Choices: Simon Goes A-Timelining/ISOTing

[simon darkshade]

Dreadnoughts in Locations by Year

Mediterranean
1912: Viribus Unitis
1913: Courbet, Jean Bart; Dante Alighieri; VU, Tegetthoff
1914: 4 French, 3 Italian, 3 AH, Goeben
1915: 4 French, 4 Italian, 4 AH, Goeben

Far East
1912: Kawachi, Settsu
1913: 2 Japanese
1914: 2 Japanese
1915: 2 Kawachis and FUUUUSSSSOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

North America
1910: South Carolina, Michigan, Delaware, North Dakota (4)
1911: SC, Michigan, Delaware, ND, Florida, Utah (6)
1912: SC, Mich, Del, ND, Florida, Utah, Wyoming, Arkansas (8)
1913: SC, Mich, Del, ND, Fl, Ut, Wy, Ark (8)
1914: 8 x 12” DNs + New York, Texas (10)
1915: No change
1916: 8 x 12” DN + NY, Texas, Nevada, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Arizona (14)
1917: 8 x 12”, 6 x 14” + Mississippi (15)
1918: + New Mexico (16)
1919: + Idaho (17)
1920: + Tennessee (18)
1921: + California, Maryland (20)
1922: No change
1923: + Colorado, West Virginia (22)

- Unlike the Med and Orient, the Americans build at a steady rate

Postulated German Fleet:

Pre 1900:
Brandenburg
Wörth
Weissenburg
Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm

Kaiser Friedrich III
Kaiser Wilhelm II
Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse (1901)
Kaiser Barbarossa (1901)
Kaiser Karl der Grosse (1902)

Wittelsbach (1902)
Wettin (1902)
Zahringen (1902

1900: Schwaben, Mecklenburg
1901: Braunschweig, Elsass
1902: Hessen, Preussen, Lothringen
1903: Deutschland, Hannover, Pommern (being nice to Jerry)

1904: Schliessen, Schleswig-Holstein, 2 Nassaus (commission mid 1907)
1905: 3 Nassaus (commission end of 1907)
1906: 5 Helgolands (commission end of 1908/early 1909)
1907: Pause at the news of Super Dreadnoughts
1908: 4 improved Kaisers with larger 350mm guns (end of 1911/early 1912)
1909: 4 improved Konigs (end of 1912/early 1913)
1910: 4 repeat Konigs (end of 1913/early 1914)
1911: Pause
1912: 4 Bayerns (commission end of 1915)
1913: 4 Bayerns (commission end of 1916)

Dreadnought laid down 2 October 1905 and commissioned December 1906

Nassaus started in 1903, then were abandoned on news of RN Lord Nelsons…
LNs finalised Feb 04 and German redesign, with groundwork already done, took ~12 months to get to Wilhelm with an all big gun design.
But, then we have a further 12 months to make changes he wanted. Fully approved April 1907 and first ships laid down in June.

Here, in 1903, the British news will break in March, followed by a 16 month design phase, approval in September 1904 and first ships laid down in December 1904

German battlecruiser development ran ~12 months behind Britain, so we get

1905: Scharnhorst, Gneisenau
1906: Moltke, Von Der Tann
1907:
1908: Goeben, Seydlitz
1909: Derrflinger, Blucher
1910:
1911: Mackensen, Lutzow
1912: Prinz Eitel Friedrich, Bismarck

Historically, they went

1906: 3 Invincibles laid down
1907: Reaction
1908: 2
1909: 1
1910: 0
1911: 1
1912: 2
1913: 1
1914: 0
1915: 4

Invincibles laid down Feb-April: call it 4-6 months for the result to filter through.

Von Der Tann design started August 1906, base designs submitted to the Kaiser for approval end of September, authorised the next June, contract awarded September 1907 and ship laid down March 1908. So design takes ~10 months and from there 9 months to laying down. The latter can be cut to 6 months or a tad less under more strained circumstances, but the flat figure of 15-16 months is the minimum.

Armoured Cruisers: Fürst Bismarck, Prinz Heinrich, Prinz Adalbert, Friedrich Carl, Roon, Yorck

[miletus12]

May 24, 2022 5:54:23 GMT simon darkshade said:

British tariffs towards the USA will be relatively benign. Imperially, there will be a move towards integration in a series of graduated steps. There is likely to be an Anglo-German arms race of some description.

The Confederate AK-47 problem.

Has one ever read an alternate history, where the dashing time travel hero goes into the past and brings, "the great change idea" that will alter a history he does not like? Samuel Clements tried his hand at it with a social satire entitled "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court". One has the usual episodes, where the 'smart hero' uses astronomy and his superior black smithing skills and knowledge of sanitation and modern bureaucratic organization to outwit and supplant the ignoranti he encounters.

I always thought, that the book which Mark Twain wrote, was one of his worst.

Let us look at something small.



Does one see what I see?



Cold rolled barrels and rifling press drills were just two steps Mister Clements knew nothing about. He did not even know how his own people of his own time made spring steel, or how case hardening worked. This is practical stuff one learned by doing and not from books. I suppose that by the 14th or maybe 15th century when European metalworkers learned the tricks from Arab metal workers in the Middle East, our Connecticut Yankee could find a whole group of blacksmiths in England, who could set up the hammer mills, cold rollers and drills and cutters to make those guns in a smoothbore fashion? A wheel lock to a Paterson is about 13 steps of design evolution, but I suppose it could be done?

Gun smiths needed special EXPENSIVE steels to repair the all too often broken fragile moving parts of a repeater or a revolver. Your average sword maker or farrier did not have those steels or the knowledge of how to temper and shape and adjust those small working parts.

The solar eclipse trick, another handy dandy bit of alternate history magic, was tried out on local peoples whose cultures were as different from Europeans as one could imagine in our reality. Often it did not work, because as Pyrrhus the Red, once said, before the Romans reamed him; "The character of our barbarians does not appear to be barbarian." Our Connecticut Yankee, in his arrogance, might have tried that one in Arthurian England, except that some of those sharp cookies knew their faulty Ptolemaic astronomy at least and COULD PREDICT such things (Necessary for planting season.). He would have been burned at the stake as a con man.

