The Time of Eagles

Thanks for the info Grey, great TL as always.

I do like the the idea of switching between the timeline and the narrative, it sort of adds a more personal perspective to the piece.
 
This could see the development of the philosophy of motorised infantry, building on armoured tractor guns, including covering them completely as a sort of proto heavy-tank
I'm not entirely convinced the tank, as we understand it, arises without trench stalemate, esp in Europe, where the road net is so good. A more powerful armored car, like the Puma or Greyhound, maybe...
Naval development would certainly take note of China's successes against Russian blockaders with their home-built submarines, and a boom in submarine construction seems natural, especially among the second rate naval powers. The great powers might well build up their submarine fleets, but invest their money into experimenting with new types - submarine cruisers, submarine minelayers, submarine tankers, submarine gunships (think the OTL M class with its single 11 or 12" gun).
The OTL M-class was, frankly, a ridiculous notion,:eek: which is why so few were built. The OTL "submarine cruiser" (Deutschland, for instance) evolved into what the USN would call the fleet submarine.
I don't, tho, see this extending to fleet submarines (OTL K class) simply because the idea would have no ATL logic behind it
Not having a complete grasp of all your changes, let me wonder, why not? Has Mahan's proposition, control of the sea demands fleet action, been disproven TTL? FWI read/recall, no. That being so, I expect cruiser subs to be conceived & developed as scouts, just as OTL, & probably prove as useless in their intended role, while some nations (France, for instance) adopt the OTL Jeune Ecole method, guerre de course, which is successful (as Germany proved OTL WW1).

In addition, given early introduction of steam screw ships, I think your 1920s steam turbine is very late, against the OTL 1890s Curtiss.
In OTL Voisin diversified into some car manufacturing, and I could certainly see them being richer in this ATL, and making a go of a major French automobile company. If we allow both brothers to survive into the 1920s, then the inventive ethos is going to continue at a pace
Perhaps. Given France is more industrialized TTL (IIRC), they might face stiffer competition than OTL, tho...
Maybe a Richtofen Company makes its name by producing high-quality copies of Russian designs ? Kind of amusing, I feel
An interesting idea... Have you thought about using Fokker (Dutch)? Canadians William A. Bishop & William Barker (who did go in together on a failed bush airline in the '20s)? Willy Coppens (Belgium)? Godwin Brumowski or Julius Arigi (A-H)? Aleksandr Kazakov or Vasili Yanchenko (Russia)? Of course, they may have been killed in action TTL...:eek:
maybe we can see Rumania (which, remember has no coast in this ATL) having Vlaicu develop his ideas, live longer of course, and create a strong native company ?
:cool::cool: His designs were pretty interesting. I'd do it.;)
The territory for this war would be inhospitable, the distances vast, the armies largely cavalry with a large percentage of Indian Volunteer Units (so termed due to US usage, but here basically allied or subject Indian Nations sending out a force with the army), plus as an important element, the aerial war

Distance, long-range staying-power, the ability to operate from rough airstrips, simple design but resilience, short take-off and landing, all would be far more important factors here than in previous conflicts, and could lead to early development of monoplane types akin to the OTL Lysander and Storch.
I'd say this is an ideal environment for sophisticated, long-endurance dirigibles. They'd have superior mobility to any ground unit, & you could see the introduction of airborne/air portable troops, not unlike in Vietnam, plus the doctrine of vertical envelopment. (I've also got a weakness for parasite fighters,:D tho I doubt even TTL's tech would make them practical.:mad::D)
 
Not much time right now, and as usual I work better from a saved HTML page at night

But by proto heavy-tank I am talking about the caterpillar gun tractors I had the Russians devise

I found a link to a British WW1 one and will post it if I can find it

The 'tank' bit was simply the idea of giving some armoured cover to the gun crew

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
pacifichistorian said:
The OTL M-class was, frankly, a ridiculous notion,
Grey Wolf said:
I don't, tho, see this extending to fleet submarines (OTL K class) simply because the idea would have no ATL logic behind it
Not having a complete grasp of all your changes, let me wonder, why not? Has Mahan's proposition, control of the sea demands fleet action, been disproven TTL? FWI read/recall, no. That being so, I expect cruiser subs to be conceived & developed as scouts, just as OTL, & probably prove as useless in their intended role, while some nations (France, for instance) adopt the OTL Jeune Ecole method, guerre de course, which is successful (as Germany proved OTL WW1).

