WWI ends early in 1917 - input wanted

[miketr]

Originally Posted by Richter von Manthofen

I see much concern of the naval part here.

Its tricky to determine how much UK needs to agree on peace and how much Germany would concede.

But I think we should first look at what Germany would have available in

A slightly different take on things

Hindenburg, May 1917 receives crew, August starts trials
Mackensen, Launched April 1917
Prinz Eitel Friedrich, still on building ways
Graf Spee, Launched August 1917
Fürst Bismarck, Still on Building Ways

Yorck's, HAHAHA

Sachsen, Launched November 1916
Württemberg, Launched June 1917

Keep in mind the British think the German ships are more advanced than they are. All sorts of crazy rumors were getting to UK and they took some of them seriously.

Turning Hindenburg into a CV is a bad idea. All of the major structural elements and armor are in place or mostly. Mackensen or Graf Spee are the better choice. Hulls are complete, you don't care a great deal about whats below the main deck and the stuff above the main deck hasn't been fitted yet.

What Jutland showed was that a unification type, high speed, good protection and gun power are needed. Only thing that fits that bill are the Mackensen's. Recall the German BC's TOOK punishment well. They couldn't dish it back out to the QE's.

I can see the RN not wanting to let the Germans keep the BC's at the same time the Germans wanting them. German BC's and cruisers got the most use in WW1. So how about meeting half way.

Germans agree to 4 BC's. Derfflinger, Hindenburg and 2 Mackensen. As new ships enter service the Germans scrap the other ships. Admiralty would push for Hoods as counters of course.

Germans turn two Mackensen into carriers.

Michael

[miketr]

Another thought the British will worry about. German cruiser force. By wars end they had the second largest force of turbine powered light cruisers. Preventing the Germans from building Capital ships and would mean the German yards start spitting out lots of light ships. The RN would see this as raider force in the making.

A fixed ratio of German Fleet to British fleet is really the way to go. Pre-war a defacto 60% ratio had been settled upon. Germany agree's to drop to 50% ratio. RN was 35 DN's (roughly) and 9 BC's (roughly) in 1917. Some of the ships are finishing or in yard hands. Also UK is going to look to ditch some of these ships, like the Chilian BB and they will want new ships as all of their ships have wear and tear. With more modern construction needed.

Germans fleet is 4 BC and 19 DN's. Capital ships are capital ships so its 44 for RN and 22 for HSF. I doubt the German cruiser force was 50% of RN I would have to check, no one else put same effort in that RN did. Germany came closest and war prevented USN from trying with need for DD's and escorts. As a side bar German's agree to limit number of BC's to current 4.

German fleet to be.

Bayern
Baden
König x4
Kaiser x5
Helgoland x4
Nassau x3 (one to be scrapped at once)
Von der Tann
Moltke
Seydlitz
Derfflinger

When Sachsen and Württemberg enter service 2 more Nassau's to be scrapped 1919 or 1920.
When Hindenburg enter's service Von der Tann goes to breaker's, late 1917
Moltke and Goeben follows in 1920 or so. As 2 Mackensen's finish.

SPD is military spending hostile enough that half of these ships would be in reserve to be honest.

As short term counter, the Admiral class has two ships. Two I figure to counter the two Mackensen's but no more. Admiralty would really want to do some type of G3 analog as a replacement for its older out of date ships.

Michael

[Detlef]

Originally Posted by miketr

Germans fleet is 4 BC and 19 DN's. Capital ships are capital ships so its 44 for RN and 22 for HSF. I doubt the German cruiser force was 50% of RN I would have to check, no one else put same effort in that RN did. Germany came closest and war prevented USN from trying with need for DD's and escorts. As a side bar German's agree to limit number of BC's to current 4.

German fleet to be.

Bayern
Baden
König x4
Kaiser x5
Helgoland x4
Nassau x3 (one to be scrapped at once)
Von der Tann
Moltke
Seydlitz
Derfflinger

When Sachsen and Württemberg enter service 2 more Nassau's to be scrapped 1919 or 1920.
When Hindenburg enter's service Von der Tann goes to breaker's, late 1917
Moltke and Goeben follows in 1920 or so. As 2 Mackensen's finish.

