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

[steamboy]

UPDATE on the assessment of the Garibaldis - apparently Jane's and Renao Sicurezza agree that the belt was Harvey (making it equivalent to 12" of wrought iron). This means that the British 12" 35-ton RML gun could penetrate it at battle range, and that some British 6" guns could penetrate it at battle range too (2,000 yards) though the 6" QF gun was not among them.

So no - worthwhile ship, harder to sink than a PrC of the same rough size and armament, but not a revolution. I suspect part of the reason they were so effective when used by Japan is that the Japanese gun crews were so good and that the Russian fleet was rubbish. (e.g. so overloaded that the belt was underwater.)


And while I'm at it:


Very much so. The first Marceau was ordered in 7 Oct 1880, laid down two years later and commissioned in 1892. The Marceau was ordered well before the Admiral class and commissioned barely ahead of the Royal Sovereigns.

I've done some reading about the Russo/Japanese War, the really only modern units of the Russian fleet were the Borodino's (great name, terrible ships, like the worst of their generation) they were the only truely modern units with equal guns to the IJN's. The other ships were mostly older vessels with older guns with weaker shells, lower muzzle velocities etc etc. And because these guns were older types they lacked the range of the IJN's ships.

The IJN also took Captain Scott's love of long range gunnery and really ran with it, smart considering they guessed they would be outumbered. In 1906 they were firing at about 8000 yards at the most. In 1899 - 1900 that range is simply unthinkable. Maybe, MAYBE 4000 yards at the most, but everyone for the most part trained to fight at 2000 yards OR LESS (the RN was still training its men to use the Cutlass for gods sake :s ) and at those kind of ranges, the guns of the time WILL penetrate armour.

 

[Ryan]

So the Germans are reckless enough to risk a war with Britain over Samoa without allies is worth considering, but a Germany that is prudent enough to line up an alliance that is all of one nation off from the DreiKaiser alignment is not?

Yeah, okay.

Best,

in another thread about that yes, but in this thread the OP is asking about a situation where Germany escalates with Britain over the Samoa crisis to the point of war. a hypothetical alliance by Germany involving the whole of Europe would have to be established before the crisis, which is thus before the POD.

 

[Saphroneth]

Here's something kind of funny.

The 1897 Spithead naval review was the largest concentration of RN power in one place before the Grand Fleet.


Battleships
First class: 18/34
Second class: 7/12
Third class: 5/11
Total: 30/57

Cruisers
Armoured: 9/18
First class: 10/21
Second class: 34/56
Third class: 5/53
Total: 58/148

It says a lot when you could completely obliterate this with a very big meteorite and the RN would still be the largest navy in the world (with 27 BB including 16 1st class and 90 cruisers.)


Thus, assuming no German alliance with General Zod (KNEEL BEFORE WIHLELM?) the naval war is very one sided and the main questions are about how much attacking of ports the British do.

 

[steamboy]

in another thread about that yes, but in this thread the OP is asking about a situation where Germany escalates with Britain over the Samoa crisis to the point of war. a hypothetical alliance by Germany involving the whole of Europe would have to be established before the crisis, which is thus before the POD.

And such an alliance would cause a British reaction as well, and probably a far larger RN and army. But I guess whilst the Germans are building Der Anti-Englander Klub (no tommies allowed) the British ram their heads in the sand screaming out god save the queen (backwards) and ignore whats going on.

 

[TFSmith121]

in another thread about that yes, but in this thread the OP is asking about a situation where Germany escalates with Britain over the Samoa crisis to the point of war. a hypothetical alliance by Germany involving the whole of Europe would have to be established before the crisis, which is thus before the POD.

Okay, but do you see where the suspension of disbelief problem comes in? Why are the Germans in 1900 so reckless, other than "just because?"

If the answer is its the OP's post, and they get to set the ground rules, than why bother? Isn't the whole point in discussing these ideas to, you know, discuss them? Especially when it comes to completely ahistorical and frankly atypical behavior by one of the supposed players.

