Choices: Simon Goes A-Timelining/ISOTing

[simon darkshade]

On some earlier points:

1.) Germany stood still economically in the 1920s, going from $170 billion in 1920 to $262 billion prior to the GD in 1929; the initial figure needs to be read in light of their 1913 GDP of $237 billion. They aren’t in the driving seat to catch up militarily in the 1920s. They did catch up in the 1930s due to Britain and France having not substantially advanced in any dimension of warfare (air, sea or land and including tanks, artillery and small arms in the last) at the cost of destroying their economy even prior to 1940.

Against a properly run opponent with future knowledge and future technology, they are in a tad more trouble.

The US did not arm substantively throughout the 1920s and 1930s in the face of a lot more aggressive powers in the form of the Japanese and Germans. Had war come to them in 1939 rather than 1942, their paradigm would have been different. They absolutely have the technology, education, industry and will to do it. But will they?

What actions of the British are going to set the US off, or set the Germans off?
- The acquisition of low hundreds of tanks across the 1920s? The fielding of “5 inch gun” destroyers and 6” cruisers during the 1920s? The development and acquisition of RAF biplane fighters and bombers? Probably not.
- The transition to monoplane aircraft? Absolutely
- The RN building non Treaty battleships et al after the end of any Treaty? Absolutely

If we really break down the programme, we get to the interesting part of it. My aim is to design it so it starts slowly, relatively, with a lot of the performance improvement and technology “under the bonnet” or “under the hood” in the Yank parlance. Many features would show up like red flashing lights if there were an
American time traveler, such as angled armour on tanks, but I don’t plan for any, at least not at this point in time.

GPMGs and LMGs? Not going to have an impact. SLRs/battle rifles? It might stimulate the US Army’s desire to replace the M1903 with the Garand or something better, but it is too small a thing to rise above that.
Artillery won’t raise a reaction from either the USA or Germany beyond their counterpart arms of service; there might be an article in the US Field Artillery Journal speculating as to some attributes, but rising beyond that is unlikely.

There won’t be a sense of Britain being more advanced than it should be, or it’s armed forces being larger than they should be, as there will be no baseline @ figure to compare them with.

What will be known is Britain demobbing in 1919, then further reducing in 1921, then disposing of a lot of ships in 1922 under a NT, then steadily remaining around the same level through the 1920s. There will be some low level increases of a few thousand men a year in the Army or an increase to the number of planes in a squadron, but this will be relatively innocuous.

Will the US Army build more tanks in the 1930s? Undoubtedly, as it would be hard not to. But they aren’t going to be qualitatively on par with the British tanks of 1929 or 1935, which are the equivalent of 1944 and 1950. In this, they are in a  chase against an opponent that started accelerating earlier and are still accelerating.

At sea, where ship types will look similar, it will be similarly a bit difficult.

Key to the whole process is that no British programmes will be directed at the USA, but against other opponents. The RN armament programme of @ did not attract US umbrage, but sympathetic and impressed coverage in the NYT of 1939, for example.

We are likely to see a reaction when some key parts of the Air come into play. I don’t want to lay all the cards on the table now, as that is one area of tension that I’m interested in exploring.

2a.) I quite agree with the first paragraph and the unwritten point that we can’t simply kill everyone who might be future trouble, as that is only addressing symptoms of a deeper issue.

2b.) There are several issues at play here. Firstly, the size of the British Armed Forces. They may be larger than @, but no one will know that. They will know that they are different to 1914 on account of an Air Force and different capacities, but I say again that we aren’t talking about orders of magnitude or ‘substantially larger’, but within reason and rational explanation during the 1920s. In the 1930s, there will be events and reasons for increases.

The social and economic effects of WW1 are perhaps one of the top three reasons to do this story and timeline. They won’t be ignored; indeed, the prospect of Lloyd George being able see the ‘Homes Fit for Heroes’ through to fruition.

That the majority of the population had no say in the grand strategy of the Empire, the economic direction of the nation or other big questions isn’t a new thing at this time for Britain, nor is it different from the @ 1920s to a great degree. 

Will there still be a move for peace and disarmament? Most probably. Will it make any effective inroads in Britain’s decisions and strategy? Probably not. Did it in @? Outside of the late 20s and early 30s dalliance with world disarmament, absolutely not. Was even this small period of dalliance damaging in terms of what was to follow? Arguably perhaps, but that level of @ history is distinctly not my interest here.


I’ll state it again - Britain is not raising a mass army outside of a conflict. A mass army is defined as one on the level of Italy, France, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Imperial Japan and more - high hundreds of thousands of regulars, 40-60 divisions and backed up by several millions of ready reservists from previous conscription classes.

They will have a larger force than the 224,000 regulars of 1939 and the 250,000 of 1914.

There is a difference between not being the latter and being the former.

3.) On hegemony: Mention of it needs to be read in terms of future knowledge and knowledge of what could have been their future.

Someone has got to be the top dog.

If another state or empire gets there, then their interests won’t be the same as those of Britain. From the viewpoint of 1919, the position and state of Britain in 2024 is not an optimal state of affairs.

If Imperial Japan, the USSR or Nazi Germany were to be the top dog, that would be a disaster. US actions and policies upon achieving hegemony haven’t been congruent to British interests, even after the active dissolution of the Empire.

A lot of water has to flow under the bridge before we get to that point.

4.) We are going to see about Keynes and about France. As said, a lot of water to flow before anything needs be decided in TL terms.

[stevep]

   Simon

   Accepting most of your points as I see what develops. Think we may be arguing at cross purposes to some degree but my main continued concern is the economy and social issues.  There was OTL a lot of pressure for social and political reform and it had a lot of impact.  One well known example was George V's often stated reason for refusing refuge for Nickolas II and his family, that it would prompt a massive level of social unrest inside Britain.  If Britain having seen its main threats destroyed - at least in military terms - is engaging in an expensive military/research programme that is still larger than the 1914 force levels its going to cause a lot of questions and discontent inside Britain.  Unless you can reforge the Liberals as an alternative, which will be difficult with the feelings between the LG and Asquith camps some form of Socialist party is going to become the primary opposition and its position is only going to be strengthened here.

  Also while forfilling LG's aim of '" land fit for hero's" would pay massive benefits all around in the medium and longer term its going to be expensive in the next decade or so and having that at the same time as war debt issues and a steady military programme of investment its going to feed into both economic and social concerns.

  I agree that Anglo-American tensions are largely generated in and of concern to Washington although its also a matter of concern for Ottawa as well.  That was the prime reason why Canada was the dominion strongly opposed to the continuing of the AJA OTL and their going to be worried about hostile mumbling from down south.  I would also say its not just the Republicans, as Wilson and FDR weren't great fans of Britain either, just that between 1860 and 1932 Democratic leaders were very rare.  Furthermore the USN will be advocating for increasing spending and US business interests won't like Britain re-emerging as an economic rival again.  Its not going to be a life or death issues unless someone really, really stupid gets into Washington, possibly in a scenario where the US goes into depression but the rest of the world manages to largely escape the worst effects.  However for Canada at least and hence any idea of imperial/dominion federation it will be a major issue.

  Possibly we mean different things when it comes to hegemony.  I think it would be disastrous for Britain to seek a clear hegemony as we lack the resources to do that on a longer term schedule.  Even the future knowledge and the magical economic assistance will have their limits and raise the issue of complacency setting in.  Being seen as the "1st among equals" with a lot of our power and influence somewhat shadowy - what's now often called soft power is a position which is more feasible for Britain to hold for at least a couple of generations.

  Steve

[simon darkshade]

Steve,

I'm knee deep in a completely absorbing matter of taxation of costs at the moment, so I'll just chuck this up briefly:

- 810 bars of gold per day
- 80 bars of platinum per day
- Two pounds of diamond per day (for some reason it was half a pound earlier)
- 'Some strange increases to some oil supplies' in the East Midlands, which specifically refers to the Eakring oil field duplicating the characteristics of the Burgan oil field in Kuwait (including 2.4 million bbl/day) over an area of 350 square km

The 1920 price of gold was $20.67 per ounce, or around 5 pounds sterling per ounce. Each gold bar weighs 400 ounces, giving 324,000 ounces per day, for a value of £1.62 million per day and £591.3 million per year
The 1920 price of diamond was $500 per carat or approximately 125 pounds. Two pounds is 4535.92 carats, or £566,990 per day and £206,951,350 for the year.
The 1920 price of platinum was $100 per ounce, or around 20 pounds sterling per ounce. Each bar weights 400 ounces, giving 32,000 oz per day @ £640,000 per day and £233,600,000 per year

Just over £1000 million a year (1,031,851,350) when the @ 1921 GDP was ~ £5 billion before the Slow Twenties.

The US debt of ~ £1545 million can be paid off - paid off, mind you, not serviced - in around 2-3 years, whilst comfortably allowing for other expenditure and priorities. The £5230 million of non US debt, largely British and Empire, can also be dealt with in a fashion fitting to the age (as compared to the post Lausanne penury) - it is redeemable in 1929 when Neville Chamberlain refinanced the entire war debt into a 3.5% perpetual bond; here, we will see a different approach.

FWIW, Italy owes Britain £582 million, France £613 million (https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/1924-01-21/debates/5b35b718-ab73-4009-a755-d22d8d8e42f6/FranceAndGreatBritain(WarDebt) ) and Russia a bit more than that. Mind you that those figures are the 1920s ones and thus higher than the 1919 figure. Total of at least £1700 million ( www.linkedin.com/pulse/tch-financing-britains-wwi-spending-daniel-dematos-cfa )

(See Table 2.2 here www.elibrary.imf.org/display/book/9781513511795/ch002.xml) 

(https://dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2554&context=etd See Page 14 for a total amount of all War Debts to the Americans)


The issue isn't going to be finding money for this priority or that need, but being able to pay without flooding the market.

