Did Romania consider building a larger navy?

Discussions on all aspects of the smaller Axis nations in Europe and Asia. Hosted by G. Trifkovic.
User avatar
Christian W.
Member
Posts: 2494
Joined: 10 Aug 2004 18:26
Location: Vantaa, Finland

Did Romania consider building a larger navy?

Post by Christian W. » 16 May 2006 13:53

When you think of all the resources Romania had, four destroyers plus minor warships seems small. I belive that Romania would have been in position built a larger navy.
Last edited by Christian W. on 17 May 2006 12:10, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Victor
Member
Posts: 3904
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:25
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Post by Victor » 17 May 2006 08:48

Throughout the inter-war period there were a couple of plans drawn up, which were only partially completed, due to lack of funds. The Navy was the Cinderella of the armed forces and it didn't get as much as it requested. Amongh the ships that should have existed were a light cruiser and 4 large destroyers.

There was also the idea that Romania did not need a much larger fleet, because it could not hope to compete with the ChF and Bulgaria had a tiny navy.

Throughout the war, the existing forces proved to be enough for coastal defence in cooperation with artillery and mines. More submarines would have been a good addition, but their construction at Galati took a while and were only available in 1944.

User avatar
Christian W.
Member
Posts: 2494
Joined: 10 Aug 2004 18:26
Location: Vantaa, Finland

Post by Christian W. » 19 May 2006 01:46

light cruiser and 4 large destroyers.
Do you have these ships technical information?

dragos03
Member
Posts: 422
Joined: 24 Jan 2004 20:29
Location: Bucuresti

Post by dragos03 » 19 May 2006 16:19

The program of 1937/1939 provided for a light cruiser of 5000t, 4 destroyers of 1300-1500t, 3 submarines, 4 minelayers, 9 MTBs and other ships.

Of these, only 1 minelayer (Amiral Murgescu), 2 submarines (Rechinul, Marsuinul) and 3 MTBs were actually built.

There were various other fleet development plans between 1899-1937. For example, the 1899 program provided for 6 coastal battleships, among other ships.

I think the Romanian Danube Fleet was always considered more important than the Black Sea one. The Danube Fleet had 7 monitors and a number of torpedo boats and was the most powerful river fleet in the world.

Mita2002
Member
Posts: 12
Joined: 30 Aug 2018 13:31
Location: Romania

Re: Did Romania consider building a larger navy?

Post by Mita2002 » 31 Aug 2018 08:57

I might be too late, but Romania, during the 30s, was looking for a flagship which would represent its ambitions, and provide some prestige. The Romanian economy was not big enough to afford a masive naval rearmament scheme, so the navy decided to buy a single ship that would become the crown jewel of the Romanian Navy, yet not as expensive as a normal battleship. Because of that, the navy officials wanted a ship similar to the German Deutchland class Pocket Battleship. The design was handled by the Italians from whom Romania had already bought several destroyers and a submarine. The Italian company Ansaldo presented Project 102 which would have been of a similar size to the German Deutchland class but with Swedish-built guns. Although the project was impressive, this was an expensive ship and Romania hesitated. This would have been the Mihai Viteazul class Pocket battleship. The project was cancelled in 1939, when WW2 started.

Mita2002

User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5705
Joined: 07 Jul 2005 10:50
Location: Spain

Re: Did Romania consider building a larger navy?

Post by Ironmachine » 31 Aug 2018 19:49

[...] the Romanians attempted to spend their oil revenues on a modest fleet construction program in the 1930s. Italian shipyards presented them with a number of very interesting proposals, and we have these present. The Ansaldo combine's U90 project was a variation on the German "pocket battleship" concept, with six 10-inch (254mm) guns in a pair of triple turrets on the hull of a Duca degli Abruzzi class light cruiser. As the design developed, the hull had to be enlarged to carry such a powerful main armament and the ship would have displaced about 10,000 tons had she been built. OTO offered a much smaller ship with their U102 project, a light cruiser with six six-inch guns mounted forward in the same turrets used in the Littorio class battleships with the aft deck kept clear to handle seaplanes a concept very similar to the Japanese Oyodo drafted about a year later. Neither of these cruiser programs, nor the attempt to add a second division of four destroyers to the fleet, would come to fruition
http://www.avalanchepress.com/BS_Toys.php


Technical data and drawings for the two designs can be seen here: https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/ ... rogrammes/

User avatar
Herculaneum
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: 08 Aug 2021 19:29
Location: Anatolia

Re: Did Romania consider building a larger navy?

Post by Herculaneum » 09 Aug 2021 21:34

http://www.worldwar2.ro/organizare/?article=25
On 22 June 1941, there were 23 warships in the Sea Naval Force based in Black Sea.

the Destroyer Squadron: 4 ships
the Gunboat Section: 3 ships
the Corvette Section: 3 ships
the Mine-laying Section: 5 ships
the Submarine and Torpedo Boats Group: 1+3 ships

Further information about the Romanian navy in ww2 is accessible through the link in above.

Return to “Minor Axis Nations”