German Naval Laws, a WI.

[corditeman]

Thank you... I hope...

Submarine warfare was much discussed but only became real after the Great War began - there had been arguments that these 'underwater torpedo boats' were so vulnerable that destroying their periscopes would put them out of action.

Here is the first submarine torpedo sinking :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Pathfinder_(1904)

HMS Pathfinder was the lead ship of the Pathfinder class scout cruisers, and was the first ship ever to be sunk by a torpedo fired by submarine (the American Civil War ship USS Housatonic had been sunk by a spar torpedo). She was built by Cammell Laird, Birkenhead, launched on 16 July 1904, and commissioned on 18 July 1905. She was originally to have been named HMS Fastnet, but was renamed prior to construction.

Not long after completion, two additional 12 pounder guns were added and the 3 pounder guns were replaced with six 6 pounder guns. In 1911-12 they were rearmed with nine 4 inch guns. Pathfinder spent her early career with the Atlantic Fleet, Channel Fleet (1906) and then the Home Fleet (1907). At the start of the First World War she was part of the 8th Destroyer Flotilla based at Rosyth in the Firth of Forth.
Pathfinder was sunk off St. Abbs Head, Berwickshire, Scotland, on Saturday 5 September 1914 by the German U-21, commanded by Leutnant zur See Otto Hersing. Typical of the scout cruisers' poor endurance, she was so short of coal whilst on patrol that she could only manage a speed of 5 knots, making her an easy target.[citation needed] The ship was struck in a magazine, which exploded causing the ship to sink within minutes with the loss of 259 men.

What it means is that submarines could be regarded just as a cheap way of deploying ocean-going torpedo-boats to defend not just commerce but Germany's far-flung colonies. Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_German_colonies which has a section on German Imperial Colonies. In Africa and the Pacific the Kaiser had some excellent colonies and could say that he feared an attempt at a takeover by French in Africa or Japanese in the Pacific - or even by the USA, which controlled Guam and might have seized the other Marianas Islands.

Long shot, maybe, but a U-boat would be a potent protection for Tsingtao from the Chinese and Japanese Navies.

 

[stevep]

Shadow Master

Hi. I agree with some of the comments that the ships you're planning are probably too small - albeit not a great expert on naval design myself. Especially for extended range you need size, both to provide fuel and crew habitability.

However I'm on the opposite side of the argument to David. I don't think a clash with Britain was inevitable and that if Germany hadn't gone the Tirpitz route it might well have been avoided. True Germany would still have been the strongest power on the continent and if it had been as aggressive diplomatically it would still have been an awkward relationship. However, ideally, if Britain and Germany had come to terms for a defencive relationship, it would have reassured both of them but especially Germany.

As it was by ~1914 Britain was also becoming concerned about Russian developments, both in terms of rivalry in various areas and it's sheer size as well as a huge naval programme it was starting up while Germany was very concerned about Russian strength. With a better relationship earlier on I think such an alliance could well have been both possible and beneficial to both sides.

I agree with comments that a sub strong option wouldn't be practical. Both because they weren't technologically practical at the time and because, other than small ones for harbour defence they would have relatively little role other than attacks on merchant shipping. Since this would cause huge outrage, as it did in WWI OTL and would also be seen as a direct threat to the massive and economically important British merchant fleet that would make such a policy a no-no if you want good relations with Britain.

Anyway, hope the above helps.

Steve

 

[Grimm Reaper]

In addition submarines are incapable of controlling waters. They can increase the cost to others of using a particular area but they can not control that area themselves.

 

[corditeman]

Grimm Reaper...

...'Incapable of controlling waters'?

What exactly do you mean? Is this related to surface speed and appearance to a foe?

Incontinent submariners?

Genuinely at a loss...

 

[stevep]

corditeman

What Grimm means is that while subs can make life difficult for ships from opposing powers they not only can't block them totally but more importantly they can't protect their own traffic. I.e. if say Germany [to pick a nation at random] has a massive sub fleet that does nothing to enable them to move merchant ships or perform military operations [say amphibious assaults] in the face of enemy surface units.

Steve

...'Incapable of controlling waters'?

What exactly do you mean? Is this related to surface speed and appearance to a foe?

Incontinent submariners?

Genuinely at a loss...

