Convoy escorts - SPOILER for SNIPPET 8 of HFQ

Dilandu wrote:
Heh, i'm returned with fresh salvo! Mua-ha-ha!

runsforcelery wrote: On the other hand, those same second-class battleships would be pretty capable of holding their own against their French counterparts, I think.

Well, if we count them, i see no reason to not count the last-generation french coastal defense ships - two of "Bouvines"-class. Of course, they have somewhat limited ability in open sea (but actually they would probably be as good as BB-5 "Iowa" with the same raised forecastle), but their two long-barreled 305-mm guns with heavier shell and more than a third better muzzle velocity would be at leas as effective as four shorter-barreled 254-mm guns on "Centurions".

And with them, we would have 13 RN battleships agains 10 french. Still nothing near the superiority.

13 to 10 is superiority, it simply isn't crushing superiority. And I think (based on my reading) that the British had an edge in the reliability of their machinery, which would probably tilt the numerical balance a bit further in their favor because of the comparative number of breakdowns.

runsforceley wrote: 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

Dilandu wrote:Actually, the french navy have a fair number of armoured and protected cruisers, plus old stationary battleships of "Vauban"-class and "Bayard"-class in East Asia and Carribean. Som they could give a lot of problems \to the RN, if the battleships would be recalled.

And there was also the possibility of obsolete french battleships (many of they were re-armed with the modern long-barreled guns)would go through the Suez in Indian Ocean. Without second-rate battleships, the Royal Navy would be unable to stop them effectively; so, there is a possibility of losing not only the Mediterranian Routes, but also a large part of Indian Ocean routes.

The French cruisers are the reason I said things might get interesting.

On the other hand, I think there were enough of those "protected cruisers" of which you think so poorly to take up a lot of the slack. In this instance, the Brits would be the defenders, not the aggressors, and so (for a change) they'd be the ones waging guerre de course, much as the Vladivostok squadron did in 1904 (before it suffered that little mischief at Ulsan ). French naval superiority (in heavy ships) in Far Eastern and Indian Ocean waters of itself wouldn't do them a lot of good without the ability to take and occupy territory. That requires secure (or at least relatively so) sea lines of communication, as the Japanese found out when their siege guns didn't make it to Port Arthur on time, which the British cruisers would be in a position to either deny completely or at least make highly conditional.

If I were the Brits, I wouldn't really be all that concerned by their old battleships anymore than the Japanese were concerned by Admiral Ushakov at Tsushima, given their relatively low freeboards and the placement of their armor belts. Not saying I wouldn't be worried at all of course, since some battleship is almost always better than no battleship, but the French weaknesses in fighting their batteries in rough or heavy weather would be a lot more of a problem outside the Med.

Dilandu wrote:And there still is a russian problem. The Russian Empire would undoubtely use the british problems to gave upper hand in the Great Game.

It is possible, that russian wouldn't go so far to claim the Black Sea Straits as it may provoke the conflict with Austro-Hungary. Hovewer, there was a plans to seize the Straits in 1896, that almost came into friction, and the time was perfect due to the Greece-Turkish war of 1897.

But nothing would stop the Peterburg from takin control over Afganistan and Persia, if the british would be distracted elsewhere. The United Kingdom was the main and ONLY significant opponent in this region. And the Tsar would undoubtedly see the opportunity to settle that problem once and for all.

So, the Royal Navy would found itself dealing with as problem of perspective. What is better (or at least, least bad):

- To lose some african colonies to French?

- Or to have the russian army standing directly at the Indian borders, with both the Afganistan and Persia "under the hand of great white king" (at least formally)?

And let's not forget that there was a plenty of russian armoured cruisers on the Far East. So, the recalling of all second-raters from China Station would mean, that the Britain agreed with all russian claims in advance to avoid the war with Russia.

Actually, i think the RN would probably recall the "Victorious" "Renown" from China Station, but both "Centurions" would stay here as precaution and pilitical argument.

The Russian card is a good one, but if you get to play it, then I get to play the Kaiser!

Seriously, you're talking about a change in the European power equation which would have had Wilhelm telling the Boers he'd have to call them back later while he dealt with a far more serious threat much closer to home. That's what realpolitik is all about, and the Great Powers had been playing that sort of game far too long for anyone at the table to fail to understand that fact of international life.

