German Naval Laws, a WI.

[Shadow Master]

Is it possible to add a poll after the thread is opened?

I want a clear consensus on How (or if) the Germans can make Britain an ally (or at least prevent them from being an enemy) during WWI. This is the only way I see how to arrive at a post WWI Europe where Germany retains her colonies and armed forces intact, and this is the Germany I want to discuss and explore. Precisely because it never did exist.

I think that BB's are like lays potato chips, in that you cannot stop after just one...

And any battleships at all, from one to [RN -1] are going to be insufficient to challenge and beat the Royal Navy for sure. To be sure of victory, you want a margin for error over and above what they have, and for something like this, you are going to WANT to be sure.

That being the case, how is Germany not going to build battleships?

Lets take Tirpitz's logic and turn it about. War is both a risk and an opportunity to achieve Empire. War with the strongest naval power represents the greatest risk to Germany's imperial ambitions, as well as the greatest potential gain. To ensure victory in war, either Germany must possess a fleet capable of sure victory over any adversaries navy(s), or Germany must risk loosing the war and her Empire.

Fact: Germany doesn't have the strongest fleet in the world in 1898.
Fact: Germany cannot build up a battleship fleet in secret.
Fact: Germany cannot build up her shipyards battleship building capacity in secret.
Fact: Germany cannot do either of these in less than years.
Fact: The UK possesses not only a larger starting fleet, but the greater ship building capacity.
Fact: The UK demonstrates her determination to stay on top by making her navy equal to the two next most powerful fleets.

This doesn't even take into consideration the disparity of expertise in the crews. naval training, logistical know how and such that the UK will enjoy over any German nave for some time, years at least, and decades more likely.

Conclusion: Any German battleship building program either will be countered by the UK before the fleet can even be built, or will take decades to achieve the desired and needed numerical superiority enjoyed by the RN. Hence, something else must be done....

Maskirovka: Show the world one thing...then do another.
http://maskirovka.blogspot.com/

 

[Don Lardo]

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

I think that's the key here and it's also why the idea won't work.

It won't work because strategic range has never been combined with the juene ecole school and not because the juene ecole school doesn't work. The technological requirements for strategic range are diametrically opposed to the "cheaper/smaller/more" thinking behind the juene ecole strategy.

The time period the OP is suggesting this occur during is also problematic. The period between 1890 and 1915 saw vast changes in naval technology and doctrines. The changes in propulsion and range finding alone cannot be overstated.

Suggesting that a warship design paradigm from 1890 would still be worthwhile in 1915 is like suggesting that fighter aircraft designed in 1925 would still be worthwhile in 1950. It just isn't going to happen.

Leaving the insurmountable technical issues aside, I find it hard to believe that Germany would be able to sustain such a "stealth" naval building program for a quarter of a century. Constructing seemingly worthless warships that are secretly evolving into a swarm of dreadnought or armored cruiser "eaters" would be impossible to hide from foreign governments let alone the Reichstag. After all, the Reichstag is cutting the checks. They'll have to know the money is being put to better use than the "cover story" admits to.

 

[Karakris]

YAY

Increased speed reduces other ship's capacities.

Increased range reduces other ship's capacities.

Likewise improving quality of life on the ship.

You rapidly reach a point of diminishing returns by emphasizing one area but three...

Finally - Someone who inderstands the basic design criteria of Warships.

Mind You - I am just MAD - I have no reason to limit Displacement in my TL
I just twist reality.

 

[Don Lardo]

Lets take Tirpitz's logic...

Sure, but let's take Tirpitz's actual logic in account, okay?

Tirpitz sold the OTL naval build up on the basis of Risk Theory and the Wiki page about Tirptiz as a nice explanation of his application of it:

Specifically written into the preamble was an explanation of Tirpitz' Risk theory. Although the German fleet would be smaller, it was likely that an enemy with a world spanning empire would not be able to concentrate all its forces in local waters. Even if it could, the German fleet would still be sufficiently powerful to inflict significant damage in any battle. Sufficient damage that the enemy would be unable to maintain its other naval commitments and must suffer irreparable harm. Thus no such enemy would risk an engagement.