 

[mrmandias]

Doing something for 'realpolitik' reasons is not justified if its provokes the hegemonic sea power to cozy up to your enemies.

Germany faces both hostile France and Russia so needs to seek naval dominance in both the Baltic and North Sea in order to keep her ports open for trade. The Kiel Canal allows her to transfer ships back and forth rapidly in this instance.

While maintaining open ports on the North Sea is import the other problem is Britain across the way. As long as Britain remains in 'splendid isolation' there is no reason to believe that they will not unilaterally act in their own interests and close trade routes to the Atlantic or worse. Remember what the British did at Copenhagen.

In order to maintain one's ports open you will need a battle fleet capable of raising any blockading force, this still being the age of the close blockade.

Long distance cruisers are worthless without the ability of a blockade being lifted so that they get out to raid commerce lanes and then, hopefully, return.

A nation not willing to secure seapower for itself and it dependent upon the goodwill of another to protect its maritime commerce is a second class (or worse) power. The Germans were entirely justified in building the navy they did given the geopolitical situation at the time.

 

[David S Poepoe]

I think that one way of blowing the chance to avoid a naval clash with the UK would be to build and deploy any ocean going force of submarines, as nobody is going to buy 'commerce protection' as their mission, whereas building a vast number of 'useless' little surface ships can be ascribed to this role. That and showing the flag of the German Empire around the world, of course.

Does anyone have some alternative suggestions for a force composition that is designed to get German long range commerce raiders deployed around the world...ER, did I say commerce raider...Of course, I misspoke myself and naturally I meant commerce protectors.

Any thoughts?

On closer examination you are not really proposing anything new, but revisiting the 'jeune ecole' school of thought from the 1880s.

 

[corditeman]

Thanks, Stevep...

...Makes more sense that way. However, I seem to recall the US actually built subs for landing marines on hostile islands. The Pearl River pirates were also given a nasty shock by gun-armed RN subs after WWII. Do we need to wait for modern times before subs are capable of giving an aggressor hell? Is it dependent upon speed of engagement? I.e. a 35 knot sub of today able to track, signal and sink any surface opponent?

 

[Shadow Master]

Some replies:

On closer examination you are not really proposing anything new, but revisiting the 'jeune ecole' school of thought from the 1880s.

^.^
Wait and see.

...Makes more sense that way. However, I seem to recall the US actually built subs for landing marines on hostile islands. The Pearl River pirates were also given a nasty shock by gun-armed RN subs after WWII. Do we need to wait for modern times before subs are capable of giving an aggressor hell? Is it dependent upon speed of engagement? I.e. a 35 knot sub of today able to track, signal and sink any surface opponent?

See above....


Some further thoughts and a clarification.

When I posted this thread, I was kinda sorta maybe thinking about attempting a TL based upon the POD, but this thread is just a "what if". As such, it can serve to let me know if there is sufficient interest in a "what might have been" along these lines, and provide a place for suggestions and info links.

I have to be honest though, I know very little about any aspects of history outside of major wars, so if anyone does want to have some interesting reading on a fictional alternative timeline I am going to need allot in the way of links to historical 'incidents' and such so as to pick and choose which ones still happen and which ones go differently and why.

Ok, so for the ships:
Germany is just starting out as a nation, and navies are now using mostly metal ships with coal burning power plants. As such the Germans lack any significant experience with world wide naval commitments and logistics. Therefore, they are not just going to differ historically from the mad dash for world supremacy by challenging the worlds foremost naval power, but are also going to exhibit a much more restrained and patient foreign policy, with the intent to slowly build up expertise in maintaining naval forces in all the major oceans of the world. Once they are comfortable with the different needs of say an equatorial pacific squadron as opposed to a north Atlantic or Mediterranean one, only then will they be willing to commit to building ships of great cost and size.

Of course, they will not be advertising that this is what they are doing, far from it. Publicly, the Germans will be opposed to building big, slow, expensive ships at all, as they see no need to have them to protect their commerce.

So, for starters, the Germans will be building light, cheap ships for the purpose of gaining experience in operations around the world and showing their flag. One thing I would like to introduce to this discussion is the idea of early retirement for their ships. Battleships need to last 20+ years and this is because of the expense of their construction and replacement I believe. If this is not the case, please let me know, and also if there are other considerations I have overlooked please point them out as well.

