Germany concentrates solely on submarines before and during WW1, and does not build up an ultimately useless surface fleet?
is this too improbable?
is this too improbable?
I'm guessing the butterflies don't reach as far as stopping WW1....It may not be entirely impossible, but the big question will be what the other powers do as a response to it. They WILL find out, sooner rather than later, although without a demonstration such as WW1 they may not fully appreciate what a large submarine fleet is capable of.
There are also some things that submarines aren't very good at, and one of them is tying together a colonial empire. Germany pre-WW1 certainly looked like it was trying to create something like that. Focusing entirely on subs would effectively put them out of the power-projection business and mean their maritime commerce was dependent on the goodwill of others, at least until it was proved that subs could defend it as well as cruisers.
1) the other power probably laugh at the “huns”, until they start starving in war war 1, that isSo to my mind, the big questions are:
1) What will the other powers do as a response to this?
and
2) How will this affect Germany's position, economically and internationally?
In the decade leadiing up to WW1 the sub was an experimental weapon, not the sort of thing you build a fleet around. In contrast the battleship was the linear descendant of ships such as USS Monitor and HMS Warrior of 50 years before and them of HMS Victory 110 years and HMS Revenge 325 years before. They were exactly what you built your fleet around, centuries of experience that gunned ships were the arbiter of sea power.
They'd almost certainly resort to a regular campaign of mining and bombarding every harbor that could serve as a sub base. Pretty tough on the civilians, but so be it. And with no German surface fleet (to speak of) to oppose, resources could be diverted to an increased number of ASW vessels and (eventually) aircraft. Subs in those days were not true underwater warships; they were more like surface vessels that could submerge at need. So they were vulnerable to the right sort of attack. If anything, the changed military demands might actually accelerate the development of things like naval aircraft and sonar.So to my mind, the big questions are:
1) What will the other powers do as a response to this?
They'd almost certainly resort to a regular campaign of mining and bombarding every harbor that could serve as a sub base. Pretty tough on the civilians, but so be it. And with no German surface fleet (to speak of) to oppose, resources could be diverted to an increased number of ASW vessels and (eventually) aircraft. Subs in those days were not true underwater warships; they were more like surface vessels that could submerge at need. So they were vulnerable to the right sort of attack. If anything, the changed military demands might actually accelerate the development of things like naval aircraft and sonar.
It is clear that the notion of a surface fleet would have to go. However, despite Germany having a range of capable battleships, they were designed for the North Sea (as far as I know).
However, is it comparable to what Guderian proposed doing? ...........................Surely Guderian's tactics were there for a lot to see and it was spoken about in books before he pulled it together. The tanks were just as "experimental" at that stage (1930's).
Germany concentrates solely on submarines before and during WW1, and does not build up an ultimately useless surface fleet?
is this too improbable?
That the major navies did not perceive the submarine as worthwhile may indeed just prove the point. Paradigm shift somehow.
Look at the aircraft carriers. The "black shoe" sailors were not in favour of those things detractng for a good ol' battleships with good 14" guns. Well, something happened.
Maybe the UK approaches, the channel and the North Sea were much more suited to submarines with (admitted) a faster development cycle. One Bayern less and 40 more submarines would perhaps be felt.
Alos look at the Harwich Force in WWI. light cruisers and destroyers with a far more impressive record than the entire HSF and Home Fleet.
Now, nobody claims that a small submarine force could defeat the entire Home Fleet. However, it is amazing to see that just the thought of submarines in the water forced Jellicho's hand at Jutland.
So, the mere thouight of submarines, let alone the actual presence, was a factor.
As much as the submarine was experimental in WWI, it was a proven weapon from 1917/8. A focus on its development very early with the submariens of 1917/8 being available in 1914 must have been a factor.
I really thought that the modern tank design really came together in 1936/7/8 after the Panzer I and II's. Panzer IV was sort of the finished design. The T-34 was not perfected before 1940's. Panzer VI and KV-II could be said to be the ultimate design and that was 1942's.
Maybe not experimental but Guderian, looking at tactiscs and reading a lot of (UK) books, got it right. However, he really got it right in 1941 in Russia I believe. France, despite its success, was still a bit of a test bed I believe.
Poland was much more traditional (soldiers marching or horse transport).
The major point here is, the HSF did not do anything in WWI. Maybe the submarines could.
Ivan
Look at the aircraft carriers. The "black shoe" sailors were not in favour of those things detractng for a good ol' battleships with good 14" guns. Well, something happened.