AHC/WI: Britain won world war 1 without becoming heavily indebted

BooNZ

Banned
What you say was the british approach in napoleonic war. Yeah, mckenna did point out that without full conscription they would have no problem wage war for many more years without facing bankruptcy. Conscription was actually enacted due to political reasons rather than actual battlefield situation.

In late 1916 the British army was actually very short of manpower and the War cabinet was advised it would face a manpower crisis in 1917 unless drastic actions were taken - one of those recommended actions was to extend conscription up to age 55.

In this scenario, we would see lots of post jutland BBs with 25-30 knot sspeed and 16-18 inch guns after the war.

For what purpose?
 
Maybe not as a tank but it's pretty easy to get Hornsby's chain-track developed as an artillery tractor as it was originally looked at for. With it already developed and in-service from before the war starts then you'd certainly see it developed into a tank much sooner I would have thought. This would also have the side-effect of potentially butterflying Caterpillar Inc. the American corporation. If you want an armoured vehicle to give the Gernans trouble during their invasion then I would suggest the Rolls-Royce armoured car.
Bolt on an Armoured Car body to the Hornsby Tractor and you get a machine gunned tank that can go anywhere the German Cavalry can run. A year of development later and it's got a 6pdr Hotchkiss gun to deal with field guns while shooting up the infantry. Of course the bulk of the armour are armoured cars though. The Cavalry are long dead.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...B787B687F9A69D7DFDB3B787B687F9A69&FORM=VRDGAR
 
Last edited:
For what purpose?[/QUOTE]
Never heard about South Dakota and Nagato? In this scenario, they would have been able to react earlier to the American and Japanese naval buildup.[/QUOTE]
If Britain has and is willing to spend the money the RN will get it's G3's. Possibly also the N3's though I think they would be impractical.
 
I think you'd need a pre-war POD, and one that involves Britain planning for a longer, more devastating war. Building up a bigger reserve, designing a system so the army can expand without the OTL quality crash, gearing its industry for a more prolonged conflict and making a more robust financial system to support it all. But then you run into a problem... nothing like this happens in a vacuum. So what transpired for this to come to pass, and what does everyone else do when they realize that Britain is preparing for a long war?
 
I think you'd need a pre-war POD, and one that involves Britain planning for a longer, more devastating war. Building up a bigger reserve, designing a system so the army can expand without the OTL quality crash, gearing its industry for a more prolonged conflict and making a more robust financial system to support it all. But then you run into a problem... nothing like this happens in a vacuum. So what transpired for this to come to pass, and what does everyone else do when they realize that Britain is preparing for a long war?
Your basically talking about introducing conscription, forming a proper General Staff, holding large scale exercises of multi corps forces on a regular basis and a systematic investment in new technologies in the years following the end of the 2nd Boer War. Trouble is by the time all that's done Britain's in debt anyway, though less lives will be lost and Britain's industry will be in better shape to face the new century.
 
Your basically talking about introducing conscription, forming a proper General Staff, holding large scale exercises of multi corps forces on a regular basis and a systematic investment in new technologies in the years following the end of the 2nd Boer War. Trouble is by the time all that's done Britain's in debt anyway, though less lives will be lost and Britain's industry will be in better shape to face the new century.

Was that not the goal of the OP? I figure that if the war ends two years earlier with fewer casualties Britain winds up much better off than OTL. It's been a while since I read about it, but didn't most of the most dire financial consequences start 1916 onward?
 
Was that not the goal of the OP? I figure that if the war ends two years earlier with fewer casualties Britain winds up much better off than OTL. It's been a while since I read about it, but didn't most of the most dire financial consequences start 1916 onward?
Things were tight but I don't think they can be described as dire, after all Britain was still lending money to other powers. There seems to be a tendency to imagine Britain was in the same boat in 1919 as it was in 1946 but that's not true. Britain was till a wealthy nation in 1919 if not to the same extent as in 1914. In 1946 Britain had to ration Bread because it couldn't afford to buy wheat, even though during the war it wasn't rationed. There is a world of difference between the two post war periods.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
I mean the challenge here is that the British could won the war while industry was shielded against conscription (in OTL, it was not). Maybe defending Antwerp, preventing Ottoman from joining CP, or Galipoli campaign success, together with a decisive victory for GF against HSF in Jutland.
 
This would also have the side-effect of potentially butterflying Caterpillar Inc. the American corporation

Already established as Holt-Caterpillar in 1909, and proved reliable in making the LA Aqueduct
Cat45-mojave.jpg
across the Mojave desert to get water from the Owens River 230 miles away
even with fewer WWI sales for artillery tractors, still plenty of CONUS earth moving to do
 

BlondieBC

Banned
What you say was the british approach in napoleonic war. Yeah, mckenna did point out that without full conscription they would have no problem wage war for many more years without facing bankruptcy. Conscription was actually enacted due to political reasons rather than actual battlefield situation. In this scenario, we would see lots of post jutland BBs with 25-30 knot sspeed and 16-18 inch guns after the war.

