Convoy escorts - SPOILER for SNIPPET 8 of HFQ

Dilandu wrote:

[HUGE SNIP ]

Actually, no. Not after 1896 and the Krueger telegramm. The "potential german ally" in 1898 was more likely to ally WITH french, not against it. Yes, the british diplomacy screwed really big after 1889.

runsforcelery wrote:What I'm saying, in other words, is that in many ways the Russo-Japanese War took place in a vacuum as far as the other Great Powers were concerned. No one else's fundamental interests or territorial integrity were threatened in any way, and it was highly unlikely that Russia could offer any of the other Great Powers sufficient inducement to join up with her

This "vacuum" were mostly created by the 1902 Anglo-Japanese Alliance, that clearly stated that if one of the allies (Britain or Japan) would be engaged in war woth more that one great power, that the other will enter the war on her ally side. Simply - the Germany, or the France would possibly help against just Japan (the France have a reason to worry about her asiatic colonies, and the Wilhelm II wasn't a great oriental sympatizer at all), but they definitely didn't want to provoke war with Britain for just russian interests.

runsforcelery wrote: (a) could have organized a "bolt from the blue" (i.e., sudden, surprise attack) against the British Empire without the Brits realizing it was coming and taking rather more effective steps than were taken at Port Arthur and Vladivostok (or in St. Petersburg) or

I must agree, it was possible in XIX century (when the Royal Navy certanly didn't the first in therms of mobilisation) but after some exersises in 1902, that show the scale of the problem, the Ro

rusnforelery wrote:Dans le cas d'une guerre dans la Méditerranée, je peux courir sauvage pendant six mois ... après ça, je dois sans espoir de succès.yal Navy did a great work to deal with shortcomings.

Well, there is some difference; when the Japanese never have the ability to really attack the US mainland, the France, in case of Pearl-Harbour scale scenario for Royal Navy were perfectly able to seize that much part of british colonial empire and strategical points, that the Britain would be forced to at least consider the possibility of concede now. After all, the Royal Navy didn't have the ability to really damage the France metropoly, and the Britain for the part of XIX century didn't have a sizable army.

Gotta admit I'd forgotten the Kruger Telegram, but IIRC, Germany was busy in its immediate aftermath trying to smooth over the consequences with Britain. Didn't Willie write an "I didn't mean it!" letter to Aunt Victoria in which he specifically apologized? And while UK public opinion may have been in an uproar, "Mafeking "had no yet entered the English lexicon and things were nowhere near so bad as they became in 1899-1900. I suspect anti-German hystreria would have settled down quickly in the face of a serious Mediterranean threat from a traditional enemy like France. It took a lot more provocation from Germany before England finally bit the bullet and signed up with the French and Russian, if you'll recall.

Your point about the heavy mountings for the British ship occurred to me after right after I hit the "submit" key for the previous post, but I'm still willing to bet that in a genuine emergency they could have found the guns they needed, even if that meant releasing tubes from reserve and/or diverting them from ships under construction in British yards for other navies. I might well be wrong about, though, so let's move that to the "maybe" pile.

As for the "vacuum" in the Far East, I'm as lot less confident than you seem to be that any other European Great Power --- even France, given what was happening elsewhere in 1904 --- would have been willing to stick its fingers into the bonfire to pull out Russia's chestnuts.

runsforcelery wrote:

As for the "vacuum" in the Far East, I'm as lot less confident than you seem to be that any other European Great Power --- even France, given what was happening elsewhere in 1904 --- would have been willing to stick its fingers into the bonfire to pull out Russia's chestnuts.

Meant to add "even without the Anglo-Japanese naval treaty." Sorry. Got interrupted to help my son Michael with a homework project!

Gotta admit I'd forgotten the Kruger Telegram, but IIRC, Germany was busy in its immediate aftermath trying to smooth over the consequences with Britain. Didn't Willie write an "I didn't mean it!" letter to Aunt Victoria in which he specifically apologized?

Well, yes - because Germany simply haven't got any significant navy at this point, and any conflict with Britain at this point was pointless at least (counterproductive at most). But the relations was already bad; and the Germany didn't stop to supply the Boer with weapons and ammunitions, decpite all britain anger.

I suspect anti-German hystreria would have settled down quickly in the face of a serious Mediterranean threat from a traditional enemy like France.

Yes, but what about anti-Britania hysteria in the head of Wilhelm II?

Your point about the heavy mountings for the British ship occurred to me after right after I hit the "submit" key for the previous post, but I'm still willing to bet that in a genuine emergency they could have found the guns they needed, even if that meant releasing tubes from reserve and/or diverting them from ships under construction in British yards for other navies. I might well be wrong about, though, so let's move that to the "maybe" pile.

Hm. They possibly would be able to disarm their old warships ("Admirals", as the most outdated) and have some 343-mm mountings... but with their cataleptic rate of fire, they would need really many of them to take out modern french battleships. More realistic, that they tried to go with lesser artillery and produced the 254-mm guns for "Canopus"-class; it would cost them in penetration power but they would probably be able to catch up with french rate-of-fire.

