PC/WI: British Impressed US Sailors during WWI?

Interestingly, the USA impressed, or conscripted, non-citizens, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States#Non-citizens

The Selective Service (and the draft) in the United States is not limited to citizens. Howard Stringer, for example, was drafted six weeks after arriving from his native Britain in 1965.[107][108] Today, non-citizen males of appropriate age in the United States, who are permanent residents (holders of green cards), seasonal agricultural workers not holding an H-2A Visa, refugees, parolees, asylees, and illegal immigrants, are required to register with the Selective Service System.

true, but only resident aliens (in other words, people who came to live here)

amusingly enough, under current Selective Service law, ILLEGAL immigrants are required to register for the draft we don't have... chuckle.
 

Driftless

Donor
oh good grief another silly reason for the British and Americans to fight

Not to mention the British never even dreamed of doing such a thing. Irritating the Americans by seizing some merchant ships sure (but at least those ships were hauled into port for a Prize Court to be held to determine their fate), but impressment? that is just silly

Bingo! - nothing to see here - move on....
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Just because I spent the time putting this together... ships on Dec 31 1917.




Capital ships by broadside and speed.

British:
8 12", 21 knots
1+3+3+1+2
10 13.5", 21 knots
4+4+4+1
8 15", 21 knots
5
14 12", 22 knots
1
10 14", 22 knots
1
8 12", 25 knots
2+1
8 15", 25 knots
5
8 13.5", 28 knots
2+1
6 15", 31 knots
2
4 15", 32 knots
2
2 18", 32 knots
1


German:
8 11", 20 knots
4
8 12", 21 knots
4+5+4
8 15", 22 knots
4
8 12", 26 knots
2
8 11", 27 knots
1
8 11", 28 knots
1 + 1


US:
8 12", 18 knots
2
12 12", 20 knots
2
10 14", 20 knots
2
10 12", 21 knots
2+2
10 14", 21 knots
2
12 14", 21 knots
2 + 1




Baseline numbers:
British 46
German 26
US 15

Removing all ships below 20 knots

British 46
German 26
US 13

Removing all ships below 21 knots

British 46
German 22
US 9

Removing all ships below 22 knots

British 18
German 9
US 0


Removing all ships below 12" guns

British 46
German 19
US 15


Removing all ships below 13.5" guns

British 33
German 4
US 7

Removing all ships below 14" guns

British 16
German 4
US 7

Removing all ships below 15" guns
British 15
German 4
US 0


...I can't seem to find a situation where the British have less than (US + German).

(Which doesn't change the actual conclusion, of course, which is "they wouldn't, for these reasons, and if they did they'd be stupid because it would result in their losing the war for no gain".

How about removing ships that can't survive a couple hits from a 12" gun?

Should clear off the RN BC quite nicely (just sayin')
 
You do realize if the US went to war with GB it would start cranking out ships in very large numbers? That the numbers in 1917 at the latest would look nothing like they did in 1912? That the US has more money, more manpower and more ports than GB by a large margin in 1912?
Also dont forget the British freaked out about a 24 to 17 Dreadnaught ratio leading to the two turkish and Chilean Dreadnaughts being seized. Admiral Jellicoe is going to resign presumably aafter having the criminal shot.
 
How about removing ships that can't survive a couple hits from a 12" gun?

Should clear off the RN BC quite nicely (just sayin')

British ships would blow up if a seaman lit a match on the Focsle in a force 8 and the armour was actually made from recycled chocolate bar wrappers :D
 

Saphroneth

Banned
How about removing ships that can't survive a couple hits from a 12" gun?

Should clear off the RN BC quite nicely (just sayin')
How do we define that, then? I'd be glad to, but (for example) are we assuming that the British still have the hokey ammunition handling which OTL was gotten rid off after Jutland?
...and do we also count the OTL post-Jutland refits of the British ships?

I mean, my numbers for ships present are post-Jutland, so there's already three British BCs deleted because they exploded. But looking at the armour thicknesses of the British BCs which did explode:


Invincible


Belt: 4–6 in (102–152 mm)
Decks: 1.5–2.5 in (38–64 mm)
Barbettes: 7 in (178 mm)
Turrets: 7 in (178 mm)
Conning tower: 6–10 in (152–254 mm)
Torpedo bulkheads: 2.5 in (64 mm)



Indefatigable




Belt: 4–6 in (102–152 mm)
Decks: 1.5–2.5 in (38–64 mm)
Barbettes: 7 in (178 mm)
Gun turrets: 7 in (178 mm)
Conning tower: 4–10 in (102–254 mm)
Torpedo bulkheads: 2.5 in (64 mm)




Queen Mary




Belt: 9–4 inches (229–102 mm)
Bulkheads: 4 inches (102 mm)
Barbettes: 9–8 inches (229–203 mm)
Turrets: 9 inches (229 mm)
Decks: 2.5 inches (64 mm)
Conning tower: 10 inches (254 mm)



So if we assume Queen Mary (with the thickest armour of the three which exploded) is the one which defines what can't survive 12" gunfire, then we delete anything with 9" or less main belt or turrets.