SPD is military spending hostile enough that half of these ships would be in reserve to be honest.

As short term counter, the Admiral class has two ships. Two I figure to counter the two Mackensen's but no more. Admiralty would really want to do some type of G3 analog as a replacement for its older out of date ships.

Michael

So the "newer" German fleet would be:

Battleships:
4 x Bayern class
4 x König class
5 x Kaiser class
4 x Helgoland class (maybe in reserve)

Battle cruisers:
Seydlitz
Derfflinger
2 x Mackensen class

Building stop for capital ships till December 31, 1927. 50% of British fleet allowed. Refit and upgrade of existing capital ships allowed.

Experimental aircraft carrier:
1 -2 Mackensen hulls (Prinz Eitel Friedrich and / or Fürst Bismarck)

Not a capital ship, so no limits on aircraft carriers.

Cruisers and destroyers:
Limit for cruisers and destroyers 50% (of current) British level?
No limits on U-boats.

No building stop here. Germany will probably replace most of its existing cruisers and torpedo boats with new ones. And built additional ones up to the limit.

That leaves the pre-dreadnoughts.
The Brandenburg, Kaiser Friedrich and Wittelsbach class (12 ships) will probably be scrapped.
The Braunschweig and Deutschland class (9 ships) might be scrapped, sold or used in the colonies. In the latter two cases after modernization (higher elevation for the guns for example)?
The armored cruisers (9 ships) likely will be scrapped.
(How are both classes - per-dreadnought and armored cruiser counted? As cruisers?)

How much are the four Nassaus (Rheinland wasn´t sunk) worth scrapped? Would it be possible to sell them? After modernization?
Molthe and von der Tann possibly could be sold? Probably better than scrapping them?

Goeben and the cruiser Breslau belong to the Ottoman navy.
Can´t be scrapped by Germany.

That would be a navy certainly large enough for Germany, but still < 50% of the Royal Navy.
The shipyards would complete the 2 Bayern class and 2 Mackensen class ships.
Then built 2 aircraft carriers on Mackensen hulls.
Maybe modernizing and then selling the 4 Nassaus would then protect jobs? Likewise for the 9 more modern pre-dreadnoughts?
Add in building of modern cruisers, destroyers and U-boats and the shipyards and associated industry should have enough to do.
(Maybe add in foreign orders if needed?)

[chris N]

It might be possible to sell some of the ships to nations such as those in Latin America. In addition Spain might be interested in buying some so that it could scrap the obsolete Espana class. In adition the Ottoman Empire would probably be interested in acquiring the Gobens sister ship and several other German ships so as to ease the maintance problems.
Don't forget that the ships guns might be salvaged to use for the costruction of fortifications.

[Detlef]

Originally Posted by chris N

It might be possible to sell some of the ships to nations such as those in Latin America. In addition Spain might be interested in buying some so that it could scrap the obsolete Espana class. In adition the Ottoman Empire would probably be interested in acquiring the Gobens sister ship and several other German ships so as to ease the maintance problems.
Don't forget that the ships guns might be salvaged to use for the costruction of fortifications.

I would suspect that in a negotiated peace here any German government would try to minimize anything bad. So keeping shipyard workers and their suppliers employed would be something a German government would keep in mind. Not only to avoid unrest now but also to keep capabilities for the future.

A naval ship that can be modernized and then sold to a foreign country is probably more profitable than a ship scrapped? Not to mention that it will guarantee employment for a time.

Both the Moltke and the von der Tann battles cruisers seem to be naval ships that can be sold profitably. The same might be true for the four Nassau class battleships? Maybe even some of the more modern pre-dreadnoughts. Likewise pre-war cruisers and destroyers.

A few proven - in Germany and the British Empire - capital ships available plus lots of pre-dreadnoughts, cruisers and destroyers.

Don´t forget that the German naval shipyards are asked to survive for 10 years without any additional capital ship construction. Unless - of course - they are busy with modernizing ships. And maybe some foreign orders?

