Convoy escorts - SPOILER for SNIPPET 8 of HFQ

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.

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

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,

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.

runsforcelery wrote:

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

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.

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.

(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).

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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.

runsforcelery wrote:

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 . . . .