The point, one laboriously makes here, is that our hero has to still contend with historical processes, capability limits and assorted (smart and stupid) characters, who will combine to produce the disaster that is WWI. It may not be our WWI, but it will look close enough to equal that catastrophe.

It is not going to be easy to change those process vectors or those idiots. Tolstoy really was on to something when he suggested that processes vomited up a Napoleon. He did not appear by "magic". One still has Nicholas II and Émile Zola to entertain and outwit.

Let us take a large matter.

There are two men, who read Mahan and did not understand him at all. One of them was Jackie Fisher. The other was Alfred Tirpitz. They became "gimmick thinkers" who were drawn like moths to a North Sea geographic flame. Each started to champion / build navies around battleships and plotted to fight each other in a "decisive battle" to determine naval mastery of the world. Both of them ignored what Mahan ACTUALLY wrote, which is that naval mastery was determined by the use and denial of the sea, and that use / denial was accomplished in "the trade war". The use / denial was where decisive battle occurred. It was not one throw of the dice. It was an arduous campaign marked by shoreline geography, trade routes maintained and interrupted, and blockade and convoy. There would not be one decisive battle at all, but several or maybe hundreds of engagements in an attrition campaign to determine whose freighters plied the seas.

Mahan would have predicted guerre de course, which is what happened.

Now suppose out hero goes back and tries to warn Fisher that he had better develop an anti-submarine capacity based on a true read of Mahan? Fisher was not exactly stupid. Neither was the rest of the Royal Navy. Yet, look at how hard it was for Lloyd George to talk common sense reason into those "gentlemen" who were enamored of Julian Corbett?

This is sort of like the Confederate AK-47 problem. One neat idea is not going to solve the complex naval problems that wrong process thinking has strait jacketed people into.

I am not sure that Empire Exclusion Trade Tariffs will not be enforced. Free trade was a difficult concept to argue in an environment where the logic of empire was "captive markets". It certainly led to the Japanese war in the Pacific.

[simon darkshade]

Please don't use 'one' like an AK-47. From a writing/English major/much more perspective, it sticks out like certain parts of a dog. 'One' should be used fairly sparingingly, as one might employ a particularly delicious bon mot, rather than littered too frequently into general discourse.

That said, it misses the point. He isn't going back with one neat idea, nor even a few dozen, but a detailed and researched plan. He isn't trying to introduce the technology of centuries ahead, nor even decades ahead, but starting off by the right stuff from a few years ahead, and then a few more. He also have technology with him, that, although limited, can be applied to some of the big bottlenecks that come along; just on a level of calculation, they will be streets ahead, albeit with only four or five platforms.

Tirpitz did not have a guerre de course in mind in 1899 nor even in 1910. Germany will eventually react differently in response to different British steps, but the devil is in the detail.

The Traveler/Old Mate/I really need to give him a name, isn't limiting his package of ideas to naval matters, or to the broader military, but comes bearing a highly developed cheat sheet and plenty of information. When it comes to a European War, what makes it a big bugger is its length and the inability to break the deadlock. As I've outlined through the Army and land equipment posts, the inability won't be present here. How? Plain and simple cheating - the British get full information on the war down to detailed monographs of where it screwed it and what won it, details of what weapons to build and how to use them, information on how to afford them and the inner workings of the various players. If, given all this and a 15 year warning, you think the result will be something close to @, then you're sadly mistaken.

He'll also not be working outside the system, but weaving a very close cabal at the heart of the British and Imperial government and Establishment.

He also isn't a hero. Not at all. He'll be taking action to knock some people on the head, pinching quite a few patents and ideas from those who developed them historically and making a fair bit of a killing on races on both sides of the Atlantic, then using that with some of the early stock market kerfuffles.

The tariff policy will be highest against Germany at 25-30%, Russia at 20%, France at 17% and the USA at ~15%, or the lowest of any country not in the Empire or an effective part of it, such as Argentina. There would also be the possibility of reciprocity, lowering tariffs to match those of foreign countries.

[simon darkshade]

In a war against Germany, what would the British strategy be?

1.) Roll up their colonies and sink their scattered ships based in their colonies
2.) Blockade and mine Germany, but as a means to...
3.) Lure them out and sink the High Seas Fleet in a second Trafalgar
4.) Bomb Germany
5.) Stop the Germans in Belgium and roll them back on the run with tanks, aircraft, mobile infantry and extremely formidable artillery

[simon darkshade]

Comparative GDP growth/decade:

(Caveat: Simple data does not even begin to address the issues at play here, but can give a quick picture of trends.)

Britain
1850-1860: 26%
1860-1870: 23%
1870-1880: 20%
1880-1890: 25%
1890-1900: 24%
1900-1910: 12.5%
1910-1920: 2.4%
1920-1930: 17.4%
1930-1940: 32.5%

Much of the 1930s growth was essentially recovery from the wilderness years. Going back further, we have 18.8% in the 1840s and 26% in the 1830s.

Germany
1850-1860: 23%
1860-1870: 22%
1870-1880: 19.4%
1880-1890: 33.7%
1890-1900: 40.8%
1900-1910: 29.6%
1910-1920: -19%
1920-1930: 51.7%
1930-1940: 46%

France
1850-1860: 20.6%
1860-1870: 2.85%
1870-1880: 13.88%
1880-1890: 15.85%
1890-1900: 22.1%
1900-1910: 5.17%
1910-1920: 2.4%
1920-1930: 50.4%
1930-1940: 46%

USA
1850-1860: 62.8%
1860-1870: 41.85%
1870-1880: 63.3%
1880-1890: 33.65%
1890-1900: 45.8%
1900-1910: 47.3%
1910-1920: 28.9%
1920-1930: 29.5%
1930-1940: 21%

"The US 1910-20 growth is interesting in that respect; if 1930 is omitted, the real growth of the 1920s was 42%. The 1910's stand out as significantly lower. One wonders what the effect of no European war and the attendant shutting off of resources and immigration would do.

