Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
There'll probably always be a ship or two in refit or repair, however for the RN, perhaps the best news is that there are no R-class ships at all!
In the story, the 1913 battleships are the 'Royals', an economy version of the Queen Elizabeths (OTL design 'X2') ... but they're not all ready yet and they have different drawbacks.

My apologies - trying to keep track of similar ATLs sometimes means I miss a divergence.
 
My apologies - trying to keep track of similar ATLs sometimes means I miss a divergence.
No apology needed ... I haven't exactly oversold that point (but it's about to become rather more relevant).
Besides, sometimes get confused about where I am with my own stories, never mind other people's:)
 
Battle Scouts
Battle Scouts

In the Spring of 1916, changes in the German command prompted a more aggressive posture from the High Seas Fleet, and a renewed study of the options for breaking the deadlock in the North Sea. After the cessation of the unrestricted U-boat campaign against merchant shipping in the late summer of 1915, the pace of naval operations had temporarily slowed. Meanwhile, the surface fleet had been relatively inactive since the Battle of the Dogger Bank, making only a few sweeps out towards the Horns Reef, or to the East of Terschelling in support of minesweeping operations. However, on the 23rd January 1916, the dying Admiral von Pohl was replaced by the vastly more aggressive Admiral Scheer as C-in-C.

Scheer started to build up the confidence and performance of his fleet with a series of wider-ranging sweeps. There was a short, sharp battle between German light forces and British destroyers and minesweepers off the Dogger Bank in February, but it failed to attract the attention of the Grand Fleet in time for German heavy ships to make contact. There was an operation in April to shell Lowestoft, but this too failed to draw the British into action.
In the early hours of 31st May, five ships of Hipper’s 1st Scouting Group left the Jade on a mission to bombard Sunderland, with Goeben being left in dock for repairs to her port turbines. Admiral Scheer followed close behind with the three divisions of the main battlefleet. Intercepted radio signals had forewarned the British, and both Beatty and Jellicoe were already at sea. However, there was no great battle that day. Just hours after they left port, the battlecruiser Derfflinger hit a mine and was forced to turn about. A torpedo attack by British submarine E-23 on the High Seas Fleet failed, but the tracks were spotted and caused Scheer to turn away. When further tracks were spotted a few minutes later, the Admiral suspected a trap, and with only four battlecruisers now serviceable he ordered the fleet to turn south for home.
Perhaps the idea of submarine traps was already in his mind, as he had set one for the British himself, which only a few days earlier had caught and sunk the battlecruiser HMS Indomitable. The German Fleet returned to port to lick its wounds, while Scheer considered different tactics for his next sortie.

-o-

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, a new design of 16” gun was successfully fired for the first time at Aberdeen Proving Ground. Although the USA remained firmly neutral, pressure for an ‘emergency programme’ was growing, to aggressively defend American trade and interests around the globe.
In particular, the Navy was pressing for a full range of new warships, from larger destroyers up to heavy battleships that could mount this powerful new weapon. Battlecruisers were still under consideration, although political pressure meant that only designs with 14” guns were being considered, in an attempt to minimise size and cost. Smaller ‘Battle-scouts’ were also liked in some quarters, although there was some overlap between the two designations. The smallest designs were certainly cruisers, with between eight and twelve 6” guns on displacements up to 11,000 tons. Slightly larger vessels would mount 8” guns instead, while the largest ‘battle-scout’ would displace 22,000 tons and have six 14” 50-cal guns in two triple turrets, making it effectively a battlecruiser.

Japan had plans for larger warships too. Before the war, Vickers had presented designs to the Japanese Navy for vessels with either eight or ten 16” guns, but by the summer of 1916, Captain Hiraga’s design team had come up with their own designs. The one selected by Navy Minister Admiral Kato bore some resemblance to Britain’s ‘Royal’ class fast battleships, which were just starting to enter service. However, the ‘Nagato’ class would be no simple copy of a foreign design, as Hiraga had vastly improved and expanded the ships to allow for higher speed and a new Japanese-designed 16” gun.

-o-

The discussions regarding effective scout forces had a more urgent tone in Britain than in the ambitious, if long-term, plans of the Americans or the Japanese.
Since the indecisive action at Dogger Bank in 1915, the British Battle Cruiser Fleet had been both reinforced and reorganised. The need for maximum speed during a pursuit had led Admiral Beatty to group the five 28-knot ‘Splendid Cats’ together in the 1st BCS, with the 25½ -knot ‘I-class’ ships in 2BCS stationed ahead of them, where they would stand a better chance of being able to engage. Concerns over the protection of the smaller ships after the loss of Inflexible in the Adriatic had subsequently led to them being redeployed as scouts ahead and to the sides of the core of the fleet. There, they would still be well placed to support the main fleet in an action or pursuit, but would also be on hand to support the cruiser squadrons as they forced their way through the enemy’s screen.