And concerning ship guns for fortifications.
The guns on the old pre-dreadnoughts (12 ships) and armored cruisers (9 ships) should be enough for that for now. A mixture of 9.4 in guns down to 5.9 in guns. Some 40 to 70 heavy guns all in all? Not counting secondary armament? Removing them however won´t protect jobs long-term.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Detlef

Don´t forget that the German naval shipyards are asked to survive for 10 years without any additional capital ship construction. Unless - of course - they are busy with modernizing ships. And maybe some foreign orders?

And concerning ship guns for fortifications.
The guns on the old pre-dreadnoughts (12 ships) and armored cruisers (9 ships) should be enough for that for now. A mixture of 9.4 in guns down to 5.9 in guns. Some 40 to 70 heavy guns all in all? Not counting secondary armament? Removing them however won´t protect jobs long-term.

The shipyards might survive by building other large ships such as large passenger liners, and refit work. But even if we accept this is enough, the naval artillery makers will be bankrupt in 10 years, so they will have to build some guns just to stay in business. If Germany wants to be even able to build a Battleship before the mid-1930's, all the support industries have to operate at least at a low level. The 15" and larger naval guns will be produced and will have to be stationed somewhere. With no domestic or foreign BB production, Germany will have a ridiculous inventory of coastal guns above and beyond the gun from scrapped ships, or they will sell them to someone else who will do the same. The internal political pressure in German will be HUGE. It will not be ToV huge, but whenever the UK deals with German on any issue and wants any German concession, the ship limitations will come up, at least after the refit work is done by around 1922 ish. Quite frankly, I can see the Reichstag renouncing the treaty by the early 1920's, even if the Kaiser, the Chancellor, and the Admirals say Germany has to keep the treaty. And I can guarantee that Germany will have teams of lawyers looking for loop holes and looking for even the most minor technical breach by the British to justify Germany breaking the treaty.

I understand what that Richter wants to end the war with a peace treaty that gives the UK great concessions on surface ships. I can even suspend disbelief and see the Kaiser agreeing to peace on such terms. But even with this, the butterflies have to be dealt with. There is a massive change in post war naval structure of all nations compared to OTL. In a world of 16", 17" and 18" BB, the German capital ships are literally cruisers. We will never see the 8" cruiser ships built by the USA in the 1930's, or if we do, they will be called destroyers. My guess is we will see destroyers with 5" or 6" guns, cruisers with about 12" guns, and BB averaging 18" guns. I think there are some technical issues with 20" BB. Even with the full refit for speed, new bow, higher elevation, and the works, the 12" dreadnoughts are cruisers and actually look a lot like the CB Alaska of the USN.

Maybe have the treaty define a capital ship that has a gun within 1.5" of the largest gun used by the RN, so when the British start to build the Admiral classes, the Germans can start to build again.

IMO, Germany honoring the treaty if no one builds large numbers of ships with guns larger than 15", and the building of ships with larger than 12" guns is restrained.

[miketr]

Originally Posted by Detlef

So the "newer" German fleet would be:

Battleships:
4 x Bayern class
4 x König class
5 x Kaiser class
4 x Helgoland class (maybe in reserve)

Battle cruisers:
Seydlitz
Derfflinger
2 x Mackensen class

Building stop for capital ships till December 31, 1927. 50% of British fleet allowed. Refit and upgrade of existing capital ships allowed.

Seydlitz To breakers, Hindenburg instead.

Originally Posted by Detlef

Cruisers and destroyers:
Limit for cruisers and destroyers 50% (of current) British level?
No limits on U-boats.

No building stop here. Germany will probably replace most of its existing cruisers and torpedo boats with new ones. And built additional ones up to the limit.

Going off of what happened after the Washington Naval Treaty, I expect the German yards to spit out max size / gunpower cruisers they can get away with and not be counted a capital ship. See all the treaty heavy cruisers built in the 1920's and 30's. There would be too much political pressure from ports to get work / orders to ignore it.

Originally Posted by Detlef

That leaves the pre-dreadnoughts.
The Brandenburg, Kaiser Friedrich and Wittelsbach class (12 ships) will probably be scrapped.
The Braunschweig and Deutschland class (9 ships) might be scrapped, sold or used in the colonies. In the latter two cases after modernization (higher elevation for the guns for example)?
The armored cruisers (9 ships) likely will be scrapped.
(How are both classes - per-dreadnought and armored cruiser counted? As cruisers?)