So, with the Germans building a bunch of cheap (read as: disposable) little ships, it would seem that these vessels could be written off much sooner. Particularly if the ships are known to be markedly inferior to like vessels in foreign navies. Especially if the ships have mechanical difficulties and are constantly being laid up for one reason or another.

In fact, probably the most valuable aspect of building inferior, short lived ships is going to be the impression among the worlds powers that unlike their armies, the Germans are incompetent or just plain stupid when it comes to building a first rate navy.

So, lets discuss some ideas for what the Germans should do. Lets say that they realise (with much grumbling and public displays of disgust) that the ships they are building are just not going to last.

What unfortunate consequences might this lead to for the fledgling empire? Well for starters, the Germans would (again, publicly and loudly) decry the need to build dry-docks in every single colony so that their poorly designed and always breaking down worthless little ships have a place to get fixed up at.

And since all these dry-docks are expensive, the Germans are going to be forced to build ships with the greatest possible range to limit the numbers that have to be built. And by gosh, we had no idea that maintaining a navy around the world could be so expensive. In fact, with all the expensive facilities we are forced to build, we are just going to have to fortify them, cause we sure cannot afford to loose any of them...

I have some very nasty, evil ideas that I would want to spring on a reading audience if this is something that people would like to read and get a kick out of.

What if the [poor, unfortunate, clueless] Germans were to have to replace their ships after just ten years of service? Hmmm. That would mean that, none of their ships would be more than ten years old, and nobody would think it at all odd that the Germans would continue to replace their ships in this fashion, even if they suddenly stopped having all those darned 'technical difficulties'.

And as with most navies, their ships would tend to get a bit bigger with each new class...

Hmmm.....

 

[David S Poepoe]

I get the feeling that this is fairly similar to some WIs that appear in the post-1900 board about WI the Germans built more u-boats and the British just followed their historical course in shipbuilding. The British will have a pretty good idea of what ships could be converted to armed merchant cruisers - since they are doing it themselves.

 

[David S Poepoe]

Ok, so for the ships:
Germany is just starting out as a nation, and navies are now using mostly metal ships with coal burning power plants. As such the Germans lack any significant experience with world wide naval commitments and logistics. Therefore, they are not just going to differ historically from the mad dash for world supremacy by challenging the worlds foremost naval power, but are also going to exhibit a much more restrained and patient foreign policy, with the intent to slowly build up expertise in maintaining naval forces in all the major oceans of the world. Once they are comfortable with the different needs of say an equatorial pacific squadron as opposed to a north Atlantic or Mediterranean one, only then will they be willing to commit to building ships of great cost and size.

Are you talking about Germany in the 1880s since your opening sentence doesn't apply to Germany, or the world, in 1900.

 

[Shevek23]

A technical question...

...why are big ships "slow?"

I'd think, given the basic square/cube relationship, in any conventional design (that is, not a hydrofoil or hovercraft or some such) the bigger ship would tend to have the advantage. The bigger the ship, the greater the proportion of its total tonnage to its submerged drag area, so a ship of say twice the length should have four times the drag but eight times the tonnage, for a given proportion. Thus, it can carry relative to its drag area twice the power plant and twice the fuel supply. If it expends power in proportion to its tonnage then it ought to be able to go something like 25 percent faster than a ship half its length, and have the same endurance, hence 25 percent more range. Or if it maintains the same speed as the smaller ship, it should have double the endurance and hence double the range.

From the talk here obviously there is something off with my reasoning. Is it a matter of wave drag? I thought that there too the bigger ship has the advantage, that the critical speed at which one is basically driving constantly up a standing wave (relative to the ship that is) is higher the longer the ship. Have I got that part backwards or what?

My impression is, most of the drag force a ship has to oppose to maintain speed is in waves and not your basic fluid-dynamic drag analogous to what a submerged sub or airship has to deal with. But as I say I thought wave drag, though not following the simple rules that fluid-dynamic flow drag does (force rises as square of speed hence power as the cube, drag proportional to area) still favors the bigger ship. Not so?

