stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,426 
Likes: 12,037
|
Post by stevep on May 20, 2022 14:40:07 GMT
Royal Navy Ships under Construction April 1899 Canopus class predreadnoughts: Glory, Albion, Ocean, Goliath, Vengeance Formidable class predreadnoughts: Formidable, Irresistible, Implacable, London, Bulwark, Venerable (Queen, Prince of Wales) Drake class armoured cruisers: Drake (Good Hope, King Alfred, Leviathan) Cressy class armoured cruisers: Cressy, Sutlej, Aboukir, Hogue (Bacchante, Euryalus) Diadem class 1st class protected cruisers: Amphitrite, Andromeda, Argonaut, Ariadne, Europa, Niobe, Spartiate Arrogant class 2nd class protected cruisers: Vindictive Highflyer class 2nd class protected cruisers: Hermes, Highflyer, Hyacinth - No 'lull' in naval construction in the mid 1900s, but consistent yearly programmes of advanced and capable ships, once their designs/weapons/facilities are ready - Rather than build the 6 Duncans as second class battleships, they will be ordered as incrementally improved Formidables - They will be followed by an improved KEVII 'semi-dreadnought' class closer to the Lord Nelsons - Meanwhile, the 'Super X4' variant of Dreadnought will be designed, which will be laid down in 1902 or 1903. Emphasis will be placed on firepower, protection, speed advantage over potential enemies and range, in that order. - These will be accompanied by a battlecruiser design that is not the historical Invincible, but a much tougher ship akin to a 12" Tiger with 10" on the belt - Monmouth/County class armoured cruisers to be slightly redesigned to carry 4 x 9.2" and 12 x 6" - All subsequent cruisers to be of the armoured type, so no Challenger or Topaze class - This will result in a light armoured cruiser/6" light cruiser type and a 9.2" heavy armoured cruiser - No historical scout cruisers or enlarged variant, just a greater number of light cruisers and a much, much improved DL/Swift type a bit down the line - After a while, the DL and DD lines will merge as the latter catch up to the former - Development of a coastal destroyer/TB will be pursued, taking time to design a smaller vessel that can still dominate in its role whilst being affordable in large numbers should a major armament programme become necessary - Is there any utility to arming Dreadnought with a larger calibre gun than 12"? - There will be no attachment to historical calibres when there are superior alternatives. Hence 14" instead of 13.5" and most probably 16" instead of 15" will be the progression - Introducing a decent ~5" gun as a battleship 'secondary' will be an aim, rather than buggerising around with 4" and 6". This has flow on consequences and utility for smaller vessels
That programme will be expensive and probably controversial until a clear threat appears. Unless it prompts Germany to decide they can't afford Tirpitz's desire to challenge Britain at sea, which might just have other impacts both good and bad, then your going to have a lot of quickly obsolete but still fairly new ships when the Dreadnought's start appearing.
What layout will the Dreadnought have? By Super X4 it sounds like a 4 twin turrets, or possibly 4 triples as I think you said earlier it would have 12 guns as our-time but triples would be unfamiliar to British designers and also gives the chances of more guns being disabled by a single hit so the RN at the time preferred twin turrets.
In terms of main guns 12" is probably best for the initial design although according to some sources the 12" gun Britain used at the time had a bit of turret wobble that badly affected accuracy at longer ranges. The 13.5" didn't have this problem but is probably too big for a new design, at least unless you reduced them to only 4 twins - the classic 5 twin turrets would need too large a design compared to what politicians would accept at the time. I think you would probably be better going for the historical 13.5" and 15" as the 1st was a good gun and the 2nd excellent and your guy will have hopefully very useful details of those rather than having to design something from scratch.
In terms of secondaries the big issue is probably less their size than where their located and how their protected. OTL to save on weight a lot of dreadnought 2ndaries were in casements but those were often too low so they were frequently unusable with any waves and would be awkward as well as speed increased. Fisher himself preferred lighter 4" guns for protection against torpedo boats which would be at main deck or above and with little or no shielding which made them light enough to avoid too much top-weight.
For 'battle-cruisers' there were nothing wrong [guns aside] with the early I class DAC 'Dreadnought armoured cruisers' until they were used for a task they hadn't been designed for, going up against more heavily armed fast ships rather than the raiders they were intended to combat. [Both the historical example of von Spee's Racific fleet and the suspected AMC converted from ocean liners. You will need full BCs such as a better organised Lion/Tiger type when the Germans start to respond with larger fast ships of their own - assuming the naval race still occurs. Not sure when DACs and/or full BCs appear whether there will be any need for pre-1914 type heavy cruisers.
I would say some other issues would be markedly more important. Getting things like: a) shell reliability sorted out
b) making sure ships are better protected and safety procedures are maintained, especially anti-flash ones which probably also means arranging an accident for a certain character by the name of Beatty. c) Getting a more stable cordite, even if it means a somewhat less powerful one like other nations used. d) Some exercises at night combat. e) More consideration of initiative being used. Actually emulate Nelson rather than ignoring what he taught. Couple this with a clearer knowledge of the importance of communications and the responsibility of scouting forces to inform their superiors. On this issue FFS keep Churchill well away from the Admiralty!!
f) On the industrial size get new docks ordered so that ships don't have to be so narrow, which did help a bit with speed but made for weaker defence and less growth potential.
Basically the key issue is how much power and influence your guy has as he would have to push against a lot of established interests and accepted values. Also while his secret aims are a factor if he really wants a more successful Britain then the priority is less the military then Britain's industrial, technological and social base. Which means a lot of investment in better education and decent industrial plant among other things. The latter can't really be done by private industry as long as the government stance is free trade and lassiz faire in a highly protectionist world as its simply not in their interests. [Which again is a reason for keeping well away from Churchill given his policies.] Assuming your working with the existing Tory government the best person to try and back would be Joseph Chamberlain as he's fairly influential and would go for a lot of your ideas as well as he was seeking to push imperial federation at this time].
Steve
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,426
Likes: 12,037
|
Post by stevep on May 20, 2022 14:50:33 GMT
Aviation 1.) Using patent plans, 3D models and detailed technical information, a prototype of the Wright Flyer will be made and flown in late 1900 in front of a crowd and with extensive photographic and moving picture documentation. Possible to have it piloted by Patrick Alexander or A.V. Roe, but not entirely necessary. 2.) From there, further experimental aeroplanes will be developed using future knowledge of what works and what are developmental dead ends. Particular aviation pioneers from @ will be identified and encouraged with funding, hints and information from the government sponsored Royal Aero Society and Royal Aircraft Factory (named as such in 1904 or 1905). The first to cross the Channel will be an Englishman and both the Army and RN will have their own aeronautical corps, with the RFC the first in the world. 3.) There will be an aim to get to the likes of the Royal Aircraft Factory BE.2, Avro 504, Curtiss JN and similar immediate pre WW1 or early WW1 type aircraft by 1905/06, then aircraft with performance equivalent to SE.5s, Vimys and Camels/late 1910s-1920 aircraft by 1911/12. I'm malleable with these dates, but want to push the envelope as far as it can go within reason and the limits of technology, materials and so forth. 4.) These will be accompanied by an airship development programme with a goal towards the use of helium over hydrogen. 5.) By 1915-1920, there will be a new generation of 1930s level monoplanes, skipping a generation of planes. I'm interested in ideas and perspectives. 6.) First experimental jet flight by 1920 7.) Aeroplane carrier experiments to begin in 1907/08 8.) Development of a very strong British aviation industry with government support and assistance. The aim is to get the technology and ideas into the hands of the right men and companies, working hand in glove with HM Government. 9.) A guiding principle will be to 5 years ahead of the European and American competition in the 1900s, at the minimum. It won't be possible to keep all developments under wraps and there will be leakage of technology and ideas, but the crown jewels will be kept very, very close and secret. 10.) Getting a jump is the first key, then having a clear plan how to capitalise on each successive invention and advantage. There will be black funding from a number of sources.
