Shipbucket

BUMP ,


I have made you a FI ice ship (well redone Lazer_one's a bit .

JSB

Sorry all - I've been away for a week or so an separated from an internet connection.

JSB - Looks interesting mate, thanks. Haven't seriously thought about an Ice Patrol ship as yet but your work will come in Handy when i get to that point.

I've Made some changes to the initial premise of the DCFI thread AU. they are as follows.

- Independence granted in 1914, just prior to the start of WW1.
- Population approx 1.1 Million by conclusion of WW1.
- Independent Military capacity developed during conflict and post war.
- Royal Falklands Naval Service comes into being in 1919, becomes a truly independent force in 1935.
- Population approx. 6.5 Million by 1939 and outbreak of WW2
- Men and ships fight in WW2 - many losses, navy expands significantly to deal with wartime service
- Immediately post-war, services shrink to more manageable levels
- decline during peacetime as other issues gain prevalence
- South American Powers invade during 1978 seeking territory and oil wealth. - Combined strength of Britain and Australia help falklands defeat invading forces during the bloody, 6-month conflict.
- post-1978 backlash sees resurgence in defense capabilities and defense treaties signed with nations such as Australia, USA, and Israel.
- Modern Falklands has population of approx 14 Million (circa 2014) and per capita as one of the most advances and powerful Defense Forces in the western world similar in size and capability to Israel although with significantly larger naval forces.

Please see the following description of falklands naval capacity from 1935 to end of WW2. Further developments of the fleet structure and actual drawings of ships will follow.

Falklands Military.

- Naval Forces -
Royal Falklands Naval Service – Pennant = His/Her Majesty’s Falklands Ship (HMFS)
- Began out of Falklands Contributions to Royal Navy South Atlantic squadron during and post WWI.
- Defined as a distinct Naval Service with own ships and Pennant as early as 1919 – Formalized after 1921.
- Has seen combat service during WWII, Korea, Falkland’s War (1978), Operation Shepherd (Protection of Mediterranean sea-lanes during Anglo-Spanish conflict over Gibraltar during late 1990’s), and ongoing Anti-Piracy operations east of Suez.
- Currently operates some 30 Major Warships and support assets. Fleet Air Arm operates fixed wing and rotary wing assets in support of fleet operations.

Initial Force Composition on Creation (1935)

- 5 x D class Destroyers – in service from 1935
Darwin (Sunk–1944)
Duty (Sunk-1941)
Dire (Sunk-1941)
Dagger
Diamond
- 4 x H Class Destroyers – In Service from 1937
Hercules (Sunk-1939)
Halcyon
Hyperion
Huntress
- 2 x ‘Improved Exeter’ (Falkland) Class Heavy Cruisers – In Service from 1937
Falkland
Falconer
- 3 x ‘Improved Town’ (Indelible) Class 6” Cruisers
Indelible
Inexorable
Impeccable


Additional Forces (war orders + Royal Navy in-Conflict Transfers)

- 3 x Castle Class Corvettes
Allington Castle (Sunk)
Lancaster Castle (Sunk)
Farnham Castle (Sunk)
- 5 x Flower Class Escort Sloops
Saunders (Sunk)
Sedge (Damaged)
Steeple
Sturdee (Sunk)
Beaver
- 5 x Bathurst Class Escort Minesweepers
SeaLion (Transferred-RN)
Tyssen (Transferred-RN)
Speedwell (Sunk)
Stanley
San Carlos
- 6 x Hunt Class Destroyers (Various Marks)
Hugo (Mk1 – Sunk)
Headland (Mk 1 – Sunk)
Hussar (Mk IV)
Hoplite (Mk IV)
Hercules (Mk IV)
Hustler (MK III)
- 2 Crown Colony Class Cruisers
South Georgia (Sunk)
Orkney
- 1 x Improved Exeter Class Heavy Cruiser
Forceful
- 2 x Auxiliary Cruisers/Troop Transports
Southern Conveyor
Southern Commandant
- 4 x T Class Submarines
Trenchant
Taciturn (Sunk – all hands)
Terrible
Turbulent
- 1 x Submarine Depot Ship
Grytviken
- 1 x Destroyer Tender
Mechanist
- 3 x Underway Replenishment oilers/Colliers
Sustenance
Supply
Storekeeper
- 1 x Majestic Class Aircraft Carrier
Pioneer (Air group of Seafires and Swordfish)

