Probably not. In the 1880s - very soon after this date - the British Mediterranean Fleet bombarded and captured Alexandria. Their ironclads took several direct hits but those hits did not destroy (or even seriously damage) the ships in question, and the bombardment took one day to achieve its objective including capturing all the forts.I imagine Russian coastal guns and Ottoman sea defences reused by the Russians would make it difficult for a British fleet to truly besiege the city.
Probably not. In the 1880s - very soon after this date - the British Mediterranean Fleet bombarded and captured Alexandria. Their ironclads took several direct hits but those hits did not destroy (or even seriously damage) the ships in question, and the bombardment took one day to achieve its objective including capturing all the forts.
Russia isn't Egypt.By 1870,France couldn't even invade North Germany by sea due to coastal artillery.Probably not. In the 1880s - very soon after this date - the British Mediterranean Fleet bombarded and captured Alexandria. Their ironclads took several direct hits but those hits did not destroy (or even seriously damage) the ships in question, and the bombardment took one day to achieve its objective including capturing all the forts.
The French navy of 1870 was not impressive... and besides, we're talking about the defences of Konstantiniyye not that of Russia.Russia isn't Egypt.By 1870,France couldn't even invade North Germany by sea due to coastal artillery.
Army artillery in the 1880s is of a completely different scale to coast guns.You know more than I, but are Istanbul and Alexandria comparable? Especially an Instanbul occupied by a Russian army with artillery that could be used to bolster defenses?
The French navy of 1870 was not impressive... and besides, we're talking about the defences of Konstantiniyye not that of Russia.
Army artillery in the 1880s is of a completely different scale to coast guns.
At Alexandria, the defence had 37 rifled guns, 204 smoothbores (including 10 500pdrs) and 31 mortars (including 6 15in and 10 20in). The Royal Navy had 80 rifled muzzle-loading guns, of which only 20 were greater than 10in calibre and only 43 could bear on a broadside. Firing began at 7:07AM, and by 5PM every fort was in the hands of a British landing party.
While this doesn't say that the British could capture Konstantiniyye in a day (certainly not with the navy alone), it suggests that unless the sea defences of Constantinople were more formidable than the Alexandria ones they will not be much of a problem, and nor will any guns the Russians can bring in in a timely fashion to bolster the defences.
Thus, after a few days at most of firing, Konstantiniyye is essentially a city defended by an army - not one that can keep a navy at any great distance.
The French navy was the second largest navy in 1870 and was in many ways much better than the British one .But otherwise,I agree with your point that the Russians most likely won't have much time to fortify Constantiniople against the British.Nonetheless,as I've mentioned,I think the British would need a much bigger army than they have as well as a lot of allies.The French navy of 1870 was not impressive... and besides, we're talking about the defences of Konstantiniyye not that of Russia.
Army artillery in the 1880s is of a completely different scale to coast guns.
At Alexandria, the defence had 37 rifled guns (5 10in RML, 18 9in RML, 12 8in RML, and 2 7in RML), 204 smoothbores (including 10 500pdrs) and 31 mortars (including 6 15in and 10 20in). The Royal Navy had 80 rifled muzzle-loading guns, of which only 20 were greater than 10in calibre and only 43 could bear on a broadside. Firing began at 7:07AM, and by 5PM every fort was in the hands of a British landing party.
While this doesn't say that the British could capture Konstantiniyye in a day (certainly not with the navy alone), it suggests that unless the sea defences of Constantinople were more formidable than the Alexandria ones they will not be much of a problem, and nor will any guns the Russians can bring in in a timely fashion to bolster the defences - field guns at this time are 3" guns or less and the Russian siege train will take a while to re-emplace in any kind of bunker or fort.
Thus, after a few days at most of firing, Konstantiniyye is essentially a city defended by an army - not one that can keep a navy at any great distance.
Basically I'm making that assumption because I can't find any evidence otherwise, AND because the scale of defences of Alexandria is quite large for the period.As I said, you know more about the military side of it than I. Although you do seem to just be assuming that the defenses are comparable in size and scale - I don't know either way.
The British wouldn't necessarily have to land troops to secure the forts if they can neutralize them with bombardment first, though - indeed, the ironclads could simply steam right through if none of the defending guns can harm them significantly. I'm simply arguing that, since the British at Alexandria defeated some quite modern defences with pretty casual ease, then the position cannot necessarily be made that the Russian-captured Ottoman forts will be able to stop the British navy from mattering here. Especially since the British might show up before the Russians even arrive!My point about field artillery was that it could, and would, be used against landing forces that the British would have to drop onto the coast to secure these forts before moving on the city itself. Maybe they won't harm ironclads, or even reach them, but they could reek havoc among the small craft ferrying soldiers and marines to shore.
The British sent a fleet of battleships to intimidate Russia from entering the city, and Russian forces stopped at San Stefano.
Basically I'm making that assumption because I can't find any evidence otherwise, AND because the scale of defences of Alexandria is quite large for the period.
(Frankly, if a major British victory against coast defences within five years of the time period under examination isn't evidence that they could handle coastal defences roughly, you have to ask what kind of burden of proof the British would have to fulfil... especially when the assumption is also being made that the Russians who OTL had trouble with the Ottoman army could handle "the Ottoman army plus fifty thousand or so highly skilled British regulars")
Yes, and I understand that - my reasons for raising Alexandria were:Except I'm not arguing that your proposed course of events is wrong or doesn't constitute proof (although I would argue that the nature of alternate history means that there is no certainty that such an attack would work as you argue - but I agree on the likelihood of success as you lay it out). What I've been trying to point out is that the British bombarding and maybe taking Istanbul from the Russians does not solve the OP's question. What happens next, the politics and alliance-shifting of the period, is more important.
The OP asked would Britain or Russia win the war.
Yes, and I understand that - my reasons for raising Alexandria were:
1) People often don't know it happened at all.
2) It's a good example of how coastal defences in the time period were not invulnerable.
3) "Russian coastal guns and Ottoman sea defences would make it difficult for a British fleet to besiege the city" - the point you'd made which I wanted to contest.
But alliance shifting is going to be heavily against Russia as a hell of a lot of people would not want to see Constantinople in her hands. Add in the fact that Russians are already operating at the reach of their logistical capacity while they have advanced towards British bases and the Russians have innumerable problems.
As for allies, the Ottoman Empire during the later 19th century managed to avoid being dismembered because every major European country was too worried that, if the Ottomans fell, one of their rivals would end up getting more than them. Russia charging in and capturing Constantinople would completely upset the balance of the region, leading the possibility of exactly the sort of free-for-all the great powers were worried about. If the British decided to help the Turks kick the Russians back out, I'd expect most of Europe to be at least benevolently neutral, and quite possibly to join in themselves.
I agree - I was never saying that the Russians would win. Just that British naval supremacy in the region, making Istanbul difficult to capture/hold for the Russians does not equal a verdict on final victory itself. My point was just that wider factors needed to be considered, and that Russia was not as weak in 1878 as it was in 1854 (nor Britain, at the outset, as strong).
Except that relatively speaking the British are stronger than they were in 1854, especially when it comes to rapid deployment land forces and the capacity to maintain them.