The Turbine Kaiser

What if in June of 1897 Kaiser Wilhelm II, was so taken with Charles Algernon Parsons, unexpected demonstration at queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee that he sought out who was responsible.
Kaiser Wilhelm II was fascinated with the demonstration and sought out Charles Parsons.
A couple of weeks later Parsons and his steam turbine company got their first major sponsor in the German Kaiser.

In Germany several weeks later Kaiser Wilhelm II ordered that no further ships were to be built unless they were powered by the steam turbine.

A young konteradmiral by the name of Alfred Tirpitz attracted the attention of the Kaiser.
Using the knowledge that the Kaiser was fascinated with the steam turbine Tirpitz campaigned for a greatly enlarges fleet and was successful.

The steam turbine allowed the ships to have cleaner designs which Tirpitz used to create monocalibre turreted vessels.

The space saving of the steam turbines allowed more turrets to be fitted and fitted along the centre line of the vessels.
Thus first modern dreadnoughts wee created in 1901.
 
Last edited:
Just an idea I had for a plausible better Kairerliche marine being built proir to WWI.

No magic or ASB's required.

What do you people think?
 
I thought the larger number of large-caliber guns was due to the increased shooting ranges around 1905(which were in turn driven by increased torpedo range)? I don't think dreadnoughts can be brought in much earlier, 1-2 years earlier yes, 5 years earlier, no.

Did the British had trouble with their early turbines? The USN, and to a lesser extent, the Germans had teething problems with them. If not, I'd say cruisers and torpedo boats would have benefited more from turbines than battleships, at least at first. But Tirpitz's programs were more focused on battleships than smaller ships...
 
I don't see Tirpitz as the one to introduce the all big gun battleship. Also Tirpitz was a fair weather vane when it came to new movements within the Imperial Navy which is why he switched to promoting battleships after years with torpedo boats.

Even if the Germans brought over Parsons one won't see turbines in capital ships for a few years. As with the Royal Navy the engines were tested out in destroyers first. What works in the merchant marine may not work well in its first incarnation in the navy.

Turrets arranged on the centerline are really the optimal arrangement. Wing turret use was set by the desire of greater end on fire without resorting to superimposed turrets. In the German instance the use of the hexagon layout of main turrets is a result of quickly modifiying an existing plan - making a dreadnought out of the plans of a pre-dreadnought.

In regards to the WI, in the end, as in the instance of the Gloire, the Royal Navy will respond with a more capable warship and then outbuild the Germans. The Royal Navy was great at responding to challenges.
 
Germany's biggest problem is that Britain can build capital ships at almost double the rate of Germany. IOTL this was made worse by Germany stopping capital ships for a year or 2 before re-starting with the new designs.

However if the Kaiser decided to recruit Parsons Germany would probably ready to lay down a dreadnaught or semi dreadnaught as early as Japan and the US did, possibly a year before Britain. This would mean that although the RN would have as many dreadnaughts as OTL by 1914 Germany would a couple more which would reduce the margin to something more managable for them.
 
Germany's biggest problem is that Britain can build capital ships at almost double the rate of Germany. IOTL this was made worse by Germany stopping capital ships for a year or 2 before re-starting with the new designs.

However if the Kaiser decided to recruit Parsons Germany would probably ready to lay down a dreadnaught or semi dreadnaught as early as Japan and the US did, possibly a year before Britain. This would mean that although the RN would have as many dreadnaughts as OTL by 1914 Germany would a couple more which would reduce the margin to something more managable for them.

I just threw the dreadnought bit in to see what people thought of the idea.

It's the eariler use of the turbine that got me thinking of what might have been if the Kaiser had insisted on them being used.

Lets say that Parsons with Imperial patronage gets a suitable turbine developed by lets say march 1900.

If no other changes are made to production or even layout that still gives the Germans 20 additional predread or dreadnought types that can keep up with the latter dreadnoughts.

It also gives them seven other armoured cruisers and 22 CL's that can keep pace with the main fleet.

This in itself would make a huge difference.
 
I'd think Parsons could have turbine destroyers before 1900, cruisers by 1902/3 and captial ships by 1905, just in time for ideas of a uniform(ish) battery to be adopted for this ship.
 
I'd think Parsons could have turbine destroyers before 1900, cruisers by 1902/3 and captial ships by 1905, just in time for ideas of a uniform(ish) battery to be adopted for this ship.

HMS Viper and Cobra were the first turbine powers vessels in the RN. both ordered in 1899 and strangely lost in 1901 due to freak accidents.

After the success of these ships all RN destroyers were turbine powered until the type 42 in 1971.

The next RN ship to get turbines was the Dreadnought.