Cheers

_________________
"Come to the Dark Side... We have Cookies!"
____________________________________________


____________________________________________
Current Worklist;

DCFI (Falkland Islands) AU Nation

Well if you want me to carry on with my unhelpful comments ,
1) With that much engagement with the WW2 and Korea etc. I cant see a 78 war going hot (at least not for 6 months) and with the RN in tow (Nukes/Cold war prestige) it just gets smaller .

2) Why Israel ? For defence treaty's The IDF may well be good but sea based warfare isn't really the thing that stands out about them ! and why when I assume you are part of the commonwealth and therefor allied with UK/AUS/CANADA and probably USA ? What is IDF going to send to the south Atlantic that the RN isn't ? (the only way this makes sense is if you make the FI a Jewish homeland or something and breaks away badly from the UK ? but then it would still be very close to the USA and the USN is rather bigger )

I just don't see the synergy that would make 2 small, well separated countries ally when they cant help each other much and have much bigger friends who can (unless FI is a Jewish founded colony, even if not explicitly like Israel ?)

3) similar in size and capability to Israel er why ? I would have thought that the FI only really needs Sea/Air with a much smaller force of few marines, It would look nothing like the IDF mix (even if it used conscripts, maybe unlikely if like GB/AUS/CANADA).

A max FIDF would (IMO) look like a large navy (of mainly small combatants/subs, RN/USN types), with a strong air force (fighters/support aircraft on 2/3 airbases), and a division or so of marines (maybe mostly reservists/Nat guard). If really paranoid then you can add a detachment of bombers with duel key WE.177 bombs or on subs.

I'm not sure that GB has the shipyards to build that many extra Cruisers (and the FI will defiantly not have them) I would just add one and a load more escorts/AMCs that could maybe built in the FI ? Again I would build loads more escorts (maybe more USN transfers to defend the W hemisphere pre LL ?) and less major units (but that's less important prewar as you have more spare as soon as the US enters the war.)

Keep it up, JSB

looking at your population, you would have an navy the size of that of the netherlands as maximum. looking at your income, this makes for an very high maximum, I think. however, that is the 2014 level, and around WW2 you won't have cruisers, carriers or any other capital ship. some destroyer escorts and some large (oceangoing) destroyers seem to be the maximum, which are replaced postwar with frigates as maximum. you will most likely end up with something like ireland if you stay realistic.

all that said, a good set of destroyers and frigates fitting the roles around the falklands would be splendid to see as well! an AU does not need cruisers to be awesome

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

With a population of 6.5 million in 1939 you'd be looking at a navy about the size of Australia's (7 million or so during WW2). I think the number of ships are reasonable, and cruisers would be realistic in a pre-WW2 environment for trade protection before the U-boat threat, but I think the ships you have selected are too modern. Most are barely 5 years old by the time war breaks out, which is highly unlikely in the context of the Great Depression unless they are being constructed in the Falkland Islands themselves under a considerable rearmament plan. Going by the history of the RAN, the destroyers would probably be old ones from either WW1 or the 1920's (with replacements either coming during the war or at the end), and the cruisers being a mixed bag of old and new. I would also expect the Falkland Islands to receive cruisers during the war purely to replace those that may have been sunk, and the rest of the ships acquired being destroyers and other escorts (with probably many more corvettes and such than what you have written at the moment). A light fleet carrier would be reasonable with this population, but only in the post war environment.

Modern army strength would probably be 3, maybe 4 brigades at most if completely volunteer (and with a high recruitment and retention rate) backed up by reservists, or a few divisions if you can maintain national service post Cold War. But being an AU, just go for whatever suits really.

I agree with JSB though that a defence agreement with Israel is unlikely to be anything more than tech. transfers.

Also Recherche would be happy to help in 1978 if needed

_________________

Why not join the Anzac project ?

ANZFAC anybody ?


