Anglo-German War in 1899-1900 (Who Wins?)

[CalBear]

This may be a manifestation of a common misconception about a blockade (depending on whether you think the Boers or the Germans are the ones blockaded here). A blockade is not saying "I will sink or stop ships of this nation" it's "I will sink or stop ships heading to or from this nation".

Declaring a blockade is a legal issue, stating that you are going to take the time and effort to inspect ships and treat them according to the terms of blockade law, and you are going to put in the ship time to stop all trade ships and check them. In return, the neutral powers grant you the right of search.

This is one reason why the US blockade in the Civil War was a bit silly - it was declared against a nation the Union denied existed in any way, which makes the blockade itself somewhat legally questionable, and it was not effective for the first year or so (meaning that some ships didn't even get noticed let alone pursued). It also means that submarine blockades are only legal if they're done under cruiser rules, and even then it's iffy - you're supposed to take ships into port and into court, and subs tended not to do that.

Of course, things changed after WW1 with a tacit acceptance by all powers of USW.

The proper term that the U.S. should have used was quarantine, which was the accepted term for closing a port or ports within your own country.

 

[Saphroneth]

The proper term that the U.S. should have used was quarantine, which was the accepted term for closing a port or ports within your own country.

True, though it would probably have looked even more silly as time went on. It is a very peculiar disease which results in spontaneous ironclads.

 

[TFSmith121]

I wonder if the US would step in like it did in OTL Russo-Japanese War and make things a bit less lopsided.

The US might offer their services as a neutral party, but given the obvious Anglo-American economic ties, not certain that they would be perceived as such by any of Britain's continental enemies. Absent overt US involvement in a "large" European conflict at this point, seems unlikely the US would play a larger role than banker and supplier to the British...

The US had attend the Berlin Conference on Africa, but generally was happy to stay out of European politics at this point. The RJW was different because of the US interests in the Pacific and Asia.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

so it's falling in line with British interests to allow Britain to take some German colonies when Germany is stupid enough to start a conflict over Samoa, but it's not falling in line with German interests to join Germany's side in said war and then do all the fighting against Britain for them?

Sorry, what countries or country are you talking about here?

France?

And wasn't the point of the Samoa crises is that they were solved diplomatically, short of war? The hurricane helped as well, of course.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Trademark Smith logic... Britain wins with allies therefore the war is equivalent to a defeat and proof Britain cannot fight it's way out of a wet paper bag. Anyone else wins with allies, why the presence of allies is utterly irrelevant and they can count it as a GLORIOUS VICTORY and proof their military is utterly unbeatable no matter how tangential their own involvement or the actual performance of their troops in the field.

Absent the French the Germans do not attack west through Belgium and thus the British stay out. World War One degenerates into yet another shitfest in the Balkans.

The point is, Britain DID NOT have any allies in Europe at this point; even the Entente Cordiale was not signed until 1904.

So if - for example - the alliances that did exist grew into a "grand alliance" (German-Russian-French-Italian in some combination) to take advantage of the weaknesses of the Austrian and/Ottoman empires, and/or the Low Countries, and the British objected, they are pretty much SOL in terms of having any militarily effective allies on the Continent.

Best,

 

[Citycat]

I don't think they would want to go so far as to destroy Britain completely. Take the British Isles is going to seriously disturb the European balance of power Now limiting the British colonial empire to say-India, Australia and the Americas with the rest be divided up? That's possible

The continental powers don't have control of the seas. They are also incapable of invading Britain itself. So I'm not sure how they can help themselves to India, Australia and the Americas. The only remote possibility is if they can get Britain to give them up. Which is very unlikely. Britain fought on its own against a united European continent in the Napoleonic Wars and WWII and still prevailed, I can't see this war being much different. They will just wait for cracks to appear in this European alliance and then exploit this.

 

[Saphroneth]

Since I was mildly bored, protected and scout cruiser count of the RN.