Or is it just to say "yep, you're right, if the Germans were foolish enough to go to war then, they'd lose?"

Seriously, if so, what's the point?

This is an open forum; the idea, presumably, is to allow ideas to be discussed and challenged and defended.

Best,

 

[Ryan]

Which raises the question as to why post on a discussion board if one doesn't want, you know, discussion.

Best,

how isn't there discussion? the people who aren't trying to turn the thread into an ASB mind controlled Europe brit screw are discussing how a war as laid out by the op would turn out and what would likely happen. yes it requires Germany to act stupidly, but that's what the op asks so we're answering it.

 

[TFSmith121]

And such an alliance would cause a British reaction as well, and probably a far larger RN and army. But I guess whilst the Germans are building Der Anti-Englander Klub (no tommies allowed) the British ram their heads in the sand screaming out god save the queen (backwards) and ignore whats going on.

As opposed to the Germans ramming their heads into the sand in 1900 over a war for Samoa?

Either both sides are equally rational or both sides are equally idiotic. Setting up one and not the other in either case is rather unrealistic, is it not?

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

how isn't there discussion? the people who aren't trying to turn the thread into an ASB mind controlled Europe brit screw are discussing how a war as laid out by the op would turn out and what would likely happen. yes it requires Germany to act stupidly, but that's what the op asks so we're answering it.

So if the OP requires the Germans to act stupidly, doesn't that strike you as a trifle unrealistic and even ahistorical?

If that's what the OP intended, then simply handwave it all and give the RN Trident SLBMs...

Best,

 

[RodentRevolution]

As opposed to the Germans ramming their heads into the sand in 1900 over a war for Samoa?

Either both sides are equally rational or both sides are equally idiotic. Setting up one and not the other in either case is rather unrealistic, is it not?

Best,

We were asked what would most likely happen if Germany went to war over the Samoa question. We have explained why this would be a surprisingly bad idea. Your argument is that if the Germans were to choose to be idiots then the British have to become idiots too. This only works in your world view...should the Germans have chosen to be foolish they would have simply learned why they were foolish.

As to your further post people were asked a question and they explained. The explanation shows why the Germans would have been foolish to go to war but it is not a foolish question to ask as however else would the OP learn this save by asking questions on the subject? Just because not every question results in the British surrendering through sheer cowardice or being massacred through sheer incompetence does not in fact render them invalid questions.

There are a reason why things did not happen and that thread attempts to explore some of the reasons why Germany did not go to war over Samoa.

 

[steamboy]

Well its ASB that the Germans are going to go GOTT IN HIMMEL! And then biff britain over Samoa and declare war. Its not a major enough incident unless the folks on the scene started shooting at each other for 'reasons' and then it just escalates as both sides point blank refuse to back down.

Its at this point that dgsdjilgedgjilse gwtgwstgsgww25252twjwjgj the ASB then waves his magic thorax and makes ALL OF EUROPE along with Russia look at the UK and go "You....." and then decide to join the germans in this sudden and totally pointless war over some islands that were never worth going to war over.

Otherwise for this to happen in any way realistically is going to take years of work and somehow make the French forget about the whole Franco Prussian war thing (hint. they won't) and get Spain to somehow join in after its just been humiliated by a 2nd rate power (hint, they wont). And as the Germans start doing this, the UK would react, forming alliances of its own as well as building up its defences even more so. Unless all of Europe goes FUCK THE BRITS!!!!!! literally overnight, the UK would take steps to try make friends of its own as well as build up defences.

 

[Ryan]

Okay, but do you see where the suspension of disbelief problem comes in? Why are the Germans in 1900 so reckless, other than "just because?"
Best,

I agree that it's an unrealistic scenario, but I don't see why you're dragging even more unrealism into it.

are you doing it because you think the scenarios already so unrealistic that it doesn't matter if you add more unrealism like a Europe wide coalition targeting Britain, or do you genuinely think that its realistic for the whole of Europe to suddenly attack Britain in 1899?