As the Germans resumed more aggressive tactics through the spring of 1916, Admiral Beatty became ever more concerned that the slower ‘I-class’ ships might be overwhelmed by the latest German battlecruisers. He knew the Lutzow was operational, and that the Hindenburg couldn’t be far behind. His own fleet would soon be strengthened by two powerful ships, Renown and Repulse, but they would be lightly protected, and pending their arrival he renewed his campaign at the Admiralty to be given the powerful ships of the Fifth Battle Squadron (5BS). Four of the ‘Queen Elizabeths’ had been with him at Rosyth at the time of the abortive German operation in May, and he had lobbied for the transfer to be made permanent. However, it was not until July that Admiral Jellicoe was persuaded of the merits of a new plan involving an exchange of ships that would benefit both the BCF and the Grand Fleet.

The three surviving ‘I-class’ battlecruisers would go to the Grand Fleet, where they could act as faster and more powerful scouts than the current armoured cruisers. In return, four ships of 5BS would join the Battle Cruiser Fleet to provide it with heavy close support.
Jellicoe was unwilling to send all nine of the existing 15” ships south, partly because three of them had only just commissioned, and partly out of fear that the loss would weaken the Grand Fleet. He also knew that having such a powerful force might tempt Beatty into engaging the entire German Fleet on his own.

HMS Invincible and New Zealand moved north in the middle of July, and in return 5BS came south. Jellicoe had been persuaded to temporarily add a fifth ship, the Royal Oak, while HMAS Australia and HMS Indefatigable were being repaired following a collision during an exercise earlier in the month. Indefatigable was scheduled to join the Grand Fleet as soon as she came out of dock, but was delayed by defects found during a brief steaming trial.

She was coaled and ready to sail from Rosyth when the Battlecruiser Fleet received orders to put to sea in the early hours of the 31st July.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Jellicoe was unwilling to send all nine of the existing 15” ships south, partly because three of them had only just commissioned, and partly out of fear that the loss would weaken the Grand Fleet. He also knew that having such a powerful force might tempt Beatty into engaging the entire German Fleet on his own.
Good read on Beatty by Jelicoe. He probably would try and force an engagement on his own
 
Unless...
For a No Ottoman participation World War I, I haven't seen *anything* where the Allies are doing worse than they did iOTL. The two central Powers have even less chance than OTL, if only due to the Russians being able to still trade with the world (much less any troops not lost in fighting the Ottomans).

Therefore a USA "loss" would consist of either not having the UK and France getting nearly as much loans from the Americans *or* (due to butterflies of course) a worse outbreak of Influenza.

And having a single power control most of the world's Oil due to staying neutral would be very difficult to describe as the US losing this war.
 

SsgtC

Banned
For a No Ottoman participation World War I, I haven't seen *anything* where the Allies are doing worse than they did iOTL. The two central Powers have even less chance than OTL, if only due to the Russians being able to still trade with the world (much less any troops not lost in fighting the Ottomans).

Therefore a USA "loss" would consist of either not having the UK and France getting nearly as much loans from the Americans *or* (due to butterflies of course) a worse outbreak of Influenza.

And having a single power control most of the world's Oil due to staying neutral would be very difficult to describe as the US losing this war.
It could also "lose" in the sense that the War drags out longer forcing the US to accept significantly higher casualties than IOTL. That in turn could make the US turn even more inward than they did in OTL and could butterfly American participation in WWII
 
It could also "lose" in the sense that the War drags out longer forcing the US to accept significantly higher casualties than IOTL. That in turn could make the US turn even more inward than they did in OTL and could butterfly American participation in WWII
I've never seen a "No Ottoman" TL in which the war lasted longer than iOTL *or* where the USA was needed to tip the balance toward the Entente at the end. I'd be fascinated by one that did, because Russia is in *so* much better shape if Trade can occur though the Black Sea. It isn't just that the Central Powers are missing the Ottomans, it is that the Russians are no longer kept away from the world market. The AustroHungarians aren't going to make the Med *that* hazardous (Captain Von Trapp, not withstanding) and they aren't in that much worse shape than the French once their shipping passes Sicily.

Yes, the US (and probably Argentina) end up not getting the financial advantage that they got in OTL's WWI, but that doesn't equal losing.
 

Deleted member 94680

For a No Ottoman participation World War I, I haven't seen *anything* where the Allies are doing worse than they did iOTL. The two central Powers have even less chance than OTL, if only due to the Russians being able to still trade with the world (much less any troops not lost in fighting the Ottomans).

