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

[Deleted member 94680]

True, which is why I said reasonable chance instead of a higher probability. Having thought about it a bit more an incident like: the sinking of USS Maine; or the Russian fleet that would eventually be annihilated at Tsushima attacking British trawlers in the North Sea because they mistook the fishing boats for enemy destroyers; would be required. That is the Royal Navy sinks a French warship having mistook it for a German ship and that whips up French public opinion sufficiently to force the French Government into war against its better judgement (which as you wrote was to stay on the side lines and watch the two combatants weaken themselves).

Except when that happened it didn't lead to war? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogger_Bank_incident There was a lot of sabre-rattling and protests, but a International Conference of Inquiry settled the issue rather than force.

Would this be a case of tempers are already inflamed in Britain due to the War with Germany and therefore they mistake a French warship for a German one (not sure how that would happen, tbh) and sink it for jollies? If it was an accident, I'm pretty sure Britain - already fighting Germany - would go all-out diplomatically to placate France to avoid the possibility of a French DoW.

 

[Reydan]

Except when that happened it didn't lead to war? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogger_Bank_incident There was a lot of sabre-rattling and protests, but a International Conference of Inquiry settled the issue rather than force.

Would this be a case of tempers are already inflamed in Britain due to the War with Germany and therefore they mistake a French warship for a German one (not sure how that would happen, tbh) and sink it for jollies? If it was an accident, I'm pretty sure Britain - already fighting Germany - would go all-out diplomatically to placate France to avoid the possibility of a French DoW.

Quite. And, whilst I'm not saying that this is a deal-breaker by any means, but its worth noting that Dogger Bank was produced by a very specific set of paranoias and mistakes endemic to the Russian Fleet particularly.

 

[Saphroneth]

Well, let's look at the battle lines. We can assume anything before 1885 is old hat, daddi-o, and that the China incident doesn't happen. Key date is 31 Dec 1899.


German

Coast defence:
Six Siegfried class (3 9.4" guns)
Two Odin class (3 9.4" guns)

Battle:
Four Sachsen class (armoured frigates) (6 10" guns)
Four Brandenburg class (6 11" guns)
One Kaiser Friedrich (4 9.4" guns)


British
(Admiral not counted)
1 Victoria (2 16.25" and 1 10")
2 Trafalgar (4 13.5")
7 Royal Sovereign (4 13.5")
1 Hood (4 13.5")
3 Centurion (4 10")
9 Majestic (4 12")
1 Canopus (4 12")

So yeah, RN in a bit of a romp in any comparison.

 

[TimTurner]

Except when that happened it didn't lead to war? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogger_Bank_incident There was a lot of sabre-rattling and protests, but a International Conference of Inquiry settled the issue rather than force.

Would this be a case of tempers are already inflamed in Britain due to the War with Germany and therefore they mistake a French warship for a German one (not sure how that would happen, tbh) and sink it for jollies? If it was an accident, I'm pretty sure Britain - already fighting Germany - would go all-out diplomatically to placate France to avoid the possibility of a French DoW.

What if a Fashoda-like incident happened at around the same time?

 

[Deleted member 94680]

What if a Fashoda-like incident happened at around the same time?

Well, it would be a second fashoda wouldn't it? The first served to improve Anglo-French relations in the long run, not worsen them. The result of the Fashoda Incident was to encourage French rapprochement with Britain to provide an ally against Germany. The idea that another colonial clash, where so many before failed to start a war, would cause France to overturn its entire foreign policy and run into Germany's arms is approaching ASB

It would have to be some hell of a POD to gain a Franco-German alliance against Britain!

 

[LordKalvert]

That would be interesting. Russia+France+Germany vs. Britain would have plenty of butterflies.

A Russo-Franco-German coalition would rout the British rather quickly as they can assure themselves of continental cooperation. Not that that would be hard in 1899 given the widespread dislike of the British-

Italy- the Italians weren't all that happy about British "assistance" during the Ethiopian War. They pretty much knew that the British had used them as a bargaining chip to be traded off for concessions from the French. The Italian Navy would be a formidable addition to the Franco-Russian fleets

Spain- much hatred over the British backing of the Americans and the sore is pretty open at the time Not much material left but position? Priceless for shutting down the Mediterranean

To make it interesting we'll need someone to back the British. Japan has a couple of Battleships and three armored cruisers operational but their build up is really just getting started. The Americans have little on hand but, as always, plenty of potential

 

[TFSmith121]

So, you're saying a weaker Germany and a weaker UK? If so, it's the best possible outcome as the the rest of the world wins.

Well, you might think that ... I couldn't possibly comment.