This removes all the British BCs.


British 35
German 26
US 15


But it also means we're implicitly assuming that the 12" gun is the smallest valid one, so we should remove any ships with below 12" guns.


Result:

British 35
German 19
US 15

If, on the other hand, we assume that the lighter armour of Invincible and Indefatigable is the "can't survive" level, then that restores three BCs to the British list.

British 38
German 26
US 15


The only definition by which one can consider the US and German fleets combined to be numerically superior to the British is to assume that the British battlecruiser armour level is the level at which things are worthless (hence, to attribute the problems at Jutland entirely to armour instead of to a combination of armour and shell handling), but to still assume that the 11" gun is as effective as the 15" gun and that an 18-knot ship is as effective as a 25-knot ship.



...mind you, here's how many 12" hits the BCs took.
First phase

Lion 9
Princess Royal 6
Queen Mary 3 (+4 11") SUNK
Tiger 0 (+ 14 11")
New Zealand 0 (+ 1 11")
Indefatigable 0 (+ 5 11") SUNK

Second phase

Lion 4
Tiger 0 (+ 1 11")


Third phase
Invincible 5 SUNK
Princess Royal 2


Total 12" hits taken by surviving ships
Lion 13
Princess Royal 8
Tiger 0 (15 11")
New Zealand 0 (1 11")


So Lion and Princess Royal (both Lion class) were able to survive multiple 12" shells. We can thus conclude that their protection was adequate.


Armour:

Belt: 9–4 inches (229–102 mm)
Bulkheads: 4 inches
Barbettes: 9–8 inches (229–203 mm)
Turrets: 9 inches (229 mm)
Decks: 2.5 inches (64 mm)
Conning tower: 10 inches (254 mm)

Tiger has the same level of protection.




The fire at Jutland, though, was long range plunging fire for the most part, so maybe we need to look at deck thickness - and if we do, the SoCals (and many other ships) might need to go as their decks are not very thick at all.

(Actually, that would be interesting but quite a headache.)




You do realize if the US went to war with GB it would start cranking out ships in very large numbers? That the numbers in 1917 at the latest would look nothing like they did in 1912? That the US has more money, more manpower and more ports than GB by a large margin in 1912?
How long are you assuming that the US would take to build their dreadnoughts? I'm assuming that the building program kick-off would be in 1915 at the earliest... the British build times were about as fast as the Brits could make them due to massive experience, but the US didn't have that much experience and I think they actually had fewer DN building slips.
 
What if the British, frustrated with US neutrality in WWI (and possibly their refusal to not stop trading with Germany) decides to re-implement the unilateral impressment of US sailors into the Royal Navy?

What would be the butterflies caused by such a policy?

Erm what neutrality? The US only mildly protested the British use of distant blockade and sold the British whatever they had the cash+credit to buy and happily brought goods from the Empire by the literal shipload.

Unlike the extreme howls of jealous rage from some up thread American sailors were in fact rather impressed by the Royal Navy. They were very much admiring of it in fact.


However the British were not impressed by the benefits of impressment.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1895/mar/22/the-manning-of-the-navy

Even long before the First World War they considered it no way to run a Navy.

It is, perhaps superfluous to remark that for manning the Navy, even in war, impressment is no longer possible. It was disapproved by Lord Nelson. More men were lost by desertion than were pressed into the Service, and 3,000 good sailors were employed on shore in the press-gangs.
So sayeth Lord Brassey to Parliament back in 1895.

Then there was the fact that American sailors were serving on British as well as American ships conveying goods meant for the war effort to Britain so the idea would be seen as even further self-defeating.

Edit: Oh and further rather than double post, impressment was never about general conscription. The aim was not to acquire bodies but rather bodies of a certain type; skilled men who could work a rig.

By the First World War it is true that the US would be the major reservoir of men skilled with sailing ships as they had the most old style sailing ships in the world at the time. The thing was that warships and the kind of merchantmen the British favoured were steamers or motor vessels. It would as easy if not easier to pick up a landsman and train him to use modern equipment as some high lofting topman.
 
Last edited:

Saphroneth

Banned
Just to go further into the ships thing.


When comparing two ships directly, what matters is really a combination of factors.


A faster ship is better - a faster fleet can control the engagement to a large degree, see the Russo-Japanese War.
More shots per salvo is better, since salvo repeat rate is roughly equivalent to flight time (due to director firing).
Director firing is much better.
A penetrating hit from a larger shell does more damage than a penetrating hit from a smaller shell.
Ammunition handling problems are forgivable in a shell in an immune zone, but a major problem not in an immune zone.
And a ship with 6" armour but 15" guns is actually not that disadvantaged fighting a ship with 11" armour and 11" guns - the range at which the 11" guns will pierce the 6" armour is pretty much the range at which the 15" guns will pierce the 11" armour.