1 class
Blake x2
Edgar x9
Powerful x2
Diadem x8
Total 21

2 class
Iris x2
Leander x4
Mersey x4
Marathon x5
Apollo x21
Astraea x8
Eclipse x9
Arrogant x4
Highflyer x3
Challenger (x2)
Total 60 (62)

3 class
Comus x5
Calypso x2
Surprise x2
Scout x2
Pelorus x10 (1)
Archer x8
Barracouta x4
Barham x2
Pearl x9
Topaze (x4)
Total 44 (49)

Scout
Sentinel (x2)
Adventure (x2)
Forward (x2)
Pathfinder (x2)
Total 0 (8)

Grand total 125 (140)


By comparison, in 1900 the Kriegsmarine had eight PCs and nine UPCs and the USN had sixteen non-armoured cruisers. The French had ~33, the Italians had fourteen (plus 18 torpedo cruisers) and the Spanish have a rather pitiful four PCs (plus four UPCs.)

 

[MattII]

Reading up on the Fashoda Incident, it was settled diplomatically because France realised they'd really like British help in any future war with Germany. A year later, a war breaks out over some far-flung Pacific islands. Yeah, no friggin way is France going to side with Germany, that would lose them the opportunity to regain Alsace Lorraine. Also, Britain can offer them help with taking German Cameroon (possibly the Sanaga River acts as a border), which would likely make up for much of the resentment over Fashoda. So at the least it's likely to be Britain+France vs. Germany. Who muscles in from there is anyone's guess.

 

[LordKalvert]

The continental powers don't have control of the seas. They are also incapable of invading Britain itself. So I'm not sure how they can help themselves to India, Australia and the Americas. The only remote possibility is if they can get Britain to give them up. Which is very unlikely. Britain fought on its own against a united European continent in the Napoleonic Wars and WWII and still prevailed, I can't see this war being much different. They will just wait for cracks to appear in this European alliance and then exploit this.

How long can Britain last against the industrial might of the continent? Look what Germany did to British shipping in WWI And that is with no help and fighting three continental powers. Now how badly do you think British shipping would be devastated with Britain not having the French and Italian navies to help them but rather having to fight them or how the British will operate in the Mediterranean with the straits of Gibraltar cut off? Just substitute torpedo boats for submarines. The effects are going to be the same- and the British are going to have to fight worldwide given the network of bases available to the continent

Just the loss of Continental trade is going to ruin the British trade

 

[LordKalvert]

The Haber Process wasn't discovered for another 10 years, with previous methods having been horribly inefficient. In fact a bit of digging indicates the Germans aren't just in trouble for explosives production, they were massively dependent upon Chilean nitrates for fertilizer at this point. A Germany blockaded by the UK is going to have to import vast quanitities of food (or their Nitrates through other nations) just to keep the population fed. There's a reason Germany was throwing every chemist they had at the issue. So Germany is in a deep crisis, while the UK is sitting pretty. France despises the former and is pretty neutral about the latter. Do you really think they're going to side with a struggling enemy occupying what they see as French territory over an on and off again ally that's at the height of it's power? Russia can sit out and force Germany to decide between paying for food imports or paying for it's army.

The problem is that the British blockade is utterly useless without the continent closing the railroads. The loss of nitrates to food production would have meant nothing except: imports from Russia were cut off (the Russians used very little fertilizer) and many of the men and horses were sent to the front and the need to make huge amounts of explosives for the war effort. None of that applies

As for which side France fights on- well the French wouldn't mind seeing the Germans and the British throwing rocks at each other but they have their Russian allies to consider. The Russians are much more anti-British than anti-German. Do you think France is going to war with Germany by herself? That would be suicide and they know it.

The Russians are going to take the opportunity to pounce on the British and make a move on Afghanistan and Persia and the French are more likely to join a Russo-German coalition rather than an isolated Britain

 

[RodentRevolution]

How long can Britain last against the industrial might of the continent?

In 1900? a surprisingly long time,especially considering the British control access to rather a large proportion of key raw materials and further more of their industry is concentrated in the relevant forms of manufacturing for a naval war.