Obviously the biggest ships are not generally the fastest; torpedo boats etc are much faster. But I figured that was largely a matter of there being limits on the maximum size of power plant that was practically available in any era, and that small fast boats are so because they have relatively huge engines and thus guzzle fuel and have very short ranges and endurances at those high speeds. They are made for dash capability in a tactical engagement but only the big ships can maintain fleet speeds economically and thus haul the fuel and machine shop and supplies and so forth for the little boats. To go as fast as a PT boat a dreadnought would need a really enormous power plant that could burn up its fuel in just hours, but still I'd expect it to be able to do that for 2 or 3 times as long as the PT boat could.

Is that right?

 

[Shadow Master]

More replies!

I get the feeling that this is fairly similar to some WIs that appear in the post-1900 board about WI the Germans built more u-boats and the British just followed their historical course in shipbuilding. The British will have a pretty good idea of what ships could be converted to armed merchant cruisers - since they are doing it themselves.

I hope I don't end up doing that. Ugh.
My intention [assuming that I actually make an Alternate Time Line thread in the first place] is to explore the possibility of a post WWI Europe in which Germany is not disarmed nor looses her colonies. Whether or not I can actually write such a thread and keep it believable remains to be seen. Making it follow history and yet diverge is definitely going to be challenging (and perhaps beyond my writing skills) and if I cannot make it believable then perhaps I can at least make it entertaining and thought provoking, which is all I can ask.

Some of the things I am going to post are definitely not the things any self respecting national leader is going to do, but hey, I want to have some fun with this along the way as well.

Are you talking about Germany in the 1880s since your opening sentence doesn't apply to Germany, or the world, in 1900.

Germany 'officially' gets unified in 1871, right? So as a unified nation with just 20 years under their belt....


Hello, and welcome to the thread.

...why are big ships "slow?"

Most of your questions are simply beyond me.
However, I would guess that the needed energy output to drive a larger ship is going to work out around what you think, but the larger ships are generally carrying greater weight of armament, greater weight of armor, greater weight of fuel, ammo, etc. I suspect that these are going to throw off the ratios where [all else being equal] the larger ship can be just as fast or faster than the smaller one. That and the unwillingness of building a dreadnought type ship that is basically a big, fuel guzzling engine wrapped up in a hull just big enough to contain it. Like the torpedo boat.

Just a guess.

Obviously the biggest ships are not generally the fastest; torpedo boats etc are much faster. But I figured that was largely a matter of there being limits on the maximum size of power plant that was practically available in any era.

I think it is also probable that people that design ships for speed over anything else are building it for that purpose alone, and thus don't mind building a ship that is really only good for high speed 'dashes' towards and away from the enemy. Basically, in the case of torpedo boats, build the cheapest platform that can race in at high speeds to deliver the weapons and then get out as fast as possible.

I believe you are correct in that such ships will be woefully short on range, as well.

Hey folks, is anyone interested in posting some info links to help me research a potential ATL thread? I am looking for info on what each WWI naval nations were building from around 1880-1915, so any help here would be appreciated. Thanks.

 

[Grey Wolf]

For prestige reason NO power is ever going to go with "no battlefleet" but would instead come up with a mix that had a core of battleships for home waters (maybe aimed at Baltic domination) and more cruisers for overseas. You certainly aren't going against Gerrman policy or precedent in emphasising cruisers overseas - only in having them feature as an equal element of the navy plans.

The creation of the Dreadnought will confuse even these plans as it will require a starting agaiin in the battleship numbers, when the Admiralty may well have thought they had that sorted - eg if they wanted to keep it to 15 battleships including the reserve, they were pretty much there with the Wittelsbachs and could then look at 5 year replacements etc. Bring in the Dreadnoughts and pretty soon your 15 including reserves is going to have to be 10 dreadnoughts plus 5 older, which when mixed in with already having planned the next class along could mean the virtual scrapping of all existing battleships and creating 15 new ones, just to stand still.

I think this is going to occur even if there is a much larger emphasis on cruisers, simply because a great power has a minimum requirement for its battlefleet, and it doesn't really matter if we are talking no Tirpitz, or even no Wilhelm II. A Kaiser Heinrich with his very different Admiralty are going to come to the same conclusion.

