|
|
Post by simon darkshade on May 24, 2022 15:11:40 GMT
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
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.
Steve, I have tended to use these notes as works in progress and you’ve caught them at an early stage of thinking. The German numbers aren’t finalised yet, as I want to try and do some more research. They’ll probably have 32 ships laid down and I’m not sure on the BCs yet and need to throw that to the audience for some input. The Yank numbers are all OTL, not the changed TL yet. They will change. Re: guns The 14 and 16” option is one of the two I’m mulling over, but it is a path for others to catch up. The aim is for a super Dreadnought that can engage both 12” and 13.8” German ships from beyond their range… I haven’t even started on the IJN; they will need adapted numbers and different classes. Why no 1916 programme? The war will be finished by then for starters. I’m planning on a TR 3rd term, so there will likely be more American ships earlier, rather than a big bunch because Wilson had issues. How to influence Germany? Sometimes a bit of modern trolling can be effective, if focused on the key players *cough Kaiser Bill, Tirpitz*, as well as their desire to have a go. They aren’t losing majorly, either. Just on battleships, they are 8:5 down on Round 1, but 4:3 in Round 2. It is the nature of the ships that is going to ruin their mittagessen. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on May 24, 2022 15:13:45 GMT
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? Reciprocity? That is the simplest approach, but is a great way to start a trade war, raise tensions and generally use it like a club, rather than a rapier. |
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470 
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on May 24, 2022 15:15:11 GMT
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. Objective as opposed to subjective bias in writing. It may sound pretentious, but the intent is to remove "ego" in the writing. 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. "I" did not miss the point. It is that your "hero" will. He will overlook many somethings critically important and fundamentally subtle like too much sulfur in British hull metal, or the wrong kind of propellant chemistry. Or that weatherizing is critical not only for ships' electrical systems, but also for hydraulics, or that the insulators the British use are utter crap, or the unitary car hoist is a guaranteed loss of ship and mission at Jutland or its ATL equivalent. These are some of the things he will miss. Wrong searchlight design, lousy weather forecasting, misreads of egos and human abilities will also be present as missed items. I* can write it, because the British historians STILL miss it, when they discuss what went wrong at Jutland. 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. That misses the actual complaint. Tirpitz built a risk fleet for a highly specialized situation. The Royal Navy, Fisher included, danced to that tune, instead of designing cheaper asymmetries to neutralize the German threat. The British army argued such an approach via land warfare. It was tried with predictable disastrous results. They did not know what they were doing, either. How could they? It, Germany, was not an easy problem to solve with clear recognizable 19th century military or political logic. 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. And as I have pointed out, the land warfare option, unless the generals can be sold on airpower and the use of applicable infantry squad tactics for openers and a complete radical change in how British junior leaders are trained, it is not going to work, either. Tools require technique. Your "traveler" does not have that experience, nor can he acquire it. How is he supposed to know not only the right way to signal fleet comms and how to negotiate a trade agreement, or how to move and shoot across terrain features or what critical resources to buy up and keep out of competitors hands? That requires a polymath with actual hands-on experience. I suppose Winston Churchill made a stab at it, but look at how badly he screws up, despite having acquired such "experience"? 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. How good is he at psychology? Cats are easy compared to human beings. 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. See my previous comment? Someone will "notice" and then his jig is up. Human beings are "smart" and dangerous. 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. Well... that sadly guarantees a world war. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on May 24, 2022 15:24:19 GMT
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.
1.) It will be a fairly straightforward plan, given the knowledge of history and historical vulnerabilities. 2.) There won’t be a close blockade or bombardment, apart from by creative means. 3.) You’re onto something. 4.) I refer you to my earlier post on aviation. There is nothing outlawing it at this time (trust me on the IHL) and we aren’t talking area bombing of civilian cities, but other targets… 5.) They will be starting development in 1899. They have the plans, the literature and none of the technology is beyond the scope of 1900. The idea of the caterpillar track came before the tank and isn’t a hugely ‘out there’ thing. It isn’t even a matter of groping in the dark for the idea, but more of a “Build this. Test it from here to billyo, then test it some more. Then build it in small but decent numbers and keep it out of sight, in a far away land that Fritz does not know of…” |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on May 24, 2022 15:28:48 GMT
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.