You're absolutely right that Austria would have reacted very strongly to any attempt to seize the Dardanelles, and the ANZACs found out in WW I how well that worked, especially with someone else (like Austria or Germany) advising and assisting the Turks. And if Austria found itself in a war with Russia --- in alliance (at least a de facto one, whether it was ever formally proclaimed or not) with France, Germany would definitely have entered the conflict. The Germans already felt encircled; if the Russians were in a position too join hands through the Med and the British navy was taken off the table and Italy was added to the mix, their situation would have become dire, and they knew it. They also knew the French were determined to take back Alsace and Lorraine, and they would understand that there was no way in the world that wouldn't happen --- or be attempted, at least --- if the French and Russians essentially gutted the British Empire and significantly increased their own strength in the process.

Moreover, unless the French naval presence in the Indian Ocean and South Atlantic were sufficient to completely interdict British shipping --- and it would have to be significantly reinforced to do that --- the British position in India and Afghanistan would scarcely have been desperate unless the war lasted for a long time. (Persia might have been at greater short-term risk, depending on what happened with Turkey, but it was also far less important strategically or economically to Britain in those pre-oil days). And, as I argued in an earlier post, the longer the war, the more the balance would tend to tilt in Britain's favor, exactly as the balance would inevitably have tilted in the Russians' favor in 1905 if not for the domestic unrest which compelled the Tsar to make peace. France and Russia might not suffer the economic collapse that was looming over Japan (although I'm not too sure of that, given the state of their finances in 1898), but the industrial balance would have been heavily against both of them combined.

Now, if the Russian Baltic Fleet could get out of the North Sea past the British battleships and torpedo bopats in home waters, and if the Black Seas Fleet could get through the straits pas the Turks and/or Austrians, things would get very dicey for the Brits in the Med, no question of that. That's a lot of "if"s, though, and if we go that far in making "what-if" assumptions, I think we're looking at World War One in 1898 instead of 1914.

Actually, all of this would make a really interesting alternate history novel, wouldn't it? Hmmmmm . . . .

runsforcelery wrote:On the other hand, I think there were enough of those "protected cruisers" of which you think so poorly to take up a lot of the slack.

Well,, in theory, but it look like - i must admit, i didn't finish to analyse that question - that the french protected cruisers were more powerfully armed and somewhat faster than the british counterparts. Actually, the large part of RN cruisers was 3-rd rate, and the main bulk of french cruisers look like the... 2,5-rate.

In this instance, the Brits would be the defenders, not the aggressors, and so (for a change)

Er... if the RN would be forced to play defensive, it would mean that it's too late for Armstrong to produce new guns.

French naval superiority (in heavy ships) in Far Eastern and Indian Ocean waters of itself wouldn't do them a lot of good without the ability to take and occupy territory.
That requires secure (or at least relatively so) sea lines of communication,

But it do them a lot of good in therms that it do a lot of bad to british. The Britain is MUCH more dependent of the sea communications than France. The main France sea communications in the Mediterranian would be secure at least for the 1898-1899.

And for the Britain, the loss of communications with India - even temporarely - would be next time disaster to the french gunboats shelling London City. The economical impact may just well make Britain unable to pay for the war at all.

Not saying I wouldn't be worried at all of course, since some battleship is almost always better than no battleship, but the French weaknesses in fighting their batteries in rough or heavy weather would be a lot more of a problem outside the Med.

Er... are you not mistaken?

The only french first-rate battleship ever build with low freeboard was "Hoshe". I'm talking about "Coubret", "Redoutable", "Devastation", "Admiral Baudin"'s, and "Admiral Duperre".

They ALL have their guns placed high. The french navy always preferred high mounted guns.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... g_3132.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 909%29.jpg

If their guns wouldn't be able to operate in heavy seas, then the most of british cruisers would simply sunk in the same conditions!

runsforcelery wrote:

The Russian card is a good one, but if you get to play it, then I get to play the Kaiser!

It would be much harder to do, because there wasn't a alliance or even generally good therms betweem UK and Gremany in that time. I must admit that it's possible, but significantly less possible than the Kaiser simply wait and see.