This would go back to much better education systems and also resolving the labour/managers conflict - which definitely doesn't mean simply crushing one side and giving the other a free rein as both had problems. While stolen technology from the future will help somewhat you will need to develop from that and to do this properly, as well as discourage leaks you definitely need a well trained and motivated work force. This would be a big thing to push past the vested interests of the time but for any lasting improvement in Britain's performance.
Given the technological issues of getting reliable jet engines, especially the heat they work at 1920's would probably be a little early unless you could really push the Metallurgy knowledge. Plus people might be asking why so many things are getting push so fast by Britain, especially if many have clearly military implications.
Given how open British government was in this period how are you going to hide this funding from other MPs let alone the general public? Or do you mean its going to be supplied by private sources?
|
|
simon darkshade
Inspector-General
Member is Online
Posts: 4,583
Likes: 5,302
|
Post by simon darkshade on May 20, 2022 14:59:29 GMT
Aviation 1.) Using patent plans, 3D models and detailed technical information, a prototype of the Wright Flyer will be made and flown in late 1900 in front of a crowd and with extensive photographic and moving picture documentation. Possible to have it piloted by Patrick Alexander or A.V. Roe, but not entirely necessary. 2.) From there, further experimental aeroplanes will be developed using future knowledge of what works and what are developmental dead ends. Particular aviation pioneers from @ will be identified and encouraged with funding, hints and information from the government sponsored Royal Aero Society and Royal Aircraft Factory (named as such in 1904 or 1905). The first to cross the Channel will be an Englishman and both the Army and RN will have their own aeronautical corps, with the RFC the first in the world. 3.) There will be an aim to get to the likes of the Royal Aircraft Factory BE.2, Avro 504, Curtiss JN and similar immediate pre WW1 or early WW1 type aircraft by 1905/06, then aircraft with performance equivalent to SE.5s, Vimys and Camels/late 1910s-1920 aircraft by 1911/12. I'm malleable with these dates, but want to push the envelope as far as it can go within reason and the limits of technology, materials and so forth. 4.) These will be accompanied by an airship development programme with a goal towards the use of helium over hydrogen. 5.) By 1915-1920, there will be a new generation of 1930s level monoplanes, skipping a generation of planes. I'm interested in ideas and perspectives. 6.) First experimental jet flight by 1920 7.) Aeroplane carrier experiments to begin in 1907/08 8.) Development of a very strong British aviation industry with government support and assistance. The aim is to get the technology and ideas into the hands of the right men and companies, working hand in glove with HM Government. 9.) A guiding principle will be to 5 years ahead of the European and American competition in the 1900s, at the minimum. It won't be possible to keep all developments under wraps and there will be leakage of technology and ideas, but the crown jewels will be kept very, very close and secret. 10.) Getting a jump is the first key, then having a clear plan how to capitalise on each successive invention and advantage. There will be black funding from a number of sources.
This would go back to much better education systems and also resolving the labour/managers conflict - which definitely doesn't mean simply crushing one side and giving the other a free rein as both had problems. While stolen technology from the future will help somewhat you will need to develop from that and to do this properly, as well as discourage leaks you definitely need a well trained and motivated work force. This would be a big thing to push past the vested interests of the time but for any lasting improvement in Britain's performance.
Given the technological issues of getting reliable jet engines, especially the heat they work at 1920's would probably be a little early unless you could really push the Metallurgy knowledge. Plus people might be asking why so many things are getting push so fast by Britain, especially if many have clearly military implications.
Given how open British government was in this period how are you going to hide this funding from other MPs let alone the general public? Or do you mean its going to be supplied by private sources?
Steve, I'll answer this one first as it is shorter. 1.) That will come in time, with it needing at least a generation to see change. During that generation, the pace of advancement and development needs to be kept up, necessitating a bigger role for HM Government. 2.) The aim would be to push metallurgical advances at the same time as other developments. 20 years is quite a long time and there is the dual advantage of detailed knowledge and computing power, whilst the laptop and phone last. People won't know that technology is being pushed fast; as far as the public knows, it is simply a case of the most powerful empire in the world continuing on a path of progress. There is no reason to think otherwise. 3.) With regard to funding, I currently envisage it would be channeled through quite a few different streams as well as through nominal philanthropists/wealthy private investors. Simon |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,426
Likes: 12,037
|
Post by stevep on May 20, 2022 15:01:08 GMT
British Army - The best SMLE variant will be chosen and developed for a 1902 introduction. Ideas and suggestions welcome - LMG: A Lewis Gun clone will be developed on a similar timeframe and produced as the Armstrong Gun. Is there a utility to a Browning Automatic Rifle? - The Vickers Gun will be developed and produced as soon as possible along with an M1919 lighter machine gun - Utility of a ~ 0.5" HMG? - A 1"/25mm automatic cannon for land, sea and AA use will be developed from the QF 1 pounder - A Mills Bomb grenade will be developed and produced - Mortars in three variants: a 3", a 6" and a 10" - Rather than an 18pdr, a 25pdr/3.5" (initial range 15,000 yards) will be developed as the standard field gun. It will be accompanied by a 4.5" field howitzer (range 12,500 yards) - Medium artillery of an Ordnance BL 6 inch 25cwt howitzer L/30 with a range of 18,000-20,000 yards and a 6"/50 gun. The latter is in preference to the 60 pounder - Heavies are an 8" L/30 and a 9.2" L/30 - The goal for artillery is to develop the weapons and infrastructure, rather than build beyond a peacetime level. The extra range is informed by being able to hit an enemy well beyond their capacity - Development of a heavy tank (based on a Mark X with a 12pdr in a turret, 6pdrs in sponsons and MGs and 1.5-2" armour), a medium (25t, a 6pdr turret and 1" armour) and a light (12t, 25mm turret, MGs and 0.5" armour). Gradual R&D over time in highly secret conditions as a literal secret weapon for any wars between 1910 and 1920. - With a start to the programme in 1900/01, I would say prototypes are possible by 1906 followed by steady production from 1907/08. - A self propelled gun and an evolution of the Mark IX as an APC will also be developed and tested. - There will not be the same post-South Africa contraction of the Army in terms of units - Formation of Corps in peacetime, with assigned support, engineer and artillery units, along with a Field Army HQ - 1st-12th Infantry Divisions and 1st-4th Cavalry Divisions at home, along with sufficient troops for Guards Division and Light Division - More formal establishment of an Army Reserve of 13th-24th Divisions, but over time More to come and ideas welcome
Your going to have to make significant changes to a lot of the army and its attitudes to achieve some of this. Especially if you don't get the incentives and costly lessons of OTL Boer War. For instance, apart from questions of actually using indirect fire accurately a lot of feeling in the artillery was that they needed to be in the front line with the infantry. Plus a lot of the technology for instance for counter battery fire isn't around yet. Which is pretty damned important in winning an artillery battle against a larger army.
