RamscoopRaider
Donor
I doubt it could be ignored but without filling in more details regarding the scenario it becomes harder to guess what might happen
Kriegsmarine: what if Germany managed to surpass the British Navy?
- Status
You don't even kill Fisher SMH.
For real, though, any sort of "Germany surpasses UK at sea for WW1" benefits tremendously from killing off Jackie Fisher, perhaps by some tropical disease in the Caribbean. It is hard to overstate how important he was to the creation of the Grand Fleet that cockblocked Germany all of WW1.
As for some more specific critiques...
1898 suggests Spain desperately handing over their colonies to Germany to keep the US from taking them, which is at least semi-plausible but still suffers from the problem that Spain was quite unwilling to give up its last scraps of empire. Further, Spain's colonies aren't going to give the Germans much in the way of trade route access and additional resources.
Not to mention: with what forces are the Austrians going to be attacking Italy with? They have their hands full with the Russians and Serbians.
See the various Operation Sea Lion threads for why this is basically ASB territory.
So leaving aside the plausibility of Germany surpassing the UK at sea in the first place, your timeline still makes no sense.
For real, though, any sort of "Germany surpasses UK at sea for WW1" benefits tremendously from killing off Jackie Fisher, perhaps by some tropical disease in the Caribbean. It is hard to overstate how important he was to the creation of the Grand Fleet that cockblocked Germany all of WW1.
As for some more specific critiques...
Negotiates from who? Germany got the colonies it did in large part because other colonial powers got the rest of the clay first, and nobody was particularly keen on handing over hard-won colonies to Germany, the upstart newcomer. France and Britain in particular were more than willing to outright cockblock the Germans.
1898 suggests Spain desperately handing over their colonies to Germany to keep the US from taking them, which is at least semi-plausible but still suffers from the problem that Spain was quite unwilling to give up its last scraps of empire. Further, Spain's colonies aren't going to give the Germans much in the way of trade route access and additional resources.
Won't work. The German ships don't have the range to cut off the coast of France, let alone interdict shipping in the Mediterranean. Even if they try, French torpedo boats, mines, and submarines are going to inflict a steady stream of casualties - and the Germans trying to blockade the English Channel would be akin to them sticking their dick in a pencil sharpener and about as smart.
Italy wouldn't do this. They were opportunists, and if the Entente is losing this badly they're more liable to side with the Central Powers.
Not to mention: with what forces are the Austrians going to be attacking Italy with? They have their hands full with the Russians and Serbians.
Um...
See the various Operation Sea Lion threads for why this is basically ASB territory.
So leaving aside the plausibility of Germany surpassing the UK at sea in the first place, your timeline still makes no sense.
David Flin
Gone Fishin'
Me, I just love the throwaway line that the Ottomans give full respect and autonomy to the minorities in their Empire.
I would love to see the reasoning behind that little 180.
I would love to see the reasoning behind that little 180.
In OTL the British launched the Dreadnought in 1906, this was such a major improvement in the power of a battleship that it reset the counter for them to 0. It divided battleships into dreadnoughts and pre-dreadnoughts. After that there was an arms race between Great Britain and Germany who could build the most. GB won it.
So actions before that won't really matter in gaining naval supremacy. Because the even if the British are completely blind to what is happening in Germany (which they won't) they'll still launch the Dreadnought and the counter is reset and a new armsrace will follow. Since in OTL the British won it, it's even more likely that ITTL they will also win it, because all the investments in battleships Germany did are essentially worthless.
Last edited:
Sea Lion doesn't work any better in the 1910s than in the 1940s, if anything, it is far worse.
The British could outbuild the Germans at least 3:1 on any class of ship you care to name. It's yards were almost embarrassingly efficient (a classic example is that the USN actually laid down the first of its all "big gun" ships, the USS South Carolina (BB-26) in December of 1906, she was commission in March of 1910, so 40 months first steel to commission (partly because the Dept. of the Navy dithered about issuing contracts). The German laid down their first all big gun, SMS Nassau, in July of 1907; she was commission in October of 1909 (27 months) HMS Dreadnought, also the first of her type built in the UK (and the first overall) was lad down on October 2, 1905, and commission on October 6, 1906 369 DAYS from keel to commission. The British builf four dreadnought type BB in the time it took the German to build 1. This actually get worse as the years go by. By the Time the 1911 KGV class comes into the ways, the RN is pumping out battleships in under a year. It took the Germans twice as long to build a light cruiser as it took the British to build a battleship.