Almost all of the growth for the 30s occurred after 1939, as well. An interesting reversal of circumstance." (Comment from a mate of mine)


Japan
1870-1880: 25%
1880-1890: 27.6%
1890-1900: 28.2%
1900-1910: 24.1%
1910-1920: 46.6%
1920-1930: 25.5%
1930-1940: 76.5%

[stevep]

May 22, 2022 17:55:38 GMT simon darkshade said:

Steve,

A.) It isn’t a matter of denying it, but simply addressing more pressing priorities - I simply don’t give a tinker’s cuss about it. With my genes, heart and what not, I’m not in the business of being able to make long term plans, even if I could afford them. It is a topic better discussed elsewhere
C.) I can tell you now that the Germans aren’t going to drop out. There will be frustration, fussing and screaming, but no dropping out.
D.) Brazil ordered 4, Argentina 2, Chile 2, Turkey 3, Greece 2 and the Netherlands 4. There is a market and, even if not all of the RN ships are sold, that is fine. There will be plenty of uses for them.
E.) Tariffs are a part of it. Plenty of back room arrangements didn’t get hauled in front of Parliament, such as the acquisition of a controlling interest in the Anglo Persian Oil Company, defence arrangements and more, just in the WW1 era alone.

I don’t believe I’ve said anything about avoiding social spending at all; to the contrary, there will be more of it and more effectively used.

Simon

  Sorry for the late reply.  I was under the weather yesterday.

a)  Agree its best discussed elsewhere but I misunderstood.  Instead of denying the crisis as so many do your basically saying that everything going to hell doesn't matter as long as its largely after your death.  That I must admit I find a deeply depressing mindset.

c)  Then their army and possibly their economy is going to be significantly weaker come 1914.

e)  True some room for backroom deals but hiding that much funding totally is going to be a hell of an achievement.

[stevep]

May 23, 2022 4:25:15 GMT simon darkshade said:

May 22, 2022 17:15:13 GMT stevep said:

  A lot of interesting stuff here.  Some I agree with but some I'm doubtful about.

a)  Agree that splendid isolation was the latter but not the former.  Britain needs to have an active role in diplomacy and is weak and exposed when we're not active and possessing friendships if not defensive alliances.

b)  On the main nations:

Removing Germany's capacity to threaten British interests - or even their intent - either means seriously breaking their power [either economic and/or militarily] or changing their political system to one that will accept a role other than dominant over all others.

I don't think France have the ability to be too strong, especially with their demographic problems but they can definitely be a problem depending on the situation.

Austria - Definitely agree that a stable and successful Danubian state probably under the Hapsburg would be a benefit to stability in Europe provided its able to rally popular support.  It would also be a check on both Germany and potentially Russia but of course support for it would mean being in Italy's bad books.  Also it will mean Serbia and Romania are likely to be opponents and hence potential tools for Russia or others who wish to reduce the Austrian empire.

Russia is a potential major threat simply because of its size and also its aims in the south and east.  How to handle it will be a continual problem.  In the short term and arguably the longer one a Russia that goes the communist route - although that is highly unlikely with foreknowledge and a shorter WWI - would actually be the least threatening simply because its so incompetent.  What might be the most dangerous one could be a democratic but still nationalistic Russia.

Italy - It lacks the resources to be a true 1st rank power but shouldn't be overlooked as a possible source of disruption and distraction from greater problems as Mussolini showed OTL.

Ottoman Empire is almost certainly dying as there seems little capacity for reform, at least of a nature that would be morally palatable to western opinion.  However whether you can have a reasonably stable Turkey emerging as OTL which is a check on Russian expansion without the OTL genocide or at least massive ethical cleansing I don't know.  Nor whether an alternative, say a resurgent greater Greece would be any more stable.

  I would agree its useful for Britain to have a role in eastern Arabia, Kuwait and Mesopotamia but most of the rest of the Arabic part of the Ottoman empire is of no real benefit to Britain and a burden to govern,  Possibly if post-WWI we manage to get a unified Arabic kingdom under one of the Hashemite family which would look towards Britain for support against possible threats but again that is likely to be a working system for a couple of generations at most unless some serious external threat emerges. 

  In terms of the smaller states the ones in the North are likely to be friendly and good trade partners unless the UK does something really stupid.  Those in Iberia and the Balkans need social and political reform to be longer term viable rather that worsening basket cases.  This doesn't necessarily mean ending the monarchies as a constitutional monarchy can be a useful tool for social and political stability, especially in a crisis but breaking the power of the aristocracy and military to dictate terms to everybody else.

Japan I would say is a useful ally if we can keep it reasonably liberal although race here is a potential pit-fall as OTL.  However with careful handling it shouldn't be impossible to keep it as a friend if not a defensive allies, which would also secure Australia and New Zealand.

How to handle the US is a big problem.  At this stage a drastic and permanent reduction of its power is pretty much impossible.  Hence you need to wean it off the American exceptionalism mentality that too often emerges.  Plus you have the fact that for the US to become a super power and Britain to stay at least a great one is pretty much incompatible because of their economic and geographical nature.  Even if you can persuade Washington that other nations should be accepted as equals there will be rivalry here.  Because of its geography sooner or later the US will seek to supplant the UK as the primary naval power and is unlikely to be satisfied until the UK is reduced economically and militarily to at most the sort of level it had ~1945.

Steve,

I tend to agree on splendid isolation. It needn't be full formal alliances to the extent of @, but being involved in the affairs of Europe to effect a balance is common sense.

1.) Breaking Germany too far results in it shattering or going Red. The aim would be a quick and decisive defeat, followed by reasonable terms and reincorporation into the European system. Without a long war, there aren't the grounds to redesign constitutions or impose truly punitive terms. France may want more in order to permanently remove a German threat, but won't get it. The base terms for a peace would be some modest military limitations, loss of certain colonies, Alsace-Lorraine and an unravelling of the alliance blocs. I can see later issues arising with German vs Russia and a Polish state resulting as part of that.