The idea behind the German battlefleet - an idea that wasn't even formulated until the Boer War rubbed everyone's collective noses in the fact of the Royal Navy's power - wasn't that Germany's battlefleet needed to beat the RN. Instead, Germany's battlefleet only needed to be strong enough to give the RN pause. If the damage the RN would potentially suffer while destroying Germany's fleet was substantial enough to result in Britain being unable to meet her commitments, Britain would choose to negotiate in most cases rather than take on the German fleet.

If you think of it as an earlier, naval focused, poorly thought out version of MAD you won't be far from the mark.

Maskirovka: Show the world one thing...then do another.

Wilhelmine Germany is not the Soviet Union and applying maskirova for twenty five years to a naval building program an elected legislature funds is problematic.

 

[Shadow Master]

I do not doubt that Germany wants a battle-fleet. We all know Germany wants world wide respect and acknowledgment as a 'great power', and the Empire that goes with it.

What I (and we all) know is, this isn't exactly going to work out well for Germany. Is it so hard to see the clash between Germany and the UK coming? Of course not. Is it impossible for the Germans to take a good long look at the realities of the situation? No. So really, the only reason that Germany did the things that she did OTL is because she did not take the time to properly access the situation, and formulate a practical plan.

Guys

I would say Janprimus is right here in that Germany will need a battle-fleet. 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

So, while I agree that Germany wants battleships, conflict and confrontation with the British (and any battle-fleet sufficient to fend off the French or Russians) is going to to make the UK nervous. A nervous UK is going to not be happy seeing a strong German fleet, no matter what it is supposedly going to be used for. A battleship fleet insufficient to defeat either the Russian or French fleets is not one worth building. Germany can fight both these nations in ground combat without having any battleships at all, and if her army is insufficient (perhaps because of building up a large number of battleships in the first place) to fight and win such a war, then no amount of battleships is going to save her.

So, historically, Germany (the young, dumb, full of stupidity nation that she was) went out and bit off more than she could chew.

To look at this another way, try this on for size:

Germany builds no battleships.
If Germany has it's colonies attacked (almost assuredly by France), Germany's only recourse is ground war in Europe.

Now ask yourself this:
If France attacks Germany's colonies, and the war cannot be won by Germany at sea for lack of a powerful battle-fleet, and Germany and France share a land boarder...

Is Britain going to sit and watch their friend Germany, who is going to be on her best behavior, and NOT playing hardball (at least in and around Europe) get pwned by the French, knowing what that is going to mean to the security and balance of power in Europe?

So:

1) UK intervenes to restore Germany's colonies, (in which case, no German battleships were needed) or
2) UK watches France fall to Germany, in which case France's empire is taken over by who? And with what consequences to the balance of world (not just European) power?

If this situation is even close to happening, and the UK doesn't want to have to commit to sticking up for Germany, then might not the UK ask (and perhaps rather pointedly) for the Germans to take the plunge and expend her own funds to build up a force of her own battleships? If Germany is very much opposed to building up battleships at great expense, but is reluctantly talked into it by an allied Britain....

There is more than one way to skin a cat....

And there is a whole world of difference in who decides that Germany needs a battle-fleet...

 

[Karakris]

Riiiight

...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?

Riight There.

This has been called "The Square / Cube Law".

The power required to move a Ship is related to "Waterplane Area" - the area of the ship in the water at the surface ( a factor related to "wavemaking" ). This is not climbing existing waves - but the waves which the ship itself will make.
All Ship Design is based on this factor of "Waterplane Area" - you only get increased drag with deeper draught, if you are running in shallow waters.
"Waterplane Area" by definition is directly proportional to - size squared.