The UK has a literal LAW that required that the RN be able larger than the next two largest navies on Earth, COMBINED. There is literally no way the Germans can catch up except winning a series of battles where they are out numbered. Not happening (here is a fun fact, you can count the number of true battleships actual sunk exclusively by naval gun fire in your thumbs).
The UK is, comfortably, the wealthiest nation on Earth. Germany, well, isn't the wealthiest, and this is one of those games where the is winner and first loser.
The British could outbuild the Germans at least 3:1 on any class of ship you care to name. It's yards were almost embarrassingly efficient (a classic example is that the USN actually laid down the first of its all "big gun" ships, the USS South Carolina (BB-26) in December of 1906, she was commission in March of 1910, so 40 months first steel to commission (partly because the Dept. of the Navy dithered about issuing contracts). The German laid down their first all big gun, SMS Nassau, in July of 1907; she was commission in October of 1909 (27 months) HMS Dreadnought, also the first of her type built in the UK (and the first overall) was lad down on October 2, 1905, and commission on October 6, 1906 369 DAYS from keel to commission. The British builf four dreadnought type BB in the time it took the German to build 1. This actually get worse as the years go by. By the Time the 1911 KGV class comes into the ways, the RN is pumping out battleships in under a year. It took the Germans twice as long to build a light cruiser as it took the British to build a battleship.
The UK has a literal LAW that required that the RN be able larger than the next two largest navies on Earth, COMBINED. There is literally no way the Germans can catch up except winning a series of battles where they are out numbered. Not happening (here is a fun fact, you can count the number of true battleships actual sunk exclusively by naval gun fire in your thumbs).
The UK is, comfortably, the wealthiest nation on Earth. Germany, well, isn't the wealthiest, and this is one of those games where the is winner and first loser.
You also have the Anglo-Japanese Alliance that allows Japan to roll up the German places in the Pacific and then Support the UK in Europe easily. This frees all the UK, French, and Commonwealth ships in the Pacific Rim and Asia to transfer way before the war starts.
Also I noticed you had Liberia getting something. How are you going to make the US go along with what you are proposing? Germany cannot take on the US at any time here and the US if definatly going to outbuild the Germans if it means they are a threat to the US. Even if they threaten to take Canada, especially if they threaten to take Canada or any of the Entente colonies in the Western Hemisphere is going to be a no no.
Also I noticed you had Liberia getting something. How are you going to make the US go along with what you are proposing? Germany cannot take on the US at any time here and the US if definatly going to outbuild the Germans if it means they are a threat to the US. Even if they threaten to take Canada, especially if they threaten to take Canada or any of the Entente colonies in the Western Hemisphere is going to be a no no.
Germany needs a better motive to develop a fleet greater than the Royal Navy. The Royal Navy existed to defend the islands yes, but mostly to maintain the sea lanes of communication to the Empire. Without it the Empire is not possible. A Royal Navy second to none was an existential requirement for the Empire.
Germany did have an overseas empire, mostly as a vanity project, but was a latecomer to the game. The only German colony that was profitable was, as far as I know, Nauru. I suppose South West Africa could have been profitable if they had discovered the diamonds earlier. But the Kaiserliche Marine was not an existential requirement for the German Empire, since most of the Empire was not overseas. Adding a few more rando overseas colonies will not change that. I note the map above, but the ITTL post war German colonies taken from France in central Africa were a result of the greater emphasis on their navy, not a cause.
Germany did have an overseas empire, mostly as a vanity project, but was a latecomer to the game. The only German colony that was profitable was, as far as I know, Nauru. I suppose South West Africa could have been profitable if they had discovered the diamonds earlier. But the Kaiserliche Marine was not an existential requirement for the German Empire, since most of the Empire was not overseas. Adding a few more rando overseas colonies will not change that. I note the map above, but the ITTL post war German colonies taken from France in central Africa were a result of the greater emphasis on their navy, not a cause.