Over time, this becomes easier. In addition, the aforementioned Burgan Oil Field in Kuwait, the Ghawar Oil Field in Arabia and more are going to be known by Britain and snapped up very quickly, informing a lot of their Middle Eastern policy. I might well have the gold, platinum or diamond run out at some point, but its purpose is to wipe clean the slate of WW1 debt and allow us to explore the other differing priorities and paths not taken.

Simon


"A staff study on wartime mobilization is to commence, based on the following requirements:


1.) Mobilization of the 400 battalions of the Army Reserve, the 320 reserve battalions of the Indian Army and the 600 battalions of the Territorial Army
2.) Transition from a peacetime force of:
288 Home Forces (12 Guards, 24 Rifles, 252 Foot)
48 British Indian Army
64 Imperial Defence

to one of

576 British Expeditionary Force
384 Territorial Army
96 British Indian Army
96 British Army in the Empire
64 Imperial Defence (Territorial Army)
120 Strategic Reserve (16 Regular battalions from Imperial Service, 64 Reserve battalions, 40 Territorials)
64 Home Defence

- BEF of 48 infantry divisions and 4 cavalry divisions, or 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Armies
- 48 Reserve Battalions deployed to Egypt to serve as the basis for the 65th, 66th, 67th and 68th Divisions
- 48 Regular Battalions from Imperial Service to form King's, Queen's, Highland and Rifle Divisions, which will then deploy to Egypt or France as necessary
- 64 Territorial Army Battalions to replace Regular Forces deployed on Imperial Defence missions, with extra troops to key positions
- 48 Territorial Army Battalions to India to form 13th-24th Indian Divisions
- 64 Territorial Army battalions to Home Defence role
- 384 Territorial Army battalions/32 infantry + 4 cavalry divisions to form and train at home

3.) Mobilization of the Regular Army to take 4 days to entrain, travel across the Channel, disembark and deploy
4.) Mobilization of the Army Reserve to take 10 days to assemble, entrain, travel across the Channel and disembark
5.) Deployment of force to Egypt to take 25 days
6.) Redeployment of Regular Forces/Territorial Forces to/from Imperial Defence to take 60 days
7.) Territorial Army Deployment to India to take 60 days
8.) Territorial Army divisional mobilization to take 240 days
9.) Mobilization of Indian Army Reserves to take 50 days
10.) Deployment of Imperial Divisions and Regiments to wartime positions
11.) Canadian Expeditionary Force to move to France
12.) South African and Rhodesian Expeditionary Force to Egypt
13.) Australian Imperial Force and New Zealand Expeditionary Force to Egypt
14.) West Indian Expeditionary Force to move to France
15.) Indian Army Expeditionary Force to France; other forces to Egypt, Mesopotamia and East Africa
16.) Burmese, Ceylon, Malayan Expeditionary Force to prepare for embarkation
17.) 4 Gurkha Divisions to Mesopotamia and Egypt
18.) 2 Sikh Divisions to Mesopotamia and Egypt
19.) 4 Colonial Divisions into action in Africa, with 1 to join Rhodesian Army and 1 to join the Desert Army
20.) Militia to form the basis of 8 New Army divisions from current National Servicemen and previous contingents; this process will take 1.5 years. Further replacement for losses to come from Militia, conscripts and Strategic Reserve
21.) The Princely States in India are to provided an overhauled force of 4 divisions for deployment to Mesopotamia
22.) The Indian Strategic Reserve/Internal Security Forces will form 4 divisions for deployment to Mesopotamia
23.) The Indian Auxiliary Force is to form 2 divisions
24.) A Reserve Guards Division will be formed
25.) A Royal Artillery Division will be formed to coordinate Army Group/Expeditionary Force level artillery

The Royal Marines are to form several divisional sized formations, depending on the supply of artillery."

From a global perspective, Anglo-French priorities were set in the following order:

1.) The rolling up of the German and Italian colonial empires in Africa, Asia and the Pacific
2.) Knocking out the Ottoman Empire
3.) Invading Sicily and Sardinia to bring the war home to Italy in a devastating manner
4.) Engaging Germany on the Western Front and at sea in decisive battles
5.) Landing an expeditionary force on the Gallipoli Peninsula to knock Bulgaria out of the war

The first step enabled shipping to be freed up and colonial forces redeployed to the Middle East/Mediterranean, as well as preventing any long term commitments of troops, materiel and money to tertiary theatres.

The second stage was aimed at knocking out the weakest German ally and securing the Suez Canal, the lifeline of the Empire to the Far East and India. To do the latter, Arabia, Palestine, Mesopotamia and Syria would need to be acquired, leading to a necessity for two major expeditionary armies. The Turks were not thought of as a walkover, so we needed a strategy that would maximise Imperial advantages (firepower, seapower) and go on the offensive immediately.

Therefore, the Sinai railway to Rafah was used to build up troops and supplies on the border with Gaza to allow for an advance into Palestine aimed at capturing Jerusalem within 4 months and then pushing on to take Damascus in 6-7 months. The unexpected Turkish withdrawal opened up the possibility of a swift decisive battle. In Mesopotamia, the initial landings and advances towards Basra were going to be followed by a period of consolidation in the face of an expected Turkish counteroffensive, but the withdrawal to Baghdad mirrored the opportunity of Damascus.

Once the Desert Army and the Mesopotamian Army could face the Turks in open battle, success was almost assured thanks to superior firepower. The subsequent offer of an armistice to the Ottoman Empire was based on all initial territorial objectives being achieved, along with the removal of Ottoman bases for German submarines.

Italy was very vulnerable on their islands and in general, with 24 regular divisions but no firm mobilization plan. The window to strike Italy was 1914, as estimated strength of the Italian Army in 18 months being increased by 12-15 divisions. A synchronised French attack in the north and Allied landing at Taranto would deliver the necessary shock blows to knock out Italy."

[simon darkshade]

Mar 12, 2024 11:01:14 GMT stevep said:

   Simon

   Accepting most of your points as I see what develops. Think we may be arguing at cross purposes to some degree but my main continued concern is the economy and social issues.  There was OTL a lot of pressure for social and political reform and it had a lot of impact.  One well known example was George V's often stated reason for refusing refuge for Nickolas II and his family, that it would prompt a massive level of social unrest inside Britain.  If Britain having seen its main threats destroyed - at least in military terms - is engaging in an expensive military/research programme that is still larger than the 1914 force levels its going to cause a lot of questions and discontent inside Britain.  Unless you can reforge the Liberals as an alternative, which will be difficult with the feelings between the LG and Asquith camps some form of Socialist party is going to become the primary opposition and its position is only going to be strengthened here.

  Also while forfilling LG's aim of '" land fit for hero's" would pay massive benefits all around in the medium and longer term its going to be expensive in the next decade or so and having that at the same time as war debt issues and a steady military programme of investment its going to feed into both economic and social concerns.

  I agree that Anglo-American tensions are largely generated in and of concern to Washington although its also a matter of concern for Ottawa as well.  That was the prime reason why Canada was the dominion strongly opposed to the continuing of the AJA OTL and their going to be worried about hostile mumbling from down south.  I would also say its not just the Republicans, as Wilson and FDR weren't great fans of Britain either, just that between 1860 and 1932 Democratic leaders were very rare.  Furthermore the USN will be advocating for increasing spending and US business interests won't like Britain re-emerging as an economic rival again.  Its not going to be a life or death issues unless someone really, really stupid gets into Washington, possibly in a scenario where the US goes into depression but the rest of the world manages to largely escape the worst effects.  However for Canada at least and hence any idea of imperial/dominion federation it will be a major issue.

  Possibly we mean different things when it comes to hegemony.  I think it would be disastrous for Britain to seek a clear hegemony as we lack the resources to do that on a longer term schedule.  Even the future knowledge and the magical economic assistance will have their limits and raise the issue of complacency setting in.  Being seen as the "1st among equals" with a lot of our power and influence somewhat shadowy - what's now often called soft power is a position which is more feasible for Britain to hold for at least a couple of generations.

  Steve

Steve,

I think we are arguing at cross continents, with the relative distance and time factor meaning that the conversations take on some of the character of PBEM during my working week! Not that it is a bad thing per se, but it does make for some things getting disjointed when they need not.

As said a number of times, the economy and society come hand in hand with the other aspects.

In @, Britain spent more on the Army every year from 1919-1936 than it did pre WW1 and more on the RN in all but around one year from memory; if interested, I can have a look tomorrow when on my computer again after work. On top of both of those increased figures, there was also the RAF, which, although definitely the younger sibling, wasn’t receiving zero funding.

Edit:

British Army Pre WW1
1900: 39.98
1901: 89.96
1902: 92.12
1903: 65.12
1904: 35.37
1905: 32.7
1906: 30.77
1907: 28.06
1908: 26.01
1909: 23.72
1910: 22.62
1911: 24.94
1912: 26.13
1913: 23.67

RN Pre WW1
1900: 29.62
1901: 31.04
1902: 31.18
1903: 35.48
1904: 36.83
1905: 33.30
1906: 31.43
1907: 31.14
1908: 32.19
1909: 35.28
1910: 40.38
1911: 42.86
1912: 44.37
1913: 48.83


So, if we leave out the Boer War, there isn't a year when the post WW1 Army budget wasn't higher; or where the post WW1 RN budget wasn't higher.