However - it is also related to hull-form ( sort of like streamlining ), and particularly the length / breadth ratio.
Long, thin Ships require less power to reach a certain speed in the water than short, fat ones.
You can actually make a Ship faster - by increasing its length and making an increase in the size of the the Powerplant.
You may have to "tinker" with the underwater hull form, for some improvements - several modern ships have "bulged forefoots", to reduce power consumption. The Japanese Super-Battleship Yamato had a "bulged forefoot", partly to counteract its poor length / beam ratio.

The amount of tonnage available for Power, Armament, Armour is proportional to the volume - size cubed.
In Warship Design you always have to make a compromise between weight of armament ( and ammunition ), weight of armour, weight of powerplant ( and fuel ). Choosing a particular size or Displacement limits the overall weight of this mix.

Armour - is related to Area ( size squared ). Increase of area ( automatic in an increase of size ) will also allow an increase in thickness, to give - size cubed.

Armament and Ammunition - related to Volume - size cubed.

Powerplant and Fuel - related to Volume - size cubed. However, a simple enlargement may lead to a reduction in efficiency.

Generally - a bigger Warship can be more heavily Armed, more heavily Armoured, and may be able in theory to go faster. However - you may want it to have a greater range - so the increase in Fuel storage will be more than size cubed - so speed may be limited.

 

[Shadow Master]

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

I think that's the key here and it's also why the idea won't work.

It won't work because strategic range has never been combined with the juene ecole school and not because the juene ecole school doesn't work. The technological requirements for strategic range are diametrically opposed to the "cheaper/smaller/more" thinking behind the juene ecole strategy.

And here I would ask, in your opinion, what would work? If someone can come up with an alternative force composition for pre WWI Germany, I'd be happy to discuss that.
Keep in mind, the purpose of this navy is not to 'win' a war! Everyone seems to be making that mistake. The purpose of this navy is to make a war at sea seem to be a desirable course of action against Germany, which will then allow Germany to conduct a ground war in Europe without being stamped as the aggressor.

The time period the OP is suggesting this occur during is also problematic. The period between 1890 and 1915 saw vast changes in naval technology and doctrines. The changes in propulsion and range finding alone cannot be overstated.

Suggesting that a warship design paradigm from 1890 would still be worthwhile in 1915 is like suggesting that fighter aircraft designed in 1925 would still be worthwhile in 1950. It just isn't going to happen.

While that is undeniably true, that is not at all what I have in mind. I have not even gotten to what Germany is going to try post WWI, so second guessing what hasn't even been reached yet...
Also, I did mention the ploy of replacing their ships in half the normal time frame, say 10 years rather than 20+....

Leaving the insurmountable technical issues aside, I find it hard to believe that Germany would be able to sustain such a "stealth" naval building program for a quarter of a century. Constructing seemingly worthless warships that are secretly evolving into a swarm of dreadnought or armored cruiser "eaters" would be impossible to hide from foreign governments let alone the Reichstag. After all, the Reichstag is cutting the checks. They'll have to know the money is being put to better use than the "cover story" admits to.

I cannot address this other than to say, where in the world did I say anything along these lines? A stealth dreadnought buildup?!?!

 

[Shadow Master]

Sure, but let's take Tirpitz's actual logic in account, okay?

The idea behind the German battlefleet - an idea that wasn't even formulated until the Boer War rubbed everyone's collective noses in the fact of the Royal Navy's power - wasn't that Germany's battlefleet needed to beat the RN. Instead, Germany's battlefleet only needed to be strong enough to give the RN pause. If the damage the RN would potentially suffer while destroying Germany's fleet was substantial enough to result in Britain being unable to meet her commitments, Britain would choose to negotiate in most cases rather than take on the German fleet.

If you think of it as an earlier, naval focused, poorly thought out version of MAD you won't be far from the mark.

