Since the current situation in Europe is extremely tense and war may break out at any time, the German General Staff cannot slowly study the tactical details of trench defense. Even though East China has successful experience in this area and has also experienced actual combat tests, it is naturally better to directly approach the relevant technology from East China. Of course, economic issues are not the problem considered by the General Staff.

The firepower issue of the army is also the heart of the German General Staff. As a representative of militaryism, the German General Staff attached great importance to the firepower of the army, otherwise they would not have introduced mortar technology from the East China ** early. It can be said that the armored train technology was almost tailor-made for the German Army, because Germany's railway transportation was extremely developed. In fact, even without the intervention of the East China **, Germany will develop armored trains and large-caliber artillery technologies in a few years. In the First World War in the old time and space, the large Belt cannon that Germany conquered the Liege Fortress and the William cannon (also called the Paris cannon) that bombarded Paris were all products of these technologies.

However, at this time, these technologies have not yet begun to be developed, or they are still only at the conceptual and creative stage. Even if East China has mature technologies, the German General Staff prefers to introduce them directly.

Overall, the army exchanges between the two sides were very pleasant and there were many consensuses. The German General Staff benefited a lot from this exchange and also promoted the conditions for Germany to introduce military technology from the East China ** during the trade negotiations between the two sides.

The naval exchange process between the two sides is more complicated and the depth of the exchange is greater.

In the East China War, there are four main points in the summary of naval warfare. The first two points are basically the same as the army, and the third point is the importance of sea control. Although in the Far East War, the army is determined by the victory or defeat of the war, the role of the navy is by no means dispensable. On the contrary, it is extremely important. It can be said that without a navy, the army alone may not be able to win the Far East War.

The contribution of the People's Army Navy to the Far East War is not only reflected in the beginning of the war, and successfully annihilated the naval forces of both Japan and Russia in the Battle of Tsuma, thus firmly controlling the sea power throughout the war; or at the last moment of the war, in the Battle of Taiwan Strait, it completely attacked the expeditionary warships in the Battle of Taiwan Strait, thus completely extinguishing Japan. Russia attempted to use the power of the expeditionary warships to turn the situation around and reach a lower price to withdraw from the war.

However, during the entire war, the People's Army Navy successfully cut off the Japanese maritime replenishment line, so that after the Japanese army joined the war in East China, there was little support for replenishment, which greatly reduced the pressure on the army and allowed the army to spend most of its energy against the Russian army. Even if it was a two-line battle, it did not fall into an unfavorable situation of being attacked from both sides. In the late stage of the war, in order to force Japan to surrender under the conditions of East China, the navy also blocked the Japanese coast, intercepted Japanese merchant ships, seriously attacked Japan's people's livelihood economy, and assisted the Marine Corps in landing and fighting, successfully burning the war to Japan's mainland, causing significant losses to Japan.

The fourth is the inspiration of the Far East War. China must take the path of equal importance to sea and land. Although in the short term, East China will be biased towards the army and will complete the great cause of national unification, in the long run, the proportion of the navy will be stronger than that of the army. This is because after East China has completed national unification, among the land neighbors, there is only Russia, a powerful opponent, and at sea, it faces competition from Japan, Britain, France, the United States and other countries. China cannot give up its maritime interests, so building a strong navy has also become an inevitable option.

Summary of the East China **, the German Navy was obviously not as satisfied as the Army. Tirpitz frowned and said, "Is there no summary of the tactics of the East China **'s naval battles, the performance of warships, and the artillery technology?"

Chen Xiaojiang, the naval representative of the visiting delegation, said: "Of course there are, but tactics are good. The performance of warships is a matter of detail. They must obey the navy's grand strategy and serve the navy's strategy. Therefore, only by first determining the strategic direction of the navy can we talk about the navy's tactics and the performance of warships."

After hearing this, Tirpitz suddenly became silent.

Whether Germany needs to build a strong navy is a matter of opinion and opinion. Both sides can find a lot of reasons for themselves. However, the lack of clear strategic planning for Germany's naval construction is a fact that all parties do not deny. Tirpitz has courage and ambition, firm will and motivation, but lacks innovation ability and strategic vision. In addition, the German navy itself lacks experience and background, so it obviously lacks the understanding of the strategic planning of naval construction.

