The Rainbow. A World War One on Canada's West Coast Timeline

Reader mode

vpsoccer

Extremely well done.

Extremely well researched. That alone makes this a fine piece of work. That it is also a well written story has made this my hottest read on the site for months.
I regret that I haven't "liked" this many times, usually being too enthralled to think about it! But I know that those little likes are an energy booster while writing and I hope to remember to click on them when I re-read this wonderful story.
 

Thomas_Wellesley

Having such a well researched timeline like this is an achievement, but for me I think the best part of this timeline was how well it is written, how believable the characters are, and as has been said before, just how engaging it is to read.

Well done YYJ, and thank you.
 

Bregil

Thomas_Wellesley said:
Having such a well researched timeline like this is an achievement, but for me I think the best part of this timeline was how well it is written, how believable the characters are, and as has been said before, just how engaging it is to read.

Well done YYJ, and thank you.
Click to expand...
I have just one piece to add to this, I really appreciated how both sides of the story were presented in a sympathetic light and nobody was the Saturday Morning villain. It really helped to highlight how being enemies doesn't automatically mean being "bad guys". :)
 

kent

Excellent writing, Thanks nice to see a well written story dealing with BC and the Northern Pacific coast. Makes one wonder how this would have effected US and Canada navel and forts along the Pacific coast.
 

ferdi254

Banned
OTL the USA did spend a huuuge amount of money and ressources to defend the west coast against an assumed invasion or air or ship attacks. The only country which was able to waste that in the middle of the war was the USA.

If now Canada wants to have that kind of protection on both coasts it would mean the UK running out of funds even earlier and some Canadian divisions not in place in France March to June 18.

Then with 20/20 hindsight this attack might have changed the outcome of the war, not by itself but by the reaction to it.
 

weasel_airlift

ferdi254 said:
If now Canada wants to have that kind of protection on both coasts it would mean the UK running out of funds even earlier and some Canadian divisions not in place in France March to June 18.
Click to expand...

Depends on what's needed/wanted. Some window dressing coastal guns can be done on the cheap, making it clear that the Canadian militias will need to man them. The UK has plenty of ridiculously obsolete vessels that can have their guns stripped and emplaced on the Canadian coasts.

That said, the point about divisions stands; some might be pared down to make and man those "forts" for the coastal guns.
 

YYJ

weasel_airlift said:
Depends on what's needed/wanted. Some window dressing coastal guns can be done on the cheap, making it clear that the Canadian militias will need to man them. The UK has plenty of ridiculously obsolete vessels that can have their guns stripped and emplaced on the Canadian coasts.

That said, the point about divisions stands; some might be pared down to make and man those "forts" for the coastal guns.
Click to expand...
I posted some links when this question came up earlier. Don’t have them at hand now at work, but the OTL 1940 coastal defence installations at Esquimalt, Vancouver, Prince Rupert and Yorke Island at the north end of Vancouver Island would have prevented most of the German action in this timeline. Nurnberg and Leipzig could have attacked Bamfield and Anyox, Swanson Bay and Ocean Falls, and harassed shipping off shore, but that is about it. The 1940 coastal defences used tech available in 1914, but there was no political will at the time to do the work. It would have cost something, but it was done in the late ‘30s OTL.
 
H.R (Slash) Pickens

H.R (Slash) Pickens

YYJ said:
I posted some links when this question came up earlier. Don’t have them at hand now at work, but the OTL 1940 coastal defence installations at Esquimalt, Vancouver, Prince Rupert and Yorke Island at the north end of Vancouver Island would have prevented most of the German action in this timeline. Nurnberg and Leipzig could have attacked Bamfield and Anyox, Swanson Bay and Ocean Falls, and harassed shipping off shore, but that is about it. The 1940 coastal defences used tech available in 1914, but there was no political will at the time to do the work. It would have cost something, but it was done in the late ‘30s OTL.
Click to expand...
couldn't you theoretically modernize old forts though? like say, taking the Halifax Citadel and sticking some 15 inch cannons on them? not to mention building new naval forts and with the conscription restrictions, you can use them to man these new installations instead of sending them overseas, thus getting new forts, getting your men in uniform, and not having to send them overseas.
 

YYJ

EmeraldKnight1701 said:
couldn't you theoretically modernize old forts though? like say, taking the Halifax Citadel and sticking some 15 inch cannons on them? not to mention building new naval forts and with the conscription restrictions, you can use them to man these new installations instead of sending them overseas, thus getting new forts, getting your men in uniform, and not having to send them overseas.
Click to expand...
Some were modernized in Esqumalt, but some of the forts were in the wrong places for the longer ranged guns. 9.2” guns on 35 degree mounts were the heaviest coastal defence guns mounted in Canada.

I am not all that familiar with the forts of Halifax during the wars, other than knowing they were substantial, and mostly well east of the city, closer to the entrance of the harbour where they could use their range.
 