Granted, but this is where the fatal flaw IMHO actually occurs. Build up a big, massive battlefleet, and if the UK doesn't feel so threatened as to seek allies against us {DOH} then maybe, just maybe, they will not crush us if we are clearly going to be soon a more powerful nation than they can hope to oppose. And gee wiz batman, even if they do decide to wipe the world's seas clean of our ships, we will still win because they will be so weakened that someone else will then step in and Finnish the job on the RN.

So Germany's imperial ambitions are achieved by both their navy and the RN at the bottom of the sea, and someone new taking over as the worlds naval hedgemon.

Ant this is a plan?!?!

[/B][/I]Wilhelmine Germany is not the Soviet Union and applying maskirova for twenty five years to a naval building program an elected legislature funds is problematic.

That would be true, but it also assumes that some big, bad, master plan is all drawn up right from the getgo. Rather than, say, a plan that is taking things one step at a time, and slowly building experience and expertise.

 

[David S Poepoe]

Keep in mind, the purpose of this navy is not to 'win' a war! Everyone seems to be making that mistake. The purpose of this navy is to make a war at sea seem to be a desirable course of action against Germany, which will then allow Germany to conduct a ground war in Europe without being stamped as the aggressor.

Frankly, I think the problem is that there is no solution to your OP and you are groping at improbable answers. The only way that Germany can not be stamped an aggressor is not to fight a war or be on the losing side.

 

[Don Lardo]

Granted, but this is where the fatal flaw IMHO actually occurs.

It was fatal flaw and many people at the time recognized that flaw. Despite that, the Naval Laws were passed, the ships was built, and the damage was done.

So, what's your POD to avoid that?

That would be true, but it also assumes that some big, bad, master plan is all drawn up right from the getgo. Rather than, say, a plan that is taking things one step at a time, and slowly building experience and expertise.

You've got to get the funding from the Reichstag for this quarter century exercise in maskirova. Planning on building large numbers of deliberately lousy ships as a way to develop "expertise" isn't going to get any checks signed. In the OTL, it took the Boer War and Britain's arrogance on the high seas concerning German mail packets to pry those checks out of the Reichstag. What does the trick ITTL? And at an earlier date?

Of course, all this talk about the politics of the proposed situation ignores the many technological impossibilities with your idea.

In 1890, submarines are found in Jules Verne's book and torpedoes are toys. The juene ecole idea about a "storm of shells" might work, but that requires a "storm of ammo". Reciprocating engines can give you the strategic range, but high speed tactical endurance is very problematic. Sea keeping and endurance are linked to size but, as Karakris already explained, size imposes all sorts of limits. Grimm Reaper correctly pointed all this out when he wrote:

Increased speed reduces other ship's capacities.

Increased range reduces other ship's capacities.

Likewise improving quality of life on the ship.

You rapidly reach a point of diminishing returns by emphasizing one area but three...

There's an old saying which goes: Good, fast, cheap, pick two.. That's what the problem is here. You can't have everything you're suggesting in a warship and the warships you can build can't do the job you want them to do.

Let me give you a link describing a warship that come somewhat close to the idea you're suggesting: The Powerful-class cruisers.

They were built towards the beginning of the period you're asking about. They were also built to meet a threat which never existed. The sole Russian vessel they were meant to counter never achieved it's planned capabilities and the French cruisers which the RN used as a later excuse weren't as capable as claimed either.

To meet both range and speed requirements, the two cruisers were larger than contemporary battleships. So much for "smaller". They also cost about the same as contemporary battleship. So much for "cheaper". The guns and armor they carried weren't felt good enough to deal with smaller, cheaper cruisers of less strategic range and by 1904 both had been obsolete by advances in technology and the flawed thinking behind their original design. So much for "capable".

I cannot stress enough the advances in naval technology during the period you're examining. By way of example, in 1905 HMS Dreadnought could beat any vessel afloat. Nine years later she was considered so obsolescent that she couldn't serve with the Grand Fleet as Scapa and was initially manned by reservists. She spent the war supporting the Dover Barrage and Harwich Force with the only warship she sank being a U-boat she rammed.