2.) Demographically, France can't be a Germany. It does have better ports, a multi-ocean access and presence, a huge hunk of Africa and a population that will rise without the bloodbath of WW1 destroying a generation. It is the enemy of the enemy rather than a bosom friend as of 1899/1900.

3.) Italy's disapproval over Austria matters less when their real performance and capacity is known. Austria-Hungary, as a Danubian entity, is a stabilising influence on Eastern Europe in some ways. Romania isn't the most guaranteed enemy, but Serbia will need to be dealt with. If only Russia backs Serbia in that case, things may change.

4.) Communist Russia can pull the anti-imperialist line to influence the Middle East, Asia and Africa. Imperial Russia can't really do this, being the Big Bad Wolf in that sense, whilst not being the threat that a more modern state would be. Therefore, the general course will be to counter Russia but really hammer the Bolsheviks abroad; a Tsar has generally known objectives.

5.) Italy could be a threat. However, without Libya, it is limited to Eritrea and Somalia, which don't provide an Imperial threat. It can attack France or Austria, straight into the teeth of alpine fortress lines, or try and take Malta by coup de main, but the former are not likely to succeed and the latter will be addressed. Without an outlet, Italy is a frustrated threat at worst.

6.) Greece doesn't have the population, economy or manpower to fill the Ottoman void, even with Constantinople. Turkey as an Anatolian state is supportable, but nothing beyond that. An Arab kingdom or confederation of kingdoms works well. The absolute British requirements are the Arabian oil fields, Kuwait, Mesopotamian airbases and oilfields and Palestine (in order to protect Suez). That leaves Arabia, Syria-Lebanon, Transjordan and Iraq as Arab ruled protectorates.

7.) The general preference that Britain will push is for constitutional monarchies or constitutionalising monarchies, as they are less likely to go Red.

8.) Japan and Britain ultimately have interests that will diverge as the padawan seeks to supplant the master. It is over 4000km away from Australia and not going to be allowed to get any closer. It will be handled and encouraged, but not indulged or built up to more than what it needs to be. Without the removal of France, Germany and Russia as naval powers, Japan is way back from the pack and, additionally, can be counterbalanced with China.

Australia and New Zealand will get squadrons of their own and the RN won't be pulling out of the Far East to focus wholly and solely on Germany. There will also be South African and Canadian navies/squadrons, which will add to the overall British Empire capacity.

1)  I wasn't thinking of breaking Germany.  Although if it had been as long a war and as brutal as OTL it might have been an option.  However a check on its power and constitutional changes to restrict the power of the Kaiser, army and aristocracy, which would probably be very popular among the general population would be enough to make a resurgent Germany militarism by either political extreme far less likely.  I agree the issue of relations between Germany, Russia and any Poland is going to be an issue.

2)  France is likely to have a somewhat higher population without the OTL slaughter and devastation but given its long term demographic issues and its greater vulnerability to British power than Germany, plus the fact it has a more powerful Germany to its east means its unlikely to be a threat to Britain in the predictable future, even without the special knowledge that Britain will have for most of the century.

3)  Agree that a stable and successful Danubian state would be a big bonus but it will have problems.  Serbia will be a small one, especially if the empire overcomes its greatest weakness and manages to appeal more to its Slavic populations.  That won't be a problem in many areas, especially with Catholic populations with the historical hostility with Orthodox neighbours.

4)  To a degree yes but so can other powers and imperialism, in terms of unwelcome rule over alien lands has a limited life expectancy even with the sheer economic problems of many colonies which cost far more to govern than Britain is ever likely to get out of them.  I agree that a non-Bolshevik Russia would be vastly greater for everybody - although some sort of political extremism is likely to emerge somewhere sooner or later.  Too many people desire the simplistic answers.  However, especially without a massive slaughter in WWI and an even more destructive civil war afterwards Russia will be significantly stronger in the 1920-19xx period unless it receives some similar check.  The point is that Russia has resources that can't really be matched, other than possibly by the US and the limitations of the Czarist regime will only hold them back so far.  Plus it should be noticed that for all their own autocracy - or possibly because of it - Russia was quite able to appeal to interests in areas of conflict [of interests] with Britain.

7) Agree - hence the advantage of constitutional changes in places like Germany and Austria.  Hopefully the shock of the war and a more liberal emperor will do that in Austria's case but Germany is likely to need social change imposed as otherwise its likely to come by internal force which could lead to a lot of instability.

8)  Treating Japan with contempt is a sure way to make it a foe.  Which not only causes additional problems but limits its ability as a regional check on Russia.  If it can stay reasonably liberal, which isn't impossible albeit not easy either its probably the most valuable ally in the region.  Definitely more so than even a reformed China which will resent Britain's economic influence and the fact we have defeated them in the past far more than the times we defended China.

[stevep]

May 23, 2022 18:39:05 GMT miletus12 said:

May 22, 2022 17:15:13 GMT stevep said:

How to handle the US is a big problem.  At this stage a drastic and permanent reduction of its power is pretty much impossible.  Hence you need to wean it off the American exceptionalism mentality that too often emerges.  Plus you have the fact that for the US to become a super power and Britain to stay at least a great one is pretty much incompatible because of their economic and geographical nature.  Even if you can persuade Washington that other nations should be accepted as equals there will be rivalry here.  Because of its geography sooner or later the US will seek to supplant the UK as the primary naval power and is unlikely to be satisfied until the UK is reduced economically and militarily to at most the sort of level it had ~1945.

Notice I did not bring it up?

Best advice to this timeline? Learn to adapt to growing American power. That second Roosevelt has an antagonism, of the British Empire that is based on his profound study of American and British history of imperialism. He "dismantled" the American empire. He will operate according to his political and social conscience.