Tirpitz also knew his weakness, so he adopted a strategy of following and running in the old time and space, and stared at Britain. Germany would build warships any warships; Britain built dreadnoughts, Germany also built dreadnoughts; Britain built battlecruisers, Germany immediately built battlecruisers; and it only focused on the construction of main warships such as battleships, battlecruisers, and armored cruisers, while despising auxiliary warships such as light cruisers and destroyers.

As for whether these warships are needed by Germany, what does Germany plan to use these warships to do? Apart from "same warships used to deal with Britain", Tirpitz does not have a clear answer.

As an old naval power, the construction of warships complements the naval strategy. The role of the British Navy is first to attack the enemy's fleets and gain sea control. Therefore, it builds battleships. Moreover, due to the large number of British battleships, it attaches great importance to firepower and speed in terms of performance choices. The defense of the turrets and the headquarters is greater than that of the waterline defense; the British Navy also has the task of protecting its own maritime lifeline and safeguarding overseas interests. The construction of battleships is used to deal with the enemy's armoured cruisers and protect the maritime lifeline. At the same time, it has built a large number of auxiliary warships with poor performance but low-priced performance and destroyers to ensure the security of Britain's overseas interests.

It can be said that Britain's naval strategy is extremely clear, and the construction of warships and the selection and application of tactics are closely related to the naval strategy. In contrast, Germany's naval development strategy can only be described as blind.

The German navy is now quite large. Both the navies of Russia and France were severely damaged in the Far East War. The US Navy was still developing. The German navy is now basically looking at the first place, second only to Britain. But Tirpitz is becoming increasingly confused because he cannot explain why Germany develops its navy? Defeat the British navy and fight for maritime hegemony? This goal is too grand. Tirpitz is very clear that it is basically impossible to achieve in his lifetime. After all, while Germany develops its navy, it also needs to maintain a strong army, and Britain only needs to develop its navy with all its strength; protect Germany's maritime lifeline? Germany has no idea of ​​a maritime lifeline; safeguarding Germany's overseas interests? With the current scale of the German navy, it is enough, so does Germany still need to continue to develop its navy?

In fact, when Tirpitz took office, he also proposed a theory of a risk fleet, namely: the German navy does not have to have a scale that exceeds the British navy's advantage, but only needs to reach two-thirds of its strength. In this way, even if the British fleet can defeat the German navy, the great losses will make it unable to withstand the challenges of France, Russia, the United States and Japan in the next time, and thus may lose maritime hegemony. Therefore, after weighing the pros and cons, the British will not dare to take the risk of challenging Germany easily, but can only compromise with Germany and recognize Germany's maritime power and world influence.

Theoretically, the theory of this risk fleet does have some truth, and as a tactic, it is quite feasible, but it is obviously a huge mistake to use the theory of the risk fleet as a major strategy for the development of the German navy.

First of all, can the German Navy reach two-thirds of the strength of the British Navy? In the old time and space, although the German Navy finally built the second navy second only to the British Navy, its size is less than 60% of that of the British Navy.

More importantly, the theory of the risk fleet is to place the possibility of success completely on the enemy's courageous psychology, that is, to hope that the enemy will not dare to go to war with itself because they are afraid of excessive losses, so as to choose to compromise. It has to be said that the subjective speculation of this theory is too strong and ignores the possible reactions that Britain may make. What if Britain is not afraid of losses? Or what if Britain thinks that such losses are within the scope of its ability to bear? In this case, does Germany dare to risk being defeated by the British navy and start a war with Britain? At the same time, does Britain have other strategies to deal with Germany? Tirpitz has not taken into account these factors, and it is impossible to take into account. Therefore, this is more like a kind of political manipulation, even gambling, rather than military strategy, and the defects are more prominent than advantages.

In fact, Britain did have other strategies to deal with Germany, and strategically gave up the tradition of glorious isolation, chose to form an alliance with France and Russia, and jointly deal with Germany. In terms of naval tactics, it adopted the blockade tactics, adopted the disadvantages of the geographical environment of the German navy, and blocked the German navy in the North Sea. In fact, Britain's strategy was successful, because Germany was also afraid that its navy would be severely damaged, which led to the reason why the German navy had a powerful fleet during World War I, but it was basically all huddled in the port and had almost nothing to do.
Chapter completed!