Keeping the full 12 Inf of the BEF, especially with a lot more equipment and training will be expensive and both political parties - even more Labour who are still small players at this time - would be raising questions about this level of expenditure, especially coupled with your other projects. Unless the world is looking far more threatening to Britain than it was OTL.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,426
Likes: 12,037
|
Post by stevep on May 20, 2022 15:14:30 GMT
RN Budgets 1900-1914 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 link.springer.com/content/pdf/bbm%3A978-1-349-09154-6%2F1.pdf- There are two 'dips' there: the flatline in 01/02 and 05-08. The former is a blip, really, but the latter didn't really amount to a large yearly saving on an individual basis nor a cumulative one. This is the one referred to in my RN post above. - We can see when the naval arms race kicked in from 1910, which also saw the price of ships such as super dreadnoughts rise higher 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 This gives us these figures for War Office/Army Budgets in that period 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 - These figures are up and down like a madwoman's bloomers, but, when the Boer War cost is factored out, there is a big trend: a gradual postwar contraction to ~ 30 million pounds and then the exhuberant 'retrenchment' policies of Campbell-Bannerman carving through until the eve of WW1 - With a little bit of steady funding, a lot can be achieved 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) - The debt incurred for the Boer War was nearly paid by 1913, before WW1 comes along and obliterated a decade of penny pinching, scrimping and saving more appropriate to a Scrooge than an empire - Little fluctuations play havoc with such retrenchment policies - Debt can be reduced more effectively through growth. The relative plodding of 1900-1904 balances out the better performance from 09-13 - Getting rid of debt is still a good step, but not if it is at the cost of a.) Positive investment that can grow the economy or b.) Necessary defence expenditureMacro analysis - These figures highlight the need for greater growth and different revenue streams. The latter can come in the form of tariff income from Imperial Preference, mineral 'finds', creative sources of income, postwar indemnities and more - Britain was on an acceptable economic trajectory pre WW1, but it could have been better
Ah I'm been answering your post in sequence. Your saying here that there's going to be big changes in the way Britain is funded, which OTL Chamberlain and his supporters were unable to get accepted by the population, hence the Liberal landslide in 1906. Would love to see such systems developed but your going to have to change minds very quickly and in large numbers. Again it was exactly because the Tory party was questioning free trade that Churchill left the party and joined the Liberals so I doubt he will be a supporter of your guys ideas. Especially since many of those positive investments would be longer term - i.e. better education, especially challenging the churches to enable a more technical rather than a moral one. Ditto even many Tories who are outside the small numbers who know the secret will think a long of your military expenditure as excessive rather than necessary - especially your more speculative ones.
In terms of income I would be rather concerned about what you mean by creative sources of income and it would be a bit difficult getting new mineral finds supply government funds. The reference to post war indemnities suggests that WWI will still occur but will still be expensive as there's a basis for such indemnities.
Some interesting ideas but I'm doubtful this guy, without some mind control powers can influence enough powerful figures to build up and maintain the sort of secret cadet of characters to push many of those changes through Parliament, let alone maintain public support.
|
|
simon darkshade
Inspector-General
Member is Online
Posts: 4,583
Likes: 5,302
|
Post by simon darkshade on May 20, 2022 15:52:57 GMT
Royal Navy Ships under Construction April 1899 Canopus class predreadnoughts: Glory, Albion, Ocean, Goliath, Vengeance Formidable class predreadnoughts: Formidable, Irresistible, Implacable, London, Bulwark, Venerable (Queen, Prince of Wales) Drake class armoured cruisers: Drake (Good Hope, King Alfred, Leviathan) Cressy class armoured cruisers: Cressy, Sutlej, Aboukir, Hogue (Bacchante, Euryalus) Diadem class 1st class protected cruisers: Amphitrite, Andromeda, Argonaut, Ariadne, Europa, Niobe, Spartiate Arrogant class 2nd class protected cruisers: Vindictive Highflyer class 2nd class protected cruisers: Hermes, Highflyer, Hyacinth - No 'lull' in naval construction in the mid 1900s, but consistent yearly programmes of advanced and capable ships, once their designs/weapons/facilities are ready - Rather than build the 6 Duncans as second class battleships, they will be ordered as incrementally improved Formidables - They will be followed by an improved KEVII 'semi-dreadnought' class closer to the Lord Nelsons - Meanwhile, the 'Super X4' variant of Dreadnought will be designed, which will be laid down in 1902 or 1903. Emphasis will be placed on firepower, protection, speed advantage over potential enemies and range, in that order. - These will be accompanied by a battlecruiser design that is not the historical Invincible, but a much tougher ship akin to a 12" Tiger with 10" on the belt - Monmouth/County class armoured cruisers to be slightly redesigned to carry 4 x 9.2" and 12 x 6" - All subsequent cruisers to be of the armoured type, so no Challenger or Topaze class - This will result in a light armoured cruiser/6" light cruiser type and a 9.2" heavy armoured cruiser - No historical scout cruisers or enlarged variant, just a greater number of light cruisers and a much, much improved DL/Swift type a bit down the line - After a while, the DL and DD lines will merge as the latter catch up to the former - Development of a coastal destroyer/TB will be pursued, taking time to design a smaller vessel that can still dominate in its role whilst being affordable in large numbers should a major armament programme become necessary - Is there any utility to arming Dreadnought with a larger calibre gun than 12"? - There will be no attachment to historical calibres when there are superior alternatives. Hence 14" instead of 13.5" and most probably 16" instead of 15" will be the progression - Introducing a decent ~5" gun as a battleship 'secondary' will be an aim, rather than buggerising around with 4" and 6". This has flow on consequences and utility for smaller vessels
That programme will be expensive and probably controversial until a clear threat appears.
Unless it prompts Germany to decide they can't afford Tirpitz's desire to challenge Britain at sea, which might just have other impacts both good and bad, then your going to have a lot of quickly obsolete but still fairly new ships when the Dreadnought's start appearing.
What layout will the Dreadnought have? By Super X4 it sounds like a 4 twin turrets, or possibly 4 triples as I think you said earlier it would have 12 guns as our-time but triples would be unfamiliar to British designers and also gives the chances of more guns being disabled by a single hit so the RN at the time preferred twin turrets.
In terms of main guns 12" is probably best for the initial design although according to some sources the 12" gun Britain used at the time had a bit of turret wobble that badly affected accuracy at longer ranges. The 13.5" didn't have this problem but is probably too big for a new design, at least unless you reduced them to only 4 twins - the classic 5 twin turrets would need too large a design compared to what politicians would accept at the time.
I think you would probably be better going for the historical 13.5" and 15" as the 1st was a good gun and the 2nd excellent and your guy will have hopefully very useful details of those rather than having to design something from scratch.
In terms of secondaries the big issue is probably less their size than where their located and how their protected. OTL to save on weight a lot of dreadnought 2ndaries were in casements but those were often too low so they were frequently unusable with any waves and would be awkward as well as speed increased. Fisher himself preferred lighter 4" guns for protection against torpedo boats which would be at main deck or above and with little or no shielding which made them light enough to avoid too much top-weight.
For 'battle-cruisers' there were nothing wrong [guns aside] with the early I class DAC 'Dreadnought armoured cruisers' until they were used for a task they hadn't been designed for, going up against more heavily armed fast ships rather than the raiders they were intended to combat. [Both the historical example of von Spee's Racific fleet and the suspected AMC converted from ocean liners. You will need full BCs such as a better organised Lion/Tiger type when the Germans start to respond with larger fast ships of their own - assuming the naval race still occurs. Not sure when DACs and/or full BCs appear whether there will be any need for pre-1914 type heavy cruisers.