Without giving away too much, we’ll see. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on May 24, 2022 15:37:36 GMT
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.
Steve, 1.) They will be shocked by their defeat and look East, to where they had some success. 2.) France can’t be a German level threat, but one part of me as a writer wants to try and explore a world turned upside down, as it were. At a minimum, France will be a bit different. 3.) I fairly much concur here. Serbia might get unlucky. 4.) Russia will be a long term problem to be tackled. 7.) There are many voices in Germany; we are just used to thinking of the radical ones in this period. 8.) I think you are getting somewhere towards my thinking. If both can potentially be trouble, then the best solution is to have them concentrate on each other, whilst still not losing the plot as Japan or messing up chances as China. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on May 24, 2022 16:05:21 GMT
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. Objective as opposed to subjective bias in writing. It may sound pretentious, but the intent is to remove "ego" in the writing. 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. "I" did not miss the point. It is that your "hero" will. He will overlook many somethings critically important and fundamentally subtle like too much sulfur in British hull metal, or the wrong kind of propellant chemistry. Or that weatherizing is critical not only for ships' electrical systems, but also for hydraulics, or that the insulators the British use are utter crap, or the unitary car hoist is a guaranteed loss of ship and mission at Jutland or its ATL equivalent. These are some of the things he will miss. Wrong searchlight design, lousy weather forecasting, misreads of egos and human abilities will also be present as missed items. I* can write it, because the British historians STILL miss it, when they discuss what went wrong at Jutland. 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. That misses the actual complaint. Tirpitz built a risk fleet for a highly specialized situation. The Royal Navy, Fisher included, danced to that tune, instead of designing cheaper asymmetries to neutralize the German threat. The British army argued such an approach via land warfare. It was tried with predictable disastrous results. They did not know what they were doing, either. How could they? It, Germany, was not an easy problem to solve with clear recognizable 19th century military or political logic. 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. And as I have pointed out, the land warfare option, unless the generals can be sold on airpower and the use of applicable infantry squad tactics for openers and a complete radical change in how British junior leaders are trained, it is not going to work, either. Tools require technique. Your "traveler" does not have that experience, nor can he acquire it. How is he supposed to know not only the right way to signal fleet comms and how to negotiate a trade agreement, or how to move and shoot across terrain features or what critical resources to buy up and keep out of competitors hands? That requires a polymath with actual hands-on experience. I suppose Winston Churchill made a stab at it, but look at how badly he screws up, despite having acquired such "experience"? 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. How good is he at psychology? Cats are easy compared to human beings. 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. See my previous comment? Someone will "notice" and then his jig is up. Human beings are "smart" and dangerous. 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. Well... that sadly guarantees a world war. 1.) It doesn’t really work. Doing it less would bring out some of the better aspects of your writing style, based on what I’ve read in your time here. Of course, you can do whatever you wish, but one of my foibles is a love of the English language used well. 2.) Right, I get you. He isn’t trying to run or organise every single little thing and some issues like that will arise. However, he has a fair bit of adaptability and fallback positions for multiple problems. 3.) Tirpitz’s risk or gamble won’t pay off, as he is playing against another side with not only a force that can destroy his own without fighting fair, but with a growing technological and doctrinal edge by the time of whatever war crops up. 4.) On the first point, they will. On the second, therein lies the story; I don’t want someone who is perfect, but, like a Holmes or Moriarty, can sometimes get trapped in their own genius. A story without mistakes has no drama. 5.) Very good indeed, even before the extra capacities are added… 6.) No one will really notice the deaths of Hitler or Stalin before WW1, whilst Lenin’s demise will look like it was the work of the Russians or another group. The race winnings will occur through quite a few cut outs. As for taking ideas and patents that haven’t yet been formulated or fully formulated by others, that will similarly be done by other parties. He won’t even register on the radar, so to speak. In terms of danger, this isn’t a science fiction piece, but one with horror and fantasy elements. Maybe I’ll call him Mr. Mayron or Mr. Qurumo. 7.) Any war will be much shorter, much less bloody and a bit of a shock, really. You are right that it is unavoidable in some form. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on May 24, 2022 16:11:17 GMT
And, in an entirely separate post, your last post highlighted why I’m so very glad you have replied to this thread. Raising up the technical issues gives plenty of potential plot devices and opportunities for things to go awry, as well as being genuinely interesting in its own right. I find the research and discussion that goes with writing is just as rewarding as the final piece, if not moreso.