Look what Germany did to British shipping in WWI

Not terribly much save by submarine warfare which is not due to the immaturity of the technology a choice available to them here. Further but this was after 14 years of considerable build up and investment in both combatants and the infrastructure to support them.

And that is with no help and fighting three continental powers.

Actually the British only had to deploy warships against two other powers....oh you mean the Germans but the problem is on the high seas they did not even come close to challenging the British alone despite a much, much,much larger navy in both absolute and proportional terms than you see here.

Now how badly do you think British shipping would be devastated with Britain not having the French and Italian navies to help them but rather having to fight them or how the British will operate in the Mediterranean with the straits of Gibraltar cut off?

Except if you look at the numbers available in this era the Italian and French and German navies would fail to achieve the ratio of combat units to the RN the Germans achieved in 1914 and are further behind technologically on a per unit basis.

Just substitute torpedo boats for submarines.

And you find it does not work as they lack the sea keeping for the role you envisage let alone the range.

The effects are going to be the same- and the British are going to have to fight worldwide given the network of bases available to the continent

No they are not as any power that is foolish enough to raise a hand against them is going to find that hand cut off as it tries to reach out to its bases outside its own metropolitan regions. The British are the ones with the bases and the numbers everywhere you turn to look.

Just the loss of Continental trade is going to ruin the British trade

This is the only remotely true statement in your post. The issue is while British trade will definitely take a hit so will that of any of their attackers by a much greater degree...sea trade even today is the key portion of cargoes delivered. Now since the British are under attack they will be more willing to sacrifice in that regard but you are asking other nations to give up practically all their foreign trade to help Germany out of a pickle. People are somewhat inclined to be sceptical of that happening.

In fact given the nature of the conflict and the issues at stake Germany might prefer other powers not join in as that lessens the effect of the British blockade on themselves. Of course the problem for Germany one on one is that they lose a significant portion of their economy their merchant marine as a productive organ, the fees and salaries that would have been spent in Hamburg now get spent instead in Antwerp and Rotterdam and other nations get to wax their tariffs on everything that Germany would export or import and all of this on top of the fact that rail travel is more costly per tonne kilometre than sea transport.

You have all the recipe for a nice fat recession there.

Hence your need for allies for Germany (thought note not for the British) and your inability to justify why they should commit to such an action.

 

[LordKalvert]

That's not the impression I get from my reading of Brown (that the AC made cruisers obsolete).

But if we look at armoured cruisers in 1 Jan 1900:


Extant in 1 Jan 1900 in basic numbers, built 1 Jan 1900 - 1 Jan 1905 in brackets

RN
Shannon
Nelson x2
Imperieuse x2
Orlando x7
Cressey x2 (x4)
Drake (x4)
Monmouth (x10)
Devonshire (x6)
Duke of Edinburgh (x2)
Total 14 (+26)

France
Dupuy de Lome
Admiral Charner x4
Pothuau
Jeanne d'arc
Gueydon x1 (x2)
Dupleix (x3)
Gloire (x5)
Leon Gambetta (x3)
Total 8 (+13)

Germany
4 total 1900-1905
Total 0 (+4)

Italy
Marco Polo
Vettor Pisani x2
Guiseppi Garibaldi x2 (x1)
Total 4 (+1)

Austria Hungary
2 total in 1900, 1 1900-1905
2 (+1)

Japan
2 total in 1900, 6 1900-1905
2 (+6)

Russia
2 General Admiral
1 Minin
2 Vladimir Monomakh
Admiral Nakhimov
Pamiat Azova
3 Rurik
Bayan (x1)
10 (+1)

USA
ACR 2
ACR 3
Pennsylvania (x2)
2 (+2)

So
RN 14 +26
France 8 +13
Germany 0 +4
Italy 4 +1
A-H 2 +1
Japan 2 +6
Russia 10 +1
USA 2 +2

So in 1900-1905 the RN adds as many ACs as all the other great powers put together. (nb I'm not counting ships built for other countries for this one.)

I'm starting to suspect that counting parallel build capacity ("how many ships does power X have building now") undervalues the RN a little as one of their great talents was build speed.