I would say some other issues would be markedly more important. Getting things like: a) shell reliability sorted out
b) making sure ships are better protected and safety procedures are maintained, especially anti-flash ones which probably also means arranging an accident for a certain character by the name of Beatty. c) Getting a more stable cordite, even if it means a somewhat less powerful one like other nations used. d) Some exercises at night combat. e) More consideration of initiative being used. Actually emulate Nelson rather than ignoring what he taught. Couple this with a clearer knowledge of the importance of communications and the responsibility of scouting forces to inform their superiors. On this issue FFS keep Churchill well away from the Admiralty!!
f) On the industrial size get new docks ordered so that ships don't have to be so narrow, which did help a bit with speed but made for weaker defence and less growth potential.
Basically the key issue is how much power and influence your guy has as he would have to push against a lot of established interests and accepted values.
Also while his secret aims are a factor if he really wants a more successful Britain then the priority is less the military then Britain's industrial, technological and social base.
Which means a lot of investment in better education and decent industrial plant among other things. The latter can't really be done by private industry as long as the government stance is free trade and lassiz faire in a highly protectionist world as its simply not in their interests.
[Which again is a reason for keeping well away from Churchill given his policies.]
Assuming your working with the existing Tory government the best person to try and back would be Joseph Chamberlain as he's fairly influential and would go for a lot of your ideas as well as he was seeking to push imperial federation at this time].
Steve
Steve, 1.) Every single one of the listed ships at the beginning is OTL, so thus not more expensive than @. The KEVIIs will take the place of 8 KEVIIs, 2 Swiftsures and 2 Lord Nelsons. 2.) It might have that effect with a thoughtful Germany, but as it isn't much different from @ until Dreadnought, I can't see the drivers for any change in Berlin. After that point, they will be in a quandary, as Dreadnought will have 3 sisters, followed by another 4 ships in the next year. Historical Dreadnought construction 1905: Dreadnought 1906: Bellerophon 1907: Superb, Temeraire, St. Vincent 1908: Collingwood, Vanguard 1909: Neptune, Colossus, Hercules, Orion 1910: Monarch, Conqueror, Thunderer 1911: KGV, Ajax, Centurion, Audacious 1912: Iron Duke, Marlborough, Benbow, Emperor of India, QE, Warspite 1913: Valiant, Barham, Malaya, Revenge, Resolution Apart from the dip of 1908 to 2 ships, 4 ships was comfortably achievable and was done in every year apart from 1910 after 1909. A different programme sticks out to us in 2022, but isn't as egregious at the time. There will still be ~40 predreadnoughts, some of which are quite new. These will go to the various foreign stations, reserve and training, as happened historically. 3.) X4 refers to dreadnought-cruisers.blogspot.com/2006/10/design-x4-fast-battleship-from-2.html The adaption I'm planning has 4 guns fore and aft in superfiring turrets and two wing turrets. There will be the historical preference for twins over triples for the reasons you cite. 4.) The easiest solution would be the development of a 12"/50 based on the US gun used on the Alaskas, which was a very decent weapon, rather than the British 12"/50 used on the later 12" dreadnoughts. It requires the least fiddling. 5.) There won't be a need to design anything from scratch, as he'll have details of the Vickers and AW 14" as well as US 14"/50s and the KGV 14" guns to work from. The three options are A.) 12" -> 13.5" -> 15" (Historical) B.) 12" -> 14" -> 16" (US and Japanese Style) C.) 12" -> 15" -> 18" (Dark Earth) 6.) I quite agree with the issue of secondaries in casemates being less useful. Aiming to build them in turrets from the get-go gets around that issue. Twin 5" or something very close provides for the best long term option in terms of utility. Adopting a 5" gun also gets it into the mix for destroyers down the line, carrier and cruiser secondary armament, submarine guns, armed merchant cruisers and everything else betwixt and between. 7.) I agree on the fate of the historical battlecruisers. Here, there is a different approach: A.) Battlecruisers are well suited to 'Fleet Units' as described by Jellicoe post WW1 for the Dominions as well as a scouting force for the main battle fleets. These will be fully armoured battlecruisers. B.) Heavy armoured cruisers/armoured cruisers were never built in @, but are close to the earlier versions of the Invincibles with 9.2" or 10" guns. Turbine engines, a good armour belt, excellent range. Their role would be Imperial protection on various stations that don't merit a battleship or battlecruiser as well as monstering older armoured cruisers These would butterfly the @ 8" ships and force any potential competitors to match them; the old line of binding them in chains of gold. 8a.) Shell reliability, definitely. Green Boys as well. 8b.) Protection, anti-flash and common sense, sure. Killing off Beatty because 'he' made a historical mistake in circumstances that will never arise? No. Simply provide clear orders and use him in different areas. 8c.) There is plenty of time to sort that out, definitely.  .) Absolutely. 8e.) Yes on the first 3 sentences. No on the last. 8f.) Oh, I'm well onto the dock issue. It is a way of investing in the future fleet for decades to come whilst avoiding the historical limitations of 'nothing above 860ft!' 9a.) He will be pushing against established interests, but has a rather persuasive manner, among other things, namely clear evidence that doing the historical course leads to wrack and ruin. 9b.) They aren't mutually exclusive. I started on the military as I've been in that mood and mindset today. 9c.) Agree 9d.) Churchill had his principles and, if you didn't like them, he had others. Shifting from Conservative to Liberal to Conservative in @, for example. If he is met in 1899 with knowledge of the future across the board, he might not quite be such a proponent of free trade to the hilt. 9e.) Definitely. Chamberlain will be playing a much larger role, as his ascent to the top job aligns better with the Traveler's direction. Whilst he won't lie or fluff the data, he will present what he has in such a manner as to push towards a particular conclusion early on. |
|
simon darkshade
Inspector-General
Member is Online
Posts: 4,583
Likes: 5,302
|
Post by simon darkshade on May 20, 2022 16:11:14 GMT
British Army - The best SMLE variant will be chosen and developed for a 1902 introduction. Ideas and suggestions welcome - LMG: A Lewis Gun clone will be developed on a similar timeframe and produced as the Armstrong Gun. Is there a utility to a Browning Automatic Rifle? - The Vickers Gun will be developed and produced as soon as possible along with an M1919 lighter machine gun - Utility of a ~ 0.5" HMG? - A 1"/25mm automatic cannon for land, sea and AA use will be developed from the QF 1 pounder - A Mills Bomb grenade will be developed and produced - Mortars in three variants: a 3", a 6" and a 10" - Rather than an 18pdr, a 25pdr/3.5" (initial range 15,000 yards) will be developed as the standard field gun. It will be accompanied by a 4.5" field howitzer (range 12,500 yards) - Medium artillery of an Ordnance BL 6 inch 25cwt howitzer L/30 with a range of 18,000-20,000 yards and a 6"/50 gun. The latter is in preference to the 60 pounder - Heavies are an 8" L/30 and a 9.2" L/30 - The goal for artillery is to develop the weapons and infrastructure, rather than build beyond a peacetime level. The extra range is informed by being able to hit an enemy well beyond their capacity - Development of a heavy tank (based on a Mark X with a 12pdr in a turret, 6pdrs in sponsons and MGs and 1.5-2" armour), a medium (25t, a 6pdr turret and 1" armour) and a light (12t, 25mm turret, MGs and 0.5" armour). Gradual R&D over time in highly secret conditions as a literal secret weapon for any wars between 1910 and 1920. - With a start to the programme in 1900/01, I would say prototypes are possible by 1906 followed by steady production from 1907/08. - A self propelled gun and an evolution of the Mark IX as an APC will also be developed and tested. - There will not be the same post-South Africa contraction of the Army in terms of units - Formation of Corps in peacetime, with assigned support, engineer and artillery units, along with a Field Army HQ - 1st-12th Infantry Divisions and 1st-4th Cavalry Divisions at home, along with sufficient troops for Guards Division and Light Division - More formal establishment of an Army Reserve of 13th-24th Divisions, but over time More to come and ideas welcome
Your going to have to make significant changes to a lot of the army and its attitudes to achieve some of this.
