Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests

Convoy escorts - SPOILER for SNIPPET 8 of HFQ

This fascinating series is a combination of historical seafaring, swashbuckling adventure, and high technological science-fiction. Join us in a discussion!
Re: Convoy escorts - SPOILER for SNIPPET 8 of HFQ
Post by runsforcelery   » Sun Oct 26, 2014 1:48 pm

runsforcelery
First Space Lord

Posts: 2425
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 11:39 am
Location: South Carolina

Dilandu wrote:But it look like we deviated from the line. My point is, that Japanese made some assumption - and was partially right - and defeat the overwhelmingly superior Russian Empire.

Why the France can't made some assumptions of her own?

Let's recall the 1898.

The main french naval strategy, as i could reconstruct it, were based on few assumptions:

- The Royal Navy would prefer to act, not to passively stay in defense

- The Royal Navy wouldn't left the metropoly undefended

- The mobilisation rate of british naval reserve is inferior to the french

Which were kept at a sufficiently reliable facts, not just assumptions. For example, before the Fisher's reforms, the Royal Navy really didn't have something like sufficient number of "core crews" for the reserve ships, and the rates of UK naval mobilization in 1890-early 1900 were poor.

The french navy was in 1898 mostly concentrated in Mediterranian. For 1898, they have here:

- Four-to-five modern "Charles Martell" class battleships (the "Massena" arrived lately)

- One "intermediate" battleship "Brennus"

- Three older (by design) "Marceau"-class battleships

The opposite side - the Mediterranian Navy of Great Britain - have in 1898:

- Two modern "Majestic"-class battleships, HMS "Caesar" and HMS "Illustrious"

- Six "Royal Sovereign"-class battleships; HMS "Royal Sovereign", HMS "Hood", HMS "Empress of India", HMS "Ramilles", HMS "Revenge", HMS "Royal Oak"

- Two still comissioned "Admiral"-class battleships

So, theoretically the Royal Navy surpassed the french navy in mediterranian as 10 battleships to 8. But of the ten Mediterranian Fleet battleships, only two were modern, and the two "Admirals" was clearly outdated and unfitted for 1890th naval warfare.

So, actually the french navy in Mediterranian was superior to the british. Due to the french more powerfull artillery (long-barreled guns, reloaded at any train), more powerfull ammunition (the french already have HE with melinite, that would be immensely effective against the old, citadel-armoured "Royal Sovereign"'s), more modern tactic (the Royal Navy still used the old "turn at flagship's command", when the french adopted more simple and effective "do what the flagship done") and some other things - the french were perfectly able to inflict the Mediterranian-type Tsusima against RN.

Of course, the Royal Navy have a lot of battleships in metropoly (and some on Far East). But the problem was, that actually they have only six more "Majestic" and two more "Royal Sovereign" (not counting the second-rates on China Station, because they were too far)of Channel Fleet in comission. And the RN was unable to send the significant part of Channel Fleet without the weakening the defense of metroply. The Briain was actually not greatly loved on the continent; the relations with Germany were bad, and the Russia was the french ally.

So if the french would be able to inflict some serious damage to the RN in Mediterranian, the RN would found itself unable to compensate. At least until the reserve would be recomissioned, that may take more than a half of the year. During that time, the french navy would be able to do anything they want on Mediterranian - probably even seize the Malta and Gibraltar - and effectively leave the RN without any base in region.

I will not say that in practice it would have gone so well, but it would require a lower of assumptions than for the Japanese to defeat the Russian Empire! ;)


The biggest difference between the Russo-Japanese War and a hypothetical Anglo-French war in 1898 is the difference in what some analysts would call their "geostratic" positions. That is, geography favored the British in any reinforcement/redistribution of forces much more than it favored Russia in the Far East. While it's true that France had the edge in the Med, did they really want to kick off a war against England in which they might enjoy short-term successes but would ultimately find themselves up against not a somewhat ramshackle continental empire with a (by European standards) very limited industrial base (that's Russia; sorry! ;) ) but rather against what was overwhelmingly the greatest industrial power in the world at that time? I'm not entirely certain that the differential between France and England at that time wasn't at least close (proportionately) to the difference between Japan and Russia, though I haven't tried to go and pull out any research data to support that. When you couple that with the fact that in 1898 the Brits had 15 more battleships under construction (counting the last 3 Majestics and reaching a little to bring in the 3 Formidables which had only just been laid down), whereas the French had only 6 (counting Bouvet, the 3 Charlemagnes, Henri IV and Iena. At least the remaining Majestics and Ocean, Goliath and Canopus could almost certainly have been rushed to completion by mid-1899 (don't forget; this is the same nation that rushed Dreadnought through to completion in one year from a standing start) and would have constituted a much greater reinforcement of British naval strength than the French (whose ability to accelerate construction was much lower, anyway) could have looked for in the same time period. Moreover, I think it's highly likely the Brits would have done in 1898 what they'd done repeatedly in earlier wars and risked reducing their strength in home waters to reinforce the Med if that was the critical theatre. When you combine that with how much more rapidly the Brits would be able to redploy from distant stations, compared to the way the Baltic Fleet moved to the Far East (rather in the nature of a snail with severe arthritis, I'm afraid :)), the French time window would have been even narrower.