Armored cruisers made all older cruisers obsolete- take an Italian Girabaldi class cruiser With a speed of 20 knots, 4 eight inch guns and a belt of armor 6 inch armor she could outrun any of the older protected cruisers, out gun them and had armor that a protected cruisers guns couldn't pierce.

Mere equality in armored cruisers is not enough- the two power standard called for a 2-1 advantage in cruisers which the British always suspected was low.

 

[LordKalvert]

In 1900? a surprisingly long time,especially considering the British control access to rather a large proportion of key raw materials and further more of their industry is concentrated in the relevant forms of manufacturing for a naval war.

Continental industrial capacity far exceeded British and the continent really has access to more than enough raw materials. It is rather the British supply lines which are vulnerable

Not terribly much save by submarine warfare which is not due to the immaturity of the technology a choice available to them here. Further but this was after 14 years of considerable build up and investment in both combatants and the infrastructure to support them.

Of course the continent isn't going to be using submarines in 1900 except for maybe the English channel. But commerce raiding is the predominate school of thought and commerce raiding will be the objective

Actually the British only had to deploy warships against two other powers....oh you mean the Germans but the problem is on the high seas they did not even come close to challenging the British alone despite a much, much,much larger navy in both absolute and proportional terms than you see here.

Nope- meant the Italians, French and Russians mostly plus what they scrounge up from the other powers

And you find it does not work as they lack the sea keeping for the role you envisage let alone the the range.

That's not what the powers thought at the time and why such large torpedo flotillas were built

No they are not as any power that is foolish enough to raise a hand against them is going to find that hand cut off as it tries to reach out to its bases outside its own metropolitan regions. The British are the ones with the bases and the numbers everywhere you turn to look.

The difference is the continent needs only sea denial capabilities not sea control which is the British objective. The oceans are just too big for them



[/QUOTE]

 

[Ryan]

Sorry, what countries or country are you talking about here?

every country in Europe which you said would suddenly attack Britain. are you forgetting what you've said in this thread?

And wasn't the point of the Samoa crises is that they were solved diplomatically, short of war? The hurricane helped as well, of course.
Best,

in otl yes, but what's that got to do with this thread? the OP is asking about a situation where Germany escalates the crisis to the point of war with Britain.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Since I was mildly bored, protected and scout cruiser count of the RN.

1 class
Blake x2
Edgar x9
Powerful x2
Diadem x8
Total 21

2 class
Iris x2
Leander x4
Mersey x4
Marathon x5
Apollo x21
Astraea x8
Eclipse x9
Arrogant x4
Highflyer x3
Challenger (x2)
Total 60 (62)

3 class
Comus x5
Calypso x2
Surprise x2
Scout x2
Pelorus x10 (1)
Archer x8
Barracouta x4
Barham x2
Pearl x9
Topaze (x4)
Total 44 (49)

Scout
Sentinel (x2)
Adventure (x2)
Forward (x2)
Pathfinder (x2)
Total 0 (8)

Grand total 125 (140)


By comparison, in 1900 the Kriegsmarine had eight PCs and nine UPCs and the USN had sixteen non-armoured cruisers. The French had ~33, the Italians had fourteen (plus 18 torpedo cruisers) and the Spanish have a rather pitiful four PCs (plus four UPCs.)

The cruiser strength described above was a result of the Naval Defence Act (1889) and the Spencer Programme of 1893. The cruiser strength was calculated on the formula F + R + T i.e. the cruiser strengths of France and Russia plus 42 (IIRC) for trade protection, which incidentally is not that different from the requirement for 45 trade protection cruisers that existed between the world wars.

 

[RodentRevolution]

Continental industrial capacity far exceeded British and the continent really has access to more than enough raw materials. It is rather the British supply lines which are vulnerable

And much of it was committed to providing the people of Europe with a decent standard of living and supporting the rest of continental industry. The key point is you are asking for countries to join Germany in taking a hit to their economies for the express purpose of helping Germany out of a humiliating mess mess it has got itself into and their sole motivation would seem to be some supposed absolute hatred of the British.