Getting the back and forth flow of ideas is a great way to improve the depth and breadth of any written work, so for that as well, I thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on May 25, 2022 12:07:49 GMT
Japan
1.) Nothing changes before Dreadnought. When it enters the equation pre R-J War, it alters the Katori class of 1904.
2.) The R-J War kicks off in Feb 04. Rather than a 4 x 12” and 4 x 10”, it will have double the number of 10”
3.) Satsumas will be ordered and hit the bottlenecks of @ and take quite some time, but there are drivers for a full 12” armament
4.) Kawachis would follow in 1906 rather than 07
At this point, the Japanese plan goes out the window with higher rates of construction in America. The plan for 70% of the US battlefleet rapidly becomes distant as it rises. Dreadnought being commissioned in 1904 rather than 1906 really bowls them a googly.
There will still be some thought of achieving a fraction of the USN, but I can’t see it going past 60%. Long story short, there would be a second pair of Japanese 12” dreadnoughts and the Ibukis built as battlecruisers. (1st Generation: 4 + 2)
There might be room for an extra pair of BCs, but Japan would be pushing it financially.
The 2nd generation will come sooner than 1912/13 due to Orion going down in 07 as compared to 09. That would take it to 1909 for a pair of battlecruisers in Britain and 1910/1911 for Fuso and Yamashiro. The British use of 15” in their Gen 2s won’t be completely known at the early end, so 14” looks likely for all 6 ships.
The follow up pair battleships would come in 1913 or so (2G: 4 + 4)
This brings them to 8 + 6 by 1915 or so and the USN is going to be over 18 capital ships at that point. Half of the IJN ships are obsolete at this point, mucking them up further.
USN
- Historically, there was a 2 ship/building year practice, constrained by politics, not cost. I can see this being abandoned here in light of the combined RN and German race.
- The USN developed all big gun ships independently
Very Rough USN Plan 1.0:
1904: 2 South Carolinas (no huge change of displacement, but I’ll have to look at the designs)
1905: 2 Delawares
1906: 2 Floridas
1907: 2 Wyomings; 2 Battlecruisers
1908: 2 Battlecruisers
Gen 1: 8 BB + 4 BC vs 10 German BB + 4 BC
This might change, depending on my pondering on the Jerry numbers. I can’t see them breaking the pattern of 5 ships/class without a good argument
1909: 3 New Yorks
1910: 3 Nevadas
1911: 3 New Mexico
1912: 3 SDN
Gen 2: 12 BB + 4 BC
The extra ship per year won’t cost a huge amount, catches up to the Germans and comes to a decent fraction of the RN to boot
By this point, without war or losses
RN: 32 + 16
Germany: 22 + 8
USA: 20 + 8
Japan: 8 + 6
France: 8 + 4
Russia: 4 + 2
Wayback: Italy
Gen 3:
The US SDN2s will be 16” 40,000t ships. I’d say they would go for 8 x 16” initially unless there are arguments to the contrary
TBA
General USN BB design Questions
Speed ?