 

[Shadow Master]

Frankly, I think the problem is that there is no solution to your OP and you are groping at improbable answers. The only way that Germany can not be stamped an aggressor is not to fight a war or be on the losing side.

Although that is of course possible, I have to go with captain Kirk here, in that I don't believe in a 'no-win' scenario. Besides, Germany was on the loosing side and still got called an aggressor, lol.

It was fatal flaw and many people at the time recognized that flaw. Despite that, the Naval Laws were passed, the ships was built, and the damage was done.

So, what's your POD to avoid that?

My POD was to not build the battleships at all.

There's an old saying which goes: Good, fast, cheap, pick two.. That's what the problem is here.

Hmmm. I guess I am still messing people up with my poor posting skills.

For me, this thread was supposed to be about what a post WWI Germany does up to and through WWII, and the POD was just to make that possible.

I suppose we could take my whole idea of building cruisers and throw it out the window, but what then do we replace it with? I firmly believe that a German battle fleet is = OTL with minor variations at best.

I have to head to campus soon and am not sure what the doctor is going to tell me when I see him/her tomorrow.

Does anyone think a post WWI Germany can retain her colonies and armed forces?

Does anyone (besides me) think that a war with Britain was avoidable until after WWI?

Any thoughts before I got to go?

 

[Don Lardo]

My POD was to not build the battleships at all.

That's not your entire POD.

You want the battleline replaced with something that will still be as effective during WW1. What we're trying to explain is that the vague juene ecole strategy you're mulling over won't turn the trick.

Leaving the battles it fought aside, if you don't think the OTL German battleline wasn't effective and didn't figure prominently in Entente thinking through 1919 you've got a lot of research to do.

For me, this thread was supposed to be about what a post WWI Germany does up to and through WWII, and the POD was just to make that possible.

Why don't you describe that post-WW1 Germany instead? We don't know what your target is, so it's very hard to help you hit it.

I suppose we could take my whole idea of building cruisers and throw it out the window, but what then do we replace it with?

You weren't building cruisers. You were building something else, something that couldn't even be built.

And, until the Boer War changed their thinking, Germany was pretty much happy with building cruisers for strategic concerns and a battleline which controlled the Baltic.

I firmly believe that a German battle fleet is = OTL with minor variations at best.

Prior to the Naval Laws, Germany had a battleline which didn't spark an arms race with the UK. That's another thing we've been trying to tell you.

Keep the battleline oriented in numbers, size, and capabilities towards Russia in the Baltic plus the defense of the North Sea coast against France and the arms race doesn't appear.

Does anyone think a post WWI Germany can retain her colonies and armed forces?

That depends on what kind of a "WW1" this WW1 is.

 

[Shadow Master]

That's not your entire POD.

You want the battleline replaced with something that will still be as effective during WW1. What we're trying to explain is that the vague juene ecole strategy you're mulling over won't turn the trick.

Leaving the battles it fought aside, if you don't think the OTL German battleline wasn't effective and didn't figure prominently in Entente thinking through 1919 you've got a lot of research to do.

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I may very well be), but wasn't the whole purpose of the 'high seas fleet' to protect German trade and colonies just by their existence? Did they succeed in either?

To me, the HSF not only failed to achieve any positive results in the war, but was one of the leading causes of the war as we know it in the first place. So no, I don't want them to replace that with something that effective, lol.

I don't want the Germans to cause the naval arms race that led to them being disemboweled OTL. What they build instead just needs to gain that effect. Nobody likes my alternate ships (and I can understand that), but no one is suggesting any alternative to the battleships, either.

Why don't you describe that post-WW1 Germany instead? We don't know what your target is, so it's very hard to help you hit it.

Good point. I'll give this my best shot, so here goes....

If, for whatever reason, the Germans emerge essentially unscathed from WWI (so they still have their colonies, armed forces, and economy), then they will find themselves in the biggest changeover in naval power in recent history. The carrier is going to replace the battleship as the new queen of the seas, the electroboat is going to be built by a Germany that still possesses far-flung colonies. With no treaty of Versailles restrictions, Germany is free to develop her sub and aircraft forces. Most importantly, the Nazi's never disgrace the German nation.