This did not cause revolution, unrest, discontent or even a lot of questions. Yes, there were advocates of cutting defence spending, but they dwelt in the minority in political terms. Public opinion may have waxed in favour of disarmament at certain points, but it was never a frontline issue.

Reforging the Liberals is exactly one of the things I’m giving thought to and researching, but not simply for defence reasons; rather, it is an interesting path not taken and there is some reasonable basis for it here in these circumstances.


There will be a view among the Liberals and Conservatives who are in the ‘inner sanctum’ that Labour aren’t quite …sound…enough yet to deal with the full truth and weight of what has occurred, particularly in leadership. Attlee, though, would get an approving nod in comparison to Uncle Arthur or Lansbury. This isn’t entirely fair, but they are working on the knowledge of just how evil the USSR is and will become, which just might colour their view of the more enthusiastic 1920s socialists.

On expenses and paying for it all: See my previous post. The title is going to be something card related, and loading the deck is clearly stated at the beginning.

I don’t disagree with any of your point on Anglo-American stuff. It is going to be a very interesting exercise to run the Canadian side of things, involving getting input from some of my Canadian chums.

Primus inter pares works for relations within the Empire, but without?
The USA is the only real serious rival and has designs on taking the throne, when it focuses outwards.
The USSR has size and space but gets belted back a long way by the RCW. China isn’t even on the table.
Including Japan on the top table is like putting an open bottle of wine in front of a hopeless drunk - it is polite, certainly, but not really the best for him or you.
France really hasn’t made a play as a proper rival since Waterloo, notwithstanding the flourish under Boney II and the last plaintive onion flavoured burp of ‘La Gloire!’ that was Fashoda.

I’m not just considering Britain as the British Isles, but the Dominions, India and the colonies. That is the way forward, or at least part of it, perhaps. 

Given the level of advantage involved, it does behoove Britain to aspire to more than just an extra 40 years as an eminence grise.

Overall, we shall see - one of the purposes of planning and brainstorming is to throw ideas around and see what does and does not work  and to let a thousand ideas contend.

George Orwell said “like the mass of the people [the government] did not want to pay the price either of peace or of war.”

There were many reasons for that in @. Here, they will at least be able to afford either and have the knowledge of both. That’s a good basis for choice.

Simon

[simon darkshade]

Some little bits and pieces that will also come along with Hood:

- 100 FN FALs/L1A1 SLRs and 20 GPMGs in the armoury, along with 10 M2 .50 cal Browning HMGs
- The Unrotated Projectile launchers, which will give a bit of a kick start to rocketry
- Quite a lot of 40mm Bofors L/70 and Oerlikon KBA 25mm guns in multiple mounts and singles
- I’m tempted to have her AA guns be twin 125mm turrets
- A few thousand oral polio vaccines in the sick bay, along with an outline of how it was developed; one will be slipped to Franklin Roosevelt
- The full fleet flagship library, including a microfiche copy of The Portland Papers. 17 years ago, this was posted on a FFO/APOD discussion forum regarding what a fleet library implies:

There are full schematics and drawings for the ASV MKII, AI MKIV, IFF units, type 271 and type 273 radars. There are detailed schematics for construction of 600 lbs A/S bombs with factory presets of 35 ft on them. Detailed attack instruction using ASV units, restrictions and why. Detection protocols. Fuse and Pistol schematics for the RN's Depth charges, attack patterns, stick locations, depth settings and spacing.
Then there is the full set of the Portland papers. This is simply deadly, and dooms the existing USN SS force. As a Fleet Flagship, she has to have all of these, from the 1919-1921 summaries of WWI lessons, though the development of the ASDIC sets below (including their schematics, good and bad things about them in the light of WWII experience).
There will be scores of attack details on U-boats, with lessons learned, how to do things better, tactical improvements and so forth. (The KM will be rather eager to examine these) From the Coastal Command inputs will come optimum patrol patterns, the use of ASV, exact details on Leight Light tactics, DC drop intervals and pattern spacings, blast radii including lethality indexes and so forth.
There was a CB written in October 1941 (I saw a copy, still classified then, in 1986!) called "The Type VII U-boat: HMS Graph - Technical Analysis", which will doubtless cause Donitz a personal thrill in the form of strange feelings in his pants. That secret is blown.
Technical manuals and diagrams plus tactics for the use of all current RN radars. Forecasts on future radars and mods, as well as weapons like VT fuses.
All the info the RN has on FAA operations, defence of the fleet by fighters, radar intercept tactics, radar direction of night attacks by ASV fitted acft, you name it. Deck cycles, the role of teh RN flight deck control officer, folding wings, 'how to cram a lot of acft into a little hangar', loads of data on that. RN catapult technology including PoW's own catapult and its manuals and spare parts.
Ship damage control lessons including the extremely detailed lessons learned from scores of ship losses and successful DC activities in damaged ships.

Plans and schematics for the Mk 37 FCS

Convoy Tactics: They have the lot, including zigzag plans, dispositions, escort and screening dispositions, procedures under differing circumstances, screen types, signals, use of tactical HFDF, aerial escort impacts on attacking SS effectiveness, comms plans, tactical instriuction manuals, common signal procedures, emergency signals etc

The RN Fleet flagship for an overseas squadron was to be a self contained entity. As the Commander of this Fleet may be called on by King and Country to be the representative in far away lands the library was designed to give the Admiral everything he could need to carry out his duty from legal, to politcal to tactical in nature. The contents of the library gave the Admiral
1) The ability to Maintain his fleet and any other services that might be in the Fleets area of service ( technical manuals for all RN equipment, Coastal Command, RAF, and Army )
2) Legal Briefs, Government directives, communications,maps, reports and of course intelligence
3) Analysis's, reports on various powers, speculations, dispositions of forces ...
From what I've found they were quite extensive and they never seemed to throw out anything. Facilities were provided for copying some materials and around January 1941 all new flagships began to get a base copy of the HMS Hoods library that had been copied to Microfiche, as it had reach apparently mythical proportions from the early 1920's when it started, and that copy would have papers added to it from that time to when it was deployed. The materials were stored in special cabinets and were not moved. When the advent of high speed secure communications and travel occurred in the 1950 the Library lost its importance and was diminished and absorbed into part of the intelligence section of the fleet flagship.


Our friendly time traveler
- A 20th century sports almanac, a la Back to the Future

Other ships
- I am leaning towards the Rs ‘morphing’ into a repeat QE class. Whilst this only gives a certain degree of additional utility, it shores up the RN’s effective numbers in the smaller postwar fleet

On another note, it might be interesting for a sprinkle of stardust to make Theodore Roosevelt’s health conditions suddenly dissipate…

[simon darkshade]

The 1930s and 40s (Collated Musings)

- Whilst the GD didn’t hit Britain as badly as the USA in @, the effects were still devastating, particularly to the North. Jarrow, for example
- Depending on what path is chosen/ the flow of events after a crash in 1929, there will be a distinctly Keynesian approach/policy taken in Britain
- This will include investment in infrastructure projects, such as motorways/Royal Highways, hydroelectric projects, New Towns (going hand in hand with slum clearance), new deepwater ports, railway construction, modernisation and electrification and building airports; HMG backed orders for new superliners from Northern shipyards (not just QM and QE at John Brown, as their construction might be shared out to different yards, but two White Star counterparts named Oceanic and Atlantic) and eight big 50,000t motorships (Britannic, Georgic, Celtic, Athenic; Mauretania, Sylvania, Franconia and Campania)
- Further support of key heavy industries will flow on from what has been done in the 1920s
- There will also be an accompanying appropriate level of Military Keynesianism. In addition to warships, a fleet train/support ships of the RFA will be built up - fleet tankers, tankers, oilers, tenders, stores ships, distilling ships, repair ships, hospital ships, troopships, ammunition ships, degaussing ships, vehicle carriers and survey ships
- Broadly speaking, the South had the newest consumer goods industries and most aircraft; the Midlands had the nascent car industry and a lot of old standbys; and the North and Scotland had the shipyards, steel, textiles, a large part of coal and other such sectors. The aim will be to see prosperity across the country, not just in certain areas
- Wales, having coal, steel and some decent deepwater port potential, will see some new shipbuilding yards come in the 1920s

(More to be edited in)


Very, Very Provisional Naval Thinking (Contingent on Japan and [Censored] playing up and several other storyline factors)

1919: 14 V/W class destroyers (replacing 1 wartime loss and topping up the rest)
1920: 120 million, 4 Nelson class battleships

1921: 108 million 4 County class cruisers, 16 A class destroyers, 4 Odin class submarines, 8 frigates, 2 minelayers (Naval Conference)
1922: 90 million, 1 battleship, 4 County class cruisers, 4 Leander class cruisers, 16 B class destroyers, 4 Odin class submarines, 8 frigates (Treaty Begins)
1923: 87 million, 1 battleship, 2 aircraft carriers, 4 County class cruisers, 4 Leander class cruisers, 16 C class destroyers, 4 Odin class submarines, 8 frigates
1924: 85 million, 1 battleship, 1 aircraft carrier, 4 County class cruisers, 4 Leander class cruisers, 16 D class destroyers, 4 Parthian class submarines, 8 frigates
1925: 90 million, 1 battleship, 4 County class cruisers, 4 Leander class cruisers, 16 E class destroyers, 4 Parthian class submarines, 8 frigates
1926: 90 million, 1 battleship, 1 aircraft carrier, 4 County class cruisers, 4 Leander class cruisers, 16 F class destroyers, 4 Parthian class submarines, 8 frigates
1927: 92 million, 1 battleship, 8 Leander class cruisers, 16 G class destroyers, 4 Rainbow class submarines, 8 frigates
1928: 90 million, 1 battleship, 1 aircraft carrier, 6 Leander class cruisers, 16 H class destroyers, 4 Rainbow class submarines, 8 frigates
1929: 87 million, 1 battleship, 6 Leander class cruisers, 16 I class destroyers, 8 S class submarines, 8 frigates
1930: 1 aircraft carrier, 6 Town class CL, 16 J class DD, 8 S class submarines, 8 frigates, 4 minesweepers

