 6. Healthwise tier 5 best? if considered as a Cruiser, similar as Graf Spee. Speed would be as slowish battleships. I would say tier 4 or 5.

Hits similarly as a Graf Spee, health as a Königsberg, size as a Dresden. Very nice AA for its size. Slow as a Bayern.

For WW2 spec. I'll say, Tier 5 cruiser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×