H.R (Slash) Pickens

H.R (Slash) Pickens

YYJ said:
Some were modernized in Esqumalt, but some of the forts were in the wrong places for the longer ranged guns. 9.2” guns on 35 degree mounts were the heaviest coastal defence guns mounted in Canada.

I am not all that familiar with the forts of Halifax during the wars, other than knowing they were substantial, and mostly well east of the city, closer to the entrance of the harbour where they could use their range.
Click to expand...
the Halifax Citadel, is OLD. and I mean OLD. Im talking 1850's old. it sits atop a hill in a decent place, and its a well built fort. you can prob replace some of its antiquated muzzle-loaders with some 8 inchers, or something due to it also overlooking the harbour. and with the "wrong places", build new ones. use all the resources, and new manpower we had through conscription to build, and man them. we solve a LOT of problems that way.

1632429280227.png
 

YYJ

EmeraldKnight1701 said:
the Halifax Citadel, is OLD. and I mean OLD. Im talking 1850's old. it sits atop a hill in a decent place, and its a well built fort. you can prob replace some of its antiquated muzzle-loaders with some 8 inchers, or something due to it also overlooking the harbour. and with the "wrong places", build new ones. use all the resources, and new manpower we had through conscription to build, and man them. we solve a LOT of problems that way.

View attachment 682257
Click to expand...
Lots of forts defending Halifax in addition to the Citadel. http://www.fortwiki.com/Category:Harbor_Defense_of_Halifax
 
H.R (Slash) Pickens

H.R (Slash) Pickens

YYJ said:
Lots of forts defending Halifax in addition to the Citadel. http://www.fortwiki.com/Category:Harbor_Defense_of_Halifax
Click to expand...
exactly my point. theoretically, the conscripts could be pressed into service maintaining, modernizing and building and occupying these forts, and new ones, solving the problems of "no conscript will have to serve overseas", getting more coastal defence, and getting these men to contribute to the defence of Canada.
 

vpsoccer

Adding some coast defense to the west coast (some guns and some small bodies of troops) would not affect the contributions to the war in France. Old guns, and troops who would not go overseas in any case -- elderly and/or unfit. If there were some threat of German warships in the Pacific, then an old protected cruiser would suffice (no German ACs any more) and would serve as a training ship for those able to serve overseas.

As for Halifax, the Citidel is the last place to put guns after about 1860 - and before that they are too far from the water to be useful against bombardment. It is in the middle of the city and on a big hill where they are easy to see but don't gain much range advantage while leaving the harbour open to at least some attack. Batteries at the outer flanks of the harbour made it a more difficult place to attack - after the batteries were built. Any attacker would have had a long run in under fire, and then a long run out. Even a ship with long long range guns would have had a hard tije getting close enough to bombard the actual port without getting knocked about in return.
 
H.R (Slash) Pickens

H.R (Slash) Pickens

vpsoccer said:
Adding some coast defense to the west coast (some guns and some small bodies of troops) would not affect the contributions to the war in France. Old guns, and troops who would not go overseas in any case -- elderly and/or unfit. If there were some threat of German warships in the Pacific, then an old protected cruiser would suffice (no German ACs any more) and would serve as a training ship for those able to serve overseas.

As for Halifax, the Citidel is the last place to put guns after about 1860 - and before that they are too far from the water to be useful against bombardment. It is in the middle of the city and on a big hill where they are easy to see but don't gain much range advantage while leaving the harbour open to at least some attack. Batteries at the outer flanks of the harbour made it a more difficult place to attack - after the batteries were built. Any attacker would have had a long run in under fire, and then a long run out. Even a ship with long long range guns would have had a hard tije getting close enough to bombard the actual port without getting knocked about in return.
Click to expand...
yeah, but remember Mackenzie king made the vow that "No conscripted man will have to be sent overseas", and so, by using the "zombies" (which was what the conscripts were called) to build, modernize and man forts, it can be marketed as "In the Defence of Canada", while also avoiding having them sent overseas. This also bolster's Canada's coastal defences, which is both a political, AND defence solution.
 

vpsoccer

EmeraldKnight1701 said:
yeah, but remember Mackenzie king made the vow that "No conscripted man will have to be sent overseas", and so, by using the "zombies" (which was what the conscripts were called) to build, modernize and man forts, it can be marketed as "In the Defence of Canada", while also avoiding having them sent overseas. This also bolster's Canada's coastal defences, which is both a political, AND defence solution.
Click to expand...
So little or no effect on forces sent to France, and probably overshadowed by the volunteer recruitment boost from having the Huns attack the west coast.
 
Driftless

Driftless

Donor
vpsoccer said:
So little or no effect on forces sent to France, and probably overshadowed by the volunteer recruitment boost from having the Huns attack the west coast.
Click to expand...

I wonder if such an event (as told in this TL) would spur more Western Canadians to join up specifically to fight in France, to get "A crack at those damn Huns who shot up our coast".
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top