JSB

I have to ask, wher are you hiding all those people and how are you gerding them?
I did a comparison with Denmark just to see how the numbers worked out.
In 1918 Denmark had a population of 2.9 million and a total area of some 39,000 sq km for a population density of about 74. In 1920 the border moved South a bit and the area grew to ~43,000 sg km. In 1938 the population reached 3.84 million for a density of 89. Post-WWII everyone seemed to catch the baby making bug and the population soared to its current level of 5.63 million people and a density of 131.2.
Incidentally Denmark currently producers enough food to feed ~15 million people. To do that we've converted som 64% of the available land to farmland. In other words you'll need 27500 sq km of flat and fairly fertile land to feed your population. That's kinda hard to do when you're living on a 12200 sq km rock primarily known for sheep and shitty weather.

Anyway, back to the numbers.
According to your numbers in 1918 you'll have a population density of 90. In 1938 it has grown to 533. In 2014 that would have made you the 20th most densly populated country in the world. I have no real data for 1938, but I would'nt be surprised if that's enough to put you in the top five at least.
By 2014 it will reach a truly outstanding 1148. That makes you the 10th most densly populated territory in the world only beaten by semi independent cities like Macau and Hong Kong and really tiny islands.
And unlike those places you can't realistically import all you need. Hong Kong and Macau are only semi independent from China so they don't have to look far, Singapore is at the core of the single largest shipping route in history, has a much smaller population and it's right next to Indonesia and Malaysia.
You on the other hand are stuck in the middle of nowhere in the South Atlantic and the only country you could realistically trade with is Argentina, a country that hates your guts. Chile and Brazil are simply too far away to ensure reliable supply.
On the other hand it would make it fairly simple for the Argies to win the war. Simply stop selling food for a month or two and then ask for your surrender.
Even if you aren't starving outright by then, though that seems likely, your entire economy will be completely shattered.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

Lamb chops all around then. Sorry couldnt resist. .........

In response to JSB;



1) With that much engagement with the WW2 and Korea etc. I cant see a 78 war going hot (at least not for 6 months) and with the RN in tow (Nukes/Cold war prestige) it just gets smaller .

War isn't 'hot' for the whole 6 months - more like a series of intense but time-separated battles and minor skirmishes that continue over that period. I intend to write a full history of the conflict in time, at which opint you'll understand what i'm getting at.

2) Why Israel ? For defence treaty's The IDF may well be good but sea based warfare isn't really the thing that stands out about them ! and why when I assume you are part of the commonwealth and therefor allied with UK/AUS/CANADA and probably USA ? What is IDF going to send to the south Atlantic that the RN isn't ? (the only way this makes sense is if you make the FI a Jewish homeland or something and breaks away badly from the UK ? but then it would still be very close to the USA and the USN is rather bigger )

Why Israel? Well, because the two countries share a similar strategic and tactical defense situation, there's opportunity for technology transfer, and there's a significant Jewish population on the Falklands in this timeline.

3) similar in size and capability to Israel er why ? I would have thought that the FI only really needs Sea/Air with a much smaller force of few marines, It would look nothing like the IDF mix (even if it used conscripts, maybe unlikely if like GB/AUS/CANADA).

Sorry if i wasn't completely clear in what i said - I meant similar more along the lines of the fact that the respective forces are responding to similar strategic situations, force composition itself is obviously quite different due to the fact that the Falkllands are an island archipelago, and Israel is land-locked on three sides

A max FIDF would (IMO) look like a large navy (of mainly small combatants/subs, RN/USN types), with a strong air force (fighters/support aircraft on 2/3 airbases), and a division or so of marines (maybe mostly reservists/Nat guard). If really paranoid then you can add a detachment of bombers with duel key WE.177 bombs or on subs.

You're not far from what i had in mind - Big Navy, Small but powerful land forces with large reserve contingent supplied with manpower through national service, and strong air forces/fleet air arm

_________________
"Come to the Dark Side... We have Cookies!"
____________________________________________


____________________________________________
Current Worklist;

DCFI (Falkland Islands) AU Nation

In response to Rowdy36;
Cheers

_________________
"Come to the Dark Side... We have Cookies!"
____________________________________________


____________________________________________
Current Worklist;

DCFI (Falkland Islands) AU Nation