Ancillary Notes
Dreadnought Operators: Britain, Germany, USA, Russia, France, Japan, Italy, Austria-Hungary, Spain, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Peru, Mexico, Greece, Ottomans, China, Portugal, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Sweden
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on May 25, 2022 13:18:57 GMT
And, in an entirely separate post, your last post highlighted why I’m so very glad you have replied to this thread. Raising up the technical issues gives plenty of potential plot devices and opportunities for things to go awry, as well as being genuinely interesting in its own right. I find the research and discussion that goes with writing is just as rewarding as the final piece, if not moreso. Getting the back and forth flow of ideas is a great way to improve the depth and breadth of any written work, so for that as well, I thank you. Might want to look at propaganda tech... Film, print and audio. The British do all right with print, only fair to good with film and fail utterly at audio. This will hurt them as to "social control" mechanisms down the line. The "time traveler" should pay some attention to this aspect of social media and information management as it constitutes about 90% of developing social compact influence measures. The crown tends to in OTL manage control far more obtrusively and obviously than one sees in France or the US. This means "The Establishment" is TOO obvious. A bit of "subtle" might help things here. Also, on a technical note, British vacuum tube tech and magnetic and celluloid recorder means and mediums in this time period is "unacceptable". Some attention must be paid to this historical deficiency, so that the mechanical means of information transfer is brought up to at least German parity. Gen 3: The US SDN2s will be 16” 40,000t ships. I’d say they would go for 8 x 16” initially unless there are arguments to the contrary TBA General Questions Speed ? American naval thinking OTL is confused. On the technical side the question was "imposed technological plateau" and that political guidance as to what kind of navy to build. I think / thought that the democrat interregnum during the republican period did three things to harm the USN both technically and in the human factors processes. 1. There was this racist idiot, named Benjamin Tillman who wanted small, slow and cheap ships and not many of them. He got his way. 2. There was another racist idiot, an Unreconstructed Confederate, named Josephus Daniels. This imbecile dry-gulched the USN and then turned it into the tee-totaler navy. That dry-ship policy was probably the ONLY good thing he did to it. Other things he did, like promote / prefer extreme racists and spread extreme racism in the heretofore rather cosmopolitan internationalist fleet and "tolerant" officer corps, probably set back and down fleet morale and ruined social, professional and technical human process and progress as well. He DESTROYED that fleet personnel professionalism and ruined the human factors that hitherto had produced a navy that could circumnavigate the earth on a president's whim. The British will actually be surprised and will comment most unfavorably on the results when the Americans show up at Scapa Flow as a clown club in OTL in 1917. 3. The head racist, liar and Unreconstructed Confederate, Woodrow Wilson, will aggravate these limiters and social atavists' negative effects with his antipathy to sea-power and its champions. His administration's reduced navy budgets derails the Standard Battleship program and in some cases inhibits prudent technical choices post 1913 on. Only WWI impels Wilson to resume the battleship program at an accelerated tempo, and this ONLY because Wilson was somehow personally affronted when he was rebuffed as a meddler by the Europeans (British). If we follow the Roosevelt path in the ATL and the democrats do not inhibit naval matters, one will see a more balanced and nuanced fleet development One could predict an "armored cruiser" further line of development that could result in these ships going 'all big gun', but not in the same fashion as Fisher's battle cruisers. The USN thoughts were that such ships were for commerce warfare and for scout duties for a battlefleet. The speed, guns, armor mix should be more balanced than the idiot, David W. Taylor, would develop for the horrible Constellations. Think of the results as being akin to a Seydlitz or more properly a Kongo with more armor, more speed, and 30.5 cm guns. The "battle-line" of Standards in a Rooseveltian sense would be slightly faster, larger and more like the South Dakota 1923s (4 x 3 16inch layout MA) without the botched funnel trunk, piled up top-heavy superstructure or archaic double casemate shoot me here and kill me features which Taylor actually produced. US drydock capacity really limits them to Lexington dimensions and an absolute draft of about 27 to 30 feet. Predictably this is about 54,000 tons standard displacement, on a length of 770 feet with a flow coefficient of 550 with the preferred installed 5 cell torpedo defense and a 16inch thick armor belt and 5 inch AoN deck protection scheme mandated. This suggests a short ranged ship of about QE historical speed actual of 23 knots sustained, not the 26.5 knots desired. That would be a reduced Tillman IB if one keeps score on the proposed designs in the 1910 to 1912 Springsharps. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on May 25, 2022 14:23:48 GMT
1.) Definitely for all three and good call on vacuum tubes and celluloid/recording.
The aim is to get well above German parity in technological terms for these industries and indeed in general.
As a side note, I've got the following major industrial categories so far: Automotive, Aviation, Radio and Electrical, Rail, Steel, Shipbuilding, Coal, Chemicals, Medicines and Pharmaceuticals, Armaments, Machinery and Machine Tools, Textiles/Clothing/Footwear. What other areas need to be added to that general list?