You're absolutely right that Austria would have reacted very strongly to any attempt to seize the Dardanelles, and the ANZACs found out in WW I how well that worked, especially with someone else (like Austria or Germany) advising and assisting the Turks.

The problem was, that in 1898 the turkish coastal defense was pathetic, and the turkish navy didn't even have all the guns on their few still seaworthy ironclads. And the Austria was more concered about the possible relations with balkan slavik nations (Serbia especially) that the Straits itself.

They also knew the French were determined to take back Alsace and Lorraine, and they would understand that there was no way in the world that wouldn't happen --- or be attempted, at least --- if the French and Russians essentially gutted the British Empire and significantly increased their own strength in the process.

The problem is. that for the Greman point of view - the Britain was a useless ally.

Let's don't forget; the german strategy against France and Russia was always based on the fast, "blitzkrieg"-style operations. They planned to take out one opponent as fast as possible before go to fight the other.

In that type of war the Britain were useless ally. The british army wasn't considered as powerfull; and during the Boer War, the opinion about them fall even lower. The british naval superiority wasn't able to effect the land warfere in short therms. After all, during the 1870-1871 the great larger french navy was unable to do anything to affect the land campaign.

(Persia might have been at greater short-term risk, depending on what happened with Turkey, but it was also far less important strategically or economically to Britain in those pre-oil days).

Persia was a risk because from there, the russian army would have a clear road to India.

France and Russia might not suffer the economic collapse that was looming over Japan (although I'm not too sure of that, given the state of their finances in 1898), but the industrial balance would have been heavily against both of them combined.

The problem is, that the british economical damage would be enormously greater. The France has a LARGE coloinal empire, and a lot of well-protected coal station for the raiders. And you proposed to strip the China Station of all their heavy ships. So, the RN would be completely unable to really protect the main communication lines outside the North Atlantic.

Actually, all of this would make a really interesting alternate history novel, wouldn't it? Hmmmmm . . . .

Actually, that would be REALLY interesting...
Must admit, I have some thoughts on this, that I'm trying to put into literary form ...

runsforcelery wrote:
Actually, all of this would make a really interesting alternate history novel, wouldn't it? Hmmmmm . . . .

Yes please that would be a fascinating read.

This is probably all very interesting to you, D...but you do realize you've kept RFC from writing probably 10 Honorverse or further Safehold/Hellsgate/etc. chapters for the rest of us by now!

Is this really what you want to be known for around here?

jgnfld wrote:This is probably all very interesting to you, D...but you do realize you've kept RFC from writing probably 10 Honorverse or further Safehold/Hellsgate/etc. chapters for the rest of us by now!

Is this really what you want to be known for around here?

Well, i just assume that if RFC haven't time for this discussion, he would just say that and everyone would understood this. And forgive me, but have you been elected, or placed, or given the title of RFC official controller and timekeeper? With all respect, i'm not sure of that.

runsforcelery wrote:
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.

Cant comment on the naval side, but a French German alliance would have been absolutely unthinkable on the French side without restitution of Alsace and Lorraine first which Germany would never have done. The region loss in 1870 was the bed of French nationalism and made Germany the natural enemy instead of our traditional one, England.
Sentiment was high in the region, up to 1887 all Alsace representants in Reichstag were protester to the annexation, but even higher in the rest of France.

No, not claiming that in the least...But I point out it is entirely off topic, which was really my point. Probably should have said so directly instead of attempting humor that appears to have irked you.

Dilandu wrote:

jgnfld wrote:This is probably all very interesting to you, D...but you do realize you've kept RFC from writing probably 10 Honorverse or further Safehold/Hellsgate/etc. chapters for the rest of us by now!

Is this really what you want to be known for around here?

Well, i just assume that if RFC haven't time for this discussion, he would just say that and everyone would understood this. And forgive me, but have you been elected, or placed, or given the title of RFC official controller and timekeeper? With all respect, i'm not sure of that.

jgnfld wrote:No, not claiming that in the least...But I point out it is entirely off topic, which was really my point. Probably should have said so directly instead of attempting humor that appears to have irked you.

Must admit that i still have some troubles with understanding some english ideoms and humor. So yes, it irked me.

Well, that really is an offtopic, you are right. So, to transport it to different theme seems reasonable.