A Russo-Japanese Alliance

LordKalvert

Banned
This might as well create different alliances:

Entente
Russia
France
Japan
Italy

Central Powers
Britain
Germany
Austria-Hungary
Ottoman Empire
China

Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria are the wildcards here.

With the British with the Germans, and without any Russo-Japanese war, the Russians are better (frankly) in the long term, and with the British as a rival, the Entente are much more paranoid about losing a war, arms more. They will also be scared of the prospect of famine and resource shortage, hence stocks up more and depends less on international trade (the British blockading them in the event of war will surely do).

Russia, with this new development in the rails, might have built the St. Petersburg-Murmansk railway.

Frankly, I see the Central Powers winning here, still.

1) The St. Petersburg-Murmansk railway made little sense in OTl. What good it would do if the British are at war with Russia, I have no idea

2) Why is Japan's alliance with Russia likely to bring Britain and Germany together? The Germans are likely to oppose the British alliance for the same reason as in OTL. Nor are the British likely to change their minds. In fact, the British would, I think, be even more willing to form the Entente

3) How much Italy and Japan would actually contribute to such a war is debatable. There's always neutrality
 
Last edited:

trurle

Banned
None of these wars involve major battles between two well armed and trained forces. The Manchurian War is unique in the period and from it, most powers learn the most. The Germans are good at it but the French are not

The British learn to adopt Khaki after the Boer War- not one great power followed their lead. The lesson was held to be unique to the Veldt. Its only after the Manchurian War, that every power (save France) moves to adopt new uniforms

The Russians are not building "junk"- the Borodinos main problem is being rushed into battle with untrained crews, without their trials and being hopelessly outgunned when the shooting starts. They are on par with most other battleships of the day.

The Dreadnought is designed specifically after much study of the Battle of Tsushima- from it the British managed to learn

1) the need for speed- the Japanese Armored Cruisers were crucial to the success

2) the uselessness of the ram (a lesson Tirpitz takes forever to learn)

3) the ineffectiveness of smaller arms

4) the great range that future battles would be held

5) the need for a destroyer escort

The list goes on and on.

even if the Germans learn all these lessons from the Balkan Wars- they would have no time to implement them. They would just be draft proposals

Yes, in worst case (no learning for German until Balkan war) their advantage over Russians will be less than dramatic. But it is an exactly worst-case-scenario for German.

As about khaki and general protection of infantry, i think this is a story of too much butterfly effect. Cannot predict anything if deviating outside OTL. Small ideas making big differences. For example, the France being the last one to accept camouflage was the first to accept a modern helmets (more important in trench warfare than camouflage).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_helmet

As about battleships being junk, i mean what WWI was decided in land combat far from shores, and any battleships (modern or not) contributed nearly nothing, their efficiency sapped by mines, coastal artillery, torpedo boats, destroyers and spotting airplanes. Even merchant fleet hunting was done not by these monsters, but by U-boats, destroyers and light cruisers. Direct analogy to modern ICBM. Powerful, expensive, frightening, vulnerable and unusable.:p By the way, by mentioning need in destroyer escorts you indirectly agree what battleships in WWI has become a specialized assets.

P.S. Colourful uniforms were designed to give advantage in melee. Identify Friend Or Foe by peripheral vision reliably, and keep your line more accurately (and therefore deadly for enemy). Also, simplify control for commanders as they know where their troops are (so can move them with less confusion and less delays, outmanoeuvring khaki opponents). Finally, bright uniforms lessens friendly artillery fire incidents (which were widespread in WWI as communication tech lagged after the increased range of artillery). Fuinally, in trench warfare the colour of uniform is less than relevant, as everything becomes the colour of dirt. Taking into account all the factors, the adoption of khaki give not so clear advantages as dummy fire tests may suggest. May be 1.5-2 times reduction of casualties during entire war, depending on war manual fine details. If somebody has advantage in artillery and mobility, but not in radios - then the khaki are less than advantageous.