2.) Tillman is in the Senate, so can't be avoided, but without a Wilson Presidency, there won't be a SecNav Daniels,
I think I'm in accordance with the idea of a US 'Seydlitz' with 12" guns for their first generation battlecruiser, as there will be a gap as there will only be the 2 Tennessees and 6 Pennsylvanias at most, given that they will be obsolete before commissioning.
23 knots works as an achievable speed for the US 14" and 16" ships. I'm leaning towards the latter beginning with twin 16" turrets a la the Colorados, with the possibility that there will be growth towards the 12 x 16" layout, given the USN liking for 4 turrets.
|
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on May 26, 2022 4:42:35 GMT
Russia
1900: Dvenadsat Apostolov, Navarin, Tri Sviatitelia, Sissoi Veliky, Petropavlovsk, Poltava, Sevastopol, Rostislav (8)
1901: Dvenadsat Apostolov, Navarin, Tri Sviatitelia, Sissoi Veliky, Petropavlovsk, Poltava, Sevastopol, Rostislav + Peresvet (9)
1902: Dvenadsat Apostolov, Navarin, Tri Sviatitelia, Sissoi Veliky, Petropavlovsk, Poltava, Sevastopol, Rostislav, Peresvet + Pobeda and Retvizan (11)
1903: Dvenadsat Apostolov, Navarin, Tri Sviatitelia, Sissoi Veliky, Petropavlovsk, Poltava, Sevastopol, Rostislav, Peresvet, Pobeda, Retvizan + Oslyabya, Tsesarevich and Imperator Alexsander III (14)
1904: 14 + Potemkin, Borodino, Knyaz Suvorov and Oryol (18) The High Water Mark
R-J War Losses: Imperator Alexsander III, Oslyabya, Borodino, Knyaz Suvorov, Petropavlovsk, Sevastopol, Sissoi Veliky, Tsesarevich, Navarin, Admiral Ushakov sunk; Peresvet, Oryol, Pobeda, Retvizan, Poltava, Admiral Seniavin, General-Admiral Apraksin prizes
Surviving Fleet: Slava (Baltic Sea) Potemkin, Dvenadsat Apostolov, Rostislav, Tri Sviatitelia (all Black Sea)
Russia being essentially wiped off the map as a naval power does alter the world balance profoundly. This causes the necessity to speed up replacement. There might even be scope for the sale of some older foreign ships to Russia...
1905:
1906:
1907: Evstafi + Ioann Zlatoust (Black Sea) (7)
1908:
1909: Andrei Pervozvanny, Imperator Pavel I, Dmitri Donskoy, Georgii Pobedonosets (Baltic Sea) (Quite powerful semi-dreadnoughts) (11)
1910:
1911: Gangut, Sevastopol, Petropavlovsk, Poltava; Rurik + Varyag BCs (Baltic Sea) (Battlecruisers built in Britain in lieu of @ Rurik AC)
1912: Imperatritsa Mariya, Imperatritsa Ekaterina Velikaya (Black Sea) (Paid for with British loans)
1913: Imperator Nikolai I, Imperator Aleksandr III (Black Sea)
1914: Borodino, Izmail (Baltic Sea)
1915: Imperator Nikolai II, Dvenadsat Apostolov, Tri Sviatitelia; Kinburn, Navarin BC (Baltic Sea)
1916: Alexsandr Nevskii, Petr Veliky
DN1: Gangut, Sevastopol, Petropavlovsk, Poltava, Imperatritsa Mariya, Imperatritsa Ekaterina Velikaya, Imperator Nikolai I, Imperator Aleksandr III
BC1: Rurik, Varyag
DN2: Dvenadsat Apostolov, Tri Sviatitelia, Alexsandr Nevskii, Petr Veliky
BC2: Borodino, Izmail, Kinburn, Navarin
This represents a nominal recovery, but the pace of technological advance made their 12" first generation ships obsolete before they were laid down. They reflect rather the absolute necessity for Russia to get as many hulls into service as possible as quickly as possible. The Black Sea Fleet ends up with parity with the Ottomans after the sale of four older predreadnoughts to the latter in ~1906.