Especially if you don't get the incentives and costly lessons of OTL Boer War.
For instance, apart from questions of actually using indirect fire accurately a lot of feeling in the artillery was that they needed to be in the front line with the infantry. Plus a lot of the technology for instance for counter battery fire isn't around yet. Which is pretty damned important in winning an artillery battle against a larger army.
Keeping the full 12 Inf of the BEF, especially with a lot more equipment and training will be expensive and
both political parties - even more Labour who are still small players at this time - would be raising questions about this level of expenditure, especially coupled with your other projects. Unless the world is looking far more threatening to Britain than it was OTL.
Steve, 1.) Not really in my view. The rifles aren't a change and the machine guns will be introduced steadily. Tanks will be kept as an ace in the hole. 2.) There will be lessons from the Boer War, but different ones. The course of that conflict will be rather different, as the initial Boer plans/moves will be known, along with what mistakes were costly historically. It will be a shorter war, without the nastiness of the concentration camps, and with a capture of Kruger. 3.) There was a growing recognition of the changing role of artillery even before the Boer War. I believe one of the books I've included with him is 'Firepower', a history of the Royal Artillery 1903-1945 or so. It goes into this in great detail. Technology for CB fire can be developed over time, as the end goal is known and how to get there. 4.) Historically, there were enough Regular troops for the Guards, 1-8 and 27-29, or 12 divisions plus other assorted units. The goal here isn't too much above that, but is more of a factor of where and how it is organised. Therefore, it isn't significantly more expensive than @. As shown, 250,000 troops were afforded on 22 million and change. This really isn't an area that would cost a lot. 5.) Firstly, Labour isn't a factor as you rightly say. The Conservatives and Liberals will have a mix of opinions, but they don't have an original baseline to make them say "Hey! Why are we spending more than we are supposed to at this point?" A lot of the frontline spending will be done/front ended during the Boer War defence increases and the postwar retrenchment won't go down to its @ levels. What that translates to is the RN budget remaining at ~35-36 million rather than dipping and the Army on ~32 million. When diplomatic crises arise across the world, and they will as they did historically, there will be scope for increases; as it stands, there will be roughly 72-75 million extra over 8 years at a minimum. A lot of this will come from a push for growth, which won't see any significant rise in spending as a percentage of GDP. Simon |
|
simon darkshade
Inspector-General
Member is Online
Posts: 4,583
Likes: 5,302
|
Post by simon darkshade on May 20, 2022 16:36:03 GMT
RN Budgets 1900-1914 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 link.springer.com/content/pdf/bbm%3A978-1-349-09154-6%2F1.pdf- There are two 'dips' there: the flatline in 01/02 and 05-08. The former is a blip, really, but the latter didn't really amount to a large yearly saving on an individual basis nor a cumulative one. This is the one referred to in my RN post above. - We can see when the naval arms race kicked in from 1910, which also saw the price of ships such as super dreadnoughts rise higher 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 This gives us these figures for War Office/Army Budgets in that period 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 - These figures are up and down like a madwoman's bloomers, but, when the Boer War cost is factored out, there is a big trend: a gradual postwar contraction to ~ 30 million pounds and then the exhuberant 'retrenchment' policies of Campbell-Bannerman carving through until the eve of WW1 - With a little bit of steady funding, a lot can be achieved 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) - The debt incurred for the Boer War was nearly paid by 1913, before WW1 comes along and obliterated a decade of penny pinching, scrimping and saving more appropriate to a Scrooge than an empire - Little fluctuations play havoc with such retrenchment policies - Debt can be reduced more effectively through growth. The relative plodding of 1900-1904 balances out the better performance from 09-13 - Getting rid of debt is still a good step, but not if it is at the cost of a.) Positive investment that can grow the economy or b.) Necessary defence expenditureMacro analysis - These figures highlight the need for greater growth and different revenue streams. The latter can come in the form of tariff income from Imperial Preference, mineral 'finds', creative sources of income, postwar indemnities and more - Britain was on an acceptable economic trajectory pre WW1, but it could have been better
Ah I'm been answering your post in sequence.
Your saying here that there's going to be big changes in the way Britain is funded, which OTL Chamberlain and his supporters were unable to get accepted by the population, hence the Liberal landslide in 1906. Would love to see such systems developed but your going to have to change minds very quickly and in large numbers.
Again it was exactly because the Tory party was questioning free trade that Churchill left the party and joined the Liberals so I doubt he will be a supporter of your guys ideas. Especially since many of those positive investments would be longer term - i.e. better education, especially challenging the churches to enable a more technical rather than a moral one.
Ditto even many Tories who are outside the small numbers who know the secret will think a long of your military expenditure as excessive rather than necessary - especially your more speculative ones.
In terms of income I would be rather concerned about what you mean by creative sources of income and it would be a bit difficult getting new mineral finds supply government funds. The reference to post war indemnities suggests that WWI will still occur but will still be expensive as there's a basis for such indemnities.
Some interesting ideas but I'm doubtful this guy, without some mind control powers can influence enough powerful figures to build up and maintain the sort of secret cadet of characters to push many of those changes through Parliament, let alone maintain public support.
1.) All good. I move in mysterious patterns. 2.) There will be some twists and turns along the way. The Liberals who are elected in 1906 will be rather more dominated and lead by the Liberal Imperialist faction. 3.) Multiple factions and moves will be played. 4.) I keep harping back to it, but they'll have nothing to compare it to. There will be some on the old school wing of the Liberals who will oppose any type of spending, but there will be public justifications and exploitation of the rolling series of crises that was the 1900s and 1910s. The 'speculative' programmes won't be written on the front page, as it were. 5.) Creative sources of income basically means some different tax structures, patent incomes and having cut out 'independent actors' making some killings on some stock market events, as well as Old Mate/The Traveler creating his own concern and funneling the profits back to the sinking fund through eccentric widows etc. On minerals, there are some very big gold mines and oilfields out there that are not difficult to get at in 1900, as well as a variety of other minerals. Indemnities was a reference to the Boxer Rebellion, whereby there will be an aim to get a couple of million and then make that work and grow. 6.) Well, I better abandon the whole show then.  He doesn't have to get public approval or support for anything, really. Getting funding through Parliament in the main will happen during the heady height of the Boer War and the Khaki Election. He has a lot of very persuasive material and knowd what buttons to push - if they don't act differently, 'France will be richer, Germany will rule Europe, they will lose India and Africa, America will break up what is left of the Empire and Britain will be forced to crawl to Belgium to beg for admittance to its sphere'. None of that is strictly untrue, but just simplified and put in quite emotive terms that will hit 1890s Imperialists right where it is targeted. Finally, I'm not limiting his capacity for mind control or the like absolutely, although I'd very much like to isolate the magical parts of events right at the start and then let things flow naturally. Look at the three rings he has and consider where you may have heard of those before...  My aim is to tell a story, not to create a very dry timeline. I'm open with that right at the start, during this planning and brainstorming phase. At the same time, I want it to be as 'hard' as possible and not with constant thumb-on-the-scales deus ex machina. Simon |
|
simon darkshade
Inspector-General
Member is Online
Posts: 4,583
Likes: 5,302
|
Post by simon darkshade on May 20, 2022 16:40:37 GMT
I'd like to thank Steve for his usual great and extensive comments, but hope that this can continue to get some input by other people, as that creates a better work and makes me as an author feel like I'm not screaming into the wind.