P.P.S. Basis equation for combat efficiency of field weapon: kill/cost ratio of weakly protected targets is reverse proportional to calibre of weapon. What`s why everybody used rifles, not grenade launches as main weapon. For same reason, main field artillery was 3-inch, not 8-inch monsters. In this respect, battleships are cost-ineffective against ground troops even if allowed to go to shore bombardment unmolested (which did not happened in WWI). Remember the Gallipoli Campaign. The British battleships bombarded the Ottomans incessantly and without naval opposition, but it was not enough to win. For same reason the cluster weapons nowadays are so efficient - they reduce the effective calibre of bomb to calibre of each bomblet, resulting in smaller overkill zones and superior kill/price ratio.
 
Last edited:

trurle

Banned
1) The St. Petersburg-Murmansk railway made little sense in OTl. What good it would do if the British are at war with Russia, I have know idea

2) Why is Japan's alliance with Russia likely to bring Britain and Germany together? The Germans are likely to oppose the British alliance for the same reason as in OTL. Nor are the British likely to change their minds. In fact, the British would, I think, be even more willing to form the Entente

3) How much Italy and Japan would actually contribute to such a war is debatable. There's always neutrality

I totally agree. Germany`s selection of allies in WWI had nothing to do with the events (or absence of events) of the Russo-Japanese war. Also yes, the Japan have managed to have a minimal participation (about ~2000 casualties) in WWI but still got South Pacific Mandate. And Murmansk with its hard-built railway will be definitely captured by British in case of war, exactly as happened IOTL with Archangelsk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Russia_Intervention
 

LordKalvert

Banned
Yes, in worst case (no learning for German until Balkan war) their advantage over Russians will be less than dramatic. But it is an exactly worst-case-scenario for German.

As about khaki and general protection of infantry, i think this is a story of too much butterfly effect. Cannot predict anything if deviating outside OTL. Small ideas making big differences. For example, the France being the last one to accept camouflage was the first to accept a modern helmets (more important in trench warfare than camouflage).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_helmet

As about battleships being junk, i mean what WWI was decided in land combat far from shores, and any battleships (modern or not) contributed nearly nothing, their efficiency sapped by mines, coastal artillery, torpedo boats, destroyers and spotting airplanes. Even merchant fleet hunting was done not by these monsters, but by U-boats, destroyers and light cruisers. Direct analogy to modern ICBM. Powerful, expensive, frightening, vulnerable and unusable.:p By the way, by mentioning need in destroyer escorts you indirectly agree what battleships in WWI has become a specialized assets.

P.S. Colourful uniforms were designed to give advantage in melee. Identify Friend Or Foe by peripheral vision reliably, and keep your line more accurately (and therefore deadly for enemy). Also, simplify control for commanders as they know where their troops are (so can move them with less confusion and less delays, outmanoeuvring khaki opponents). Finally, bright uniforms lessens friendly artillery fire incidents (which were widespread in WWI as communication tech lagged after the increased range of artillery). Fuinally, in trench warfare the colour of uniform is less than relevant, as everything becomes the colour of dirt. Taking into account all the factors, the adoption of khaki give not so clear advantages as dummy fire tests may suggest. May be 1.5-2 times reduction of casualties during entire war, depending on war manual fine details. If somebody has advantage in artillery and mobility, but not in radios - then the khaki are less than advantageous.

P.P.S. Basis equation for combat efficiency of field weapon: kill/cost ratio of weakly protected targets is reverse proportional to calibre of weapon. What`s why everybody used rifles, not grenade launches as main weapon. For same reason, main field artillery was 3-inch, not 8-inch monsters. In this respect, battleships are cost-ineffective against ground troops even if allowed to go to shore bombardment unmolested (which did not happened in WWI). Remember the Gallipoli Campaign. The British battleships bombarded the Ottomans incessantly and without naval opposition, but it was not enough to win. For same reason the cluster weapons nowadays are so efficient - they reduce the effective calibre of bomb to calibre of each bomblet, resulting in smaller overkill zones and superior kill/price ratio.