Italy
1900: Ammiraglio di Saint Bon, Emanuele Filiberto (2)
1901: 2
1902: 2
1903: 2
1904: Regina Margherita + 2 (3)
1905: Benedetto Brin + 3 (4)
1906: Regina Elena, Vittorio Emanuele + 4 (6)
1907:
1908: Italia, Roma (2) 12” Dreadnoughts
1909: Dante Alighieri
1910: Conte de Cavour
1911: Giulio Cesare, Leonardo Da Vinci (SDN)
1912: Andrea Doria, Caio Duilio (SDN)
Probable these will be 13.5” or similar odd Italian calibre.
Francesco Caracciolo-class laid down in 1913/14
Austria-Hungary
Historical
1900:
1901:
1902: Habsburg
1903: Arpad
1904: Babenburg
1905:
1906: Erzherzog Karl
1907: Erzherzog Ferdinand Max, Erzherzog Friedrich
1908:
1909:
1910: Erzhezog Franz Ferdinand
1911: Radetzky, Zrinyi
1912: VU
1913: Tegetthoff
1914: Prinz Eugen
1915: Szent Istvan
After the Great War, the size of the Fleets of the Great Powers will likely be:
1.) Britain
2.) United States
3.) Germany (Their 12" ships will likely get obliterated at 'Jutland', but their 15" ships will mostly miss it due to timing and they won't be inordinately restricted on future vessels)
4.) France
5.) Japan
6.) Italy
7.) Russia
8.) Austria-Hungary
Any postwar agreement/treaty will likely see the 12" ships removed, which will be to the advantage of certain powers.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,836 
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on May 26, 2022 11:41:42 GMT
Russia 1900: Dvenadsat Apostolov, Navarin, Tri Sviatitelia, Sissoi Veliky, Petropavlovsk, Poltava, Sevastopol, Rostislav (8) 1901: Dvenadsat Apostolov, Navarin, Tri Sviatitelia, Sissoi Veliky, Petropavlovsk, Poltava, Sevastopol, Rostislav + Peresvet (9) 1902: Dvenadsat Apostolov, Navarin, Tri Sviatitelia, Sissoi Veliky, Petropavlovsk, Poltava, Sevastopol, Rostislav, Peresvet + Pobeda and Retvizan (11) 1903: Dvenadsat Apostolov, Navarin, Tri Sviatitelia, Sissoi Veliky, Petropavlovsk, Poltava, Sevastopol, Rostislav, Peresvet, Pobeda, Retvizan + Oslyabya, Tsesarevich and Imperator Alexsander III (14) 1904: 14 + Potemkin, Borodino, Knyaz Suvorov and Oryol (18) The High Water MarkR-J War Losses: Imperator Alexsander III, Oslyabya, Borodino, Knyaz Suvorov, Petropavlovsk, Sevastopol, Sissoi Veliky, Tsesarevich, Navarin, Admiral Ushakov sunk; Peresvet, Oryol, Pobeda, Retvizan, Poltava, Admiral Seniavin, General-Admiral Apraksin prizes Surviving Fleet: Slava (Baltic Sea) Potemkin, Dvenadsat Apostolov, Rostislav, Tri Sviatitelia (all Black Sea) Russia being essentially wiped off the map as a naval power does alter the world balance profoundly. This causes the necessity to speed up replacement. There might even be scope for the sale of some older foreign ships to Russia... 