Regarding cruisers for overseas, range and burst of speed is important, whilst the ability to fight off equal numbers is not going to be dumped - the cruiser mix is going to look at being able to fight a Coronel and win. It coould be said to even look at Samoa and the near battle there that the hurricaine averted - this would lead to a requirement to be able to fight on equal terms.

Regarding bases, cruiser war does not require them once war begins. Look at the WW2 German raiders, and even the Admiral Scheer in the Indian Ocean - you can survive off prizes. The main difference between WW1 and WW2 is that the Northern Patrols were stronger in the first, that breaking out or back in was more difficult, but not impossible. Of course, if they decide that the aim of cruiser warfare is to fight then get interned somewhere nice, like Argentina, then it won't matter about getting home

Graf von Spee proved that you could take and supply armoured cruisers across the Pacific, even around Cape Horn without problems larger than those for light cruisers. And having the armoured cruisers with the light cruisers gave the force together a fighting chance, eg Coronel.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[stevep]

...Makes more sense that way. However, I seem to recall the US actually built subs for landing marines on hostile islands. The Pearl River pirates were also given a nasty shock by gun-armed RN subs after WWII. Do we need to wait for modern times before subs are capable of giving an aggressor hell? Is it dependent upon speed of engagement? I.e. a 35 knot sub of today able to track, signal and sink any surface opponent?

corditeman

It depends on what you mean by modern. At the start of WWI subs were still relatively fragile and short ranged vessels of little apparent use. They had some early successes against unprepared forces, such as the three elder cruisers of the channel patrol or the Turkish pre-dread that one of the RN subs sank. However once people started taking precautions it became much more difficult and it was only with the decision to go for unrestricted warfare on merchant ships that they started being devastating.

Furthermore they had been developing very, very rapidly. Hence I doubt if anyone really thought they would have been that important in 1914 and a decade or more earlier they simply won't have been up to anything significant and that would have been clear to the most far sighted designed and planners of the time. Hence I can't see, without ASB intervention, anyone realistically going for a sub heavy force prior to ~1910.

Steve

 

[stevep]

Shadow Master

It sounds from the attached that instead of a what if Germany didn't challenge the RN, which could led to a radically different world and world war, you're planning on a Machiavellian programme to gain experience and world wide bases then relatively quickly put in a massive programme that will try and do what Tirpitz did but in a shorter time period.

This is very unlikely to succeed. When Germany suddenly goes into overdrive with a massive BB programme Britain will be forced to respond. It will still, very probably, have the largest and most cost efficient shipyards in the world and also a large standing force of existing capital ships. Also Germany will not only be starting with a smaller base of capital ships [presuming more resources into those repeated sets of trade cruisers] but it will have less experience of building large ships and less shipyards with the equipment and skills and those will all take a lot of time and money to construct. Hence Germany will have a larger number of cruisers but have a markedly inferior position in terms of capital ships if/when it does make a challenge.

Alternatively it could be that you're planning to gradually morpe the German trade cruisers into a sizeable force of powerful ships based world-wide which can do immense damage to an opponents trade and bases. This is more possibly but such forces will still face serious problems. They will be largely cut off from home, presuming a clash with Britain, and while they might be able to get resources from captures this won't include ammunition, spare parts for the ships etc. Also a defender would in that situation be very likely to introduce a convoy system which would negate much of the opportunities for such raiders, albeit with their own costs. It's still likely that the force, which given the size you're suggesting would be pretty expensive, even ignoring bases and facilities, would gradually be hunted down.

You say in another post you wanted to look at a Germany which didn't lose its colonies or be disarmed after WWI. I would have thought the simplest way would be to not fight such a war or make it more likely you would be on the winning side.

Steve

Ok, so for the ships:
Germany is just starting out as a nation, and navies are now using mostly metal ships with coal burning power plants. As such the Germans lack any significant experience with world wide naval commitments and logistics. Therefore, they are not just going to differ historically from the mad dash for world supremacy by challenging the worlds foremost naval power, but are also going to exhibit a much more restrained and patient foreign policy, with the intent to slowly build up expertise in maintaining naval forces in all the major oceans of the world. Once they are comfortable with the different needs of say an equatorial pacific squadron as opposed to a north Atlantic or Mediterranean one, only then will they be willing to commit to building ships of great cost and size.