Germany doesn't necessarily have to win this war, I just want some well reasoned insights to what such a war might be like.

Prior to the Naval Laws, Germany had a battleline which didn't spark an arms race with the UK. That's another thing we've been trying to tell you.

Keep the battleline oriented in numbers, size, and capabilities towards Russia in the Baltic plus the defense of the North Sea coast against France and the arms race doesn't appear.

That depends on what kind of a "WW1" this WW1 is.

Given the reception to what I proposed as an alternative, I'll choose discretion as the better part of valor and refrain from any new naval buildup plan.

If someone else wants to propose such an alternative plan, I am all ears.

 

[Don Lardo]

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I may very well be), but wasn't the whole purpose of the 'high seas fleet' to protect German trade and colonies just by their existence?

That wasn't the purpose behind the High Seas Fleet, we've repeatedly told you the purpose behind the High Seas Fleet, and even Wiki can tell you the purpose behind the High Seas Fleet.

Prior to 1900, Germany built cruisers to protect her trade and her few colonies. After 1900, when the incidents involving German mail packets off South Africa made Fisher's explanation of the Royal Navy's mission being "Going where we want and doing whatever we please" readily apparent to even the dullest member of the Reichstag, Germany began building a risk fleet which would give Britain pause before attacking and hopefully force Britain into being more open to negotiating.

Germany never built a fleet which was meant to either protect her trade and colonies from the RN and never built a fleet which was meant to defeat the RN.

Germany built a fleet which was supposed to make Britain negotiate. It failed in that role but that fleet diverted substantial resources both before and during the war to contain it.

Good point. I'll give this my best shot, so here goes....

Excellent.

If, for whatever reason, the Germans emerge essentially unscathed from WWI (so they still have their colonies, armed forces, and economy)...

Unscathed in that manner means either Germany wins or the war is short. Both have their problems relative your time line.

... then they will find themselves in the biggest changeover in naval power in recent history.

Why? Seriously why?

The shift to subs and carriers is a no-brainer to us in 2011 with the lessons of WW2 and USN CVNs roaming the oceans, but why would it be a no-brainer to Germany or her enemies after this very different WW1? For example, if the war was short, subs and aircraft have seen neither the development or successes they did in the OTL. Why then would Germany completely scrap the battleline to develop unproven designs?

Germany doesn't necessarily have to win this war, I just want some well reasoned insights to what such a war might be like.

If it's a peace of exhaustion, Germany and everyone else isn't going to be in the condition to build a new navy and, if Germany doesn't win, her colonies are gone.

Just as when you wanted strategic range, tactical speed, and powerful weapons in a small cheap hull, you're asking for too much at the same time.

Given the reception to what I proposed as an alternative, I'll choose discretion as the better part of valor and refrain from any new naval buildup plan.

That reception was due mostly to you first admitting you know nothing about naval matters during the period in question, next making suggestions for a politically and technologically impossible naval strategy, and then not listening to anyone who tried to explain to you why the idea didn't work.

You would have been better off asking how you can get a post-"WW1" Germany which still has colonies, is burdened by nothing resembling the Versailles military restrictions, and can still begin building a fleet oriented towards sub and carrier operations.

 

[corditeman]

Grossadmiral Erich Raeder will be interested...

...My proposal - an attempt to achieve what the OP was looking at - was a far-flung version of his famous 'Z-Plan', with its 249 U-boats and modest surface battle group. So don't mock it.

Hindsight's marvellous - so are the remarks about the high-speed obsolescence of technical development in the period before the Great War. 1890 is far too early to decide to build a U-boat fleet, 1909 would be about right. OTL history shows how fast subs evolved from coastal defence to long-range hunter-killer.