The M class might have more logic behind it if you consider a war fought over great distances, and the effect that a submarine popping up off the coast and landing a 12" shell in a city many assumed invulnerable would have. Its a lot less risk than sending a major fleet unit, even an armoured cruiser. There would also be potential to enter dangerous waters and provide some, albeit small-scale, fire support for besieged armies. If these are still felt to be ridiculous notions, well the proof of the pudding is always in the eating, and nobody has tasted this one yet

Mayhap you mistake what I meant by a K-class fleet submarine? I meant the ones with retractable funnels, whose intended aim was to operate WITH the battle-fleet, and who either sank themselves (hence self-sinkers) or got rammed and sunk by ships they were trying to co-ordinate with (who couldn't see them very well). The synthesis of ideas behind them was based on the idea of luring an enemy battlefleet over your accompanying submarines and developed out of the less drastic idea of previously placing submarines in positions to intercept the enemy fleet. Both ideas, though, havd their origin in the clash of battlefleets ethos of Tirpitz and Fisher which has no real counterpart in this world

China, in this TL, turned to submarines to break the Russian blockade of her coast. China also possessed a battlefleet, but one she was loathe to risk unless the odds were on her side. I see this latter as creeping increasingly into Chinese policy - the invasion of Japan was covered by a battlefleet that the Shogunate could not hope to match, but the war against the USA saw the main Chinese units remain in home waters, with secondary units escorting the convoys to Oregon, or raiding out of Honolulu. When the USA interposed a force of its own at Okinawa, the imperial government decided that rather than risk defeat against it, and all that would follow from that, they would accept a peace treaty leaving Okinawa and the independent Satsuma lordship of Amami independent, and under US protection. Such weaknesses do of course enter the strategic calculations of many nations

pacifichistorian said:
Originally Posted by Grey Wolf
In OTL Voisin diversified into some car manufacturing, and I could certainly see them being richer in this ATL, and making a go of a major French automobile company. If we allow both brothers to survive into the 1920s, then the inventive ethos is going to continue at a pace
Perhaps. Given France is more industrialized TTL (IIRC), they might face stiffer competition than OTL, tho...

Regarding the aeroplane design, the question of patents initially allowed Voisin a massive advantage as everyone had to franchise it off of them (the long legal battles over the Cayley powered-glider designs of the 19th century set the precedent for this). Even when franchise-holders begin to diversify and develop their own patented designs, Voisin still gets a take. Note that this situation actually happened in the USA in OTL with the first automobiles. Here, its an international situation with regard to aeroplane due to the long-running Cayley dispute.

Eventually, designs no longer relying on any Voisin engineering challenge the patent - sure, they use the basic aerodynamic principle but now in varied ways. Voisin loses its patent rights over the principle, and full-sclae diversification and a plethora of new aeroplane companies break out

Regarding automobile manufacturing, Voisin have the wealth and status from its aeroplane patent to provide it with monies to properly compete in the market on a long-term basis. They are not the leading automobile manufacturer, but a strong enough player.

pacifichistorian said:
An interesting idea... Have you thought about using Fokker (Dutch)? Canadians William A. Bishop & William Barker (who did go in together on a failed bush airline in the '20s)? Willy Coppens (Belgium)? Godwin Brumowski or Julius Arigi (A-H)? Aleksandr Kazakov or Vasili Yanchenko (Russia)? Of course, they may have been killed in action TTL...

I hadn't so much not considered doing so, as had no need to provide names to such ventures, so they may well be in there, if their back stories allow them to exist in this world of many butterflies.

pacifichistorian said:
I'd say this is an ideal environment for sophisticated, long-endurance dirigibles. They'd have superior mobility to any ground unit, & you could see the introduction of airborne/air portable troops, not unlike in Vietnam, plus the doctrine of vertical envelopment. (I've also got a weakness for parasite fighters, tho I doubt even TTL's tech would make them practical

Sure, I was positing what the aeroplane companies would do in response to the terrain and its needs. Airships would also continue to develop, and hold an important place, especially in larger-scale logisitics at any distance, or in rough terrain. I don't see why we can't manage bi-plane parasite fighters like the Americans experimented with in OTL 1920s IIRC. If the journey is over seas, make them seaplanes, and they have an advantage there too

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Nicomacheus said:
In broad strokes, TTL is quite interesting: Russia bestrides Eurasia like a purported Colossus, but not it seems, to the exclusion of a vibrant Europe. France has become the world's most stable Republic--terrific. China has managed to industrialize early and retain a strong system of domination over its tradition vassals. And North America is thoroughly balkanized.

Thanks - that's a great summary :)
Regarding China, what do you think of the increasing unwillingness to really risk the battlefleet that has spread into its calculations ?