1931: 6 Town class CL, 16 K class DD, 8 S class submarines, 8 frigates, 4 minesweepers (*Japanese Action triggers Rearmament Phase 1*)
1932: 3 KGVs, 2 aircraft carriers, 6 Town class CL, 16 L class DD, 8 S class submarines, 12 frigates, 6 corvettes, 4 minesweepers
1933: 3 KGVs, 2 aircraft carriers, 6 Town class CL, 16 M class DD, 8 S class submarines, 12 frigates, 6 corvettes,  4 minesweepers
1934: 3 Lions, 2 aircraft carriers, 6 Crown Colony class CL, 8 Tribal class DL, 16 N class DD, 12 S class submarines, 12 frigates, 6 corvettes, 4 minesweepers
1935: 3 Lions, 2 aircraft carriers, 6 Crown Colony class CL, 8 Tribal class DL, 16 O class DD, 12 S class submarines, 12 frigates, 6 corvettes, 4 minesweepers (**Some Enemy Action triggers Rearmament Phase 2**)
1936: 3 Vanguards, 2 aircraft carriers, 2 CA, 6 Crown Colony class CL, 8 Tribal class DL, 16 Q class DD, 12 T class submarines, 12 frigates, 6 corvettes, 4 minesweepers
1937: 3 Vanguards, 2 aircraft carriers, 2 CA, 6 Crown Colony class CL, 8 Tribal class DL, 16 R class DD, 12 T class submarines, 12 frigates, 6 corvettes, 4 minesweepers
1938: 3 Superbs, 2 aircraft carriers, 2 CA, 6 Dido class CL, 8 Tribal class DL, 16 S class DD, 12 T class submarines, 12 frigates, 6 corvettes, 4 minesweepers
1939: 3 Superbs, 2 aircraft carriers, 2 CA, 6 Dido class CL, 16 T class DD, 12 T class submarines, 12 frigates, 6 corvettes, 4 minesweepers
1940: 4 CVB, 4 CA, 6 Dido class CL, 16 U/V class DD, 12 T class submarines, 12 frigates, 6 corvettes, 4 minesweepers
1941: 6 Dido class CL, 16 Y/Z class DD, 12 U class submarines, 12 frigates, 6 corvettes, 4 minesweepers

- All C class cruisers gone by 1928 and all D class by 1932
- E class and Hawkins decommissioned in 1936
- All R/S class destroyers gone by the second half of the 1920s
- All V/Ws gone to reserve by 1934 and disposal by 1939, in line with 20 year service lives
- R class decommissioned as of 1933 and QE class + R/R as of 1936. They provide a second line of reserve and go for good in the 1940s

[stevep]

Mar 14, 2024 5:39:33 GMT simon darkshade said:

The 1930s and 40s (Collated Musings)

- Whilst the GD didn’t hit Britain as badly as the USA in @, the effects were still devastating, particularly to the North. Jarrow, for example
- Depending on what path is chosen/ the flow of events after a crash in 1929, there will be a distinctly Keynesian approach/policy taken in Britain
- This will include investment in infrastructure projects, such as motorways/Royal Highways, hydroelectric projects, New Towns (going hand in hand with slum clearance), new deepwater ports, railway construction, modernisation and electrification and building airports; HMG backed orders for new superliners from Northern shipyards (not just QM and QE at John Brown, as their construction might be shared out to different yards, but two White Star counterparts named Oceanic and Atlantic) and eight big 50,000t motorships (Britannic, Georgic, Celtic, Athenic; Mauretania, Sylvania, Franconia and Campania)
- Further support of key heavy industries will flow on from what has been done in the 1920s
- There will also be an accompanying appropriate level of Military Keynesianism. In addition to warships, a fleet train/support ships of the RFA will be built up - fleet tankers, tankers, oilers, tenders, stores ships, distilling ships, repair ships, hospital ships, troopships, ammunition ships, degaussing ships, vehicle carriers and survey ships
- Broadly speaking, the South had the newest consumer goods industries and most aircraft; the Midlands had the nascent car industry and a lot of old standbys; and the North and Scotland had the shipyards, steel, textiles, a large part of coal and other such sectors. The aim will be to see prosperity across the country, not just in certain areas
- Wales, having coal, steel and some decent deepwater port potential, will see some new shipbuilding yards come in the 1920s

(More to be edited in)


Very, Very Provisional Naval Thinking (Contingent on Japan and [Censored] playing up and several other storyline factors)

1919: 14 V/W class destroyers (replacing 1 wartime loss and topping up the rest)
1920: 120 million, 4 Nelson class battleships

1921: 108 million 4 County class cruisers, 16 A class destroyers, 4 Odin class submarines, 8 frigates, 2 minelayers (Naval Conference)
1922: 90 million, 1 battleship, 4 County class cruisers, 4 Leander class cruisers, 16 B class destroyers, 4 Odin class submarines, 8 frigates (Treaty Begins)
1923: 87 million, 1 battleship, 2 aircraft carriers, 4 County class cruisers, 4 Leander class cruisers, 16 C class destroyers, 4 Odin class submarines, 8 frigates
1924: 85 million, 1 battleship, 1 aircraft carrier, 4 County class cruisers, 4 Leander class cruisers, 16 D class destroyers, 4 Parthian class submarines, 8 frigates
1925: 90 million, 1 battleship, 4 County class cruisers, 4 Leander class cruisers, 16 E class destroyers, 4 Parthian class submarines, 8 frigates
1926: 90 million, 1 battleship, 1 aircraft carrier, 4 County class cruisers, 4 Leander class cruisers, 16 F class destroyers, 4 Parthian class submarines, 8 frigates
1927: 92 million, 1 battleship, 8 Leander class cruisers, 16 G class destroyers, 4 Rainbow class submarines, 8 frigates
1928: 90 million, 1 battleship, 1 aircraft carrier, 6 Leander class cruisers, 16 H class destroyers, 4 Rainbow class submarines, 8 frigates
1929: 87 million, 1 battleship, 6 Leander class cruisers, 16 I class destroyers, 8 S class submarines, 8 frigates
1930: 1 aircraft carrier, 6 Town class CL, 16 J class DD, 8 S class submarines, 8 frigates, 4 minesweepers

1931: 6 Town class CL, 16 K class DD, 8 S class submarines, 8 frigates, 4 minesweepers (*Japanese Action triggers Rearmament Phase 1*)
1932: 3 KGVs, 2 aircraft carriers, 6 Town class CL, 16 L class DD, 8 S class submarines, 12 frigates, 6 corvettes, 4 minesweepers
1933: 3 KGVs, 2 aircraft carriers, 6 Town class CL, 16 M class DD, 8 S class submarines, 12 frigates, 6 corvettes,  4 minesweepers
1934: 3 Lions, 2 aircraft carriers, 6 Crown Colony class CL, 8 Tribal class DL, 16 N class DD, 12 S class submarines, 12 frigates, 6 corvettes, 4 minesweepers
1935: 3 Lions, 2 aircraft carriers, 6 Crown Colony class CL, 8 Tribal class DL, 16 O class DD, 12 S class submarines, 12 frigates, 6 corvettes, 4 minesweepers (**Some Enemy Action triggers Rearmament Phase 2**)
1936: 3 Vanguards, 2 aircraft carriers, 2 CA, 6 Crown Colony class CL, 8 Tribal class DL, 16 Q class DD, 12 T class submarines, 12 frigates, 6 corvettes, 4 minesweepers
1937: 3 Vanguards, 2 aircraft carriers, 2 CA, 6 Crown Colony class CL, 8 Tribal class DL, 16 R class DD, 12 T class submarines, 12 frigates, 6 corvettes, 4 minesweepers
1938: 3 Superbs, 2 aircraft carriers, 2 CA, 6 Dido class CL, 8 Tribal class DL, 16 S class DD, 12 T class submarines, 12 frigates, 6 corvettes, 4 minesweepers
1939: 3 Superbs, 2 aircraft carriers, 2 CA, 6 Dido class CL, 16 T class DD, 12 T class submarines, 12 frigates, 6 corvettes, 4 minesweepers
1940: 4 CVB, 4 CA, 6 Dido class CL, 16 U/V class DD, 12 T class submarines, 12 frigates, 6 corvettes, 4 minesweepers
1941: 6 Dido class CL, 16 Y/Z class DD, 12 U class submarines, 12 frigates, 6 corvettes, 4 minesweepers

- All C class cruisers gone by 1928 and all D class by 1932
- E class and Hawkins decommissioned in 1936
- All R/S class destroyers gone by the second half of the 1920s
- All V/Ws gone to reserve by 1934 and disposal by 1939, in line with 20 year service lives
- R class decommissioned as of 1933 and QE class + R/R as of 1936. They provide a second line of reserve and go for good in the 1940s

  Sounds like your assuming that some Japanese action - occupation of Manchuria OTL?? - will trigger a massive naval build up.  At the same time as a considerable boost to peacetime infrastructure spending to minimize the impact of the depression in Britain as well as boosting Britain's economic productivity.  Would the treaty system have broken down by then?  Would those KGV and Lion class be as OTL ships or larger because of the different conditions?  Also wonder what the US reaction would be as they and Japan are likely to respond in kind.  Which is likely to be crippling for the Japanese economy and probably overall good for the US, at least in the short term.