Best,

 

[Reydan]

A Russo-Franco-German coalition would rout the British rather quickly as they can assure themselves of continental cooperation. Not that that would be hard in 1899 given the widespread dislike of the British-

Italy- the Italians weren't all that happy about British "assistance" during the Ethiopian War. They pretty much knew that the British had used them as a bargaining chip to be traded off for concessions from the French. The Italian Navy would be a formidable addition to the Franco-Russian fleets

Spain- much hatred over the British backing of the Americans and the sore is pretty open at the time Not much material left but position? Priceless for shutting down the Mediterranean

To make it interesting we'll need someone to back the British. Japan has a couple of Battleships and three armored cruisers operational but their build up is really just getting started. The Americans have little on hand but, as always, plenty of potential

So basically abandon an all but paper thin adherence to the actual history of the period for the sake of playing Great Power Naval Top Trumps?

 

[Saphroneth]

By the way, if people are interested, I can work out the AP stats and freeboard data for those various ships since I have downloaded some Brassey naval annual data (all the penetration is normalized to wrought iron) and can get freeboard from somewhere. This would be using the modern rule of thumb where the freeboard you aim for is 1.1 times root (length in feet), and I'd give a figure of merit.
Sadly we don't have good data on German gun accuracy of this period (it's pre director firing and pre continuous aim) but we do know the RN was pretty good - though worse than the French by most accounts, the RN was five times better than the Americans. (n.b. this is all exercises as there wasn't any war to test this for anyone except the US).

As such in a comparison I'd have to assume equal accuracy for both.


Example of how I'd do the firepower comparison:

The best British AP gun as of 1896 was the Mk. 8 12", which had a penetration of 38.5" wrought iron at the muzzle. This is equal to 19" of Harvey or 14.75" of Krupp.
Kaiser F.III has 12" thickest armour (Krupp), and carries 4 9.4"/40 cal guns.These guns have 28.8" wrought iron penetration at the muzzle. Assuming she's firing at Majestic (which has 9" Harvey or 18" of wrought iron equivalent for her belt) then when both ships are right next to one another the German gun has about 60% overpenetration and the British gun has about 23% overpenetration - thus suggesting there's a range at which the German belt is invulnerable and the British belt is vulnerable. (Though of course the German battery is weaker than the belt and the British one stronger.)
The picture is much the same with the Canopus, though the Canopus has somewhat thinner armour it's Krupp and so the actual change is minor. (Though Canopus has Harvey gunhouses.)

The Brandenberg class has an 11" gun, but this is actually less effective - 25.3" of penetration at the muzzle, so 40% overpenetration.
The Brandenbergs also vary drastically in effectiveness of armour. The 18" belt is compound on the first two, which is not a great deal more effective than simple wrought iron, and Harvey in the latter two. The latter two are only just vulnerable to belt penetrations at the muzzle for the mk.8, but the former two have the equivalent of 22.5" of wrought iron and as such are over 70% overpenetrated! This shows a great example of how two apparently identical ships can be extremely different in their combat capability.

 

[TFSmith121]

That would be interesting. Russia+France+Germany vs. Britain would have plenty of butterflies.

There is the point to be made that this is the period before the Alliance system had truly gelled, and if - for example - the two more powerful Continental powers had agreed it was time to deal with one or more of the weakest, Britain would be able to do next to nothing about it; in such a circumstance, it is entirely possible one or more of the other Continental powers would join in, so as to not miss out.

If, at that time, the British attempted to prevent such, it opens the door to multiple Continental powers deciding to join in and take what they can from Britain and/or its Continental proxies.

A Russia+France+Germany is obviously in a stronger position than Britain+Austria+Turkey, for example.

Best,

 

[TimTurner]

A Russo-Franco-German coalition would rout the British rather quickly as they can assure themselves of continental cooperation. Not that that would be hard in 1899 given the widespread dislike of the British-

Italy- the Italians weren't all that happy about British "assistance" during the Ethiopian War. They pretty much knew that the British had used them as a bargaining chip to be traded off for concessions from the French. The Italian Navy would be a formidable addition to the Franco-Russian fleets

Spain- much hatred over the British backing of the Americans and the sore is pretty open at the time Not much material left but position? Priceless for shutting down the Mediterranean

To make it interesting we'll need someone to back the British. Japan has a couple of Battleships and three armored cruisers operational but their build up is really just getting started. The Americans have little on hand but, as always, plenty of potential

Japan would be a good addition. They would definitely be plausible.
How would McKinley react?

 

[LordKalvert]

So basically abandon an all but paper thin adherence to the actual history of the period for the sake of playing Great Power Naval Top Trumps?