When you write works that are collectively bigger than The Lord of the Rings over more than a decade and only get 2 people commenting and maybe 3 consistently over multiple sites, it does make you feel that you are figuratively poison/reverse Midas.
|
|
simon darkshade
Inspector-General
Member is Online
Posts: 4,583
Likes: 5,302
|
Post by simon darkshade on May 20, 2022 17:16:55 GMT
1900 Rest of the World Fleets
France: 9 + 2
Brennus
Charles Martel
Carnot
Jauréguiberry
Masséna
Bouvet
Charlemagne
Saint Louis
Gaulois
Germany 6 + 8
Brandenburg
Wörth
Weissenburg
Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm
Kaiser Friedrich III
Kaiser Wilhelm II
USA: 6 + 6
Indiana
Massachusetts
Oregon
Iowa
Kearsarge
Kentucky
Russia: 5 + 9
Sissoi Veliky
Petropavlovsk
Poltava
Sevastopol
Rostislav
Japan: 4 + 1
Fuji
Yashima
Shikishima
Asahi
Italy: 2 + 2
Ammiraglio di Saint Bon
Emanuele Filiberto
Britain had 8 Royal Sovereigns, Hood, Centurion, Barfleur, Renown, 9 Majestics and 4 Canopus for 25 ships and a further 23 under construction.
In @ 1901 (7)
France: + 2 laid down
Russia: + 1 laid down
Germany: + 2 laid down
Italy: + 2 laid down
1902 (12)
USA: + 5
France: + 1
Russia: + 3
Germany: + 3
1903 (10)
USA: + 3
France: + 3
Italy: + 2
Russia: + 1
Germany: + 1
1904 (13)
USA: + 4
Russia: + 4
Germany: + 3
Japan: + 2
1905:
USA: + 1
Japan: + 1
Germany: + 1
- Dreadnought slowed other navies right down as they processed what needed to be done
- It did rob the RN of their big lead, on the other hand
Rough Plan
- Pre Majestics to decommission soon, leaving 36 ships
- At least 6 KEVIIs to be laid down in 1901 (42)
- 1902: TBA
- 1903: Dreadnought and three sisters
- 1904: 4 further dreadnoughts vs US DN
- 1905: 4 DN vs first German DN (up to 4)
- 1906: 4 DN vs first non US/German DN
- 1907: Orion class SDN as 2nd Great Leap
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,426
Likes: 12,037
|
Post by stevep on May 20, 2022 19:09:33 GMT
That programme will be expensive and probably controversial until a clear threat appears.
Unless it prompts Germany to decide they can't afford Tirpitz's desire to challenge Britain at sea, which might just have other impacts both good and bad, then your going to have a lot of quickly obsolete but still fairly new ships when the Dreadnought's start appearing.
What layout will the Dreadnought have? By Super X4 it sounds like a 4 twin turrets, or possibly 4 triples as I think you said earlier it would have 12 guns as our-time but triples would be unfamiliar to British designers and also gives the chances of more guns being disabled by a single hit so the RN at the time preferred twin turrets.
In terms of main guns 12" is probably best for the initial design although according to some sources the 12" gun Britain used at the time had a bit of turret wobble that badly affected accuracy at longer ranges. The 13.5" didn't have this problem but is probably too big for a new design, at least unless you reduced them to only 4 twins - the classic 5 twin turrets would need too large a design compared to what politicians would accept at the time.
I think you would probably be better going for the historical 13.5" and 15" as the 1st was a good gun and the 2nd excellent and your guy will have hopefully very useful details of those rather than having to design something from scratch.
In terms of secondaries the big issue is probably less their size than where their located and how their protected. OTL to save on weight a lot of dreadnought 2ndaries were in casements but those were often too low so they were frequently unusable with any waves and would be awkward as well as speed increased. Fisher himself preferred lighter 4" guns for protection against torpedo boats which would be at main deck or above and with little or no shielding which made them light enough to avoid too much top-weight.
For 'battle-cruisers' there were nothing wrong [guns aside] with the early I class DAC 'Dreadnought armoured cruisers' until they were used for a task they hadn't been designed for, going up against more heavily armed fast ships rather than the raiders they were intended to combat. [Both the historical example of von Spee's Racific fleet and the suspected AMC converted from ocean liners. You will need full BCs such as a better organised Lion/Tiger type when the Germans start to respond with larger fast ships of their own - assuming the naval race still occurs. Not sure when DACs and/or full BCs appear whether there will be any need for pre-1914 type heavy cruisers.
I would say some other issues would be markedly more important. Getting things like: a) shell reliability sorted out
b) making sure ships are better protected and safety procedures are maintained, especially anti-flash ones which probably also means arranging an accident for a certain character by the name of Beatty. c) Getting a more stable cordite, even if it means a somewhat less powerful one like other nations used. d) Some exercises at night combat. e) More consideration of initiative being used. Actually emulate Nelson rather than ignoring what he taught. Couple this with a clearer knowledge of the importance of communications and the responsibility of scouting forces to inform their superiors. On this issue FFS keep Churchill well away from the Admiralty!!
f) On the industrial size get new docks ordered so that ships don't have to be so narrow, which did help a bit with speed but made for weaker defence and less growth potential.
Basically the key issue is how much power and influence your guy has as he would have to push against a lot of established interests and accepted values.
Also while his secret aims are a factor if he really wants a more successful Britain then the priority is less the military then Britain's industrial, technological and social base.
Which means a lot of investment in better education and decent industrial plant among other things. The latter can't really be done by private industry as long as the government stance is free trade and lassiz faire in a highly protectionist world as its simply not in their interests.
[Which again is a reason for keeping well away from Churchill given his policies.]
Assuming your working with the existing Tory government the best person to try and back would be Joseph Chamberlain as he's fairly influential and would go for a lot of your ideas as well as he was seeking to push imperial federation at this time].