  Similarly with the Vanguard's would be they constructed similarly to OTL plans.  If so wouldn't they be using the guns from the Queen and R class BBs so those ships would have no actual guns.  Which possibly fits in with what you say about their hulks being scrapped in the 1940s?  Given your talking about 24 new BBs/FABCs being started in the period 1932-1939 would would the planned size be for the capital ship fleet by circa 1943-44 when those ships are completed?  Would the ships constructed in the 1920's start being phased out as well?

  Also given that the assumption is that German remilitization could be averted by prompt action and the limitations of the Japanese economy, plus the fact BBs have a limited viability in coming periods - even if assuming war with another major naval power which could only really be the US with that size of fleet what would be the political/public argument for such a programme?

  Those are my concerns and will be interested to see what you come up with.  Ditto to a degree with the smaller ships which would be needed in larger numbers both for possible other activities such as trade protection as well as supporting the capital ships.

[simon darkshade]

Mar 14, 2024 16:35:53 GMT stevep said:

Mar 14, 2024 5:39:33 GMT simon darkshade said:

The 1930s and 40s (Collated Musings)

- Whilst the GD didn’t hit Britain as badly as the USA in @, the effects were still devastating, particularly to the North. Jarrow, for example
- Depending on what path is chosen/ the flow of events after a crash in 1929, there will be a distinctly Keynesian approach/policy taken in Britain
- This will include investment in infrastructure projects, such as motorways/Royal Highways, hydroelectric projects, New Towns (going hand in hand with slum clearance), new deepwater ports, railway construction, modernisation and electrification and building airports; HMG backed orders for new superliners from Northern shipyards (not just QM and QE at John Brown, as their construction might be shared out to different yards, but two White Star counterparts named Oceanic and Atlantic) and eight big 50,000t motorships (Britannic, Georgic, Celtic, Athenic; Mauretania, Sylvania, Franconia and Campania)
- Further support of key heavy industries will flow on from what has been done in the 1920s
- There will also be an accompanying appropriate level of Military Keynesianism. In addition to warships, a fleet train/support ships of the RFA will be built up - fleet tankers, tankers, oilers, tenders, stores ships, distilling ships, repair ships, hospital ships, troopships, ammunition ships, degaussing ships, vehicle carriers and survey ships
- Broadly speaking, the South had the newest consumer goods industries and most aircraft; the Midlands had the nascent car industry and a lot of old standbys; and the North and Scotland had the shipyards, steel, textiles, a large part of coal and other such sectors. The aim will be to see prosperity across the country, not just in certain areas
- Wales, having coal, steel and some decent deepwater port potential, will see some new shipbuilding yards come in the 1920s

(More to be edited in)


Very, Very Provisional Naval Thinking (Contingent on Japan and [Censored] playing up and several other storyline factors)

1919: 14 V/W class destroyers (replacing 1 wartime loss and topping up the rest)
1920: 120 million, 4 Nelson class battleships

1921: 108 million 4 County class cruisers, 16 A class destroyers, 4 Odin class submarines, 8 frigates, 2 minelayers (Naval Conference)
1922: 90 million, 1 battleship, 4 County class cruisers, 4 Leander class cruisers, 16 B class destroyers, 4 Odin class submarines, 8 frigates (Treaty Begins)
1923: 87 million, 1 battleship, 2 aircraft carriers, 4 County class cruisers, 4 Leander class cruisers, 16 C class destroyers, 4 Odin class submarines, 8 frigates
1924: 85 million, 1 battleship, 1 aircraft carrier, 4 County class cruisers, 4 Leander class cruisers, 16 D class destroyers, 4 Parthian class submarines, 8 frigates
1925: 90 million, 1 battleship, 4 County class cruisers, 4 Leander class cruisers, 16 E class destroyers, 4 Parthian class submarines, 8 frigates
1926: 90 million, 1 battleship, 1 aircraft carrier, 4 County class cruisers, 4 Leander class cruisers, 16 F class destroyers, 4 Parthian class submarines, 8 frigates
1927: 92 million, 1 battleship, 8 Leander class cruisers, 16 G class destroyers, 4 Rainbow class submarines, 8 frigates
1928: 90 million, 1 battleship, 1 aircraft carrier, 6 Leander class cruisers, 16 H class destroyers, 4 Rainbow class submarines, 8 frigates
1929: 87 million, 1 battleship, 6 Leander class cruisers, 16 I class destroyers, 8 S class submarines, 8 frigates
1930: 1 aircraft carrier, 6 Town class CL, 16 J class DD, 8 S class submarines, 8 frigates, 4 minesweepers

1931: 6 Town class CL, 16 K class DD, 8 S class submarines, 8 frigates, 4 minesweepers (*Japanese Action triggers Rearmament Phase 1*)
1932: 3 KGVs, 2 aircraft carriers, 6 Town class CL, 16 L class DD, 8 S class submarines, 12 frigates, 6 corvettes, 4 minesweepers
1933: 3 KGVs, 2 aircraft carriers, 6 Town class CL, 16 M class DD, 8 S class submarines, 12 frigates, 6 corvettes,  4 minesweepers
1934: 3 Lions, 2 aircraft carriers, 6 Crown Colony class CL, 8 Tribal class DL, 16 N class DD, 12 S class submarines, 12 frigates, 6 corvettes, 4 minesweepers
1935: 3 Lions, 2 aircraft carriers, 6 Crown Colony class CL, 8 Tribal class DL, 16 O class DD, 12 S class submarines, 12 frigates, 6 corvettes, 4 minesweepers (**Some Enemy Action triggers Rearmament Phase 2**)
1936: 3 Vanguards, 2 aircraft carriers, 2 CA, 6 Crown Colony class CL, 8 Tribal class DL, 16 Q class DD, 12 T class submarines, 12 frigates, 6 corvettes, 4 minesweepers
1937: 3 Vanguards, 2 aircraft carriers, 2 CA, 6 Crown Colony class CL, 8 Tribal class DL, 16 R class DD, 12 T class submarines, 12 frigates, 6 corvettes, 4 minesweepers
1938: 3 Superbs, 2 aircraft carriers, 2 CA, 6 Dido class CL, 8 Tribal class DL, 16 S class DD, 12 T class submarines, 12 frigates, 6 corvettes, 4 minesweepers
1939: 3 Superbs, 2 aircraft carriers, 2 CA, 6 Dido class CL, 16 T class DD, 12 T class submarines, 12 frigates, 6 corvettes, 4 minesweepers
1940: 4 CVB, 4 CA, 6 Dido class CL, 16 U/V class DD, 12 T class submarines, 12 frigates, 6 corvettes, 4 minesweepers
1941: 6 Dido class CL, 16 Y/Z class DD, 12 U class submarines, 12 frigates, 6 corvettes, 4 minesweepers

- All C class cruisers gone by 1928 and all D class by 1932
- E class and Hawkins decommissioned in 1936
- All R/S class destroyers gone by the second half of the 1920s
- All V/Ws gone to reserve by 1934 and disposal by 1939, in line with 20 year service lives
- R class decommissioned as of 1933 and QE class + R/R as of 1936. They provide a second line of reserve and go for good in the 1940s

  Sounds like your assuming that some Japanese action - occupation of Manchuria OTL?? - will trigger a massive naval build up. 

At the same time as a considerable boost to peacetime infrastructure spending to minimize the impact of the depression in Britain as well as boosting Britain's economic productivity. 

Would the treaty system have broken down by then? 

Would those KGV and Lion class be as OTL ships or larger because of the different conditions?  Also wonder what the US reaction would be as they and Japan are likely to respond in kind.  Which is likely to be crippling for the Japanese economy and probably overall good for the US, at least in the short term.

  Similarly with the Vanguard's would be they constructed similarly to OTL plans.  If so wouldn't they be using the guns from the Queen and R class BBs so those ships would have no actual guns.  Which possibly fits in with what you say about their hulks being scrapped in the 1940s? 

Given your talking about 24 new BBs/FABCs being started in the period 1932-1939 would would the planned size be for the capital ship fleet by circa 1943-44 when those ships are completed?  Would the ships constructed in the 1920's start being phased out as well?

  Also given that the assumption is that German remilitization could be averted by prompt action and the limitations of the Japanese economy, plus the fact BBs have a limited viability in coming periods - even if assuming war with another major naval power which could only really be the US with that size of fleet what would be the political/public argument for such a programme?

  Those are my concerns and will be interested to see what you come up with.  Ditto to a degree with the smaller ships which would be needed in larger numbers both for possible other activities such as trade protection as well as supporting the capital ships.

Steve,

1.) Correct on the Japanese trigger, which is provisional at this point. It will start the rearmament process for all three services in various ways.
2.) Correct also on the peacetime infrastructure spending and industrial investment
3.) I'm working towards that scenario at present; it will depend on the relative support for an extension to the 10 year treaty
4.) Larger, due to the bigger starting point of larger ship size under the 'WNT' and then beyond it. The impact of the 1920s dock programme will influence dimensions. Japan is likely to be a bit flummoxed, as it does put paid to the regional advantages they thought they enjoyed under the *WNT, and it will push them beyond their scope of being able to respond. 
If the US responds by building their preferred ship designs, so much the better, as that bit of extra activity will stimulate some moribund parts of their economy, which in turn benefits the world and their peaceful trading partners, not to mention putting a stake in the heart of future aggressor nations that emerged in the vacuum of @. The Americans didn't go for a 'fast battleship' in any of their 1920s and 1930s designs until what would become the North Carolinas, so they might try and match in quantity, but not quality
5.) No, the use of the name 'Vanguards' is simply nomenclature, reflecting the 'type' that was nebulously contemplated under the Standard Fleet Plan of @, in addition to the KGVs and Lions. They will have 16" guns, which come from the existing industrial base and modernisation + extension of gun pit capacity.
6.) The expected fleet would have a nominal surge strength of 9 ships at home, 3 in the Atlantic as a 'swing force', 6 in the Mediterranean and 6 in the Far East and the 12 oldest ships in varying degrees of reserve and training status. Actual numbers would be smaller than that due to a rolling refit/working up/post deployment commission system.