I don't think they are counted at all to be honest. Germans keep a few as training ships / in the colonies and junk the rest.

Originally Posted by Detlef

How much are the four Nassaus (Rheinland wasn´t sunk) worth scrapped? Would it be possible to sell them? After modernization?
Molthe and von der Tann possibly could be sold? Probably better than scrapping them?

All the German BC's had seen a lot of wear and tear by end of the war. Von Der Tann and Seydlitz had taken a terrible bruising in particular. Both to be blunt would need total over haul or perhaps a rebuilding with new machinery. Might someone buy them? Perhaps but even more likely not. The oldest DN's are just out of date to any likely buyers I figure but anything is possible. Keep in mind they are VTE drives.
Goeben and the cruiser Breslau belong to the Ottoman navy.
Can´t be scrapped by Germany.

Originally Posted by Detlef

That would be a navy certainly large enough for Germany, but still < 50% of the Royal Navy.
The shipyards would complete the 2 Bayern class and 2 Mackensen class ships.
Then built 2 aircraft carriers on Mackensen hulls.
Maybe modernizing and then selling the 4 Nassaus would then protect jobs? Likewise for the 9 more modern pre-dreadnoughts?
Add in building of modern cruisers, destroyers and U-boats and the shipyards and associated industry should have enough to do.
(Maybe add in foreign orders if needed?)

In the 1920's, key for the yards would be cruiser construction I figure. Also without the German Merchant Marine being seized as reparations German's trade is better. This also help England as the cheap German ships and building capital ship building freeze really did a number on British industry. I figure German private yards get smaller but they don't die.

As to U-Boats you would think the British would want to limit the Germans here.

Michael

[miketr]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

The shipyards might survive by building other large ships such as large passenger liners, and refit work. But even if we accept this is enough, the naval artillery makers will be bankrupt in 10 years, so they will have to build some guns just to stay in business.

German gun makers was Krupp and they lived without any military orders historically. It was painful. German aircraft industry was under even more pressure and they did too.

I figure Germany builds lots of 8" cruisers or whatever the gun size limit is on non-capital ships.

Keep in mind that there is no limits on German army either. So Rheinmetall and Krupp will still have army artillery orders. WW1 showed the power of artillery.

Michael

Originally Posted by miketr

In the 1920's, key for the yards would be cruiser construction I figure. Also without the German Merchant Marine being seized as reparations German's trade is better. This also help England as the cheap German ships and building capital ship building freeze really did a number on British industry. I figure German private yards get smaller but they don't die.

As to U-Boats you would think the British would want to limit the Germans here.

Michael

I agree, cruiser construction would be key, perhaps some kind of reworking of the Deutschland Panzerschiffe concept, but armed with 9 x 8" as oppose to the 6 x 11" Main guns of OTL.

As regards to U-Boats you are spot on, they were the British nightmare (Remember at Washington they wanted them banned by all nations) there is no way that limits would not be imposed.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by miketr

German gun makers was Krupp and they lived without any military orders historically. It was painful. German aircraft industry was under even more pressure and they did too.

I figure Germany builds lots of 8" cruisers or whatever the gun size limit is on non-capital ships.

Keep in mind that there is no limits on German army either. So Rheinmetall and Krupp will still have army artillery orders. WW1 showed the power of artillery.

Michael

Agreed that they Germans would build a lot more very large caliber railroad artillery.

But on Krupp, while we know they would survive from OTL, they would not know this fact in the ATL. Krupp would be putting up huge pressure to keep some of the military spending up, domestic political pressure. There will be a pride issue. These are part of the reasons I can see Germany signing the treaty, anything end the war. Then over time after the initial rebuilds are ending, there will be huge pressure to break the treaty.