  There is a lot of good thinks to be said for FDR but I think even his friends and family were willing to admit his conscience and honesty weren't among them.  The problem is that too many Americans are committed to American expansionism by force and the definition of ally as "someone who does what we tell them to".  As your repeatedly said yourself you reject the idea of a really independent Britain, or any other power that could be an economic rival to the US.

  Coupled with the geographical issue there would always be tension between two nations that both value sea power.  Britain needs it for its own security and the US values it for its ability to project its interests.  That isn't going to go away until the US accepts that its not special and outside either morality or international law.

[stevep]

May 24, 2022 4:03:44 GMT simon darkshade said:

No, you did not. He was responding to my brainstorming post earlier.

My earlier request was based on not getting the whole business sidetracked through the continuation of earlier frank discussion between the both of you elsewhere, which started to bring in a lot of OTL events that have not yet occurred here and won't be occurring here.

I don't disagree with your interpretation of FDR's motives/attitudes as they stood historically, but that particular circumstance may not arise here. I'm interested in the much bigger picture - a Great Depression in the early 1930s isn't necessarily guaranteed as of 1899, nor is Roosevelt's rise to power, nor is the same Anglo-American relationship and power dynamic of the 1920s and 1930s.

Learning to adapt to growing American power is sensible; my interpretation of 'adapt' goes to the first general meaning, of shaping or modifying for changing purpose. This doesn't necessarily mean accepting or acquiescing to every aspect of that power as was necessary historically.

My general broad brush thinking at this stage:
- The US economy will grow markedly as it did historically
- Without the same WW1, there won't be the abrupt shift of financial power from the City to Wall Street, but more of a gradual ebb and flow that won't necessarily go one way
- Industrially, the US is already double that of Britain or Germany in most key stakes and their production will continue to rise on account of their internal market
- There is not a significant area of difference between US and British interests at this time
- That said, there is competition, particularly in South America
- As detailed upthread, the US can build PDNs pretty fast, but they won't be a factor for very long
- In the absence of overt tensions, the US won't see the RN as being built up against them per se
- They can build, but the design process still needs to be done by hand, which creates a bottleneck

A lot of what happened historically is up in the air, as the drivers and circumstances will change, incrementally to begin with. Britain won't need the United States, but will be on good terms with them. The Great Rapprochement has no reason to fail.
- The US fleet in 1900 and indeed in 1916 was not very balanced, lacking cruisers
- The USN will react to rising foreign battleship gun sizes

  I think your being too optimistic about the US -lastingly anyway - being that mature.  For instance the RN was never built up against the USN.  However the US made it clear pretty much that the USN was built up against the RN.  It doesn't need a massive navy but many want one.

[stevep]

May 24, 2022 5:45:42 GMT simon darkshade said:

A Very Rough RN Construction Plan


Stage 1
1900: 6+ x Duncans (as repeat Formidables), 5 x Monmouth ACs
1901: 6 x KEVII semi-dreadnoughts (4 x 12", 8 x 9.2", 12 x 6", 24 x 3", 12" belt, 18.5kts, ~18500t), 6 Monmouth ACs, 24 River class DDs, 12 x A class submarines
1902: 6 x KEVII, 12 Devonshire ACs (with 4 x 9.2" rather than 7.5"), 24 River class DDs, 12 x A class Submarines

Stage 2
1903: 4 x Dreadnought DNs, 2 x Invincible BCs, 4 x Warrior HACs, 8 Town class CLs (6250t, steam turbines, 12 x 6" in 4 x 2 and 4 x 1, 12 x 12pdr/3", 3" belt, good range and speed of 30+ knots), A/B class DDs, 8 Black Swan sloops, 12 B class submarines

1904: 4 x St. Vincent class DNs, 2 x Invincible BCs, 4 x Warrior HACs, 8 Town CLs, C/D class DDs, 8 Black Swan sloops, 12 B class submarines

1905: 4 x Colossus class DNs, 2 x Implacable BCs, 4 x Warrior HACs, 8 Town CLs, E/F class DDs, 8 Black Swan sloops, 16 C class subs

1906: 4 x Neptune class DNs, 2 x Implacable BCs, 4 x Warrior HACs, 8 Town CLs, G/H class DDs, 8 Black Swan sloops, 16 C class subs

Stage 3
1907: 4 Orion class SDNs, 2 x Lion BCs, 4 x Warrior HACs, 8 x Arethusa CLs, I/J class DDs, 16 Hunt class frigates, 8 Black Swan sloops

1908: 4 Victorious class SDNs, 2 x Lion BCs, 4 x Warrior HACs, 8 x Arethusa CLs, K/L class DDs, 16 Hunt class frigates, 8 Black Swan sloops

1909: 4 x Iron Duke class SDNs, 2 x Australia BCs, 8 x Arethusa CLs, M/N class DDs, 16 Hunt class frigates, 8 Black Swan sloops

1910: 4 x KGV class SDNs, 2 x Australia BCs, 8 Arethusa CLs, O/P class DDs, 16 Hunt class frigates, 8 Black Swan sloops

Stage 4
1911: 4 x Queen Elizabeth class SDN2s, 2 x King Alfred BCs, 12 x C class CLs, Q/R DDs, 16 Hunt class frigates

1912: 4 x Nile class SDN2s, 2 x King Alfred BCs, 12 x C class CLs, S/T DDs, 16 Hunt class frigates

1913: 4 x Royal Sovereign SDN2s, 2 x Renown BCs, 12 x C class CLs, U/V DDs, 16 Hunt class frigates

1914: 4 x Royal Oak class SDN2s, 2 Renown BCs, 6 x County class CAs, 12 x D class CLs, V/W DDs, 16 Hunt class frigates


Destroyers
112 A, B, C, D/older TBDs to be redesignated TBs in 1906

River class to be built as 875t oil fired turbine ships with 4 x new 12pdr/3" and 4 x 18", 32kts
New 12pdrs to be based of the 3 inch 20cwt with an emphasis on rate of fire for surface use.
Reclassified TBs in 1910

Follow up classes to be designed as a 1250t-1600t ship with 4 x 4", 2 x 2pdr and 4 x 1" + 6 x 21" TT. 