The @ plan was roughly for:
Home Fleet: Hood, Renown, 5 King George V, 3 Lion
Med Fleet: 2 Lion, 2 Vanguards
Eastern Fleet: 5 Vanguards, Nelson, Rodney

The Nelsons, which would commission in 1923, would have expected service lives until ~1953, including refits/reserve

7.) The knowledge of the future of the battleship isn't publicly known, so they are considered the foremost indicator of naval strength and seapower in the public imagination. They will be built a bit differently, exercising the 'for but not with' principle of having space for future weapons systems, including various missiles. The general idea is to get the best value for money out of battleship construction, rather than the habit of some at AH.com in particular of simply regarding them as a vexsome anachronism best got out of the way with 3rd rate cheap designs that can be swiftly decommissioned and scrapped. The way to do this, as I see it, is to build for a longer total service life of 45-50 years and understand that they will cycle through roles of Capital Ship -> Bombardment and AA Ship -> Flagship and Missile Ship -> Training Ship/ in that time.

This long term view is unique to ISOTs where there is full future knowledge and works on the idea that the cost of the ship divided by its effective service life gives what we can term as 'annualised value for money'. Thus in @, Vanguard cost 11 million pounds and had perhaps 5 years in full service, making it very expensive and amounting to a white elephant and KGV being a bit better with 8 million over 8.5 years, whilst Warspite, with an initial cost of 2.5 million and a 2.4 million refit, had a service life of ~26 years. The last gave better value for the money sunk into her construction. The annual running costs of ships also come into calculations, but that is from a different part of the budget.

8.) The smaller ships are a bit larger than @, built to peacetime standards with the capacity for future conversion. The larger destroyer types have more scope for future weapons, such as helicopters, ASW systems and guided missiles, without becoming too overloaded or top heavy, whilst the 1930s cruisers are all in the 'sweet spot' of displacement whereby they have the capacity to do more than simply carry their first generation guns. Destroyers are designed with 20 year life and cruisers 30; the latter have the capacity to be extended through midlife modernisations.

Simon

[simon darkshade]

The other reactions to Japan, and in the context of the League of Nations, will be:

Establishment of the Defence Requirements Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence

(Royal Navy: New Standard Fleet Plan)
British Army: Full implementation of the Churchill Report (see below)
RAF: Implementation of the Empire Air Plan, which effectively calls for a series of schemes that will double the strength of the RAF over 4-5 years, roll out RDF that has already started, increase the field strength of the RAF Regiment (established in 1920s out of RAF Middle East ground forces) and establishment of ADGB in conjunction with Army AA units

Extract from Churchill Report: The British Secretary of State for War, Sir Winston Churchill, approves the Churchill Report, a document setting out the priorities for the British Army over the next decade in the light of the changing security situation in Europe and the wider world.

A short extract from the preamble:
"The British Army of 192X is a well trained professional force with good supplies of excellent equipment, but is facing a number of large capital expenditures in the coming decade.
1.) The current artillery park will require replacement or upgrading, with a new generation of field and heavy pieces under development, as well as new medium and heavy mortars
2.) New tanks to replace the first and second generation vehicles, along with self propelled guns and infantry carriers
3.) New anti-aircraft guns for the Air Defence of Great Britain and anti tank guns
4.) Replacement of the current motor vehicle pool of 10,000 lorries and 40,000 other automobiles
5.) …
As such, expenditures will need to increase in the medium to long term, requiring several economy and efficiency measures."


Incidentally, in light of @ future trends and ‘tropes’, there will be a far more cohesive approach in the 1920s to emphasise the ‘victory’ of WW1; with this will come a bit of a different popular culture position for Earl Haig.

[simon darkshade]

In terms of small arms, the aim will be to produce ~50,000 SLRs, 10,000 LMGs, 5000 GPMGs and 500 HMGs per year in the 1920s. The rifles will be the full auto version (a la the FN FAL) and the LMGs will be based on the FN FALO with some influence of the X11E4 and the L4 Bren.

The issue of calibre is one that arouses immense interest in grognards (particularly on AH.com, where the more low level the technical debate, the more commenters come out to play), but to be different, we'll go for a .303" rimless with the streamline influence of the @ Mark VIIIz. The very large stocks of SMLEs, Vickers MGs and .303" British rimmed ammunition will initially go to the Indian Army, once the new small arms are introduced.

The new pistol will be a Browning Hi Power in .40", as there is no need to adopt 9mm without stocks of it or equipment set up for its mass production.

Developing these weapons won't cost a lot, but production and conversion of production facilities will cost a bit. I'm going to crunch the numbers in due course.

New small arms will also require a revision of small unit tactics, training and doctrine, so it is best to phase this in during a decade of peace when the Army is small and NCOs and junior-mid rank officers can be trained/accustomed to these capabilities.

In terms of the Army’s composition, after the drawdown from the brief BAOR top strength, it will look perhaps something like this:

Home Forces:
Guards Division
1st Infantry Division
2nd Infantry Division
3rd Infantry Division
4th Infantry Division
5th Infantry Division
6th Infantry Division

7th Infantry Division (Cadre)
8th Infantry Division (Cadre)
9th/Scottish Infantry Division (Cadre)

Cavalry Division
Experimental Armoured Force

Germany
Depends on year 

Dardanelles
28th Division (historical deployment)

Egypt
10th/Irish Infantry Division (historical deployment)

Palestine
75th Division (historical deployment)
2nd Cavalry Division

TA 
3rd Cavalry Division
4th Cavalry Division
(41st), 42nd, 43rd, 44th, (45th), 46th, 47th, 48th, 49th, 50th, 51st, 52nd, 53rd, 54th, 55th, 56th

There will be a medium term goal to have the 13th-36th ‘march on paper’ as reserve mobilisation formations with 100 man staffs of regulars in peacetime (in other words, through the 1920s and 30s)

[simon darkshade]

Vehicles and Fun:
- One aspect that, strangely enough, doesn’t get enough use in ISOTs is quite straightforward copying of foreign inventions and bits and pieces. Some that will see development and production here are:

1.) The jeep
2.) Volkswagen Beetle
3.) The Land Rover, incorporating better production quality and taking some aspects from the Land Cruiser
4.) Aircraft: DC-3 and DC-4
5.) Various Ferrari and Porsche sports cars
6.) The Boeing Clipper and other VLR flying boats
7.) GMC CCKW 2.5t truck and M39 5t truck
8.) Caterpillar D6 bulldozer
9.) Helicopters full stop
10.) A Comet with safe windows and more powerful engines in the class of the Boeing 707
11.) The transistor and integrated circuit
12.) Microwave oven
13.) Lasers
14.) Basic oxygen steelmaking
15.) Nylon, Polyester, Teflon and Polyurethane
16.) Fibreglass
17.) Wetsuits and Pressure suits
18.) Jerry Cans
19.) Lego
20.) Deoderant
21.) Velcro
22.) Penicilin
23.) Polio vaccine
24.) Television
25.) Radio
26.) Teabags
27.) Bakelite, Linoleum
28.) Colour photography and movies
29.) Talkies
30.) Cellophane
31.) Haber Process
32.) Submachine gun and all manner of guns
33.) Band-Aids
34.) Robots
35.) Frozen food
36.) Aerosol
37.) Car radios
38.) The hamburger (just as a bit of a twist)
39.) Polaroid instant cameras 
40.) Canned beer and soft drink 
41.) Photocopiers
42.) Ballpoint pen
 

- Prevent MDMA, LSD and methamphetamine and kill off heroin
- Computers
- Radar and sonar
- The PBY Catalina will be built as the Saunders-Roe London, whilst the Short Sunderland (civilian version Short Empire) will be a version of the larger, longer range Short Shetland
- A much earlier start to jets and rockets, under wraps

US: 602t
Russia: 663t (569.84)
France: 451.427 (705t)
Britain: 198.47 (down from 304.67 in 1895)
Germany: 187t
Italy: 121.6
AH: 291.11


GDP 1900-1913
1900: 1963
1901: 1978
1902: 1988
1903: 1964
1904: 1967
1905: 2034
1906: 2112
1907: 2189
1908: 2093
1909: 2133
1910: 2218
1911: 2306
1912: 2401
1913: 2497


National Debt 1900-1913

1900: 30.17 (592.24)
1901: 33.1 (658.67)
1902: 35.85 (712.7)
1903: 37.94 (745.14)
1904: 37.69 (741.36)
1905: 36.16 (735.49)
1906: 34.41 (726.74)
1907: 32.43 (709.89)
1908: 33.35 (698.016)
1909: 32.41 (691.3)
1910: 31.68 (702.66)
1911: 29.26 (674.74)
1912: 27.4 (657.87)
1913: 25.86 (645.72)