And I can't see the situation where the UK has a fleet of 17"+ gunned ships, and the Germans are not allowed to build more capital. The public will be humiliated and scared. And even if Germany does follow the treaty, the naval budget will still exist, and will be spent on U-boats, mines, and air power. With 20 years of heavy R & D funding, we will see 1950's and 1960's U-boats, precision guided naval weapons, and 4 engine bombers by the mid 1930's. We know from OTL what the innovative services were working on for the Germans, and without the interruption, these paths will be followed. The Germans had done hundreds of test on multi-mile range, wire guide weapons with some having warheads well over 1000 pounds designed to be used against all sizes of ships. It just looks like from the comments, more than the updated posts, that these butterflies are not being handled. It is ok to select POD's that radically depart from OTL, but it is not OK on this forum to ignore obvious, major butterflies on subjects being covered. It is the combination of Germany agree to 50% (POD #1) of the British Navy combined with a massive arms race (POD #2 or Butterfly #1 for Germany), that will cause major butterflies have to be handled. Germany having a Navy so weak that France or Italy or Russia can curb stomp the Germans will not happen.



Now it all works if the UK takes an informal, building slow down. But 2-4 super-super-dreadnoughts will unhinge things. As would just building 1-2 Super-dreadnoughts. It is not a flaw with the TL, but it does force some pretty dramatic butterflies.

Originally Posted by Karl von Muller

I agree, cruiser construction would be key, perhaps some kind of reworking of the Deutschland Panzerschiffe concept, but armed with 9 x 8" as oppose to the 6 x 11" Main guns of OTL.

As regards to U-Boats you are spot on, they were the British nightmare (Remember at Washington they wanted them banned by all nations) there is no way that limits would not be imposed.

The peak unrestricted warfare of OTL did not happen. Most U-boat victories were while the U-boats followed Cruiser rules in this ATL. You just can't take the 1925 attitudes and assume they will happen when the events that trigger them did not happen. I am not even sure the UK every adopted the convoy system in the ATL, so the attitudes will be a lot different. So I don't see the ban all subs position, but I do see the UK wanting a limit on German U-boats. It might be 50% or could be a lot higher.

Looking at a lot of the guns, they don't have a good mid range L50 or L55 gun, so they likely will need to develop a new gun in the 21cm to 24cm range, likely in the higher end.

[Richter von Manthofen]

The SMS BAden had 15" guns and the König class 12"

istead of building new ships the Hochseeflotte will upgun the König class (at least) 10*12" => 8*15" - Can't see the Kaiser upgunned the same way due to different layout

so the gun factories will actually have work and gun development continues.

By mid 1920s I think the Kriegsmarine will have 8-10 BBs/BCs - this is still powerful enough to contain both France and Russia - and still no threat to UK

But I am going to far ahead.

An I also believe that the subs are not as "prominent" as in our timeline as the unrestricted submarine warfare only happened in 1917 IOTL

I think after Jutland the lesson was learned that BCs are not the way to go

[Richter von Manthofen]

1914 - 1916 3.9 Mio. ts were sunk by U-boats
1917 alone 6.2 Mio. ts were sunk

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

The peak unrestricted warfare of OTL did not happen. Most U-boat victories were while the U-boats followed Cruiser rules in this ATL. You just can't take the 1925 attitudes and assume they will happen when the events that trigger them did not happen. I am not even sure the UK every adopted the convoy system in the ATL, so the attitudes will be a lot different. So I don't see the ban all subs position, but I do see the UK wanting a limit on German U-boats. It might be 50% or could be a lot higher.

For a start we are talking 1916 (and earlier) attitudes NOT 1925.

Secondly there HAD been unrestricted submarine warfare, it began in 1915, if you care to look at the original time line. February 1915 von Pohl's published warning in Deutscher Reichsanzeiger "The waters around Great Britain and Ireland, including the whole of the English Channel, are hereby declared to be a War Zone. From February 18 onwards. etc"

The Lusitania sinking which led directly to the US ultimatum of July 1915 and the reason the campaign stopped, regardless of how many kills were obtained by cruiser rules does not matter, the threat was clearly there.

British thoughts and fears on submarines can be traced back well before this time however.

in 1900 George Goschen, First Lord of the Admiralty, wrote "The Admiralty are not prepared to take any steps in regards to submarines, because this vessel is the weapon of the weaker nation. If, however, this vessel can be rendered practical, the nation which possesses it will cease to be weak, and will became really powerful. More than any other nation we should have to fear the attack of submarines."

in 1904 Admiral Fisher wrote "The submarine will prevent any fleet remaining at sea continuously....it is astounding to me how the very best amongst us fail to recognise the vast impending revolution in naval warfare and naval strategy that the submarine will accomplish."