Of course, they will not be advertising that this is what they are doing, far from it. Publicly, the Germans will be opposed to building big, slow, expensive ships at all, as they see no need to have them to protect their commerce.

So, for starters, the Germans will be building light, cheap ships for the purpose of gaining experience in operations around the world and showing their flag. One thing I would like to introduce to this discussion is the idea of early retirement for their ships. Battleships need to last 20+ years and this is because of the expense of their construction and replacement I believe. If this is not the case, please let me know, and also if there are other considerations I have overlooked please point them out as well.

So, with the Germans building a bunch of cheap (read as: disposable) little ships, it would seem that these vessels could be written off much sooner. Particularly if the ships are known to be markedly inferior to like vessels in foreign navies. Especially if the ships have mechanical difficulties and are constantly being laid up for one reason or another.

In fact, probably the most valuable aspect of building inferior, short lived ships is going to be the impression among the worlds powers that unlike their armies, the Germans are incompetent or just plain stupid when it comes to building a first rate navy.

So, lets discuss some ideas for what the Germans should do. Lets say that they realise (with much grumbling and public displays of disgust) that the ships they are building are just not going to last.

What unfortunate consequences might this lead to for the fledgling empire? Well for starters, the Germans would (again, publicly and loudly) decry the need to build dry-docks in every single colony so that their poorly designed and always breaking down worthless little ships have a place to get fixed up at.

And since all these dry-docks are expensive, the Germans are going to be forced to build ships with the greatest possible range to limit the numbers that have to be built. And by gosh, we had no idea that maintaining a navy around the world could be so expensive. In fact, with all the expensive facilities we are forced to build, we are just going to have to fortify them, cause we sure cannot afford to loose any of them...

I have some very nasty, evil ideas that I would want to spring on a reading audience if this is something that people would like to read and get a kick out of.

What if the [poor, unfortunate, clueless] Germans were to have to replace their ships after just ten years of service? Hmmm. That would mean that, none of their ships would be more than ten years old, and nobody would think it at all odd that the Germans would continue to replace their ships in this fashion, even if they suddenly stopped having all those darned 'technical difficulties'.

And as with most navies, their ships would tend to get a bit bigger with each new class...

Hmmm.....

 

[stevep]

Shevek23

I think the need for much larger power plants is a factor. Don't forget the battlecruisers, with less armour and/or smaller guns that their corresponding battleships were markedly larger in total tonnage and cost much more.

Another factor is the length to beam ratio as a narrower ship will tend to be faster. This is OK for a small ship which needs to move fairly rapidly, with short range, small guns and limited armour and hence a smaller crew as well. However for a honking great battleship, with large guns and all that involves [wide to include the turrets, large to avoid being top-heavy, requiring a high tonnage of ammo, equipment and crew] and matching armour you need a much wider beam. Hence you either need a lower beam-length ratio and hence a poorer speed performance or a bloody long ship that would be very, very expensive, clumbersome, difficult to dock and probably also need drastically enlarged shipyards. Also it's increased size would further increase weight and diminishing returns quickly set in.

Hope that helps.

Steve

...why are big ships "slow?"

I'd think, given the basic square/cube relationship, in any conventional design (that is, not a hydrofoil or hovercraft or some such) the bigger ship would tend to have the advantage. The bigger the ship, the greater the proportion of its total tonnage to its submerged drag area, so a ship of say twice the length should have four times the drag but eight times the tonnage, for a given proportion. Thus, it can carry relative to its drag area twice the power plant and twice the fuel supply. If it expends power in proportion to its tonnage then it ought to be able to go something like 25 percent faster than a ship half its length, and have the same endurance, hence 25 percent more range. Or if it maintains the same speed as the smaller ship, it should have double the endurance and hence double the range.

From the talk here obviously there is something off with my reasoning. Is it a matter of wave drag? I thought that there too the bigger ship has the advantage, that the critical speed at which one is basically driving constantly up a standing wave (relative to the ship that is) is higher the longer the ship. Have I got that part backwards or what?

My impression is, most of the drag force a ship has to oppose to maintain speed is in waves and not your basic fluid-dynamic drag analogous to what a submerged sub or airship has to deal with. But as I say I thought wave drag, though not following the simple rules that fluid-dynamic flow drag does (force rises as square of speed hence power as the cube, drag proportional to area) still favors the bigger ship. Not so?