Steve
Steve, 1.) Every single one of the listed ships at the beginning is OTL, so thus not more expensive than @. The KEVIIs will take the place of 8 KEVIIs, 2 Swiftsures and 2 Lord Nelsons. 2.) It might have that effect with a thoughtful Germany, but as it isn't much different from @ until Dreadnought, I can't see the drivers for any change in Berlin. After that point, they will be in a quandary, as Dreadnought will have 3 sisters, followed by another 4 ships in the next year. Historical Dreadnought construction 1905: Dreadnought 1906: Bellerophon 1907: Superb, Temeraire, St. Vincent 1908: Collingwood, Vanguard 1909: Neptune, Colossus, Hercules, Orion 1910: Monarch, Conqueror, Thunderer 1911: KGV, Ajax, Centurion, Audacious 1912: Iron Duke, Marlborough, Benbow, Emperor of India, QE, Warspite 1913: Valiant, Barham, Malaya, Revenge, Resolution Apart from the dip of 1908 to 2 ships, 4 ships was comfortably achievable and was done in every year apart from 1910 after 1909. A different programme sticks out to us in 2022, but isn't as egregious at the time. There will still be ~40 predreadnoughts, some of which are quite new. These will go to the various foreign stations, reserve and training, as happened historically. 3.) X4 refers to dreadnought-cruisers.blogspot.com/2006/10/design-x4-fast-battleship-from-2.html The adaption I'm planning has 4 guns fore and aft in superfiring turrets and two wing turrets. There will be the historical preference for twins over triples for the reasons you cite. 4.) The easiest solution would be the development of a 12"/50 based on the US gun used on the Alaskas, which was a very decent weapon, rather than the British 12"/50 used on the later 12" dreadnoughts. It requires the least fiddling. 5.) There won't be a need to design anything from scratch, as he'll have details of the Vickers and AW 14" as well as US 14"/50s and the KGV 14" guns to work from. The three options are A.) 12" -> 13.5" -> 15" (Historical) B.) 12" -> 14" -> 16" (US and Japanese Style) C.) 12" -> 15" -> 18" (Dark Earth) 6.) I quite agree with the issue of secondaries in casemates being less useful. Aiming to build them in turrets from the get-go gets around that issue. Twin 5" or something very close provides for the best long term option in terms of utility. Adopting a 5" gun also gets it into the mix for destroyers down the line, carrier and cruiser secondary armament, submarine guns, armed merchant cruisers and everything else betwixt and between. 7.) I agree on the fate of the historical battlecruisers. Here, there is a different approach: A.) Battlecruisers are well suited to 'Fleet Units' as described by Jellicoe post WW1 for the Dominions as well as a scouting force for the main battle fleets. These will be fully armoured battlecruisers. B.) Heavy armoured cruisers/armoured cruisers were never built in @, but are close to the earlier versions of the Invincibles with 9.2" or 10" guns. Turbine engines, a good armour belt, excellent range. Their role would be Imperial protection on various stations that don't merit a battleship or battlecruiser as well as monstering older armoured cruisers These would butterfly the @ 8" ships and force any potential competitors to match them; the old line of binding them in chains of gold. 8a.) Shell reliability, definitely. Green Boys as well. 8b.) Protection, anti-flash and common sense, sure. Killing off Beatty because 'he' made a historical mistake in circumstances that will never arise? No. Simply provide clear orders and use him in different areas. 8c.) There is plenty of time to sort that out, definitely.  .) Absolutely. 8e.) Yes on the first 3 sentences. No on the last. 8f.) Oh, I'm well onto the dock issue. It is a way of investing in the future fleet for decades to come whilst avoiding the historical limitations of 'nothing above 860ft!' 9a.) He will be pushing against established interests, but has a rather persuasive manner, among other things, namely clear evidence that doing the historical course leads to wrack and ruin. 9b.) They aren't mutually exclusive. I started on the military as I've been in that mood and mindset today. 9c.) Agree 9d.) Churchill had his principles and, if you didn't like them, he had others. Shifting from Conservative to Liberal to Conservative in @, for example. If he is met in 1899 with knowledge of the future across the board, he might not quite be such a proponent of free trade to the hilt. 9e.) Definitely. Chamberlain will be playing a much larger role, as his ascent to the top job aligns better with the Traveler's direction. Whilst he won't lie or fluff the data, he will present what he has in such a manner as to push towards a particular conclusion early on.
Too clarify on a couple of points. a) Beatty made more than one mistake although killing him off is probably a bit harsh I do admit.
b) If Churchill gets to the Admiralty I can't see him not trying to micro-manage things and also make decisions that should be made by professional officers. For instance his interference that played a significant role in the Coronel. He is willing to push for changes but doesn't really understand what people like Fisher for instance are saying so makes things even more complex.
c) You are aware that he jumped to the Liberals because Chamberlain was pulling the Tories towards dropping free trade? He then returned to the Tories when they took over from the declining Liberal Party as the champions of free trade and lassiz faire.
Steve
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,426
Likes: 12,037
|
Post by stevep on May 20, 2022 19:22:55 GMT
Your going to have to make significant changes to a lot of the army and its attitudes to achieve some of this.
Especially if you don't get the incentives and costly lessons of OTL Boer War.
For instance, apart from questions of actually using indirect fire accurately a lot of feeling in the artillery was that they needed to be in the front line with the infantry. Plus a lot of the technology for instance for counter battery fire isn't around yet. Which is pretty damned important in winning an artillery battle against a larger army.
Keeping the full 12 Inf of the BEF, especially with a lot more equipment and training will be expensive and
both political parties - even more Labour who are still small players at this time - would be raising questions about this level of expenditure, especially coupled with your other projects. Unless the world is looking far more threatening to Britain than it was OTL.
Steve, 1.) Not really in my view. The rifles aren't a change and the machine guns will be introduced steadily. Tanks will be kept as an ace in the hole. 2.) There will be lessons from the Boer War, but different ones. The course of that conflict will be rather different, as the initial Boer plans/moves will be known, along with what mistakes were costly historically. It will be a shorter war, without the nastiness of the concentration camps, and with a capture of Kruger. 3.) There was a growing recognition of the changing role of artillery even before the Boer War. I believe one of the books I've included with him is 'Firepower', a history of the Royal Artillery 1903-1945 or so. It goes into this in great detail. Technology for CB fire can be developed over time, as the end goal is known and how to get there. 4.) Historically, there were enough Regular troops for the Guards, 1-8 and 27-29, or 12 divisions plus other assorted units. The goal here isn't too much above that, but is more of a factor of where and how it is organised. Therefore, it isn't significantly more expensive than @. As shown, 250,000 troops were afforded on 22 million and change. This really isn't an area that would cost a lot. 5.) Firstly, Labour isn't a factor as you rightly say. The Conservatives and Liberals will have a mix of opinions, but they don't have an original baseline to make them say "Hey! Why are we spending more than we are supposed to at this point?" A lot of the frontline spending will be done/front ended during the Boer War defence increases and the postwar retrenchment won't go down to its @ levels. What that translates to is the RN budget remaining at ~35-36 million rather than dipping and the Army on ~32 million. When diplomatic crises arise across the world, and they will as they did historically, there will be scope for increases; as it stands, there will be roughly 72-75 million extra over 8 years at a minimum. A lot of this will come from a push for growth, which won't see any significant rise in spending as a percentage of GDP. Simon
As I understand it that would mean all British troops pretty much are in Britain with the empire defended by colonial forces? IIRC the 29th Div was put together by assembling such overseas garrisons and possibly also the 27th and 28th? I thought there were only 6 Inf Divs in Britain OTL with 2 kept back and 4 going over to Belgium.
That recognition of the changing role of artillery doesn't seem to have impacted on many of the artillery units that went to France in 1914 from what I've read.
The issue is that there was a response to the Boer war and the economic costs that, with the lack of a clear threat until the German naval one really started appearing. That was why there was a significant drop after the Boer war and it took a few years before it rose again. You can minimise that a bit and will save money by a shorter and less costly Boer war but that in itself will make a lot of people more complacent until they realise there's a problem. As such I have doubts that you will get that funding at that level so quickly without a fight. Its going to take a lot of creative accounting and slight of hand I think.
Also the issue is not they would be comparing themselves with what was spent OTL but what they were used to prior to the Boer war. With some allowence for higher spending but probably not that much.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,426
Likes: 12,037
|
Post by stevep on May 20, 2022 19:30:44 GMT
Ah I'm been answering your post in sequence.
Your saying here that there's going to be big changes in the way Britain is funded, which OTL Chamberlain and his supporters were unable to get accepted by the population, hence the Liberal landslide in 1906. Would love to see such systems developed but your going to have to change minds very quickly and in large numbers.