Next jump is to 2000t for a 4 x 5” Fletcher type (280 x R/S/V/W)


Cruisers
Decommission 9 Pearls, 21 Apollos, 8 Astraeas, 9 Eclipses, 4 Arrogants, 11 Pelorus, 3 Highflyer, 2 Challenger PCs as CLs are built (67)

Decommission 2 Blakes, 9 Edgars, 2 Powerful, 8 Diadem AC/PCs as CLs and Warriors build (21)

This is on top of  2 Nelson ACs, 2 Imperieuse ACs, 7 Orlando ACs, 2 Iris PCs, 9 Comus class PCs, 4 Leander PCs, 2 Calypso PCs, 2 Surprise PCs, 4 Mersey PCs, 2 Scout PCs, 7 Archer TCs, 5 Marathon PCs, 4 Barracouta PCs, 2 Barham PCs (54)

These 142 older cruisers are to be replaced by 100 LACs and 24 HACs, with the 24 Monmouth/Devonshires to move to reserve
Consideration of a Medium Armoured Cruiser is on the cards

6 Cressys and 4 Drakes to be sold to foreign buyers when Warriors are done

  You do realise that in DNs along this is 48 BBs and 24 BCs, most if not all of which will be larger and more expensive than OTL, along with related running costs and presumably additional costs for more things like enlarged shipyards, dock, ports etc.  The old man is going to have to do a lot of brainwashing to get this approved without major opposition.

[simon darkshade]

On the Germany economy, a little bit, but that will be offset by some increased trade.

Both of these tables are from 1904

Country Number of Troops Army Expenditure (in Millions of Pounds Sterling, Current Prices)
Germany 606.866 36,6
AH 361.770 17,6
Italy 221.085 9,7
France 575.000 28,0
Russia 1.100.000 39,4
Britain 209.460 29,2
Turkey 280.000 7,8

Country Battleships Completed, Launched, & Laid Down Naval Expenditure (in Millions of Pounds Sterling, Current Prices)
Germany 24 10,7
Austria-Hungary 7 2,3
Italy 3 4,7
France 17 11,7
Russia 22 11,9
Britain 39 36,8
Turkey 1 0,5


Years Germany Austria-Hungary Italy Turkey
1904 36,6 = 100 17,6 = 100 9,7 = 100 7,1 = 100
1905 39,7 = 108 17,4 = 98,9 10,1 = 104
1906 41,5 = 114 17,4 = 98,9 10,1 = 104
1907 46 = 126 18,5 = 105 10,3 = 106
1908 47 = 128 21,1 = 120 10,9 = 112
1909 49 = 134 27,4 = 156 12,0 = 124
1910 47,3 = 129 24,2 = 138 13,5 = 139 13,3 = 187
1911 46,9 = 128 22,4 = 127 14,7 = 152
1912 52,1 = 142 25.4 = 144 18.7 = 193
1913 78,3 = 214 34,4 = 195 25,3 = 250

encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/arms_race_prior_to_1914_armament_policy

The German Army isn't going to be necessarily weaker; they'll be paying more as they go along for ships, but it isn't going to be like pulling teeth. They had quite a decent economy and growth over the decade.

On backroom business, it will be hidden/channeled through a lot of different streams. Historically, income tax gave about 3% of GDP pre WW1 and standard British income tax was 6% in 1914, paid by ~1.13 million people; that will be a bit broader here. In @ 1914 public revenue was at 11% of GDP, which will be a bit higher here, but through means other than direct personal taxation. It will be a bit of a shell game. A lot won't be concealed too much, such as income from assets, but some sources will necessarily be obscured.

[stevep]

May 24, 2022 12:01:47 GMT simon darkshade said:

Dreadnoughts in Locations by Year

Mediterranean
1912: Viribus Unitis
1913: Courbet, Jean Bart; Dante Alighieri; VU, Tegetthoff
1914: 4 French, 3 Italian, 3 AH, Goeben
1915: 4 French, 4 Italian, 4 AH, Goeben

Far East
1912: Kawachi, Settsu
1913: 2 Japanese
1914: 2 Japanese
1915: 2 Kawachis and FUUUUSSSSOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

North America
1910: South Carolina, Michigan, Delaware, North Dakota (4)
1911: SC, Michigan, Delaware, ND, Florida, Utah (6)
1912: SC, Mich, Del, ND, Florida, Utah, Wyoming, Arkansas (8)
1913: SC, Mich, Del, ND, Fl, Ut, Wy, Ark (8)
1914: 8 x 12” DNs + New York, Texas (10)
1915: No change
1916: 8 x 12” DN + NY, Texas, Nevada, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Arizona (14)
1917: 8 x 12”, 6 x 14” + Mississippi (15)
1918: + New Mexico (16)
1919: + Idaho (17)
1920: + Tennessee (18)
1921: + California, Maryland (20)
1922: No change
1923: + Colorado, West Virginia (22)

- Unlike the Med and Orient, the Americans build at a steady rate

Postulated German Fleet:

Pre 1900:
Brandenburg
Wörth
Weissenburg
Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm

Kaiser Friedrich III
Kaiser Wilhelm II
Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse (1901)
Kaiser Barbarossa (1901)
Kaiser Karl der Grosse (1902)

Wittelsbach (1902)
Wettin (1902)
Zahringen (1902

1900: Schwaben, Mecklenburg
1901: Braunschweig, Elsass
1902: Hessen, Preussen, Lothringen
1903: Deutschland, Hannover, Pommern (being nice to Jerry)

1904: Schliessen, Schleswig-Holstein, 2 Nassaus (commission mid 1907)
1905: 3 Nassaus (commission end of 1907)
1906: 5 Helgolands (commission end of 1908/early 1909)
1907: Pause at the news of Super Dreadnoughts
1908: 4 improved Kaisers with larger 350mm guns (end of 1911/early 1912)
1909: 4 improved Konigs (end of 1912/early 1913)
1910: 4 repeat Konigs (end of 1913/early 1914)
1911: Pause
1912: 4 Bayerns (commission end of 1915)
1913: 4 Bayerns (commission end of 1916)

Dreadnought laid down 2 October 1905 and commissioned December 1906

Nassaus started in 1903, then were abandoned on news of RN Lord Nelsons…
LNs finalised Feb 04 and German redesign, with groundwork already done, took ~12 months to get to Wilhelm with an all big gun design.
But, then we have a further 12 months to make changes he wanted. Fully approved April 1907 and first ships laid down in June.