1905: 1906: 1907: Evstafi + Ioann Zlatoust (Black Sea) (7) 1908: 1909: Andrei Pervozvanny, Imperator Pavel I, Dmitri Donskoy, Georgii Pobedonosets (Baltic Sea) (Quite powerful semi-dreadnoughts) (11) 1910: 1911: Gangut, Sevastopol, Petropavlovsk, Poltava; Rurik + Varyag BCs (Baltic Sea) (Battlecruisers built in Britain in lieu of @ Rurik AC) 1912: Imperatritsa Mariya, Imperatritsa Ekaterina Velikaya (Black Sea) (Paid for with British loans) 1913: Imperator Nikolai I, Imperator Aleksandr III (Black Sea) 1914: Borodino, Izmail (Baltic Sea) 1915: Imperator Nikolai II, Dvenadsat Apostolov, Tri Sviatitelia; Kinburn, Navarin BC (Baltic Sea) 1916: Alexsandr Nevskii, Petr Veliky DN1: Gangut, Sevastopol, Petropavlovsk, Poltava, Imperatritsa Mariya, Imperatritsa Ekaterina Velikaya, Imperator Nikolai I, Imperator Aleksandr III BC1: Rurik, Varyag DN2: Dvenadsat Apostolov, Tri Sviatitelia, Alexsandr Nevskii, Petr Veliky BC2: Borodino, Izmail, Kinburn, Navarin This represents a nominal recovery, but the pace of technological advance made their 12" first generation ships obsolete before they were laid down. They reflect rather the absolute necessity for Russia to get as many hulls into service as possible as quickly as possible. The Black Sea Fleet ends up with parity with the Ottomans after the sale of four older predreadnoughts to the latter in ~1906. Italy 1900: Ammiraglio di Saint Bon, Emanuele Filiberto (2) 1901: 2 1902: 2 1903: 2 1904: Regina Margherita + 2 (3) 1905: Benedetto Brin + 3 (4) 1906: Regina Elena, Vittorio Emanuele + 4 (6) 1907: 1908: Italia, Roma (2) 12” Dreadnoughts 1909: Dante Alighieri 1910: Conte de Cavour 1911: Giulio Cesare, Leonardo Da Vinci (SDN) 1912: Andrea Doria, Caio Duilio (SDN) Probable these will be 13.5” or similar odd Italian calibre. Francesco Caracciolo-class laid down in 1913/14 After the Great War, the size of the Fleets of the Great Powers will likely be: 1.) Britain 2.) United States 3.) Germany (Their 12" ships will likely get obliterated at 'Jutland', but their 15" ships will mostly miss it due to timing and they won't be inordinately restricted on future vessels) 4.) France 5.) Japan 6.) Italy 7.) Russia 8.) Austria-Hungary Any postwar agreement/treaty will likely see the 12" ships removed, which will be to the advantage of certain powers.
Simon
Two questions on points please?
a) Selling older ships to Russia after our ally has just sunk a lot of their previous fleet wouldn't go down well in Tokyo. I assume that the alliance would still exist at this stage else Japan might not risj fighting after what happened to it after its victory over China in 1895. Plus if we're still going by roughly OTL in 1904 we have the entente with France but are still at odds with Russia which didn't really change until agreements in 1907 IIRC which settled differences so that could be politically awkward on both sides.
b) Again with Japan given the US position across their supply lines, its hostility towards them and that Japan like the US had a good war in terms of making a lot of money by sales and having economic rivals removed from many fields I can't see Japan at least trying to respond to the US build up. Plus this does imply that that Germany keeps a much larger fleet than OTL post-war? Coupled with the suggestion of the removal of 12" ships in any post war naval treaty would mean heavier losses for the RN compared to its rivals. [Mind you by that time they would be largely obsolete and also the UK wouldn't really be able to afford to maintain let alone operate them.