Nicomacheus said:
1) What is comparable standard of living / total economic output of France, Germany, Austria (still around, right?), the USA, NEC, UPC (Canada), Fredonia (and its satellites), Latin America, China and colonial India? It seems like China still lags Europe and America in respect of the first: how diffuse is this wealth? Is it concentrated on the coast leaving the interior Han provinces poor (typical pattern of most Chinese periods of prosperity)? It seems like the NEC is probably the most advanced in the New World, but I do wonder at the relative levels of Fredonia and the USA. Just in terms of population, if Fredonia can holds its own against the USA, it has a significantly larger population than that section of the US did OTL (even when considering TTL's lesser extent--perhaps slavery plays a role here, but I suspect differing patterns of immigration do as well; it seems like there are more Asians in Fredonia than the USA permitted this early on).
You always know how to come up with a great summary :) Fredonia has several reasons for its population - the initial state was in OTL Kansas/Oklahoma, made up of a mixture of adventurers, fugitives, entrepreneurs, later added to by industrial penetration, and veterans from the wars. The first large parties to go West were a mixture of Millerites and Bickleyans, and Fredonian military parties. Fredonia's conquest of the ViceRoyalty of California came with the appropriation of much of the native population. Later after the American Civil War had ended with the defeat of the Union and the secession of the New England Confederacy, Fredonia gained a vassal in the Trans-Mississippi Federation which comprised that part of the Union West of the Mississippi where New England sentiment proved victorious. In a way it was like the Western extension of the NEC, in another an Eastern one of Fredonia

Victorious, Fredonia became attractive in the latter decades of the nineteenth century to European immigration, and this is probably key in the next war. Schmidt, for example, was not just a German name, and not just an immigrant made good, but would have come with his own wealth and proto-establishment. California, of course, gets the vast majority of the well-off immigration.

2) You've mentioned that Fredonia is rather oligarchic: how so? Heavy corporate influence or something more formal? Is it a federal system or more unitary in nature? It would seem like there should be some internal tensions here.

Its a good question, but I am not sure of how to put the answer. Politics at national level often IS oligarchical. In Fredonia, there may be two parties, but one dominates. Perhaps in that it is a bit like post-WW2 Japan. There is the occasional threat of a victory for the opposition, but the wheelers and dealers of the ruling party can usually manoevre the right man into position. Sometimes the right man manoevres the oligarchs. Its a provincial system, with provincial governors, but senators are a unitary house - they represent what might in the US system seem to be larger congressional districts. Thus, there is a Senator for Los Angeles, which is its only national representative. And a Governor for the S Cal province, its highest local representation.

3) How do the various nations of North America share water rights? Seemingly silly, I know, but the USA has done some rather interesting things that in a divided North America would be different: for one, a fair amount of water is pumped from the western side of the Continental Divide in Colorado, to the easten side, in order to better farming land in Kansas. Fredonia may encompass the requisite territory to accomplish this, but OTL this is why the Colorado River (the Grand Canyon one) currently rarely reaches the Gulf of California, which would be in the US Southwest. Similarly, has the USA done anything to control flooding in the Tennessee Valley or to combat hurricanes along the Gulf Coast? Daming will be of particular import in Tejas (and wherever OTL Oklahoma is): today, there are several hundred lakes in Texas; only 1 of them is natural, the rest being man-made and in may cases the product of New Deal infrastructure programs. For smaller countries, such projects might be more important but also harder to mount.

Regarding "water is pumped from the western side of the Continental Divide in Colorado, to the easten side, in order to better farming land in Kansas" when did this come to be ? And in this ATL, would not both areas be in Fredonia ?
Regarding, US high value projects such as the Tennessee Valley, did not that get done in the 1930s in OTL? I imagine that it may well be part of Pershing or Maverick's Dictatorship, a prime infrastructure project.
What would be a major problem would be the Mississippi - in OTL, the later 1920s saw devastating floods leading to many advances in river control. Here, I have postulated that weather patterns have been massively altered by the forces of history. Thus, the late 1920s floods are not pre-destined. But whatever, the situation in this world, has the Trans-Mississippi Federation on one side, and the USA on the other.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I am caught up again. The Great Plains Indian Confederacy is finally gone having lasted a decade longer than I thought possible.

It would seem to me that there should be a US dissident faction of considerable strength opposing the institution of the dictatorship even if it is a notch less malignant than its name conjures.

You are more enchanted by the M Class than I am. Probably a nation or two might attempt such a beastie that but I would view something more along the lines of Surcouf (which had some serious problems as well) as a more common and less extreme concept. With greater use of subs there would also be a strong interest in ASW and in this role I would see airships playing a very important role (I am still struggling with how much a craft can be armored and still be lighter than air).

If you are looking for an alternate path to armored warfare than OTL you might consider armored half tracks.
 
Top