KAISERLICHE Marine,not HSF or Kriegsmarine. HSF was a subdivision of the Kaiserliche Marine and the Kriegsmarine was a descendant of said organization, renamed after Hitler took over.
Riain
Banned
Before the war the Kaiserliche Marnie had 2 fleets (High Seas & Baltic) and 2 Naval Stations (North & Baltic Sea), by October 1914 a 3rd Naval station was formed; the MarineKorps Flanders, surprisingly enough this was in Flanders, Belgium.
Riain
Banned
As for the OP, building a major fleet is a task for peacetime and prior to WW1 this was unlikely to impossible for Germany for reasons others have pointed out including land border security and lack of industrial capacity. However if Germany won WW1 they might be able to have a go at it. Their land security would be vastly improved with an array of buffer states, their economy would likely be bigger in the longer term meaning they could develop the industrial capacity to match British shippbuilding capacity. Another factor is that even in Britain ship classes were getting smaller, only 4 G3 and N3s were planned, compared to 6 QEs and 8 Rs with 5 of each built. If the absolute number of ships is reduced then it will be easier for Germany to achieve.
Also Battleship, and other armor plate for ships, is a specialized steel that has to be made in only certain steel mills with extreme quality control. This extends to the point that you cannot just use any steel mill to make it let alone roll. shape into the plates needed through forging or putting them together in the proper thicknesses. It would take 18 to 24 months to make the special furnesses alone to melt the steel before even building the rest of the supporting mill to make the steel needed. Even the US only had one or two mills capable of making the steel even during WW2 with the expansion we had in the factories and mill pre and during the war.
Building the Guns also needed specialty mills to make the steel, make the guns of the proper type, and forge the materials for the gun. Whether the Gun itself or the mounts need specialty equipment to make. Remember this was before arc welding and other methods used in modern manufacturing.
Building the Guns also needed specialty mills to make the steel, make the guns of the proper type, and forge the materials for the gun. Whether the Gun itself or the mounts need specialty equipment to make. Remember this was before arc welding and other methods used in modern manufacturing.
Based on past experiences, when a poster registers and posts one detailed AH timeline attempt and nothing else, we do see a lot of 'It isn't about how it happens", in the absolute best of situations.
It isn't workable without multiple PoDs in different countries, which by their definition can't flow from a single event or person. That in and of itself puts it in the story category more than any rigourous timeline.
Some resources to help:
1.) http://www.gwpda.org/naval/n0000000.htm WW1 Maritime Resources (As this is from a 20+ year old website, someone might be inspired to go through and archive the lot to save this excellent bit of history
2,) http://www.naval-history.net/WW1NavyBritish-Shipbuild01.htm (Or the hard evidence as to how and why the central proposition is bunk)
3.) A little example of the productive capacity of pre WW1 Britain over 5 years:
laid down 09/1909; launched 08/1910; completed 05/1912 HMS Lion (Lion class BC)
laid down 11/1909; launched 08/1910; completed 01/1912 HMS Orion (Orion class BB)
laid down 04/1910; launched 03/1911; completed 03/1912 HMS Monarch (Orion class BB)
laid down 04/1910; launched 02/1911; completed 06/1912 HMS Thunderer (Orion class BB)
laid down 04/1910; launched 05/1911; completed 11/1912 HMS Conqueror (Orion class BB)
laid down 05/1910; launched 04/1911; completed 11/1912 HMS Princess Royal (Lion class BC)
laid down 01/1911; launched 10/1911, completed 11/1912 HMS King George V (King George V class BB)
laid down 01/1911; launched 11/1911; completed 05/1913 HMS Centurion (King George V class BB)