An effective Russian fleet in the Baltic would have secured the Russian flank and allowed the 6th army to be committed to Tannenberg. It might well be decisive. It also would have spared Russia the need to deal with the Swedes


On uniforms- they clearly were important. Every army that studied the issue adopted new uniforms and the French military wanted to but met parliamentary resistance. The new ones were adopted in June 1914 a bit late to get to the front

The advantages are many even in trench warfare which is why the French are rushing their new uniforms to the front after Trench Warfare develops. However, the Battles of the Frontier are not trench warfare in any event

As for "friendly fire" incidents- if your wearing field gray and the other guys wearing red pants, its not too hard to tell who's who and fire accordingly

An additional 50-100,000 German casualties before the Marne would be quite decisive. This is equal to about 5 German divisions and is coming from the combat units not the support units.

3 inch guns are used because they have a higher rate of fire, are more mobile and the ammunition can be moved. Most of the shells both sides have are shrapnel to be used against troops in the open not high explosives used for busting fortifications

Grenades are specialty weapon- very effective in storming a position but no one would substitute grenades for rifles. They have didn't uses
 

LordKalvert

Banned
The Naval bombardment against the Turks failed because

1) The Turks were shooting back

2) Firing at ships means that even a near miss is effective. While only a direct hit on a fortress gun is going to knock it out, hitting a ship and damaging its machinery can force the ship from the field

3) The Turkish guns had the range and could fire over the horizon which the naval guns could not

Gallipoli was suicidal and the Admiralty knew it way back in the 1890s
 

trurle

Banned
An effective Russian fleet in the Baltic would have secured the Russian flank and allowed the 6th army to be committed to Tannenberg. It might well be decisive. It also would have spared Russia the need to deal with the Swedes


On uniforms- they clearly were important. Every army that studied the issue adopted new uniforms and the French military wanted to but met parliamentary resistance. The new ones were adopted in June 1914 a bit late to get to the front

The advantages are many even in trench warfare which is why the French are rushing their new uniforms to the front after Trench Warfare develops. However, the Battles of the Frontier are not trench warfare in any event

As for "friendly fire" incidents- if your wearing field gray and the other guys wearing red pants, its not too hard to tell who's who and fire accordingly

An additional 50-100,000 German casualties before the Marne would be quite decisive. This is equal to about 5 German divisions and is coming from the combat units not the support units.

3 inch guns are used because they have a higher rate of fire, are more mobile and the ammunition can be moved. Most of the shells both sides have are shrapnel to be used against troops in the open not high explosives used for busting fortifications

Grenades are specialty weapon- very effective in storming a position but no one would substitute grenades for rifles. They have didn't uses

I do not argue the camouflage uniforms were unnecessary. Just point out what the advantages of khaki colour were not as decisive (7:1 or such) as you are trying to push. Germans without camouflage attacking Russian MG positions will take a greater casualties, although i doubt additional 100k deaths. German battalion-level commanders were flexible and independent enough to avoid such an unnecessary massacre. IOTL, Germans abandoned human-wave tactics from September 1914 already.
As about 3-inch guns, you just confirm these are effective killers, whatever the reason. And shrapnel shells have a similar kill area equation with HE. Overkill is overkill, and it does not matter if enemy soldier got multiple shrapnel hits or was shred apart by too powerful blast wave.
As about grenades, these are equally effective both in defence and assault. (defensive (shrapnel) grenades are actually more effective per throw). The problem is what overkill for both types is so bad, what infantry unit cannot carry enough grenades to defend its own positions. It is less a problem for assault on enemy positions, because enemy are already outnumbered (otherwise the assault is going to be a suicide).
 
Last edited:
Top