Arthur Balfour wrote to Admiral Fisher on the subject of submarines in October 1910 and stated that "days of the dreadnought are numbered".

On June 5th 1914, Admiral Sir Percy Scott wrote in "The Times": "As the motor vehicle has driven the horse from the road, so will the submarine drive the battleships from the sea."

Thus to suggest that the Royal Navy or more to the point high ranking officers/politicians did not realise the potential of German U-Boats before 1925 is wrong and to imagine for one moment that the experience of losses to U-boats between 1914 and 1916 would not lead them to place some kind of restrictions the German use of U-Boats at that time is quite frankly absurd!

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Richter von Manthofen

The SMS BAden had 15" guns and the König class 12"

istead of building new ships the Hochseeflotte will upgun the König class (at least) 10*12" => 8*15" - Can't see the Kaiser upgunned the same way due to different layout

The Konig is double big turrents, so when it goes up, it will be a 5*15". I don't think you can fit two 15" in a 12" hole, and if you can, you will have some weight issues that may require armor removal, or it will be a very slow ship. If Germany had gone triple turrets, say a 4X3 = 12 guns, then you could up caliber and go 4X2 = 8 guns, but doubles don't work this way. Any you really need 17" guns, not 15" guns in an arms race.

This is what I am trying to get out. Yes, Germany might have signed the treaty, and It might even make sense, but once the 16" or 17" ships start being produced by the USA or the UK, the treaty makes no sense, and is likely scrapped, or we get some really strange butterflies. In an arms race, if the UK goes 17" and the USA goes 12X16", then Italy new BB will get bigger, as will France, and any other country that build ships.

so the gun factories will actually have work and gun development continues.

By mid 1920s I think the Kriegsmarine will have 8-10 BBs/BCs - this is still powerful enough to contain both France and Russia - and still no threat to UK

But I am going to far ahead.

An I also believe that the subs are not as "prominent" as in our timeline as the unrestricted submarine warfare only happened in 1917 IOTL

I think after Jutland the lesson was learned that BCs are not the way to go

I agree subs are not as prominent. I don't agree the German Navy budget goes down as much as you are implying. What does Germany spend all the construction funds on that it is not spending on Capital ships?

After Jutland people know storing spare ammo in the turret and removing flash doors is not the way to go. The Germans BC did quite well, and the newer German BC are really more fast BB than a true BC.

[chris N]

In order to retain the ability to build capital ships one must allow the construction of such vessels. Point the United Kingdom is having a tremendous problem in the construction of its new aircraft carrier and its new Nuclear submarines because it hasn't built any for tow long. the result is that the industry has lost the skill craftsmen to build such vessels as well as the experienced designers. German shipyard could build merchant ships and Passenger liners but there is a difference in the construction of a warship.
Look at the ability of German Naval shipyards to produce warships prior to and during the war vs the period of German rearmament during the 1930's. There just were not the skilled workers available with experience which would have allowed for a faster rearmament.

I am not at all sure that the kaiser and Konig class of Battleship could be rearmed with a larger gun as they were not designed to take it. The weight of the turrets would be grater and would unbalance the ship.
In contrast the Scharnhorst built during the 1930's was designed to be upgunned to the 15' guns..
It is likely that there might be an agreement signed by Great Britain and Germany limiting the size of the guns in an effort to Save Money. The Larger the Gun the more expensive the ship.
I am not ltogether sure that the british would have built the Saint Andrews class of Battleship as it would have cost a lot of money. It is more likely that the 16 inch gun would have been the largest gun.

I tend to doubt that destroyers of the period would have been armed with 6 inch guns because tha man job of a destroyer would be to escort other ships. On the whole the only nation to have destroyers armed with a large gun was Germany. It had perhaps 10 destroyers armed with the 5.9 inch gun but many more with a 5 inch gun.