laid down 02/1911; launched 03/1912; completed 03/1913 HMS Ajax (King George V class BB)
laid down 02/1911; launched 09/1912; completed 10/1913 HMS Audacious (King George V class BB)
laid down 03/1911; launched 03/1912; completed 08/1913 HMS Queen Mary (Queen Mary class BC)
laid down for Turkey 08/1911; launched 09/1913; seized by the RN; completed 08/1914 HMS Erin (BB)
laid down for Brazil 09/1911; launched 01/1913; seized by the RN; completed 08/1914 HMS Agincourt (BB)
laid down for Chile 11/1911; launched 11/1913; sold to England 09/1914; completed 09/1915 HMS Canada (BB)
laid down 01/1912; launched 10/1912; completed 03/1914 HMS Iron Duke (Iron Duke class BB)
laid down 01/1912; launched 10/1912; completed 06/1914 HMS Marlborough (Iron Duke class BB)
laid down 05/1912; launched 11/1913; completed 10/1914 HMS Benbow (Iron Duke class BB)
laid down 05/1912; launched 11/1913; completed 11/1914 HMS Emperor Of India (Iron Duke class BB)
laid down 06/1912; launched 12/1913; completed 10/1914 HMS Tiger (Tiger class BC)
laid down 10/1912; launched 10/1913; completed 01/1915 HMS Queen Elizabeth (Queen Elizabeth class BB)
laid down 10/1912; launched 11/1913; completed 03/1915 HMS Warspite (Queen Elizabeth class BB)
laid down 01/1913; launched 11/1914; completed 02/1916 HMS Valiant (Queen Elizabeth class BB)
laid down 02/1913; launched 10/1914; completed 10/1915 HMS Barham (Queen Elizabeth class BB)
laid down 10/1913; launched 04/1915; completed 02/1916 HMS Malaya (Queen Elizabeth class BB)
Cancelled 08/1914 HMS Agincourt (Queen Elizabeth class BB)
laid down 12/1913; launched 05/1915; completed 03/1916 HMS Revenge (Royal Sovereign class BB)
laid down 01/1914; launched 04/1915; completed 05/1916 HMS Royal Sovereign (Royal Sovereign class BB)
laid down 11/1913; launched 09/1916; completed 09/1917 HMS Ramillies (Royal Sovereign class BB)
laid down 11/1913; launched 01/1915; completed 12/1916 HMS Resolution (Royal Sovereign class BB)
laid down 01/1914; launched 11/1914; completed 05/1916 HMS Royal Oak (Royal Sovereign class BB)
Suspended 08/1914, reordered as a light battlecruiser HMS Renown (Royal Sovereign class BB)
Suspended 08/1914, reordered as a light battlecruiser HMS Repulse (Royal Sovereign class BB)
Cancelled 08/1914 HMS Resistance (Royal Sovereign class BB)
25 battleships
4 battlecruisers
4 cancelled
It isn't workable without multiple PoDs in different countries, which by their definition can't flow from a single event or person. That in and of itself puts it in the story category more than any rigourous timeline.
Some resources to help:
1.) http://www.gwpda.org/naval/n0000000.htm WW1 Maritime Resources (As this is from a 20+ year old website, someone might be inspired to go through and archive the lot to save this excellent bit of history
2,) http://www.naval-history.net/WW1NavyBritish-Shipbuild01.htm (Or the hard evidence as to how and why the central proposition is bunk)
3.) A little example of the productive capacity of pre WW1 Britain over 5 years:
laid down 09/1909; launched 08/1910; completed 05/1912 HMS Lion (Lion class BC)
laid down 11/1909; launched 08/1910; completed 01/1912 HMS Orion (Orion class BB)
laid down 04/1910; launched 03/1911; completed 03/1912 HMS Monarch (Orion class BB)
laid down 04/1910; launched 02/1911; completed 06/1912 HMS Thunderer (Orion class BB)
laid down 04/1910; launched 05/1911; completed 11/1912 HMS Conqueror (Orion class BB)
laid down 05/1910; launched 04/1911; completed 11/1912 HMS Princess Royal (Lion class BC)
laid down 01/1911; launched 10/1911, completed 11/1912 HMS King George V (King George V class BB)
laid down 01/1911; launched 11/1911; completed 05/1913 HMS Centurion (King George V class BB)
laid down 02/1911; launched 03/1912; completed 03/1913 HMS Ajax (King George V class BB)
laid down 02/1911; launched 09/1912; completed 10/1913 HMS Audacious (King George V class BB)
laid down 03/1911; launched 03/1912; completed 08/1913 HMS Queen Mary (Queen Mary class BC)
laid down for Turkey 08/1911; launched 09/1913; seized by the RN; completed 08/1914 HMS Erin (BB)