Total Defence Budgets in 1900-1913

1900: 69.6
1901: 121
1902: 123.3
1903: 100.6
1904: 72.2
1905: 66
1906: 62.2
1907: 59.2
1908: 58.2
1909: 59
1910: 63
1911: 67.8
1912: 70.5
1913: 72.5


RN Budget 1900-1913

1900: 29.62
1901: 31.04
1902: 31.18
1903: 35.48
1904: 36.83
1905: 33.30
1906: 31.43
1907: 31.14
1908: 32.19
1909: 35.28
1910: 40.38
1911: 42.86
1912: 44.37
1913: 48.83

Army Budget 1900-1913

1900: 39.98
1901: 89.96
1902: 92.12
1903: 65.12
1904: 35.37
1905: 32.7
1906: 30.77
1907: 28.06
1908: 26.01
1909: 23.72
1910: 22.62
1911: 24.94
1912: 26.13
1913: 23.67


- Daily 'income' of 512k from gold (4t or 1460t/year) and 566k from diamond (2lb or 324kg/year) **
- Technical library
- Historical library 
- 5 PCs + 10 laptops + printing room, spares and paper
- Fridge full of insulin

- Black Mount gold mine with 4 million oz per year with 125 years 
- Hawksworth/Sherwood oil field of 250 km2 with 100 years of 2.5 million bbl of oil
- Wytch Farm with 1.5 million bbl
- Cannich iron ore deposit of 2500 million tons of 65% iron ore
- Parys mountain copper deposit with 500,000t p.a. for 200 years
- Tara silver, zinc and lead deposit a la BH

Exploit: Mount Isa, Roxby Downs, Cadia gold NSW, Argyle diamond WA, Hammersley Ranges iron WA, Boddington gold WA, Galilee Basin coal QLD, Cooper Basin oil, Jamaican bauxite, Trinidad oil, Nigeria oil, Ghana gold/Ashanti Goldfields, Seria oilfield in Brunei, Labuan oil

- Enough to yield ‘Option Time’, with a range of choices and well laid out plans to debate. Not just a railroad to 2024

- A British Empire with a Strategic Plan for short, medium and long term success
- Gradual move away from direct aid and magic 
- No blithe acceptance of futures; early discussion of the 5/10/20/50 year ‘rule’ of predictable/major change/fundamental change/unrecognisable difference
- Not just holding the Empire, but transforming it; working on many levels - of the inner CW realms as an economic, political, cultural and strategic bloc and formal defence alliance with progressive integration; of the Indian Empire, made up of different sub states; of the Dominions in Africa, Asia and the ME, with progressive home rule in an Imperial context; and the Crown Colonies too small or scattered to be independent. Plus protectorates and satellites
- Not just holding, but expanding: Egypt, Palestine, Mesopotamia, Libya, Rhodes, Siam, HK, Argentina (as de facto Dominion), Portuguese Africa, Congo
- Interplay of interests and carrots, along with clear subjective benchmarks and then timetables 
- No acceptance of industrial decline or economic decline, but maintenance of the consistent heavy core and dominance of new sectors
- Identification of enemies and how to deal with them
- Strength abroad can only be based on strength at home, which comes from health and welfare of the economy, which comes from health and welfare of the people
- ‘Christian, Capitalist, British, Imperialist, Royalist’ reflects some of the ideals of leading figures vs modern mindmelds 
- National Champion companies
- Delayed Women’s Suffrage, but not removed
- No House of Lords Act
- New city at Milton Keynes ‘Victoria’
- Telford as Wellington
- East Anglian city…
- Alnwick city
- Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield, Bristol, Reading,  Nottingham, Newcastle, Southampton, Hull, Middlesbrough, Exeter, Leicester, York, Lancaster, Warwick, Bath, Bradford, Salford, Coventry, Derby, Lincoln, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Sunderland, Wolverhampton, Southampton, Winchester, Gloucester, Worcester, Guildford, Chichester, Northampton, 


- A better show in South Africa:
Prewar reinforcement and plans for mobilised force
Roberts sooner 
No Black Week
Kruger taken at border and exiled to St Helena
No Camps affair 
Indian contingent added to Imperial forces
Imperial Expeditionary Force/Army of 250,000
More Maxims as an immediate measure
Gandhi and Indians serve
Churchill VC
Postwar Report on Army


- Pay off debt in 1899/90
- Cost of South African War (@ 146.5 million vs ATL 110 million) paid off
- Imperial Dock Programme
- Rhodes and Herzl cured with 'pills’

- Zionist project in Sinai and Palestine
- Dominion plan for NZ, Newfoundland, South Africa and Rhodesia
- Very long term WI development 

- Vehicles: Model T Ford, Austin 25/30, Jeep, 
- Planes: British Army Aeroplane No 1, Sopwith Camel, Avro 504, Hurricane, DH Tiger Moth
- Patents: Haber-Bosch process, Flying Machine, Car related advances
- ASDIC by 1910
- Marconi radar experiments and RDF Office
- Einstein lured to Britain 

- 20th Century Great Exhibition
- London works: Great Tower, Statue of Britannia, Royal Docks, Underground, Hanging Gardens, Thames Gateway, LSA expansion, Cathedrals
- Scott first to South Pole and Shackleton first to North Pole
- Severn Barrage

- Shibboleths of Free Trade, Free Immigration, Classical Economic Theory (Cobdenism) and A Service Based Economy to be challenged 
- Manufacturing to make up 52% of economy, 44% services and 4% agriculture 
- New Workshop of the World in IR 2.5 terms

- Managed approach to suffrage issue
- Irish Question aimed at being subsumed into closer Imperial ties and regionalism (North, West, East and South Ireland as Ulster, Connacht, Munster and Leinster)
- No Bengal Partition
- Gandhi handled in South Africa
- Egypt tied in very, very close
- Restore Poland and Finland in ideal aim

- Buy into Ford
- Austin, Morris, Rootes, Vauxhall, ‘Saxon’
(Car, Family Car, Lorry, Luxury, Sports Car)
- Dunlop to be joined by Bridgestone, John Bull and Avalon


- FN-49 type as SMLE in .303 Magnum, Webley as M1911 precursor, Lewis Gun, Vickers MG (first water, then air cooled), Manville Grenade Gun and new swords
- Military rockets
- Long term view towards SLR, FN LMG, GPMG, M2 Browning as Vickers HMG, (next gen .625 FN BRG) and Maxim Gun
- 25pdr universal field gun with overmatch in range, accuracy and comparative RoF
- British Tank Programme: Turreted Heavy, Medium and Light
- Motorise the Army

- 16 Super X4 Dreadnought with 10 x 12", 24 x 4.9", 12" belt and 24 kts at 25,000-28,000t
- 8 Battlecruiser Is with 8 x 12”, 24 x 4.9”, 11” belt and 28.5 kts 
- 16 Super Dreadnoughts to have 8 x 15”, 24 x 4.9”, 14” belts and 25kts for 35,000t-40,000t
- Superdreadnought IIs jump further ahead

- Superheavy Greenboy shells for 12”
www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2015/february/armaments-innovations-navys-supershells

Democracy refuses to think strategically unless and until compelled to do so for purposes of defence - Mackinder


Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

[simon darkshade]

Alrighty, time for the update that locks in the path ahead:

- The dual track outcome, whilst interesting, ultimately leads to what the Americans term as the ‘trolley problem’, whereby certain paths are mutually exclusive
- There is a capacity to create a post WW1 PoD and story, but due to the shadow of the Great War, there simply isn’t the same freedom and, from a writing perspective, not the same fun
- Creating a story, timeline or piece shouldn’t be as deathly solemn and puritanical as an evening with Malvolio, but be something that can allow creativity, a bit of a laugh and some enjoyment doing research. Reading it shouldn’t be a university level assignment with all the joie de vivre of root canal surgery
- The lesson of the last 18 years of writing AH type works online is that people simply don’t engage with my stuff or comment . As such, there is more of an impetus to explore something enjoyable than to chase mirages of ‘doing the most with the absolute least change’
- Thus, rather than trying to thread the needle in 1919, it is an 1898 job

This has the advantage of being that bit more distanced from modern politics and events; without some of the key drivers for them, such as a recognisable WW1 and Russian Revolution, there is more of a ‘sandbox’ available.

I intend to work on the same type of timeframe outlined on March 6th (Fall and Rise gets priority, then this is parallel with various DE bits and pieces). Subsequent brainstorming stuff, along with the residual 1900 material from 2021 and 2022, can all be used.

The (much edited in many a long, insomniac night over March 17 - April 14) provides the baseline means for change. What that change will be will take time to play out.

I don’t intend for the travellers to take over HMG, but I really, really can’t see what happens in so many other cases, where 1890s-1930s gentlemen suddenly turn into 2020s netizens, with all of the accompanying culture, beliefs and assumptions regarding future events and trends. There is going to be enough information and enough of a comparative boost as to make change possible and to clear the way for a lot of different things to occur.

One storytelling device that is traditionally nicked from The Foresight War is an oversight committee to both hide the origin of information and steer the direction of State X. This is useful both in terms of getting policy/content across ‘out of action’ and in having some sense of controlling establishment that transcends the political differences of Liberal and Conservative.

