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