laid down for Brazil 09/1911; launched 01/1913; seized by the RN; completed 08/1914 HMS Agincourt (BB)
laid down for Chile 11/1911; launched 11/1913; sold to England 09/1914; completed 09/1915 HMS Canada (BB)
laid down 01/1912; launched 10/1912; completed 03/1914 HMS Iron Duke (Iron Duke class BB)
laid down 01/1912; launched 10/1912; completed 06/1914 HMS Marlborough (Iron Duke class BB)
laid down 05/1912; launched 11/1913; completed 10/1914 HMS Benbow (Iron Duke class BB)
laid down 05/1912; launched 11/1913; completed 11/1914 HMS Emperor Of India (Iron Duke class BB)
laid down 06/1912; launched 12/1913; completed 10/1914 HMS Tiger (Tiger class BC)
laid down 10/1912; launched 10/1913; completed 01/1915 HMS Queen Elizabeth (Queen Elizabeth class BB)
laid down 10/1912; launched 11/1913; completed 03/1915 HMS Warspite (Queen Elizabeth class BB)
laid down 01/1913; launched 11/1914; completed 02/1916 HMS Valiant (Queen Elizabeth class BB)
laid down 02/1913; launched 10/1914; completed 10/1915 HMS Barham (Queen Elizabeth class BB)
laid down 10/1913; launched 04/1915; completed 02/1916 HMS Malaya (Queen Elizabeth class BB)
Cancelled 08/1914 HMS Agincourt (Queen Elizabeth class BB)
laid down 12/1913; launched 05/1915; completed 03/1916 HMS Revenge (Royal Sovereign class BB)
laid down 01/1914; launched 04/1915; completed 05/1916 HMS Royal Sovereign (Royal Sovereign class BB)
laid down 11/1913; launched 09/1916; completed 09/1917 HMS Ramillies (Royal Sovereign class BB)
laid down 11/1913; launched 01/1915; completed 12/1916 HMS Resolution (Royal Sovereign class BB)
laid down 01/1914; launched 11/1914; completed 05/1916 HMS Royal Oak (Royal Sovereign class BB)
Suspended 08/1914, reordered as a light battlecruiser HMS Renown (Royal Sovereign class BB)
Suspended 08/1914, reordered as a light battlecruiser HMS Repulse (Royal Sovereign class BB)
Cancelled 08/1914 HMS Resistance (Royal Sovereign class BB)
25 battleships
4 battlecruisers
4 cancelled
If Germany wanted to win WW1, a better strategy is to have them invest even less in their navy and more in their army. They only needed to control the Baltic, and never were going to be able to surpass Britain while also fighting France and Russia at the same time.
I suppose in a "Germany wins WW1" scenario, the German fleet can surpass Britain and eventually humiliate the British, but that would be a result of a huge land victory giving them the resources to devote to a naval arms race. It would not be the cause of them winning the land war.
I suppose in a "Germany wins WW1" scenario, the German fleet can surpass Britain and eventually humiliate the British, but that would be a result of a huge land victory giving them the resources to devote to a naval arms race. It would not be the cause of them winning the land war.
Well I guess it would work if you had an ASB slipping lead into all the non-central power's drinking water
And even then, the KM overtaking the RN is still far from guaranteed. A victorious Germany in WWI would still have to maintain enough occupation / garrison forces to keep all the new states born from the ATL Brest-Litovsk Treaty in line (Ukraine, Baltic states, Poland, Belarus, and possibly Finland), as well as occupied France, and possibly occupied Belgium and Romania as well.
At some point, Germans might also have to prop up Austria-Hungary with military interventions.
And of course, it would also have to maintain a land army that is large and strong enough to counter any risk of Russian revanchism (that, or actually physically occupy European Russia to prevent the Russians from rising again).
With the British being very happy to fund Russian rearmament, as even if no full-scale war breaks in the east, it at least forces Germany to watch nervously its eastern border.
Meanwhile, Britain would STILL be able to get away with a limited land army, that is only geared to put down colonial rebellions, because Sealion would remain unworkable... meaning that the RN would still get the lion's share of military spending in the UK.
- Status