As of an 1897/98 start:
- WW1 as we know it can be avoided. Some sort of conflict is needed to release the pent up steam and partially adjust some borders, but with the right approach, this can have a much smaller butcher’s bill 
- Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks preempted
- Exploration is still a bit open, giving scope for fun and creativity
- The chief driver behind the ‘gold replicator’ et al is to explore what a Britain without the big Damoclean sword of debt, both pre WW1 and post WW1, can prioritise and accomplish; I don’t want it to function forever, but rather to kickstart things before the mines and then economic growth take over
- Science can be advanced in the Belle Epoche
- Many things aren’t necessarily written as they would be in 1919 or 1929
- Many mistakes avoided, not least of them being in Africa, Ireland and India
- An injection of material prosperity can lead to some very interesting decisions on health, welfare, education and pensions in Britain alone
- There is more scope to ‘lean’ the tale towards a Noblebright outcome, rather than a Grimdark or even a Nobledark one
- When faced with the opportunity to avoid the Somme, Auschwitz and other horrors, they will seize them 
- There is enough scope to change some significant aspects of the development of 20th century cuisine, music, architecture, fashion, cinema, science, medicine, agriculture, animal rights, sport, literature and environmental protection. It isn’t all just about tanks
- There is scope to prevent the worst aspects and manifestations of climate change before they are seen, preserve the Amazon, save species and generally steer things towards a kinder approach to the natural world 
- The way that the media and communications sector can change, so that television might not become a vast cultural wasteland/the drug of a nation, and a miraculous global computing network might not be used for crime, pornography and moral degradation
- The little butterflies, such as Titanic, and the big ones, such as WW1, can result in a much larger opportunity for change 
- Improving the whole world without a global government is
next to impossible. The combination of the British Empire’s power, position and form of governance makes it the best placed for a bit of long term ‘steering’ that ultimately leads to the level of the bathtub rising
- The Traveler will seem to have some degree of persuasiveness, but won’t use this constantly, as there is a price

Some of the big issues are:
- South Africa: winding it up quickly, cleanly and efficiently
- Imperial Preference: A real bone of contention between the Liberal Imperialists and the Free Traders, with future history laying out some home truths to both
- Rapprochement with France: This carries with it an accompanying opportunity with Russia, but that is more distant in 1898 vs 1907
- Anglo-German relations and rivalry: With the benefit of future knowledge, how to handle the mercurial William II
- China: Handling not only the Boxer Rebellion but using its opportunity to secure some very long term interests 
- Japan: An economic and military third rate minnow and market, and one to be handled and encouraged without building up the makings of a rival
- America: Handling a growing competitor who is both friendly and unfriendly
- Middle East: Ottomans out, Britain in, grabbing as much as possible under the best terms possible
- South America: Buff up and support Argentina and keep up a 'special relationship' over decades
- Malaya and Burma/Far East: Advance up to the Kra
- Africa: Congo from King Leopold personal to Germany to... 'new management'

Further Misc Stuff
- Prevention of the Portuguese Regicide and the Assassination of Sissi
- Certain figures not yet in their prime will get different lives/careers; one interesting idea is to try and stop Hitler’s brother Edmund from dying of measles…
- Early aspirin pre August 1897
- 21 Sikhs
- Different PDN programme: 8 Royal Sovereign, 2 Centurion, 1 Renown, 9 Majestic, 6 Canopus, 1897: 6 Formidable*, 1898: 6 Formidable*, 1899: 6 Duncan*
- Dreadnought x 4 1900, St Vincent x 4 1901
- 6 x KEVII* 1902, 6 x Temeraire 1903, 4 x Neptune 1904
- Option for bigger guns
- RAF 1899!
- Migration programmes quickstart
- Formation of Colonial Army (made up of British Colonial Regiments and Imperial Regiments)
- Prep for Spanish-American War diplomatically and militarily for Boer War
- Buy up Spanish Pacific rather than Germany


On the off chance that anyone other than Steve reads this, comment is welcome

[simon darkshade]

In the final stretches of planning, I’m delving into social, health and welfare policies and the state of Britain pre WW1, through texts including The Deluge: British society and the First World War (1965) by Arthur Marwick and a number of associated pre WW1 demographic studies.

One thread coming through is that the issues of deprivation and poverty need to be addressed using a dual track approach: both policy for the longer term and direct investment to address the immediate effects. For example, there was a shortfall of ~ 120,000 houses across Britain in 1913, plus a lot of what was there was distinctly substandard. Being able to invest a good amount of the ‘windfall’ funding into that will pave the way to improvement in the quality of life and welfare of the people.

There were only 200,000 secondary school students across the country in that year, which shows a clear bottleneck for all the high minded thought of universities, engineering and more for down the line - that needs to improve markedly and earlier so that there is a greater flow of children into secondary education and thence potentially into technical institutions and universities in 15-20 years.

Health can be addressed in a number of ways, both preventative and in terms of reacting to issues. Improving nutrition of the bulk of the population over 20-25 years (through school meals and some innovative ways of food subsidies) will help with sickness and issues later in life, just as much as working for the introduction of various drugs (penicillin being but the first), vaccines, public education and environmental health issues, such as cleaner air and water.

Pensions, both for soldiers and civilians, can help quality of life in measurable ways for very small expenditure.

All of these pay off in economic and hard power terms down the line, but are also worthwhile in basic political and human terms, being the decent and right thing to aim for. Just as in DE, I try to weave everything together in a grand picture, so would I like to have a decent crack here at an ISOT based grand narrative/grand national strategy that follows the various threads of improvement over time, playing out their consequences.


On a tiny little secondary issue, the initial plan of contacting Conan Doyle and thence getting to Churchill and the government might not work for an 1898 kick off (or indeed an 1897 one), as elegant as it was in a certain sense.

One alternate to that is to get an “in” to the Directorate of Military Intelligence (and thence the PM etc) through the just retired former chief of military intelligence : 

en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Chapman_(British_Army_officer)&diffonly=true
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directorate_of_Military_Intelligence_(United_Kingdom)

[stevep]

Jul 4, 2024 6:52:08 GMT simon darkshade said:

In the final stretches of planning, I’m delving into social, health and welfare policies and the state of Britain pre WW1, through texts including The Deluge: British society and the First World War (1965) by Arthur Marwick and a number of associated pre WW1 demographic studies.

One thread coming through is that the issues of deprivation and poverty need to be addressed using a dual track approach: both policy for the longer term and direct investment to address the immediate effects. For example, there was a shortfall of ~ 120,000 houses across Britain in 1913, plus a lot of what was there was distinctly substandard. Being able to invest a good amount of the ‘windfall’ funding into that will pave the way to improvement in the quality of life and welfare of the people.

There were only 200,000 secondary school students across the country in that year, which shows a clear bottleneck for all the high minded thought of universities, engineering and more for down the line - that needs to improve markedly and earlier so that there is a greater flow of children into secondary education and thence potentially into technical institutions and universities in 15-20 years.

Health can be addressed in a number of ways, both preventative and in terms of reacting to issues. Improving nutrition of the bulk of the population over 20-25 years (through school meals and some innovative ways of food subsidies) will help with sickness and issues later in life, just as much as working for the introduction of various drugs (penicillin being but the first), vaccines, public education and environmental health issues, such as cleaner air and water.

Pensions, both for soldiers and civilians, can help quality of life in measurable ways for very small expenditure.

All of these pay off in economic and hard power terms down the line, but are also worthwhile in basic political and human terms, being the decent and right thing to aim for. Just as in DE, I try to weave everything together in a grand picture, so would I like to have a decent crack here at an ISOT based grand narrative/grand national strategy that follows the various threads of improvement over time, playing out their consequences.


On a tiny little secondary issue, the initial plan of contacting Conan Doyle and thence getting to Churchill and the government might not work for an 1898 kick off (or indeed an 1897 one), as elegant as it was in a certain sense.

One alternate to that is to get an “in” to the Directorate of Military Intelligence (and thence the PM etc) through the just retired former chief of military intelligence : 

en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Chapman_(British_Army_officer)&diffonly=true
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directorate_of_Military_Intelligence_(United_Kingdom)

  Very much agree.  There was a big deficit in both human and physical infrastructure which was not only causing much human suffering but seriously impacting Britain's economic, technological and military performance.  Its going to be a huge problem overcoming established viewpoints and getting the necessary investment committed in the right positions. 

  Could a possible person to influence and aid be Joseph Chamberlain?  He's getting towards the end of his career but was a supporter of such investment, from his own experience of Mayor of Birmingham and leader of the radical faction in the Liberals until he split with them over the question of Home Rule.  Getting him more influence in the Tory party, which was moving away from unlimited free trade could be useful although OTL even talk of it prompted a back-lash leading to a Liberal government in 1906 which for all the ideas of some radicals in the party which lead to important improvements their commitment to free trade and laissez faire was a serious problem.

[simon darkshade]

1.) I’ll have to have a think on the best means, particularly given the roadblock of Salisbury initially, but my initial thinking is to do what you’ve done just there: present the problem in the light of defence, or economy, or industry. That will make for Round 1 (1897-1901), or the groundwork phase. This will be followed by Round 2 (1902-1906) under the next PM (Joe Chamberlain) who would build on these foundations and broaden them, then Round 3 under a probable Liberal government (1907-191X) which then develops the positions further in more wide sweeping Liberal Reforms.

I’d divide the issues into Health, Education, Welfare, Pensions and Housing as general categories, even though there is a lot of crossover between them. From there, I’ll identify the problems and work out which steps go in which “Round”.

2.) I like the use of Chamberlain as PM. The way to work around the Free Trade/Imperial Preference rupture is to really spend the 1897-1901 period doing the groundwork, addressing issues of economy and building the IP/Tariff Reform faction’s momentum. After a Conservative government since 1895, there is simply a lot of momentum for a change to the Liberals, so ‘The Oversight Committee’ will need to start cutting in certain Liberal Imperialists (Asquith, Grey, Haldane, Lloyd George, Churchill). Even though Churchill was a dogmatic Free Trader, presenting ‘the details’ could have some sort of effect upon him personally.