Finally, unlike Japan in the Far East, England had a potential ally, very close to home, with an extremely powerful army: the German Empire. The Second Boer War didn't start until October 1899 and Germany didn't pass the First Naval law until 1898, so the two most vexatious pre-WWI issues between Germany and England really wouldn't have been factors at this time, and there was always that lingering Anglo-Russian animosity to consider as an additional motivator for cooperation and Russophile France. I think it's highly likely that if France had initiated a war in the Med and Foreign Secretary Salisbury had gone to Chancellor Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst and Naval Minister von Tirpitz and suggested an alliance (accompanied by a naval understanding and possibly some postwar overseas territorial adjustments at French expense), Germany might just have been prepared to rattle a few sabers along her eastern frontiers. Russia didn't have anyone it could get to do that in Japan's case.

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. England and France already had just about everything they wanted in China and Indo-China, and it was very unlikely Russia (especially after the battering her prestige had taken) could possibly have reassembled the coalition which compelled Japan to give up Korea after the Sino-Japanese War. That was distinctly not the case in Europe and it's extremely unlikely France (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 (b) have risked a war which could have had major implications for her own territorial integrity if the Brits started cozying up to Imperial Germany. And if England had demonstrated anything over the last 300 years or so (from the time of William and Mary on) it was that she understood how to play the balance of power game and cut pragmatic deals even with people she really, really didn't like (like Austria and Russia during the Napoleonic Wars) when her fundamental security was on the line. So despite all the traditional animosity between the "Frogs" and the "Limeys" and the lunatics of the Jeuene Ecole notwithstanding, the probability of an Anglo-French War in the second half of the 19th century was never really in the cards.

If such a war had begun, there would probably have been an Admiral Pierre Yammomoto or Isoroku Courbet who would have said "«Dans le cas d'une guerre dans la Méditerranée, je peux courir sauvage pendant six mois ... après ça, je dois sans espoir de succès." ;) :lol:


"Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as Piglet came back from the dead.
Top
Re: Convoy escorts - SPOILER for SNIPPET 8 of HFQ
Post by PeterZ   » Sun Oct 26, 2014 2:06 pm

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6432
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:11 pm
Location: Colorado

LOL!

Oh, please name a charecter for the Imperial Harchongese Navy Ihzohrohkyh khouhrbayh!
Top
Re: Convoy escorts - SPOILER for SNIPPET 8 of HFQ
Post by Dilandu   » Sun Oct 26, 2014 2:09 pm

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2536
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 1:44 pm
Location: Russia

runsforcelery wrote:and Canopus could almost certainly have been rushed to completion by mid-1899 (don't forget; this is the same nation that rushed


That is the point i seriously doubt. The Royal Navy seems to have a lot of problems with heavy gun production in 1880th, and i'm not totally sure that they vere already solved in 1890th.

Finally, unlike Japan in the Far East, England had a potential ally, very close to home, with an extremely powerful army: the German Empire, which didn't pass the First Naval law until 1898.


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.

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.

(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

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.


:D :D :D

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.
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top
Re: Convoy escorts - SPOILER for SNIPPET 8 of HFQ
Post by runsforcelery   » Sun Oct 26, 2014 2:28 pm

runsforcelery
First Space Lord

Posts: 2425
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 11:39 am
Location: South Carolina

Dilandu wrote:

[HUGE SNIP :lol: ]

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.


:D :D :D

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.


"Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as Piglet came back from the dead.
Top
Re: Convoy escorts - SPOILER for SNIPPET 8 of HFQ
Post by runsforcelery   » Sun Oct 26, 2014 2:47 pm

runsforcelery
First Space Lord

Posts: 2425
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 11:39 am
Location: South Carolina

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!

:lol: :lol: :lol:


"Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as Piglet came back from the dead.
Top
Re: Convoy escorts - SPOILER for SNIPPET 8 of HFQ
Post by Dilandu   » Sun Oct 26, 2014 3:05 pm

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2536
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 1:44 pm
Location: Russia

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.
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top
Re: Convoy escorts - SPOILER for SNIPPET 8 of HFQ
Post by Dilandu   » Sun Oct 26, 2014 4:39 pm

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2536
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 1:44 pm
Location: Russia

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)
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top
Re: Convoy escorts - SPOILER for SNIPPET 8 of HFQ
Post by runsforcelery   » Sun Oct 26, 2014 5:54 pm

runsforcelery
First Space Lord

Posts: 2425
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 11:39 am
Location: South Carolina

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. :geek:

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. ;) :lol: 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 8-)), 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. ;)


"Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as Piglet came back from the dead.
Top
Re: Convoy escorts - SPOILER for SNIPPET 8 of HFQ
Post by Henry Brown   » Sun Oct 26, 2014 6:22 pm

Henry Brown
Commodore

Posts: 912
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 1:57 pm
Location: Greenville NC

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.
Top
Re: Convoy escorts - SPOILER for SNIPPET 8 of HFQ
Post by Castenea   » Sun Oct 26, 2014 7:22 pm

Castenea
Captain of the List

Posts: 671
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2012 5:21 pm
Location: MD

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 8-)), 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".
Top

Return to Safehold