Germany needed a Bismarck at a time when it had Hindenburg and Kaiser Wilhelm II, with negotiation subordinated to schoolyard machismo. Big ships = big something else, to some schools of yard. So you need the Z-Plan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Z.

 

[Janprimus]

Don Lardo makes a good point about the Germany building a risk fleet and trying to get Britain to negotiate. In fact it almost worked, but mutual distrust and bad diplomacy from both sides made things worse; not to mention the fact that it became a matter of national prestige for both sides. A less aggressive expansion of the German navy, which is plausible since there was also some protests of the German army about the division of the defense budget between the army and the navy.

In any case the compromise would be something like Germany is allowed a fleet, which can defend them from Russia and France (and they are allowed to respond to Russian and/or French naval expansion); but at the same time Germany recognizes British naval superiority, so they will have to agree to some form of parity. Although maybe a bit uneasy for both IMHO it would be a compromise. IIRC something similar was offered during the British German correspondence about this matter (Wilhelm II and Hardinge), IMHO should have taken such an offer.

 

[corditeman]

A missed opportunity...

...Local domination to protect the German coastline (North Sea and Baltic ports) could have been paired with the protection of German commerce by joint task forces, or maybe shared bases. I fear that Wilhelm's interest in the Boers may have made Britain look for an alliance with France, instead.

However, there is the problem that democracy, well established in Britain, was not as strong in Germany and weak in Russia.

The question of the Naval Laws depends again on the mission statement and the trustworthiness of Prussian autocrats in the eyes of Britain. When I consider that Britain has fought (as well as has been allied with) France, Germany, Russia, Italy, Japan, the United States, Argentina and China, trust seems a value judgement. And that's only Britain...

Assuming that Germany hung onto its pre-dreadnoughts to clobber French and Russian attacks, then the use of subs as forward harbour defences for colonies without heavy gun defences makes some sense. I have a lot of respect for German technical skill in U-boat development.

 

[Janprimus]

Well that's another diplomatic concern, the anglophile Wilhelm II wasn't well liked by his British cousins and had a constantly changing relationship with the UK. Furthermore his actions gave the German diplomatic service quite some work.

Regarding Germany sticking to pre-dreadnoughts, they won't, certainly not when everyone else, not only just Britain, is building these ships. They might build less than IOTL though. I could be part of an agreement and/or internally the German army manages to get a larger share of the German defense budget instead of the German navy.

 

[Grey Wolf]

I honestly don't think that a Germany that limits the size of its battlefleet to that needed to have hegemony in the Baltic (ie over the Russians) or to perform an active defence of the Bight against potential French assault is of itself going to worry Britain. In fact, Britain pretty much wanted this!

My concern is that given the technological developments of the time, any fleet of size sufficient to do this by say 1905 is going to have to be restructured, and basically built anew once the Dreadnought comes along, not necessarily at breakneck speed since neither Russia nor France was rushing either, but it would be built into the laws

Money is finite, so whilst the plans for more cruisers etc in the laws up to 1905 can assume a continual growth, once it is realised that the battlefleet of say 15 units, to be renewed 5 every 5 years actually now means the whole fleet is going to have to be upgraded to Dreadnoughts, the costs for this will weigh against the plans for more cruisers

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

Well that's another diplomatic concern, the anglophile Wilhelm II wasn't well liked by his British cousins and had a constantly changing relationship with the UK. Furthermore his actions gave the German diplomatic service quite some work.

Regarding Germany sticking to pre-dreadnoughts, they won't, certainly not when everyone else, not only just Britain, is building these ships. They might build less than IOTL though. I could be part of an agreement and/or internally the German army manages to get a larger share of the German defense budget instead of the German navy.

Or they may well build them at a slower pace, which is pretty much what you see with the Russian, French and Italian building programmes - reasonably ambitious but starting later, and more spreadout. It was only really Germany, and to an extent the USA, who were banging out classes at a rate to match the RN (who had more classes of course so more ships, but a similar rate)

Best Regards
Grey Wolf