The US developed the 5 inch /38 perhaps one of the best naval guns of the war capable of both antiship and Anti-aircraft at a good rad of fire. Britain wsed the 4.7inch gun as did many other nations.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Karl von Muller

For a start we are talking 1916 (and earlier) attitudes NOT 1925.

In this ATL, the UK does not even begin to convoy.

Secondly there HAD been unrestricted submarine warfare, it began in 1915, if you care to look at the original time line. February 1915 von Pohl's published warning in Deutscher Reichsanzeiger "The waters around Great Britain and Ireland, including the whole of the English Channel, are hereby declared to be a War Zone. From February 18 onwards. etc"

Your should learn to read more carefully. I will bold the important phrase since you bold your contradiction, that does not contradict.

PEAK UNRESTRICTED WARFARE

The peak in the ATL is likely under 200,000 tons per month. In OTL, it was 881,000. The big difference in the underlying attitude will change facts.

In 1915 in the North Atlantic, an average of 2 U-boats were on merchant patrol, and they only sunk 36% of ships without warning. In 1916, it was 5 U-boats and 19% without warning. In 1917 OTL, it is 29 U-boats and 67% without warning. In 1918, it is also 29 U-boats, and 87% without warning. Attitudes will be different on a war that ends where U-boats over 90% less common, and the generally follow cruiser rules.

The Lusitania sinking which led directly to the US ultimatum of July 1915 and the reason the campaign stopped, regardless of how many kills were obtained by cruiser rules does not matter, the threat was clearly there.

If the threat was viewed the same in July 1915 as July 1918, why did the RN not immediately institute convoys in July 1915. Answer: Attitudes and belief were change by later actions that did not occur in the ATL.

British thoughts and fears on submarines can be traced back well before this time however.

in 1900 George Goschen, First Lord of the Admiralty, wrote "The Admiralty are not prepared to take any steps in regards to submarines, because this vessel is the weapon of the weaker nation. If, however, this vessel can be rendered practical, the nation which possesses it will cease to be weak, and will became really powerful. More than any other nation we should have to fear the attack of submarines."

in 1904 Admiral Fisher wrote "The submarine will prevent any fleet remaining at sea continuously....it is astounding to me how the very best amongst us fail to recognise the vast impending revolution in naval warfare and naval strategy that the submarine will accomplish."

Arthur Balfour wrote to Admiral Fisher on the subject of submarines in October 1910 and stated that "days of the dreadnought are numbered".

On June 5th 1914, Admiral Sir Percy Scott wrote in "The Times": "As the motor vehicle has driven the horse from the road, so will the submarine drive the battleships from the sea."

Thus to suggest that the Royal Navy or more to the point high ranking officers/politicians did not realise the potential of German U-Boats before 1925 is wrong and to imagine for one moment that the experience of losses to U-boats between 1914 and 1916 would not lead them to place some kind of restrictions the German use of U-Boats at that time is quite frankly absurd!

They did not institute the convoy system. If the RN had believed it to be a major threat, the would have taken actions. All your statements before 1914 is easily discounted by a review of the U-boat counter measure which were a hand thrown and whaling harpoon with a small explosive charge. The RN planned to stop U-boats by throwing spears at them. This is actual history.

So why the statements, easy. Some people sincerely believe the threat but lacked the power to make changes. This mostly applies to the non-admirals who you did not quote. The rest is simply Admirals saying things they did not believe. The only other choice is to believe the Sea Lords committed high treason by not preparing for a mortal danger to the UK. When in power, a persons actions, not the PR statements show what they really believe.

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

Your should learn to read more carefully. I will bold the important phrase since you bold your contradiction, that does not contradict.

I was able to read your post quite clearly surprisingly enough, despite the spelling mistakes. It is your logic that is flawed and that I take issue with.

To claim the British would not see the submarine as a huge potential threat and thus want to limit the the German use of such a weapon in the future, that involves looking at British attitudes to the submarine in the OTL up to 1916 which I did in my reply.

It has nothing at all to do with losses in 1917 or 18, nothing to do with convoy systems. it is to do with losses sustained to the fleet as well as civilian losses up to the point of the start of this Alternative Timeline i.e the end of 1916 and the future potential threat that U-Boats could be to the Royal Navy, as in cheap and fast to build and difficult to counter. Hence why I suggested a limit as oppose to the total ban that happened in the OTL in 1919.