This combination means the USN might actually have some trouble handling the OTL WW1 IJN.

Leaving the Satsumas at home:


4 12", 21 knots
2 + 2(AC)
12 14", 23 knots
2 + 2
8 14", 29 knots
4


That's not many ships, but all of them are at least as fast as maximum speed for the fastest US DNs, and there's eight ships faster than the entire US battle line.
 
Just to go further into the ships thing.


When comparing two ships directly, what matters is really a combination of factors.


A faster ship is better - a faster fleet can control the engagement to a large degree, see the Russo-Japanese War.
More shots per salvo is better, since salvo repeat rate is roughly equivalent to flight time (due to director firing).
Director firing is much better.
A penetrating hit from a larger shell does more damage than a penetrating hit from a smaller shell.
Ammunition handling problems are forgivable in a shell in an immune zone, but a major problem not in an immune zone.
And a ship with 6" armour but 15" guns is actually not that disadvantaged fighting a ship with 11" armour and 11" guns - the range at which the 11" guns will pierce the 6" armour is pretty much the range at which the 15" guns will pierce the 11" armour.




This combination means the USN might actually have some trouble handling the OTL WW1 IJN.

Leaving the Satsumas at home:


4 12", 21 knots
2 + 2(AC)
12 14", 23 knots
2 + 2
8 14", 29 knots
4


That's not many ships, but all of them are at least as fast as maximum speed for the fastest US DNs, and there's eight ships faster than the entire US battle line.

until numbers came into play...

as to the ships.. the US battleline balanced its tonnage equation as follows:
firepower
protection
range
speed

the Japanese balance their equation as follows
firepower
protection
speed
range

except for the 4 BC
firepower
speed
range
protection

As the actual record of ability to absorb punishment exists, it would seem that the Japanese BC could not take any kind of punch. So good thing they can run away isn't it? While 2 of of the Japanese SDNs fought at Leyte Gulf and we know exactly how much damage they could take. For the US you can look at Pearl Harbor

but ultimately once again it does come down to numbers... the US Navy was getting 2 battleships a year pretty much from 1905 until 1922, with that projected to continue and with no strain at all on the budget. Only thing that stopped it was the Washington Treaty

The British were already starting to have budget problems and the Japanese were simply unable to build their 8 + 8 program due to finances.

Sometimes money is a weapon
 
Just want to quibble with the quantitative superiority thing, because I actually think it depends on what ships you count as being worth anything. If it's "any dreadnought regardless of speed or gun type" then it's juuust not correct.

The main reason for this post is to point out that the RN was bloody enormous in WW1.

There's also the two Argentine dreadnoughts under construction in the US. Argentina actually got wet feet and was looking to sell them - if a war breaks out in 1914-early 1915 with US involvement, I'd imagine those vessels would be purchased and put into USN service.


In addition, such numbers don't tell the whole story. Yes, the HSF is strongly outnumbered on paper. But the thing is, even OTL the RN barely had enough ships to counter them throughout much of the war, due to the fact that the Germans had a fleet in being. With the bulk of its capital ships remaining in port, the HSF could pick a time to leave port when all of its vessels were operating. The British, which were forced to keep large numbers of ships on station in the North Sea, where wear and tear took their toll, had to rotate ships back to port for repairs and refitting, enough of them that for long stretches of the war, it held only a very slim numerical advantage. Almost no modern capital ships could be spared from the job of keeping an eye on the Germans, even for important campaigns like the Dardanelles.

So, for a large swath of the war (and the OP isn't exactly clear of when this takes place), the US Navy getting involved means the British are going to be in an absolutely horrific spot.

They can abandon their holdings in the Americas, and suffer widespread attacks against shipping in the Atlantic, while keeping the Germans in check. They can send a very large force across the Atlantic (let's ignore the logistics of this), hoping that the USN will come out from its fortified harbors to give battle, where they can be crushed (while praying that the Germans just sit around and don't do anything while the remaining naval forces in Great Britain are weak). Or they can try and split the RN, praying that no ships whatsoever suffer any mechanical problems, and risking defeat in detail.

Yes, on paper, the Royal Navy outnumbers both the German and American fleets when put together. But given the strategic situation and logistics, those numbers don't matter that much, and Britain would be placed in an untenable position.
 
Last edited:

Saphroneth

Banned
Oh, goodness yes - no argument about that the RN would have to be very lucky indeed to beat a combination of the USN and the HSF. (I'm talking "it turns out that USN ships can't operate their directors" lucky.)

But that's not what I was arguing against - I was arguing against the statement that the USN and HSF put together were larger than the RN, which was factually incorrect.
 
Top