Again it was exactly because the Tory party was questioning free trade that Churchill left the party and joined the Liberals so I doubt he will be a supporter of your guys ideas. Especially since many of those positive investments would be longer term - i.e. better education, especially challenging the churches to enable a more technical rather than a moral one.
Ditto even many Tories who are outside the small numbers who know the secret will think a long of your military expenditure as excessive rather than necessary - especially your more speculative ones.
In terms of income I would be rather concerned about what you mean by creative sources of income and it would be a bit difficult getting new mineral finds supply government funds. The reference to post war indemnities suggests that WWI will still occur but will still be expensive as there's a basis for such indemnities.
Some interesting ideas but I'm doubtful this guy, without some mind control powers can influence enough powerful figures to build up and maintain the sort of secret cadet of characters to push many of those changes through Parliament, let alone maintain public support.
1.) All good. I move in mysterious patterns. 2.) There will be some twists and turns along the way. The Liberals who are elected in 1906 will be rather more dominated and lead by the Liberal Imperialist faction. 3.) Multiple factions and moves will be played. 4.) I keep harping back to it, but they'll have nothing to compare it to. There will be some on the old school wing of the Liberals who will oppose any type of spending, but there will be public justifications and exploitation of the rolling series of crises that was the 1900s and 1910s. The 'speculative' programmes won't be written on the front page, as it were. 5.) Creative sources of income basically means some different tax structures, patent incomes and having cut out 'independent actors' making some killings on some stock market events, as well as Old Mate/The Traveler creating his own concern and funneling the profits back to the sinking fund through eccentric widows etc. On minerals, there are some very big gold mines and oilfields out there that are not difficult to get at in 1900, as well as a variety of other minerals. Indemnities was a reference to the Boxer Rebellion, whereby there will be an aim to get a couple of million and then make that work and grow. 6.) Well, I better abandon the whole show then.  He doesn't have to get public approval or support for anything, really. Getting funding through Parliament in the main will happen during the heady height of the Boer War and the Khaki Election. He has a lot of very persuasive material and knowd what buttons to push - if they don't act differently, 'France will be richer, Germany will rule Europe, they will lose India and Africa, America will break up what is left of the Empire and Britain will be forced to crawl to Belgium to beg for admittance to its sphere'. None of that is strictly untrue, but just simplified and put in quite emotive terms that will hit 1890s Imperialists right where it is targeted. Finally, I'm not limiting his capacity for mind control or the like absolutely, although I'd very much like to isolate the magical parts of events right at the start and then let things flow naturally. Look at the three rings he has and consider where you may have heard of those before...  My aim is to tell a story, not to create a very dry timeline. I'm open with that right at the start, during this planning and brainstorming phase. At the same time, I want it to be as 'hard' as possible and not with constant thumb-on-the-scales deus ex machina. Simon
In the event of 2) then I would see a lot less support for them with radicals and reformists feeling they need to look further, whether that's Labour or setting up their own party.
5) Thanks for expanding on this.
6) You can get some euphoria in the aftermath of a short victorious war but that won't last long when many want to cut taxes and many others are pointing at far more urgent problems. Especially since a short victorious war suggests that everything is fine and dandy.
Well if their the rings that come 1st to my mind I'm not sure they would be much use for that as its somewhat alien to their purpose I would say but its an interesting idea.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,426
Likes: 12,037
|
Post by stevep on May 20, 2022 19:46:04 GMT
1900 Rest of the World Fleets France: 9 + 2 Brennus Charles Martel Carnot Jauréguiberry Masséna Bouvet Charlemagne Saint Louis Gaulois Germany 6 + 8 Brandenburg Wörth Weissenburg Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm Kaiser Friedrich III Kaiser Wilhelm II USA: 6 + 6 Indiana Massachusetts Oregon Iowa Kearsarge Kentucky Russia: 5 + 9 Sissoi Veliky Petropavlovsk Poltava Sevastopol Rostislav Japan: 4 + 1 Fuji Yashima Shikishima Asahi Italy: 2 + 2 Ammiraglio di Saint Bon Emanuele Filiberto Britain had 8 Royal Sovereigns, Hood, Centurion, Barfleur, Renown, 9 Majestics and 4 Canopus for 25 ships and a further 23 under construction. In @ 1901 (7) France: + 2 laid down Russia: + 1 laid down Germany: + 2 laid down Italy: + 2 laid down 1902 (12) USA: + 5 France: + 1 Russia: + 3 Germany: + 3 1903 (10) USA: + 3 France: + 3 Italy: + 2 Russia: + 1 Germany: + 1 1904 (13) USA: + 4 Russia: + 4 Germany: + 3 Japan: + 2 1905: USA: + 1 Japan: + 1 Germany: + 1 - Dreadnought slowed other navies right down as they processed what needed to be done - It did rob the RN of their big lead, on the other hand Rough Plan - Pre Majestics to decommission soon, leaving 36 ships - At least 6 KEVIIs to be laid down in 1901 (42) - 1902: TBA - 1903: Dreadnought and three sisters - 1904: 4 further dreadnoughts vs US DN - 1905: 4 DN vs first German DN (up to 4) - 1906: 4 DN vs first non US/German DN - 1907: Orion class SDN as 2nd Great Leap
While building 16 dreadnoughts in 4 years will probably make Germany think again and also give a powerful early start those ships will age fairly quickly even if things go as OTL, let alone faster and Dreadnoughts are expensive in part because of their size and number of guns. Fisher got the 1st approved because he was able to show they were cheaper and more reliable to run but he also got rid of plenty of the older cruisers and other craft to balance the budget albeit with some cutting. Even if that still happens here I'm doubtful that will cover a much larger battlefleet. Not to mention this ignores any BCs or also the sort of escort vessels that the fleet in its larger size will need. If you do produce at this rate you will probably have most of those old pre-dreadnoughts being retired by ~1910 say to cut costs and free up crews for the new ships.
On this there was a comment by Tirpitz that he believed he would win a naval race with Britain because we would want a 3:2 numerical edge and he believed Germany could manage 40 dreadnoughts but that Britain couldn't economically support 60. Your going to get close to that very soon at this rate even without any later expansion in production rates. Even assuming greater fiscal and economic resources there are limits to political will when there are so many other demands for resources. Britain isn't - and hopefully won't become - a Prussian type militaristic state. That's my belief anyway. I'm reasonably happy to suspend belief for a good story so will try and avoid mentioning this again but I don't think you will be able to maintain such a massive military build up over a prolonged period. Will definitely be a massive desire for a cut back after WWI ends and given Britain's bigger role in the pre-war arms races probably an even larger anti war reaction. [Which if your starting to get economic and social issues sorted out your TL can probably benefit from as it would allow the country rather than just its military to be expanded while a sizeable proportion of the available money for the military can go into 'research' for new weapons.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,426
Likes: 12,037
|
Post by stevep on May 20, 2022 19:48:46 GMT
I'd like to thank Steve for his usual great and extensive comments, but hope that this can continue to get some input by other people, as that creates a better work and makes me as an author feel like I'm not screaming into the wind. When you write works that are collectively bigger than The Lord of the Rings over more than a decade and only get 2 people commenting and maybe 3 consistently over multiple sites, it does make you feel that you are figuratively poison/reverse Midas.
I definitely agree that it would be better is there was more support for all the work your done here and in the DE universe. If your plowed through my comments people you will see I have doubts on a number of points but that's not a good reason for not commenting so please give some response please.
|
|
.) Absolutely.
.) Absolutely.
