|
Post by simon darkshade on Mar 12, 2024 8:39:17 GMT
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
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,426
Likes: 12,037
|
Post by stevep on Mar 12, 2024 11:01:14 GMT
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
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Mar 12, 2024 11:59:31 GMT
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
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Mar 12, 2024 15:03:35 GMT
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
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Mar 14, 2024 4:30:30 GMT
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…
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Mar 14, 2024 5:39:33 GMT
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
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,426
Likes: 12,037
|
Post by stevep on Mar 14, 2024 16:35:53 GMT
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.
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Mar 15, 2024 0:03:04 GMT
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
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Mar 15, 2024 10:49:53 GMT
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.
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Mar 15, 2024 13:45:29 GMT
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)
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Mar 16, 2024 16:36:49 GMT
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.) 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.) Various helicopters 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 - Penicillin and the polio vaccine come earlier - Television will develop a tad quicker - 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 - 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 - 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 - Christian, Capitalist, British, Imperialist, Royalist - National Champion companies - Delayed Women’s Suffrage - 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 'pill' - Zionist project in Sinai and Palestine - Dominion plan for NZ, Newfoundland, South Africa and Rhodesia - 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 refuted - Manufacturing to make up 52% of economy, 44% services and 4% agriculture - New Workshop of the World - Managed approach to suffrage issue - Irish Question 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 - 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-supershellsDemocracy 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. (Second 'Witwatersrand' near Great Zimbabwe)
|
|