Well, the Yanks have two utterly worthless "large cruisers" to dispose of, which Chiang might take an interest in.
I'm surprised there hasn't been a TL yet where the USN sells the Alaska's to the Soviets therefore crippling the Red Navy.
Well, the Yanks have two utterly worthless "large cruisers" to dispose of, which Chiang might take an interest in.
Big-brained move indeed.I'm surprised there hasn't been a TL yet where the USN sells the Alaska's to the Soviets therefore crippling the Red Navy.
The Espanas were either the smallest Dreadnoughts or the largest and most capable Coast Defence ships. The Chinese ones would be larger but fill the same role, ie. if you want to blockade ports you'll have to be better prepared than old cruisers and gunboats. This could be only realised in a no-WW1 scenario. Interestingly it was the 9 Power and 5 Power Treaties that came out of the 1921 Washington Conference were a direct result of China's weakness and yet the Chinese were treated with disdain as a negotiating party, the other powers not even sure who was capable of representing China.For that weight they'll get something along the lines of the Spanish "Espana" class mini dreadnoughts.
China contribution was symbolic at best.They were in no position to make any demands.If they are to buy the ships off someone,it would have to be from the entente powers themselves,assuming the Germans don’t scuttle them.Any deal between the Chinese and the Germans would have been ignored.A better case could be made for WW2.Chances are, China can probably get the German battleships off the other Entente powers in a bargain sale assuming A)they have the money, and B)the Germans don’t scuttle them .China was a member of the Entente - They declared war on Germany, so they legally could take possession of the ships according to Versailles. They buy the ships at Versailles itself, before the ear-marks were made. So even if the Entante wanted them, the sale had already happened.
Where the money comes from? Chang's government. His government still had some funding.
The Espanas were either the smallest Dreadnoughts or the largest and most capable Coast Defence ships. The Chinese ones would be larger but fill the same role, ie. if you want to blockade ports you'll have to be better prepared than old cruisers and gunboats. This could be only realised in a no-WW1 scenario. Interestingly it was the 9 Power and 5 Power Treaties that came out of the 1921 Washington Conference were a direct result of China's weakness and yet the Chinese were treated with disdain as a negotiating party, the other powers not even sure who was capable of representing China.
Coastal battleships are for countries that can not afford proper dreadnoughts or are not allowed to build and buy them. At least according to Drachinifel.The Espanas were either the smallest Dreadnoughts or the largest and most capable Coast Defence ships. The Chinese ones would be larger but fill the same role, ie. if you want to blockade ports you'll have to be better prepared than old cruisers and gunboats. This could be only realised in a no-WW1 scenario. Interestingly it was the 9 Power and 5 Power Treaties that came out of the 1921 Washington Conference were a direct result of China's weakness and yet the Chinese were treated with disdain as a negotiating party, the other powers not even sure who was capable of representing China.
Strange that this seems so difficult (and it does). Per historical GDPs on Wikipedia, in 1913, China was the largest power not to have a dreadnought... by far. It was second only to the US if India is separated from the UK, and in third place if India isn’t. That means it had a larger GDP than Germany, France, Italy, A-H, Russia, and so on. So why didn’t they build dreadnoughts? They have a long coastline, they have a seafaring history, and they had a potential adversary, Japan. Lack of centralization? A sense of security? I don’t know enough to form an opinion.
Having a fleet of BBs as well as the supporting fleet, crews and supporting infrastructure is a long term and expensive 'life style' decision by the owning nation - unless those ships are a vanity project!
So in order to have such a fleet - China needs to be more unified and stable (or a large chuck of it more unified and stable) for a long period and have better Infrastructure and heavy industry than OTL
I would say that it was still possible for China to get a capital ship if the warlord period was somehow butterflied. Without the warlord period, there would have been money and technological/industrial growth to develop a navy. They probably wouldn’t have been able to build one themselves for quite some time, but buying a small number of dreadnoughts from the European powers should have been possible.Others have mentioned it, but China does not have a national government until 1950.
China's best first chance was between 1880 and 1895. The Sino French wars 1 and 2 sank that dream with the Nanyang fleet. The Beiyang fleet was Japanese scuttled in 1895.
Between 1895 and 1972 (Nixon's visit to China) the chances for a capital ship centered battle fleet were ZERO. No technology, no training base and no political will. There was too much else critical to China happening internally with getting rid of Chiang kai Shek and then that mass murdering genocidal maniac Mao being TOP political priorities from 1925 onward.
Only now is China in a position to build capital ships and when it comes to building atomic subs? Let's say they are stuck in the 1970s.
I would say that it was still possible for China to get a capital ship if the warlord period was somehow butterflied. Without the warlord period, there would have been money and technological/industrial growth to develop a navy. They probably wouldn’t have been able to build one themselves for quite some time, but buying a small number of dreadnoughts from the European powers should have been possible.
Regionalism =/= the state could not buy dreadnoughts/develop a navy. We are not talking about the effectiveness of the theoretical fleet, but whether an alternate China that averted the warlord era could have afforded to buy dreadnoughts.By all means a number of third rate powers during the period did buy and maintain dreadnoughts.Nope. Regionalism when China "had" a government would have defeated any "national" government program. That is the whole reason the French were able to torpedo the Nanyang fleet. The Beiyang fleet sat on their keels and let it get sunk.
Directly on point, Mao is North China and Chiang is South China. Until that huge fracture is settled once and for all, there is no, repeat, "NO" political basis for a unified national Chinese government, warlords or not, and no unified polity for a unified navy. ZERO CHANCE in any realistic ATL. China 101.Regionalism =/= the state could not buy dreadnoughts/develop a navy. We are not talking about the effectiveness of the theoretical fleet, but whether an alternate China that averted the warlord era could have afforded to buy dreadnoughts.By all means a number of third rate powers during the period did buy and maintain dreadnoughts.
Why are you talking about Mao and Chiang? We are talking about a potential situation where either Yuan Shikai does better, the Qing Dynasty somehow clings to life by successfully transforming into a constitutional monarchy or some other strongman successfully taking control of China during the 1910s. The warlord period was not something that was inevitable.Directly on point, Mao is North China and Chiang is South China. Until that huge fracture is settled once and for all, there is no, repeat, "NO" political basis for a unified national Chinese government, warlords or not, and no unified polity for a unified navy. ZERO CHANCE in any realistic ATL. China 101.
Because those two idiots were the main reason China was not unified until 1950.Why are you talking about Mao and Chiang? We are talking about a potential situation where either Yuan Shikai does better, the Qing Dynasty somehow clings to life by successfully transforming into a constitutional monarchy or some other strongman successfully taking control of China during the 1910s. The warlord period was not something that was inevitable.