Convoy escorts - SPOILER for SNIPPET 8 of HFQ

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

runsforcelery wrote:[

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

Temporarily, at least . . . .

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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 . . . .