Here, in 1903, the British news will break in March, followed by a 16 month design phase, approval in September 1904 and first ships laid down in December 1904

German battlecruiser development ran ~12 months behind Britain, so we get

1905: Scharnhorst, Gneisenau
1906: Moltke, Von Der Tann
1907:
1908: Goeben, Seydlitz
1909: Derrflinger, Blucher
1910:
1911: Mackensen, Lutzow
1912: Prinz Eitel Friedrich, Bismarck

Historically, they went

1906: 3 Invincibles laid down
1907: Reaction
1908: 2
1909: 1
1910: 0
1911: 1
1912: 2
1913: 1
1914: 0
1915: 4

Invincibles laid down Feb-April: call it 4-6 months for the result to filter through.

Von Der Tann design started August 1906, base designs submitted to the Kaiser for approval end of September, authorised the next June, contract awarded September 1907 and ship laid down March 1908. So design takes ~10 months and from there 9 months to laying down. The latter can be cut to 6 months or a tad less under more strained circumstances, but the flat figure of 15-16 months is the minimum.

Armoured Cruisers: Fürst Bismarck, Prinz Heinrich, Prinz Adalbert, Friedrich Carl, Roon, Yorck

  simon darkshade,

  If I'm counting this correctly in comparison to 48 BB and 24 BCs for the RN there will be 30 BB and 10 BC for Germany and 22BB for the US.  From the grouping of ships up to Arizona as 6x14" are we assuming that the last 8 from Mississippi onward are equipped with 16" guns?  Not clear with the RN ships in the previous post what size the 2nd and 3rd generations are in guns, but think your suggesting 14" and 16" rather than 13.5 and 15".  Points that come to mind starting from the top.

a)  Japan - no Kongo's or haven't you made your mind up yet on the nature of the 1913 /14 ships?

b)  US - why no massive 1916 programme as OTL?  There is an even bigger naval race than OTL so I would think the incentive would be even greater. 

c)  I can see how your character can control the elites in Britain but how does he do it in Germany?  OTL the Germans weren't far off parity in numbers in service in 1914 but here their way behind.  So not only is there the option that they give up to protect the army but another alternative is to push trade warfare markedly earlier because between their numerical inferiority and geographic weaknesses.

[simon darkshade]

May 24, 2022 14:40:41 GMT stevep said:

May 24, 2022 5:45:42 GMT simon darkshade said:

A Very Rough RN Construction Plan


Stage 1
1900: 6+ x Duncans (as repeat Formidables), 5 x Monmouth ACs
1901: 6 x KEVII semi-dreadnoughts (4 x 12", 8 x 9.2", 12 x 6", 24 x 3", 12" belt, 18.5kts, ~18500t), 6 Monmouth ACs, 24 River class DDs, 12 x A class submarines
1902: 6 x KEVII, 12 Devonshire ACs (with 4 x 9.2" rather than 7.5"), 24 River class DDs, 12 x A class Submarines

Stage 2
1903: 4 x Dreadnought DNs, 2 x Invincible BCs, 4 x Warrior HACs, 8 Town class CLs (6250t, steam turbines, 12 x 6" in 4 x 2 and 4 x 1, 12 x 12pdr/3", 3" belt, good range and speed of 30+ knots), A/B class DDs, 8 Black Swan sloops, 12 B class submarines

1904: 4 x St. Vincent class DNs, 2 x Invincible BCs, 4 x Warrior HACs, 8 Town CLs, C/D class DDs, 8 Black Swan sloops, 12 B class submarines

1905: 4 x Colossus class DNs, 2 x Implacable BCs, 4 x Warrior HACs, 8 Town CLs, E/F class DDs, 8 Black Swan sloops, 16 C class subs

1906: 4 x Neptune class DNs, 2 x Implacable BCs, 4 x Warrior HACs, 8 Town CLs, G/H class DDs, 8 Black Swan sloops, 16 C class subs

Stage 3
1907: 4 Orion class SDNs, 2 x Lion BCs, 4 x Warrior HACs, 8 x Arethusa CLs, I/J class DDs, 16 Hunt class frigates, 8 Black Swan sloops

1908: 4 Victorious class SDNs, 2 x Lion BCs, 4 x Warrior HACs, 8 x Arethusa CLs, K/L class DDs, 16 Hunt class frigates, 8 Black Swan sloops

1909: 4 x Iron Duke class SDNs, 2 x Australia BCs, 8 x Arethusa CLs, M/N class DDs, 16 Hunt class frigates, 8 Black Swan sloops

1910: 4 x KGV class SDNs, 2 x Australia BCs, 8 Arethusa CLs, O/P class DDs, 16 Hunt class frigates, 8 Black Swan sloops

Stage 4
1911: 4 x Queen Elizabeth class SDN2s, 2 x King Alfred BCs, 12 x C class CLs, Q/R DDs, 16 Hunt class frigates

1912: 4 x Nile class SDN2s, 2 x King Alfred BCs, 12 x C class CLs, S/T DDs, 16 Hunt class frigates

1913: 4 x Royal Sovereign SDN2s, 2 x Renown BCs, 12 x C class CLs, U/V DDs, 16 Hunt class frigates

1914: 4 x Royal Oak class SDN2s, 2 Renown BCs, 6 x County class CAs, 12 x D class CLs, V/W DDs, 16 Hunt class frigates


Destroyers
112 A, B, C, D/older TBDs to be redesignated TBs in 1906

River class to be built as 875t oil fired turbine ships with 4 x new 12pdr/3" and 4 x 18", 32kts
New 12pdrs to be based of the 3 inch 20cwt with an emphasis on rate of fire for surface use.
Reclassified TBs in 1910

Follow up classes to be designed as a 1250t-1600t ship with 4 x 4", 2 x 2pdr and 4 x 1" + 6 x 21" TT. 