Surely if you were right then the WeltKrieg nach Britannien would have occurred? One reason why it might not however is that the leaders of various nations, despite of course (because how could you possibly be wrong about this?) hating Britain with an overriding passion and loving Germany with pure masochistic adoration might have feared their people, ignorant peasants that they are, were not willing to endure the sacrifice, temporary I am sure, that would be necessary to overcome Perfidious Albion.

This might be because it was understood that Europe even united would have to endure blockade for some time before it could build up the naval strength to reverse the issue.

Of course the continent isn't going to be using submarines in 1900 except for maybe the English channel. But commerce raiding is the predominate school of thought and commerce raiding will be the objective

Save the British are the era's masters of both commerce protection and interdiction and can even reach the coastal traffic which an important element of most European nations' economies. The cruiser forces of the powers you have suggested are really not up to the job and while they are being reinforced any alliance against Britain must endure blockade...even for some time after that one assumes.

Nope- meant the Italians, French and Russians mostly plus what they scrounge up from the other powers

Oh great so even more powers must be aligned with all their disparate agendas and rivalries and that might not be enough so you need wiggle room to call on yet more.

That's not what the powers thought at the time and why such large torpedo flotillas were built

Erm on commerce warfare everyone knew torpedo boats were rubbish. What they were for was presenting threat to a battleship/cruiser fleet that wanted to operate off your coasts and even then they were not expected to do the job alone.

The difference is the continent needs only sea denial capabilities not sea control which is the British objective. The oceans are just too big for them

A bigger ocean would actually suit the British as it would make interdicting their commerce harder. However the key question is endurance, both sides will suffer economically and so far you have failed to provide any motivation for Europe other than "save the Germans from making a fool of themselves" even today when Europe likes the Germans much better their usual response to such entreaties is to flat out laugh.

 

[LordKalvert]

The Czar and Kaiser can be as buddy buddy as they want, the Duma and Reichstag won't care (as with the whole secret alliance from OTL). Plus Russia can't afford to feed Germany for free so Germany is going bankrupt trying to feed its populace without fertilisers anyway.

Duma? In 1900? I don't think the Duma had been convened for over 200 years in 1900

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

As it happens I've got a spreadsheet documenting the British shipbuilding programmes between 1889-1914 which I compiled from copies of the Navy Estimates held by the library of the Royal Navy Museum in Portsmouth.

These are the battleships ordered over the period 1899-1900. Note that 1889-90 is the Financial Year running from 1st April 1889 to 31st March 1890.

1889-90 8 Royal Sovereign (Naval Defence Act)
1889-90 2 Centurion (Naval Defence Act)
1892-93 1 Renown
1893-94 2 Majestic (Spencer Programme)
1894-95 7 Majestic (Spencer Programme)
1896-97 5 Canopus
1897-98 1 Canopus
1897-98 3 Formidable
1898-99 3 Bulwark
1898-99 Supplementary 4 Duncan
1899-00 2 Duncan
1900-01 2 Queen

Total 40 battleships, but the Centurion and Renown classes were classed as second class battleships.

These are the First Class Cruisers ordered over the same period.
First Class Protected Cruisers

1889-90 2 Crescent class (Naval Defence Act) reduced Blake class
1889-90 7 Edgar class (Naval Defence Act) reduced Blake class
1893-94 2 Powerful class (Spencer Programme)
1895-96 4 Diadem class (Spencer Programme) reduced Powerful class
1896-97 4 Diadem class (Spencer Programme) reduced Powerful class

Total 19 first class protected cruisers

1897-98 6 Cressy class (development of the Diadem class)
1898-99 4 Drake class (enlarged Cressey class)
1898-99 Supplementary 2 Monmouth class
1899-00 2 Monmouth class
1900-01 6 Monmouth class

Total 20 first class armoured cruisers

Grand Total 39 first class cruisers of all types

 

[Saphroneth]

Armored cruisers made all older cruisers obsolete- take an Italian Girabaldi class cruiser With a speed of 20 knots, 4 eight inch guns and a belt of armor 6 inch armor she could outrun any of the older protected cruisers, out gun them and had armor that a protected cruisers guns couldn't pierce.