If you think the Royal Navy and the British in general were that stupid they would not see such a threat then you are welcome to your opinion. However, have the decency to allow others to have their opinions without being obnoxious.

[miketr]

Originally Posted by Richter von Manthofen

The SMS BAden had 15" guns and the König class 12"

istead of building new ships the Hochseeflotte will upgun the König class (at least) 10*12" => 8*15" - Can't see the Kaiser upgunned the same way due to different layout

Look at the Italian BB's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_...eship#Armament
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian...d_World_War_II

No way can you upgrade the German ships to 15" guns. You need to rebuild the turrets to handle the larger guns, the ammo train and the barbette it all sits on has to be replaced and thats an integral structural element of the ship. Italian's cheated by boring out their 305mm guns to 320mm guns so they didn't need new guns, etc.

http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNIT_126-44_m1934.htm

But this move has its own problems.

Its just not possible to do a gun upgrade like you describe at a reasonable cost. Granted the British were worried about this possibility during the war I admit but it doesn't mean it was reasonable or likely.

Michael

[miketr]

Originally Posted by Karl von Muller

I agree, cruiser construction would be key, perhaps some kind of reworking of the Deutschland Panzerschiffe concept, but armed with 9 x 8" as oppose to the 6 x 11" Main guns of OTL.

As regards to U-Boats you are spot on, they were the British nightmare (Remember at Washington they wanted them banned by all nations) there is no way that limits would not be imposed.

The Pocket BB's were the result of a specific set of circumstances bought on by the Treaty of V and the naval limitation treaty. They were overt raider designs but with a proper battlefleet, no matter how small, they would no doubt have other design objectives. The BB / BC's would need to be screened and so they need ships able to fight other cruisers and DD's; not a function the Pocket BB's were really suited for.

Michael

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Karl von Muller

I was able to read your post quite clearly surprisingly enough, despite the spelling mistakes. It is your logic that is flawed and that I take issue with.

To claim the British would not see the submarine as a huge potential threat and thus want to limit the the German use of such a weapon in the future, that involves looking at British attitudes to the submarine in the OTL up to 1916 which I did in my reply.

It has nothing at all to do with losses in 1917 or 18, nothing to do with convoy systems. it is to do with losses sustained to the fleet as well as civilian losses up to the point of the start of this Alternative Timeline i.e the end of 1916 and the future potential threat that U-Boats could be to the Royal Navy, as in cheap and fast to build and difficult to counter. Hence why I suggested a limit as oppose to the total ban that happened in the OTL in 1919.

If you think the Royal Navy and the British in general were that stupid they would not see such a threat then you are welcome to your opinion. However, have the decency to allow others to have their opinions without being obnoxious.

If you read my post carefully, why did you dispute the peak unrestricted warfare had occurred? With the word "had" in all caps?

Again on the second paragraph of yours, you make a mistake on what i said. So I will requote myself.

The peak unrestricted warfare of OTL did not happen. Most U-boat victories were while the U-boats followed Cruiser rules in this ATL. You just can't take the 1925 attitudes and assume they will happen when the events that trigger them did not happen. I am not even sure the UK every adopted the convoy system in the ATL, so the attitudes will be a lot different. So I don't see the ban all subs position, but I do see the UK wanting a limit on German U-boats. It might be 50% or could be a lot higher.

I clearly state that the UK would seek a limit. You then change my position to something else. Why? Do you have a reading comprehension issue?

Yes, the UK would have concerns about U-boats, but to believe that they would be the same as the concern level in 1918 or 1925 is absurd. And a lot of what I state is not opinion, It is fact. The UK treated did not take submarines serious before the war, despite all the quotes spoken. The UK had no effect weapons against submarines.

You can have all the opinions you want to have, but if you quote me, then misread my position, and then attack a position I never took, you will be called out on it. In your first reply, you imply that I did not read the timeline, when I in fact did read the timeline. The evidence you use to show I misread the timeline is a misquote. Then on this your second reply, you state that that I am for no limitations, when I in fact state the UK would want limitations. Why do you keep misquoting me?