 

[steamboy]

The Governments of the time did know how to back down. Look at the Dogger Bank crisis, when the Russians accidentally fired on British fishing boats. It was a national outrage, the press howled for blood and there was even protests outside the Russian embassy, the fleet was mobilized and the the Goverment and Fisher went "WAit..this is kind of serious now....how close are we to a shooting war with Russia? 7 Minutes...right...lets back off a bit shall we?"

 

[Deleted member 94680]

I, for one, don't have a problem with the scenario as posited. When Wilhelm II is in charge, anything was possible. If the Germans decided to escalate the Samoan Crisis for whatever reason (that's the responsibility of the writer) then so be it.

However

Where it gets... stupid, shall we say? Is then deciding that all the countries of Europe would coalition against Britain just to handwave away the RN's numerical, technical and tactical superiority.

Granted, a Germany that would want to go to war with Britain in 1900 would need an ally with a navy to combat the RN. However, in 1900 that isn't going to be France (further POD aside) and if it is Russia, that pretty much excludes Austria (granted, you could have a reborn dreikaiserbund, but more POD) so the options are limited.


Or, when discussing the scenario as posted where Germany declares on Britain in 1900 as things stand OTL, then it's a British win and the Empire gains a few more colonies IMHO.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

"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"

The French torpedo boats were mostly concentrated on the Med with their eyes set firmly on Malta. As was most of the French cruiser fleet which was based at Touloun. The sheer material abudance of the RN is obscene, they outnumbered every navy worth a damn combined. They had bases all over the world and this gave them a HUGE strategic advantage. If someone wanted to cause havoc in the atlantic with cruisers. Namely france, then they have to get out and then go cruising hunting for individual targets whilst blitzing through coal. Triple expansion engines are not that efficient and tended to be quite fuel hungry. Lets use the French as an example.

Because of the absolute chaos in their naval ministry which was caused by the idiocy of the Jeune Ecole, their ships were very often utterly obsolete when launched, with massive building times (a decade in quite a few cases, the RN was able to fart out a Royal Soverign in 18 months) The older French ships had older guns, boilers and armour. Lets take a look at one of the main ships of the MN at the time.

Marceau Class battleship.

3 guns on a broadside but their propellant was an older generation due to the age of their guns, and wasn't that different to the black powder propellant of Nelson's era. They had cylindrical compound boilers which were far less efficient because again, they were of a previous generation. They took over a decade to build 1 ship, and of the class, each one was different because they were built at different yards who seemingly looked at the plans went 'HON HON HON FUCK IT' and built something LIKE what the plans were with their own take on it.

The torpedoboats of the time were not good. Nor were their torpedoes. Seriously if the MN threw its torpedo boats at the RN the RN could just turn away and go to flank speed. at about 18 knots with a torpedo boat doing 21 - 23 you're overtaking so slowly whilst under fire from the BB's guns. And lets not forget the RN went destroyer crazy (thank you Fisher) as they were to 'destroy' the french torpedo boats.

Assuming that the whole world does an immitation of most of this thread and suddenly dogpiles the British because of some squabble in a place that 3/4 of them can't find on a map, the RN is not going to go and snort powdered glass and say 'leave the destroyers at home lads' But then again its this forum and making the British or Allies be about as smart as a brain damaged spaniel, (usually to help those poor spunky underdogs the Nazis who would have won if not for that nasty Mr Hitler) is very much in vogue...

To that I'd add, are some of these navies going to get their ships to sea in the first place? because I suspect that many of these navies would have been running on Welsh steaming coal, which AFIAK was the best coal available at the time. I don't have the figures to back it up, but I suspect that at least the French and Italians (who had little or no coal of their own) were importing it from the UK and that it was carried in British colliers.