Mere equality in armored cruisers is not enough- the two power standard called for a 2-1 advantage in cruisers which the British always suspected was low.

I'm not so sure that 6" belt was impenetrable - not to a RN first class PC, anyway. Was that Krupp or Harvey armour?

The 8" guns have a penetration at muzzle of up to 19" wrought iron equivalent and the 9.2" can go as high as 16" to 19" at 2,000 yards (depending on mark). So an 8" mark IV could pierce a 6" Harvey belt at 2,000 yards - and, of course, the QF guns can damage the upperworks.

So what kind of "older" cruisers are you thinking of that the Garibaldis made obsolete?

 

[LordKalvert]

And much of it was committed to providing the people of Europe with a decent standard of living and supporting the rest of continental industry. The key point is you are asking for countries to join Germany in taking a hit to their economies for the express purpose of helping Germany out of a humiliating mess mess it has got itself into and their sole motivation would seem to be some supposed absolute hatred of the British.

Most of the industrial capacity of Britain is used the same way but when war comes, immediate needs are sacrificed

No, I wouldn't suggest that anyone come to the aid of Germany to help them out of a humiliation- they might join for their own reasons such as Italy deciding she needed Germany more than Britain or France and Russia deciding that Britain was her bigger enemy. No one does anyone favors in politics

Surely if you were right then the WeltKrieg nach Britannien would have occurred? One reason why it might not however is that the leaders of various nations, despite of course (because how could you possibly be wrong about this?) hating Britain with an overriding passion and loving Germany with pure masochistic adoration might have feared their people, ignorant peasants that they are, were not willing to endure the sacrifice, temporary I am sure, that would be necessary to overcome Perfidious Albion.

Completely off base- no one is aiding Germany because they "love" her. That's just silly. But taking the British down a notch and grabbing some spoils? That's a different story

This might be because it was understood that Europe even united would have to endure blockade for some time before it could build up the naval strength to reverse the issue.

well on the off chance that the British do manage to blockade the continent, they just trade with each other and manage quite well. It might even induce them to reduce their trade barriers with each other and then their economies would boom

Save the British are the era's masters of both commerce protection and interdiction and can even reach the coastal traffic which an important element of most European nations' economies. The cruiser forces of the powers you have suggested are really not up to the job and while they are being reinforced any alliance against Britain must endure blockade...even for some time after that one assumes.

Funny how the British never really thought they had this kind of power- when like the cabinet told Salisbury that even with Italian support, they would never agree to attack the Sultan without a French declaration of neutrality

Oh great so even more powers must be aligned with all their disparate agendas and rivalries and that might not be enough so you need wiggle room to call on yet more.

Not "more" powers but yes the French-German-Russian combination is lord of Europe and all the continental powers would ally themselves with it

Erm on commerce warfare everyone knew torpedo boats were rubbish. What they were for was presenting threat to a battleship/cruiser fleet that wanted to operate off your coasts and even then they were not expected to do the job alone.

See Arube and Jeune ecole. Torpedo boats were high on the list of weapons for commerce raiding. The biggest threat to the British from them is that the French have massive numbers and the short channel to deal with

A bigger ocean would actually suit the British as it would make interdicting their commerce harder. However the key question is endurance, both sides will suffer economically and so far you have failed to provide any motivation for Europe other than "save the Germans from making a fool of themselves" even today when Europe likes the Germans much better their usual response to such entreaties is to flat out laugh.

Quite interesting- a bigger ocean makes raiding commerce harder? How exactly? A bigger ocean means that the British have to spend more protecting their commerce. You only have to attack a ship once but you have to protect it for the whole journey

Forcing the British into convoys around the entire world would be tantamount to sinking more than 75% of them it would reduce capacity that much

And when did I ever say that anyone loved the Germans?