Obviously the biggest ships are not generally the fastest; torpedo boats etc are much faster. But I figured that was largely a matter of there being limits on the maximum size of power plant that was practically available in any era, and that small fast boats are so because they have relatively huge engines and thus guzzle fuel and have very short ranges and endurances at those high speeds. They are made for dash capability in a tactical engagement but only the big ships can maintain fleet speeds economically and thus haul the fuel and machine shop and supplies and so forth for the little boats. To go as fast as a PT boat a dreadnought would need a really enormous power plant that could burn up its fuel in just hours, but still I'd expect it to be able to do that for 2 or 3 times as long as the PT boat could.

Is that right?

 

[Janprimus]

I agree with Grey Wolf Germany will choose for a battlefleet. The German Empire had more concerns than ''just'' the British, their main threats were France and Russia. Even the British realized this and at one point even some form of parity was suggested (5 RN vs 3 KM) by Hardinge to Wilhelm II.
Another issue was that the domestic opinions had a lot of influence; Germany wanted to be a global great power like France and Britain, the British were the global hegemonial power and they felt threatened by this, since Germany already had a formidable army.

However if Germany and Britain will both be more diplomatic some deal could be made. Britain can not deny Germany their navy (doing so would only antagonize Germany more), but at the same time Germany shouldn't antagonize Britain too much. This doesn't mean that Germany has to back down immediately, especially if they want to fulfill most of their reasonable ambitions; however they do have to realize what is the most Britain could offer.

 

[corditeman]

Two thoughts...

...Britain might just come to an agreement to protect German commerce in return for no battleships except in the Baltic, and give Germany naval support against French adventurism. You can forget the Entente Cordiale...

...Coastal artillery can have an enormous range and German coastal artillery (thanks to Krupps) gradually became the most formidable in the world. Ranges of 40,000 yards were possible. This means that four coastal guns near a port could execute a naval squadron from behind the protection of concrete and steel. All you then need is a few monitor-type battlecruisers to make the Baltic unliveable for Russian ships - oh, yes, and a few U-boats...

 

[stevep]

Guys

I would say Janprimus is right here in that Germany will need a battlefleet. I don't think corditeman's idea is practical. Both because Germany will want some battleships for prestige purpose, as they are a symbol of great power status. Also because it means that the two powers are tying themselves too tightly to each other via such a deal. Germany has to believe that Britain will support it if attacked and Britain will be committing itself to a war that might not be of it's choice. [Given also it is not always clear who is 'guilty' for a war starting]. Unless the two powers are tying themselves to a NATO type alliance, which is fairly unlikely in that time period, there are too many potential problems and an alliance that close is unlikely to be politically practical on either side and might also trigger a war [or anyway higher tension] in itself.

However as Janprimus says it should have been possible to have some agreement that met the interest of both powers.

Steve

I agree with Grey Wolf Germany will choose for a battlefleet. The German Empire had more concerns than ''just'' the British, their main threats were France and Russia. Even the British realized this and at one point even some form of parity was suggested (5 RN vs 3 KM) by Hardinge to Wilhelm II.
Another issue was that the domestic opinions had a lot of influence; Germany wanted to be a global great power like France and Britain, the British were the global hegemonial power and they felt threatened by this, since Germany already had a formidable army.

However if Germany and Britain will both be more diplomatic some deal could be made. Britain can not deny Germany their navy (doing so would only antagonize Germany more), but at the same time Germany shouldn't antagonize Britain too much. This doesn't mean that Germany has to back down immediately, especially if they want to fulfill most of their reasonable ambitions; however they do have to realize what is the most Britain could offer.

...Britain might just come to an agreement to protect German commerce in return for no battleships except in the Baltic, and give Germany naval support against French adventurism. You can forget the Entente Cordiale...

...Coastal artillery can have an enormous range and German coastal artillery (thanks to Krupps) gradually became the most formidable in the world. Ranges of 40,000 yards were possible. This means that four coastal guns near a port could execute a naval squadron from behind the protection of concrete and steel. All you then need is a few monitor-type battlecruisers to make the Baltic unliveable for Russian ships - oh, yes, and a few U-boats...