The problem was, that despite all, the RN wouldn't be able to commence any new battleships before 1899. And i'm afraid thah the "Dreadnought" would be a really bad example; her impressive construction rate was possible only because all the avaliable component production was concentrated on her.

So, the Royal Navy would probably be able to have three first "Canopus"-class in 1899, ahead of shedule. But - only at the cost of stopping the work on other three, to save the components. And the french navy would possibly be able to complete the "Saint Louis" and "Gaulois" in 1899, so (assuming the Tsusima-style complete destruction of the modern ships of mediterranian fleet and no losses between), the Royal Navy would have ten modern battleships against the french eight. Still nothing near overwhelming superiority.

I agree, that in long-time period the industrial capabilites of the Britain would do better, and after 1899, they would be able to comission much more battleships than France. But it wouldn't help them retake Mediterranian in 1899, and if the RN would be defeated once more - the situation would became next thing to hopeless for Britain. Moreover, the grand defeat of the Royal Navy - even one - may lead to the large number of nations (like Russia, Germany and Italy) started to doubt "And why do we have to reckon with the British?"

So... It is a interesting thing to think about, the Franco-Britain war in 1898!

Meant to add "even without the Anglo-Japanese naval treaty." Sorry. Got interrupted to help my son Michael with a homework project!

It's okay, I did understand that.

Hm, i actually forgot about the second-rate battleships on the Pacific... so, the RN would have something like 13 to 8. But with Mediterranian under French control, and without Panama Channel it took a good part of a year to circumnavigate back to Atlantic, and it may not worth the risk - to leave the Indian Ocean unprotected (and if something happened to Idnia - like french-inspired full-scale rebellion - the United Kingdom would be in Really Bad Position)

Dilandu wrote:Hm, i actually forgot about the second-rate battleships on the Pacific... so, the RN would have something like 13 to 8. But with Mediterranian under French control, and without Panama Channel it took a good part of a year to circumnavigate back to Atlantic, and it may not worth the risk - to leave the Indian Ocean unprotected (and if something happened to Idnia - like french-inspired full-scale rebellion - the United Kingdom would be in Really Bad Position)

None too sure of that estimate, Dilandu.

Unlike the Baltic Fleet, the Brits had an entire chain of coaling stations and they were accustomed to trans-oceanic deployments. Moreover, USS Oregon steamed from San Francisco to Florida, around the tip of S. America (distance 16,000 miles) in just 36 days for the Spanish-American War in (by the strangest coincidence) none other than the year of 1898. Near as I can calculate it, from Hong Kong to Portsmouth around the Cape of Good Hope is only about 13,500 nautical miles (15,470 statute miles), or roughly 96% of the same distance, and I'm pretty sure the Royal Navy would have been able to steam as expeditiously as the (then) much less experienced USN. (In addition, Oregon was designed as a short-legged, low-endruance coast-defense battleship, so the British battleships were probably longer-legged and considerably better seaboats than she was. HMS Centurion, I know, was designed for 6,000 miles, whereas Oregon's designed cruising radius was only about 4,000.) So it would be more like 34 days than "a good part of a year." That would mean the RN could call in its reserves from overseas a lot more quickly than you're assuming . . . and the French would know it. That might, ah . . . mitigate their enthusiasm for water sports in the Med. For that matter, assuming the French preparations took a couple of weeks and the RN got wind of them, the battleships could be close to half way home before the French could launch an attack. In fact, assuming the attack was preceded by a period of worsening tensions (which I think would almost have to be the case for something this drastic to actually happen), they might well already be in European waters (even without using the Suez Canal en route) by the time the balloon went up.

That sort of ability to redeploy rapidly is one of the things I was getting at when I pointed out the huge advantages the RN's unsurpassed worldwide deployment stance gave it. It's sort of like the difference between the US and the rest of NATO today. The US military has the logistic reach to support not only itself but its allies at immense distances; at this moment in time, no one else in the world does. The Brits in the 1880s-1890s had that same unique level of ability to deploy naval assets

As for bad things happening in the overseas battleships' absence, I doubt it would have been much of a problem. Bringing in the battleships wouldn't necessarily require the Brits to withdraw any of their cruisers and/or lighter units from those distant stations, so I doubt it would leave them any more exposed to a "French-inspired, full-scale rebellion" in India or anywhere else than they'd have been if the battleships had been left on the distant stations. Things might get a little interesting in places like the China Sea, but unless the French were prepared to significantly reinforce their own fleet in the Far East (which would mean reductions in the force available for this Exciting Mediterranean Adventure of yours ), I doubt the Empire would be especially exposed to danger by recalling the second-class battleships. On the other hand, those same second-class battleships would be pretty capable of holding their own against their French counterparts, I think.

Steelpoodle wrote:Additionally, "Six Frigate" by Ian Toll is as good start on the US frigates as well.

