Crimean War: TNG. What if Britain went to war with Russia in 1878?

Disraeli was threatening war with Russia over the results of the Russian-Ottoman War of 1877-78. Eventually Russia relented: Bulgaria got seriously downsized, and the Ottoman Empire in Europe survived for another two generations.

But WI the Russians had not relented? How would Crimean War II have played out, with a much stronger and more advanced Russian Army than in the OTL Crimean War, as well as a not-quite-so-dominant RN, the introduction of torpedoes and mines, and improved lines of communication for the Russians?

In short, UK + Ottomans vs. Russia, 1878. What do you think happens?
 
Britain was commited to defend the Ottoman empire in exchange for Cyprus in 1878. But does France declare war against Russia also? Or is it just Britain and the Ottomans?
Even by this time, the Russian fleet is hardly a match for the Royal Navy. Especially in terms of irod-clads and steam power. Much of the Russian navy is still way behind and they can't match British shipbuilding output at all. So the naval campaign is pretty much settled. Although I'm not sure of the composition of the British army at this exact point.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Disraeli was threatening war with Russia over the results of the Russian-Ottoman War of 1877-78. Eventually Russia relented: Bulgaria got seriously downsized, and the Ottoman Empire in Europe survived for another two generations.

But WI the Russians had not relented? How would Crimean War II have played out, with a much stronger and more advanced Russian Army than in the OTL Crimean War, as well as a not-quite-so-dominant RN, the introduction of torpedoes and mines, and improved lines of communication for the Russians?

In short, UK + Ottomans vs. Russia, 1878. What do you think happens?

The RN is more dominant in this period than in 1854, and the Russian coastal forts are not going to stand any RN bombardment from the heavy rifled guns carried by RN warships. There would be no need for a Crimean campaign for example, as the RN can reduce Sebastapol from the sea.

A much larger British land force could be committed as well, for a short little colonial war with Egypt in 1882 the British landed 42,000 men (vs 28,000 landed in 1854). The British could immediately commit 70 or 80,000 men to a major war, a very large force by contemporary standards, and could rapidly ramp this up to over 200,000.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
The Russians would probably try to stir up trouble for the British along the Northwest Frontier. Contrary to the nightmares of British strategists, however, I do not think the Russians had the logistically ability to launch a serious attack on India.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
The Russians would probably try to stir up trouble for the British along the Northwest Frontier. Contrary to the nightmares of British strategists, however, I do not think the Russians had the logistically ability to launch a serious attack on India.

They had 1,000 miles between Kabul and their nearest base ISTR
 
Britain was commited to defend the Ottoman empire in exchange for Cyprus in 1878. But does France declare war against Russia also? Or is it just Britain and the Ottomans?

Just Britain and France.

Even by this time, the Russian fleet is hardly a match for the Royal Navy. Especially in terms of irod-clads and steam power. Much of the Russian navy is still way behind and they can't match British shipbuilding output at all. So the naval campaign is pretty much settled.

Is it? It's going to be tough when the RN has to deal with mines, and shooting at well-fortified batteries, etc.

Although I'm not sure of the composition of the British army at this exact point.

Me neither.
 
The RN is more dominant in this period than in 1854,

This isn't true. In 1854 Britain had a greater preponderance in steam battleships over other nations than they did battleships in 1878, and a better doctrine for using them. By 1878 the RN, like all other navies of this time, is bereft of real tactics for a line action (even though none might occur, since the Russians will presumably hide in shallow water), is unprepared for even the slightest bit of commerce raiding, and has a motley assortment of battleships that have slow, inaccurate rates of fire and deep draughts, as seen by HMS Sultan's performance against the Huascar and HMS Alexandra's grounding in the Dardanelles enroute to Constantinople in the 1878 crisis.

the Russian coastal forts are not going to stand any RN bombardment from the heavy rifled guns carried by RN warships.

There would be no need for a Crimean campaign for example, as the RN can reduce Sebastapol from the sea.

These are statements I'm leery of. Granted, the late 19th century featured some very nice examples of naval reduction of fortresses. However, it's practically never happened since, and there were actions such as Callao in 1866 where powerful ironclad forces were mangled by shore batteries.

This would all be moot if the Russian batteries are old and decrepit. Does anyone have any information on Russian sea defenses during this period?

A much larger British land force could be committed as well, for a short little colonial war with Egypt in 1882 the British landed 42,000 men (vs 28,000 landed in 1854).

Several thousand of those were, however, ships right off of battleships. These would be unavailable in a war with Russia. I'm nitpicking, though: your point is clear.

The British could immediately commit 70 or 80,000 men to a major war, a very large force by contemporary standards, and could rapidly ramp this up to over 200,000.

Hmmm...but these would be divided between a campaign in the Baltic and a campaign in the Balkans, correct? How many troops could Russia mobilize? I don't doubt that the Russians will be able to outnumber the British troops in any theater...should I? Of course, the Ottomans have to be thrown into the equation.
 
I think the British would win hands down, and not because i love being British so much but because of the skill of the Royal Navy and the British Army's organisation. Just look at the seizure of Egypt, and the campaign against the Emperor Theodore in Ethiopia! Im thinking an attack against Kronstadt and it probably being seized and gutted, quite a humiliating blow to the Russians. France being a republic at this time and not under the control of the anglophile Napoleon III i think would stay neutral, but im not sure about Austria's role.
In Black sea the Royal Navy would hardly find to fight something beyond torpedo boats ( till 1871 Russia was under the Treaty of Paris). And, I agree, the British Army was excellent against medieval armies:D
 

Susano

Banned
Hm, already in the late 1870s there were voies in Germany to have yet again a war with France lest they rise again, but I think Bismarck would go for neutrality...
 
An interesting spin-off of this could be an earlier liberation of Finland. In the first Anglo Russian War, British troops were able to attack Helsinki because the defenses on Suomelinna Sea Fortress to the south of the city were totally ineffective and they hadn't improved much by 1878.
By capturing Helsinki, the RN could reduce Russian influence in the Baltic and perhaps even station a permenant Baltic fleet there to contain any future Russian expansion in that area.
Also, would this war be another Crimean War or simply the second Anglo-Russian War? I suppose it depends where most of the fighting takes place.
 
Top