Therefore a USA "loss" would consist of either not having the UK and France getting nearly as much loans from the Americans *or* (due to butterflies of course) a worse outbreak of Influenza.

And having a single power control most of the world's Oil due to staying neutral would be very difficult to describe as the US losing this war.

Don’t have to wank it so hard chap, it might fall off.

I was being sarcastic initially. But as you say, an America that lacks OTL’s financial leverage could well find itself in a worse position vis-a-vis the other Great Powers and facing a “closed shop” in the colonial world...
 
For a No Ottoman participation World War I, I haven't seen *anything* where the Allies are doing worse than they did iOTL. The two central Powers have even less chance than OTL, if only due to the Russians being able to still trade with the world (much less any troops not lost in fighting the Ottomans).

Therefore a USA "loss" would consist of either not having the UK and France getting nearly as much loans from the Americans *or* (due to butterflies of course) a worse outbreak of Influenza.

And having a single power control most of the world's Oil due to staying neutral would be very difficult to describe as the US losing this war.

It could also "lose" in the sense that the War drags out longer forcing the US to accept significantly higher casualties than IOTL. That in turn could make the US turn even more inward than they did in OTL and could butterfly American participation in WWII
I've never seen a "No Ottoman" TL in which the war lasted longer than iOTL *or* where the USA was needed to tip the balance toward the Entente at the end. I'd be fascinated by one that did, because Russia is in *so* much better shape if Trade can occur though the Black Sea. It isn't just that the Central Powers are missing the Ottomans, it is that the Russians are no longer kept away from the world market. The AustroHungarians aren't going to make the Med *that* hazardous (Captain Von Trapp, not withstanding) and they aren't in that much worse shape than the French once their shipping passes Sicily.

Yes, the US (and probably Argentina) end up not getting the financial advantage that they got in OTL's WWI, but that doesn't equal losing.

Sorry to possibly disappoint a bit, but we're in danger of over-analysing what was intended as a pithy reply to a rather one-sided post.
Perhaps 'nobody won' would be equally accurate, if we're sticking to a two-word description of the result of the Great War (and in terms of effort:result ratio, I'd say that Japan did better out of the war than the USA).

Turning back to the what-ifs of the story, naraht is thinking along the right lines. The Russians are better off, the Austrians are worse off. Not much observable difference for the French, Italians, Germans or British so far. The Ottomans won't like Russian war materials freely sailing through the Bospherous, but they'll bide their time and not do anything about it, particularly if it's (mostly) in British/French ships.
Hopefully a theme of relatively sensible German behavior has come across so far, and that will continue.
I can't say too much more at this stage, but given these conditions, a longer war seems highly improbable.
 
Sorry to possibly disappoint a bit, but we're in danger of over-analysing what was intended as a pithy reply to a rather one-sided post.
Perhaps 'nobody won' would be equally accurate, if we're sticking to a two-word description of the result of the Great War (and in terms of effort:result ratio, I'd say that Japan did better out of the war than the USA).

Turning back to the what-ifs of the story, naraht is thinking along the right lines. The Russians are better off, the Austrians are worse off. Not much observable difference for the French, Italians, Germans or British so far. The Ottomans won't like Russian war materials freely sailing through the Bospherous, but they'll bide their time and not do anything about it, particularly if it's (mostly) in British/French ships.
Hopefully a theme of relatively sensible German behavior has come across so far, and that will continue.
I can't say too much more at this stage, but given these conditions, a longer war seems highly improbable.
I'd agree that Japan did better out of the war than the USA,

War Materiel isn't the issue with the Russians, the Russians had a considerable amount of crops (mostly grains) that simply rotted in storehouses since they weren't able to sell them to their normal customers in Western Europe. Note, that while this did make some American farmers richer, it also led to expansion of American farming into lands that were of dubitable worth most years. Once the war ended, these were among the areas that were hit the worst by the dustbowl. Keep the Straits open, let the Russian sell wheat on the open market, and the US dustbowl effects aren't as bad.

For the Russians, keep the luxuries that flowed from being able to sell goods internationally *and* have them do better with only two enemies on their boundaries and *maybe* the Tsar can hold on through the end of the war...

Also, with the Bulgarians in the war, travelling the Black Sea isn't all wine and roses...
 
Don’t have to wank it so hard chap, it might fall off.

I was being sarcastic initially. But as you say, an America that lacks OTL’s financial leverage could well find itself in a worse position vis-a-vis the other Great Powers and facing a “closed shop” in the colonial world...
But the US will still be better off than it was in 1913 vis-a-vis the remainder of the great powers.
 