I read this book last year. As a matter of fact, the reason I read it was due to a recommendation some other forum member made in a previous thread. It is an excellent, informative read.

runsforcelery wrote:
That sort of ability to redeploy rapidly is one of the things I was getting at when I pointed out the huge advantages the RN's unsurpassed worldwide deployment stance gave it. It's sort of like the difference between the US and the rest of NATO today. The US military has the logistic reach to support not only itself but its allies at immense distances; at this moment in time, no one else in the world does. The Brits in the 1880s-1890s had that same unique level of ability to deploy naval assets

As for bad things happening in the overseas battleships' absence, I doubt it would have been much of a problem. Bringing in the battleships wouldn't necessarily require the Brits to withdraw any of their cruisers and/or lighter units from those distant stations, so I doubt it would leave them any more exposed to a "French-inspired, full-scale rebellion" in India or anywhere else than they'd have been if the battleships had been left on the distant stations. Things might get a little interesting in places like the China Sea, but unless the French were prepared to significantly reinforce their own fleet in the Far East (which would mean reductions in the force available for this Exciting Mediterranean Adventure of yours ), I doubt the Empire would be especially exposed to danger by recalling the second-class battleships. On the other hand, those same second-class battleships would be pretty capable of holding their own against their French counterparts, I think.

I believe the UK was working on improving relations with the US to prevent this kind of gambit in the Carribean at that time. US attacking Jamaica and BVI instead of Puerto Rico and Cuba? I get the possibly false impression that only in the UK was there any significant faction that understood that the US was well on the way to becoming a great power before 1914.

Much like the war of 1812, conflict with the US would have been at best a major distraction for the RN during any conflict with France. They had the diplomats work on preventing this from at least 1900 if not earlier. Who knows there might even have been an equivalent of the "Zimmerman Telegram".

runsforcelery wrote:

Dilandu wrote:Hm, i actually forgot about the second-rate battleships on the Pacific... so, the RN would have something like 13 to 8. But with Mediterranian under French control, and without Panama Channel it took a good part of a year to circumnavigate back to Atlantic, and it may not worth the risk - to leave the Indian Ocean unprotected (and if something happened to Idnia - like french-inspired full-scale rebellion - the United Kingdom would be in Really Bad Position)

None too sure of that estimate, Dilandu.

Unlike the Baltic Fleet, the Brits had an entire chain of coaling stations and they were accustomed to trans-oceanic deployments. Moreover, USS Oregon steamed from San Francisco to Florida, around the tip of S. America (distance 16,000 miles) in just 36 days for the Spanish-American War in (by the strangest coincidence) none other than the year of 1898. Near as I can calculate it, from Hong Kong to Portsmouth around the Cape of Good Hope is only about 13,500 nautical miles (15,470 statute miles), or roughly 96% of the same distance, and I'm pretty sure the Royal Navy would have been able to steam as expeditiously as the (then) much less experienced USN. (In addition, Oregon was designed as a short-legged, low-endruance coast-defense battleship, so the British battleships were probably longer-legged and considerably better seaboats than she was. HMS Centurion, I know, was designed for 6,000 miles, whereas Oregon's designed cruising radius was only about 4,000.) So it would be more like 34 days than "a good part of a year." That would mean the RN could call in its reserves from overseas a lot more quickly than you're assuming . . . and the French would know it. That might, ah . . . mitigate their enthusiasm for water sports in the Med. For that matter, assuming the French preparations took a couple of weeks and the RN got wind of them, the battleships could be close to half way home before the French could launch an attack. In fact, assuming the attack was preceded by a period of worsening tensions (which I think would almost have to be the case for something this drastic to actually happen), they might well already be in European waters (even without using the Suez Canal en route) by the time the balloon went up.

That sort of ability to redeploy rapidly is one of the things I was getting at when I pointed out the huge advantages the RN's unsurpassed worldwide deployment stance gave it. It's sort of like the difference between the US and the rest of NATO today. The US military has the logistic reach to support not only itself but its allies at immense distances; at this moment in time, no one else in the world does. The Brits in the 1880s-1890s had that same unique level of ability to deploy naval assets

As for bad things happening in the overseas battleships' absence, I doubt it would have been much of a problem. Bringing in the battleships wouldn't necessarily require the Brits to withdraw any of their cruisers and/or lighter units from those distant stations, so I doubt it would leave them any more exposed to a "French-inspired, full-scale rebellion" in India or anywhere else than they'd have been if the battleships had been left on the distant stations. Things might get a little interesting in places like the China Sea, but unless the French were prepared to significantly reinforce their own fleet in the Far East (which would mean reductions in the force available for this Exciting Mediterranean Adventure of yours ), I doubt the Empire would be especially exposed to danger by recalling the second-class battleships. On the other hand, those same second-class battleships would be pretty capable of holding their own against their French counterparts, I think.

Hah! So, Dilandu, you're finally in bed and I get the last word!

Temporarily, at least . . . .

Hey, this was a very cool debate, IMO... learned a bit, and as a spectator, it was a lot like, well, watching a pair of Battlewagons lob shells at each other.

Caliban wrote:Hey, this was a very cool debate, IMO... learned a bit, and as a spectator, it was a lot like, well, watching a pair of Battlewagons lob shells at each other.

Battlewagons? Actually I thought the debate became more civil as it went along.

I also enjoyed it. It's nice to have good clean argumentation without rancour.

Don