AFAIK had more than 50% of the world's merchant fleet in 1900 and that is another reason why a maritime war would have been one sided. I don't have the figures to back it up, but I suggest that a lot of the seaborne trade of the Continental nations was still carried in British merchant ships. If that is correct then withdrawing these ships can reduce their seaborne trade without introducing a formal blockade astheir own merchant marines aren't large enough to make up the lost capacity. E.g. IIRC over half of Italy's seaborne trade was still carried by British ships in 1940 even though a lot of it wasn't between Italy and British controlled territory.

However, the shipping lines would probably be at the head of the peace party to get the lost business back. And it could accelerate the relative decline of the British merchant navy because the countries the UK was fighting would want greater self-sufficiency in merchant shipping so they were better prepared for the next war. This would have also reduced British invisible earnings.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Although I think that the Royal Navy of 1900 was the best in terms of the quality of its ships, personnel, administration, tactics, strategy and you name it, basically, the war would reveal deficiencies in all. However, the lessons would be learned and the necessary corrections quickly implemented in the same way that the British Army of the OTL World War One had benefitted from the experience of the Boer War. One of the lessons might be the earlier formation of the Naval Staff and it might not take as long to get it working properly.

I think a good example of how an Anglo-German war might go, whether or not the Germans have any allies is the Russo-Japanese War. The technology was about the same, the Imperial Japanese Navy was effectively a diminutive version of the Royal Navy as it was trained and equipped by the British while AFAIK the Russians copied the French.

 

[LordKalvert]

Well whatever the board of advisors were who shut down the Tsar's little scheme for an alliance with Germany.

That's the myth. Actually the Tsar had insisted on France adhering to it all along. Nicholas room for maneuver in 1905 is a bit less than 1900 but he's not being pressured or overruled by anyone

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

That's the myth. Actually the Tsar had insisted on France adhering to it all along. Nicholas room for maneuver in 1905 is a bit less than 1900 but he's not being pressured or overruled by anyone

It's not my area of expertise, but my understanding is that the Alliance of the Three Emperors and the Reinsurance Treaty between Germany and Russia were allowed to lapse by Wilhelm II. Is that correct?

 

[Beedok]

That's the myth. Actually the Tsar had insisted on France adhering to it all along. Nicholas room for maneuver in 1905 is a bit less than 1900 but he's not being pressured or overruled by anyone

What myth? He and the Kaiser signed an alliance an it was overturned. The Franco-Russian alliance that was the reason Bjorko was blocked by all his advisors.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

It's not my area of expertise, but my understanding is that the Alliance of the Three Emperors and the Reinsurance Treaty between Germany and Russia were allowed to lapse by Wilhelm II. Is that correct?

Kind of. Once Wilhelm sacked Bismarck the foreign secretary post became more important (Bismarck tended to do it all himself via-a-vis foreign relations, so the FS was kind of a figurehead for the department) the replacement in 1890 was new in post and kind of ineffectual, so the under-secretary - a guy named Holstein, who was anti-Russian - drafted a note to go with the renewal of the reinsurance treaty explaining why it should lapse. Wilhelm II read the note and went along with it, the idea they didn't need Russia becoming dogma to him (as he was wont to do, getting a new idea and then holding on to it completely).

 

[CalBear]

Regarding the question of probability -

Is it more probable that:

The Kaiser (who had already established a reputation for being fond of the leap/look system) would allow a incident to accelerate out of control.

OR

The combined states of continental Europe, all of whom have competing interests (and relatively recent warfare resulting loss of territory) would suddenly coalesce into a grand alliance to go after the UK.

The answer seems fairly clear in that one option only requires one idiot and the other requires at least three, perhaps up to five idiots, agreeing to do something that benefits NONE of them and will almost certainly result in them losing many of the overseas colonies once the RN blows the vastly inferior fleets to Mars.