Next jump is to 2000t for a 4 x 5” Fletcher type (280 x R/S/V/W)


Cruisers
Decommission 9 Pearls, 21 Apollos, 8 Astraeas, 9 Eclipses, 4 Arrogants, 11 Pelorus, 3 Highflyer, 2 Challenger PCs as CLs are built (67)

Decommission 2 Blakes, 9 Edgars, 2 Powerful, 8 Diadem AC/PCs as CLs and Warriors build (21)

This is on top of  2 Nelson ACs, 2 Imperieuse ACs, 7 Orlando ACs, 2 Iris PCs, 9 Comus class PCs, 4 Leander PCs, 2 Calypso PCs, 2 Surprise PCs, 4 Mersey PCs, 2 Scout PCs, 7 Archer TCs, 5 Marathon PCs, 4 Barracouta PCs, 2 Barham PCs (54)

These 142 older cruisers are to be replaced by 100 LACs and 24 HACs, with the 24 Monmouth/Devonshires to move to reserve
Consideration of a Medium Armoured Cruiser is on the cards

6 Cressys and 4 Drakes to be sold to foreign buyers when Warriors are done

  You do realise that in DNs along this is 48 BBs and 24 BCs, most if not all of which will be larger and more expensive than OTL, along with related running costs and presumably additional costs for more things like enlarged shipyards, dock, ports etc.  The old man is going to have to do a lot of brainwashing to get this approved without major opposition.

Steve,

This is the same era where Lloyd George said that Britain would spend her last penny to preserve naval mastery and superiority. He won’t be presenting a case to an assembly of Quakers.

All of the expenditure is spread out over multiple years, based on historical practice. The 12” ships go to reserve when their successors come along in a rolling fashion, offsetting running costs.

Many of the more strident/liberal Liberals will not be in Parliament due to some different events, but I’d like to keep some features and surprises for the tale when it is written.

For the infrastructure, there will be some elements of Keynesianism coming through as well as long term plans.

Simon

[stevep]

May 24, 2022 12:56:34 GMT simon darkshade said:

Please don't use 'one' like an AK-47. From a writing/English major/much more perspective, it sticks out like certain parts of a dog. 'One' should be used fairly sparingingly, as one might employ a particularly delicious bon mot, rather than littered too frequently into general discourse.

That said, it misses the point. He isn't going back with one neat idea, nor even a few dozen, but a detailed and researched plan. He isn't trying to introduce the technology of centuries ahead, nor even decades ahead, but starting off by the right stuff from a few years ahead, and then a few more. He also have technology with him, that, although limited, can be applied to some of the big bottlenecks that come along; just on a level of calculation, they will be streets ahead, albeit with only four or five platforms.

Tirpitz did not have a guerre de course in mind in 1899 nor even in 1910. Germany will eventually react differently in response to different British steps, but the devil is in the detail.

The Traveler/Old Mate/I really need to give him a name, isn't limiting his package of ideas to naval matters, or to the broader military, but comes bearing a highly developed cheat sheet and plenty of information. When it comes to a European War, what makes it a big bugger is its length and the inability to break the deadlock. As I've outlined through the Army and land equipment posts, the inability won't be present here. How? Plain and simple cheating - the British get full information on the war down to detailed monographs of where it screwed it and what won it, details of what weapons to build and how to use them, information on how to afford them and the inner workings of the various players. If, given all this and a 15 year warning, you think the result will be something close to @, then you're sadly mistaken.

He'll also not be working outside the system, but weaving a very close cabal at the heart of the British and Imperial government and Establishment.

He also isn't a hero. Not at all. He'll be taking action to knock some people on the head, pinching quite a few patents and ideas from those who developed them historically and making a fair bit of a killing on races on both sides of the Atlantic, then using that with some of the early stock market kerfuffles.

The tariff policy will be highest against Germany at 25-30%, Russia at 20%, France at 17% and the USA at ~15%, or the lowest of any country not in the Empire or an effective part of it, such as Argentina. There would also be the possibility of reciprocity, lowering tariffs to match those of foreign countries.

  Why that set of figures rather than simply relating tariffs to those the respective countries apply to British manufactured goods?

[stevep]

May 24, 2022 13:00:55 GMT simon darkshade said:

In a war against Germany, what would the British strategy be?

1.) Roll up their colonies and sink their scattered ships based in their colonies
2.) Blockade and mine Germany, but as a means to...
3.) Lure them out and sink the High Seas Fleet in a second Trafalgar
4.) Bomb Germany
5.) Stop the Germans in Belgium and roll them back on the run with tanks, aircraft, mobile infantry and extremely formidable artillery

1)  Do this, at least as far as coastal regions and warships are concerned to protect British/allied trade.

2)  Mine yes - although there are likely to be complaints from neutrals - but bombardment in the face of German shore defences is likely to be costly.  There was a reason why close blockade was abandon.

3)  Why should the HSF come out when its so heavily outnumbered unless you manage to seriously deceive them as to the exact position and even then their going to be ready to run as soon as they realise how exposed they are. 

4)  If you mean by air then I doubt there would really be the capacity, even with technology being pushed.  Plus if you mean civilian targets that is probably illegal and going to cause massive outrage. 

5)  Agree that the Germans can be stopped in Belgium with a more powerful army and quite possibly rolled back with better tech and doctrine but reliable tanks and mobile infantry are likely to be a push too far at this point.