Steve
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on May 26, 2022 12:40:12 GMT
1.) Definitely for all three and good call on vacuum tubes and celluloid/recording. The aim is to get well above German parity in technological terms for these industries and indeed in general. As a side note, I've got the following major industrial categories so far: Automotive, Aviation, Radio and Electrical, Rail, Steel, Shipbuilding, Coal, Chemicals, Medicines and Pharmaceuticals, Armaments, Machinery and Machine Tools, Textiles/Clothing/Footwear. What other areas need to be added to that general list? 2.) Tillman is in the Senate, so can't be avoided, but without a Wilson Presidency, there won't be a SecNav Daniels, I think I'm in accordance with the idea of a US 'Seydlitz' with 12" guns for their first generation battlecruiser, as there will be a gap as there will only be the 2 Tennessees and 6 Pennsylvanias at most, given that they will be obsolete before commissioning. 23 knots works as an achievable speed for the US 14" and 16" ships. I'm leaning towards the latter beginning with twin 16" turrets a la the Colorados, with the possibility that there will be growth towards the 12 x 16" layout, given the USN liking for 4 turrets. 1. It comes down to insulators and glass blowing on an industrial scale as well as filament manufacture (wire drawing) and quality control. 1a. Information distribution and human education. Wherever possible, teach critical thinking skills and emphasize "individualism". The Germans were supposed to be the automatons, but it was the British who suffered from non-adaptive human behaviors. 2. Tillman was neutralized until Roosevelt was deselected. Once the Unreconstructed Confederates got hold of power, the Americans went to manure for a good two decades. We have a KKK (Copperhead) outbreak in Indiana that spreads nationwide and Wilsonites start putting up statues to "Lost Cause heroes" (Renegades and traitors to me. M.) everywhere from Tallahassee to Sacramento. There is a bit of American history, they do not teach you. Tillman was a minor (naval) example of it. 3. You might find this fascinating...  That is 1910 or thereabouts. Not brilliant, but then the stuff being produced in Europe was no better. 3. The 21 knot limit of the Standards is interesting, but there is a historical technical reason for this limit. it is a mistake to assume that the Americans did not want speed. It turns out, that the Americans were a year or two behind the British with regards to turbines and a DECADE behind when it came to milling geared drives. Even the British had trouble with step down and step up geared final drives which is why so many British dreadnaughts at Jutland were still direct drive and short-ranged. The Americans tried with their last dreadnaughts before the Standards to solve the geared drive problem and failed. They went to a different solution for final drives. All-electric. Loss of throughput efficiency of about 15-20% that was, so a theoretical power plant that could give 24 knots with proper geared final drive gave 20-21 on a turbo-electric setup. But it did give ... range. Given the choice and not allowed to build 40,000 tonners, the Americans settled for 21 knots flank and 10,000 nautm. at 10 knots. Politics imposed technological plateau. 4. Wilson relents and we get this garbage.  You cannot imagine how much I loathe bad engineering. THAT (^^^) is bad combat naval engineering. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on May 26, 2022 12:52:47 GMT
Steve,
A.) I'm leaning against a formal Japanese alliance at this point, but you make some good arguments. What it comes down to is that the A-J Alliance never really pays off for Britain. It gives Japan scope to expand and swallow up large swathes of the Pacific and China, but in terms of actual benefits, the British side is thin on for me; I can understand the utility of not needing a Far East battle fleet, but this ultimately wasn't needed. Here, the Japanese have less to offer, as there is less of the 'unknown' factor. Hence, they will be get very strong support, sales, trade agreements and technical cooperation, but not the last figleafs of a formal alliance. At this stage.
Bi.) Japan could try to respond to the US, but it is stuck is the Sisyphus paradigm compared to the USA in industrial capacity. Even on a very generous basis, they are behind 2:1 on 12" ships and 14" ships, when the USA is just gearing up to girding its loins.
Bii.) There wouldn't be a Versailles equivalent in terms of restricting the Germans to the same extent. It really depends on what they bring to a putative fleet battle and how it games out. Right now, on the facts as they stand, if it comes to a surface engagement between the HSF and Grand Fleet, the first generation German ships get blown to pieces and the second generation fare slightly better but need luck to get out alive, leaving their Bayerns and 2-4 of their 15" battlecruisers. Bigger and more advanced RN guns, faster ships that can set the range that suits them, effective shells, advanced fire control, a lot of destroyers with powerful torpedoes trained for a sniping role...it doesn't bode well for Der Tag.
Biii.) The RN would lose 24 ships that it isn't going to have a long term relationship with in any account (less than ~33% of its strength), which compares to 43% for the USA and Japan, 53% for Russia, ~45% for France and 50% for Italy. I should clarify matters to say that Russia, France and Italy will have the right to build replacement tonnage etc, but will probably try to keep on with their 12" ships for a few years. However, this is even more useless than @, given the larger calibre and size of superdreadnoughts that have emerged since. It makes 'keeping up with the Jones's' too difficult and expensive for a few powers.
|
|