No conscription = German win.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
The BEF is destroyed in 1914 via encirclement. The UK decides that while it will run the blockade and engage in colonial and possibly anti-Turkish action in the Middle East, its not going to put an army into Northern France.

Since there is no BEF, there are fewer offensives in the West, which preserves French strength.

The Russians manage to hold on in 1915 through the great retreat. The British score major victories against the Turks in 1915, and by 1916 they are on the verge of marching into Anatolia with the Russians. Also, internal Greek struggles end up with it joining the Entente and Serbia doesn't fall.

In 1916 there is a negotiated peace. Belgium regains independence and the Germans trade their gains in the west for gains in the east, especially a nominally independent but puppet state Poland. Austria Hungary gets something to appease the assassination of the Archduke but otherwise Serbia is kept whole. The UK gains colonies and new protectorates in the middle east.

Again German win.

In 1914 without the BEF, the French could easily lose the 5th Army. But let's say the French commander still does well. Then the Germans win the race to the sea. The line that stabilizes is probably around the Marne, all the way to the sea. Unfortunately for the Germans, the Austrians still need rescuing before Paris can be taken. You now have the HUGE problem that the Germans are operating torpedo boats and U-boats out of channel ports. The Dover blockade can't hold, even though the area is heavily mined. The ports used to supply France are under constant threat.

In 1915, the Germans still steamroll the Germans in the east, but only worse. Yea, the Ottomans are in worse shape, but the Germans don't stop in August, they stop when the snows come. They are 150 to 300 miles east of OTL stopping location, and Russian losses are much higher. The Germans then have the option of knocking either Russia or France out of the war.

You do save the UK finances, but you also lose the war.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Brits develop tracked artillery tractors before the war. More mud equals longer tracks. Once the Royal Artillery have de-bugged the chassis, it is comparatively easy to add armour and guns.

Meanwhile the Royal Navy Air Service maintains large fleets of wheeled armoured cars to patrol the neutral Belgian border

The Belgian border is neutral because German troops vacate Belgium as soon as they secure rail lines directly into France. These leaves WALLIES defending a narrower front.

Russians trounce Germans in the East causing heavy casualties (short term) and forcing Germany to station large garrisons in East Prussia (long term).

Austria secures a port along the Dalmation Coast and maintains good relations with (Roman Catholic) Croatians. A/H divests its more troublesome minorities like (Russian Orthodox) Serbs and (Muslim) Kosovars.
With A/H withdrawing support from Muslims (e.g. Ottoman Turkey) British soldiers quickly gain control of the most productive/strategic parts of the Ottoman Empire. British colonial troops lean the lightest on the most troublesome minorities in the Middle East.

Yes, the UK building a much larger army helps them greatly in WW1, and by winning faster, it may, again may, prevent financial ruins. The butterflies are profound on a major UK army expansion say starting in 1905 or 1911.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
You have to give more details, but you still bankrupt the UK.
Actually, McKenna said that they can afford to conscript 5000-10000 per week, but not more, and that British industrial capacity could allow them wage war for 10 years (maybe exaggerated but of course more years than OTL) without conscription. Besides, they could use Empire soldiers as substitutes.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Actually, McKenna said that they can afford to conscript 5000-10000 per week, but not more, and that British industrial capacity could allow them wage war for 10 years (maybe exaggerated but of course more years than OTL) without conscription. Besides, they could use Empire soldiers as substitutes.

He is exaggerating. They UK ran out of cash in 2.5 years, so I don't see the 10 years. By what % in size are you reducing the British military?

The big problem is the UK imported a lot, even before the war. When doing wartime production, you can't be doing export production. Then import prices jump during a war. The the cost of blockade.
 
Gallipoli succeeds - The Turks exit the war and Austria Hungary collapses in 1916.

Faced with a three front war Germany sues for peace.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
He is exaggerating. They UK ran out of cash in 2.5 years, so I don't see the 10 years. By what % in size are you reducing the British military?

The big problem is the UK imported a lot, even before the war. When doing wartime production, you can't be doing export production. Then import prices jump during a war. The the cost of blockade.
Well, a major proportion of its import came from colonies and dominions (the other part was from the US). But with conscription, imports will surge because labour will become scarce.

Another problem was that Lloyd George pursuit mass conscription to achieve a decisive victory by mid or late 1916, just before Britain ran out of money, which was an irrational approach and eventually fail. Maybe galipoli victory or ottoman staying neutral can help.
 
Top