Deleted member 94680

But the US will still be better off than it was in 1913 vis-a-vis the remainder of the great powers.

Granted, but not in the position of where (especially British) resistance to their ascendency was practically futile.
 
Order of Battle 31st July 1916
Order of Battle, 31st July 1916


Royal Navy

Battle Cruiser Fleet – 6 Battlecruisers, 5 Fast Battleships


HMS Lion (Fleet flagship Vice Admiral Beatty) leads 1BCS

1BCS - Queen Mary (Flag R-Adm Cradock), Panther, Princess Royal, Repulse

5BS - Barham (Flag R-Adm Evan-Thomas), Malaya, Valiant, Warspite, Royal Oak

Indefatigable (nominally '2BCS', cruising station ahead of 1BCS)

1LCS – Galatea, Phaeton, Inconstant, Cordelia

2LCS – Southampton, Birmingham, Nottingham, Dublin

3LCS – Falmouth, Yarmouth, Birkenhead, Gloucester

1st, 19th Destroyer Flotillas, Units of Harwich Force
Seaplane Carrier Engadine.


Grand Fleet – 23 Battleships, 2 Battlecruisers

HMS Iron Duke (Fleet flagship Admiral Jellicoe), stationed ahead of Monarch

2BS – Ajax (Flag V-Adm Jerram), King George V, Centurion, Orion, Monarch, Conqueror, Thunderer

4BS – Superb (Flag V-Adm De Robeck), Newfoundland, Bellerophon, Temeraire, Emperor of India, Vanguard, Royal William

1BS – Colossus (Flag V-Adm Burney), Royal Sovereign, Collingwood, St Vincent, Neptune, Marlborough, Hercules, Dreadnought

3BCS – Invincible (Flag V-Adm Sturdee, also V-Adm commanding cruiser forces), New Zealand

1CS - Cochrane, Warrior, Duke of Edinburgh

2CS – Minotaur, Shannon, Defence, Black Prince

4LCS – Comus, Caroline, Royalist, Chatham

4th, 11th, 12th Destroyer Flotillas
Seaplane Carrier Campania
Relay ships and C-in-C's private tender – Cruisers: Boadicea, Active, Blanche, Destroyer: Oak


Notes and key differences:
-HMS Panther is the 1911 battlecruiser and is a sister-ship to Queen Mary.
-Royal Oak, Royal William, Royal Sovereign are ‘Royal’ class fast battleships of the 1913 programme, equivalent to design ‘X2’ – a cheaper version of the Queen Elizabeths. It had a 12” belt, less powerful machinery but was longer and was still designed for 25 knots ‘on overload’.
-HMS Newfoundland is the ex-Chilean Latorre.
-HMS Repulse is described <in this post>; she’s a ‘Sabre-toothed Cat’ with eight 15” guns and a 6” armour belt, capable of 31 knots.
-HMS Benbow, HMS Queen Elizabeth, HMAS Australia are in dock.
-HMS Canada exists, but is a Royal-class battleship only just commissioned and did not sail with Jellicoe.


Imperial German Navy

Scouting Force – 6 Battlecruisers


I SG - SMS Lutzow (Fleet flagship V-Adm Hipper), Derfflinger, Seydlitz, Moltke, Goeben, Von der Tann

II SG – Frankfurt (Flag R-Adm Boedicker), Elbing, Pillau, Wiesbaden

2nd, 6th, 9th Torpedo Boat Flotillas


High Seas Fleet – 17 Battleships, 6 Pre-Dreadnoughts

SMS Bayern (Fleet Flagship Adm Scheer), stationed behind Konig

III Geschwader – Grosser Kurfurst (Flag R-Adm Behncke), Markgraf, Kronprinz, Konig, Kaiser, Kaiserin, Friedrich der Grosse, Konig Albert

I Geschwader – Ostfriesland (Flag V-Adm Souchon), Thuringen, Helgoland, Oldenburg, Nassau, Posen, Rheinland, Westfalen

II Geschwader – Deutschland (Flag R-Adm Mauve), Hessen, Pommern, Hannover, Schleisen, Schleswig-Holstein

IV SG – Stettin, Munchen, Fraunlob, Stuttgart, Hamburg

1st, 3rd, 6th, 7th Torpedo Boat Flotillas


Notes and key differences:
-Prinzregent Luitpold is in dock, all other major German ships are present.
-Goeben made it home at the beginning to the story.
-Bayern is present and is the same ship as in reality.
 
Last edited:
Well chaps, Der Tag has finally dawned.
All I can say is ... no matter what happens, it will be a long afternoon for Jellicoe.
 
Top