Not at all. Was responding to a post about a possible Franco-Russian-German coalition war against Britain. In that situation, do you really think that Italy and Spain would do anything but join the continent? What can Britain possibly offer them? How does the British fleet keep the French or the Germans out of Rome?

The British were terrified of a Franco-Italian-Spanish alliance The "Latin League" was seen as perhaps the most formidable coalition that Britain could face

The most difficult part is putting together such a coalition. France and Russia had plenty of quarrels with the British and were allied, so that's not hard. Germany is the wild card. The Germans cooperate with the French and Russians in numerous colonial disputes. The Congo and the Triple Intervention come readily to mind. The Germans don't, however, wish to see British power destroyed but only checked which is always the stumbling block in a Continental league. But once a shooting war starts, German attitudes might change

 

[TimTurner]

There is the point to be made that this is the period before the Alliance system had truly gelled, and if - for example - the two more powerful Continental powers had agreed it was time to deal with one or more of the weakest, Britain would be able to do next to nothing about it; in such a circumstance, it is entirely possible one or more of the other Continental powers would join in, so as to not miss out.

If, at that time, the British attempted to prevent such, it opens the door to multiple Continental powers deciding to join in and take what they can from Britain and/or its Continental proxies.

A Russia+France+Germany is obviously in a stronger position than Britain+Austria+Turkey, for example.

Best,

So basically you could see another partition of Poland?

 

[TFSmith121]

So basically you could see another partition of Poland?

On a continental scale?

Possibly. Not that it was likely in the context of late Nineteenth Century power politics, but Germany, Russia, and France certainly had strategic interests in opposition to Britain, and vice versa. The question is whether the Anglo-French, Anglo-German, and Anglo-Russian rivalries would or could align to the point the similar Continental ones could be subsumed.

Best,

 

[LordKalvert]

Japan would be a good addition. They would definitely be plausible.
How would McKinley react?

Getting the Americans to help is going to be rather hard. Official Anglo-American relations are vastly improved since the Venezuelan crises but popular sentiment still has a large anti-British bent to it. There's always the Irish vote to consider which is violently anti-British. The Jewish vote would be anti-Russian but not that strong yet

The British could also get help from Brazil and Chile who's navies aren't all that shabby Neither is Argentina's though. Argentina would naturally fall into the anti-British faction but might be intimidated by the Brazilian and Chilean Armies

 

[Yanez de Gomera]

The British were terrified of a Franco-Italian-Spanish alliance The "Latin League" was seen as perhaps the most formidable coalition that Britain could face

For real? I would say that a Franco-German-Russian alliance would be much stronger, although rather implausible due to the Alsace-Lorraine question.
Italy is totally dependant on coal imports, could France spare enough Coal for Italy? After 1881 and the "slap of Tunis" Italo-French relations were not at their best. What can Spain offer? Position yes, but could Gibraltar really be taken at the time? The naval balance should still be in British favour in such a scenario, especially after what little the Spanish had gets sunk by the Americans. A Latin league could also mean Germany siding with the UK against France.

 

[TimTurner]

On a continental scale?

Possibly. Not that it was likely in the context of late Nineteenth Century power politics, but Germany, Russia, and France certainly had strategic interests in opposition to Britain, and vice versa. The question is whether the Anglo-French, Anglo-German, and Anglo-Russian rivalries would or could align to the point the similar Continental ones could be subsumed.

Best,

Yeah. Britain would definitely have destroying enemy navies on their to-do-list.

 

[TFSmith121]

Japan would be a good addition. They would definitely be plausible.
How would McKinley react?

The US would presumably remain neutral and engage in commercial trade with the British in return for concessions regarding control of the remaining Western Hemisphere possessions of the hostile European powers. Cash and carry for the British in return for territorial concessions, presumably.

Best,

 

[TimTurner]

For real? I would say that a Franco-German-Russian alliance would be much stronger, although rather implausible due to the Alsace-Lorraine question.
Italy is totally dependant on coal imports, could France spare enough Coal for Italy? After 1881 and the "slap of Tunis" Italo-French relations were not at their best. What can Spain offer? Position yes, but could Gibraltar really be taken at the time? The naval balance should still be in British favour in such a scenario, especially after what little the Spanish had get's sunk by the Americans. A Latin league could also mean Germany siding with the UK against France.

It would depend on how much the Brits would make themselves hated.

 

[TimTurner]

The US would presumably remain neutral and engage in commercial trade with the British in return for concessions regarding control of the remaining Western Hemisphere possessions of the hostile European powers. Cash and carry for the British in return for territorial concessions, presumably.

Best,

Sell arms and goods to both sides and make lots of $$$?