Strangely the first commercial turbines were used a year after the success of Dreadnought.

All this was done with out and patronage from the crown or senior RN admirals.

In this timeline he has the backing of the Kaiser who is a close friend of Albert Ballin the owner of the hamburg amerika line.
I'd say it is possible that both German commercial and military ships could all use turbines if thee had been enough incentive for them to be risked as untried technology.

With the Kaisers full backing they would be risked and when they were found to be some much of an improvement parsons company would have so many orders that it might not be able to supply turbines to the RN.

Another unexpected pod.

WI Dreadnought didn't have turbines would the RN be slower then the KLM?
 
I'd imagine the RN would get turbines soon after Germany, it couldn't afford to get too far behind.

The competing machinery IOTL was interesting. The RN used large tube boilers and turbines and the Germans small tube boilers and reciprocating engines (IIRC) and achieved similar results. But if the Germans teamed their small tubes with turbines they'd have the perfect powerplant wheras the RN's large tubes and pistons would be complete shit. So until the RN got turbines of it's own it's all big guns ships would be considerably worse than Germany's big gun turbos. This is another margin shrinker for WW1. The 1st dreadnaughts will be too slow until they get the new turbine machinery, in perhaps 1908. With the different building tempos I'd imagine the top line battleship numbers would be about equal by 1914 if the Germans had a 3 or 4 year headstart on the Brits.

But for the Brits equality is actually inferiority.
 
The slow adoption of steam turbines is typical and represents the slow methodology that occurs in the adoption of any new advancement. Warship designs take months to be drafted - in fact the development of warships at the turn of the 20th century is faster than that at the turn of the 21st century. Also the turbine is arriving towards the end of a 40 year long period of tremendous technological advancement where there is no clear indication what will work and what will be a deadend.

Britain is a maritime nation and will quickly adopt something once the bugs have been worked out.

One point that has to be raised is that Britain could easily outbuild the Germans in capital ship at least since the size of the German battlefleet is set by legislative law. No great effort to keep track of the number of German ships underconstruction needs to be done since the size of the fleet is clearly given in the Naval Bills that Tirpitz lobbied the Reichstag to pass. Parliament could add additional each fiscal year if it wanted to.
 
Germany built captial ships on a 2/3 ratio; ie they laid down 2 in one year and 3 the next. Britain on the other hand had more industry and motivation built on a 4/5 ratio.

If we are looking at an end date in 1914 or 1915 the starting date of dreadnaught building becomes very important. If Germany gets it's turbine dreadnaught programme going in 1904 by 1914 it has laid down 25 of these ships. If Britain starts in 1907, a year later than OTL because of Germany's lead in turbines, by 1914 it would have laid down 31.

So in the first year of WW1 in 1914 or '15 the RN margin of superiority would be very slender indeed, practically nothing considering their need to be ready for sea 24/7 and the Germans ability to maximise it's strength before heading to sea. This is a big difference to OTL where the odds were long for Germany in 1914 and got worse during the war. In this circumstance Germany could force battles from day 1 and inflict enough tactical defeats on the RN to make Germany superior at sea.
 
In this circumstance Germany could force battles from day 1 and inflict enough tactical defeats on the RN to make Germany superior at sea.

Unlikely, that only works if the enemy complies with your battle plans. The Germans had a battleplan of what they were going to do with their fleet at the outbreak of war. They expected that there would be a massive naval battle between themselves and the Royal Navy or that the Royal Navy will conduct a close blockade of German ports and they could sally forth and destroy the RN in piecemeal. The British did none of that. The British conducted a blockade at a distance and just didn't do what the Germans wanted them to do.

With the odds not strongly in their favor, I don't see why the Royal Navy would attempt to engage the High Seas Fleet rather than blockade Germany into defeat.
 
With the odds not strongly in their favor, I don't see why the Royal Navy would attempt to engage the High Seas Fleet rather than blockade Germany into defeat.

This is exactly what GB would do David but in this time line the Germans do have faster ships with better endurance then OTL.

It probably won't make any real difference but we'd probably see more naval battles especially earlier in the war as the Germans sought battle to make the most of what they had until the RN out builds them.

It'd be really interesting if the Germans didn't stick to 28 cm guns so long.
Imagine if the Germans followed the rest of the herd and upgunned their designs when the British did so it would become a slugging match between near equal dreadnoughts.

The RN would still win through sheer weight of numbers but the effect of the battles would be felt on both the eastern and western fronts as men and resources are diverted to repair and rebuilding programs.

It would make for a more interesting WWI.
 
Distant blockade was the long term British plan, their fallback plan if you will. What they really wanted was a Trafalgar, to smash the German fleet in a decisive encounter, that way they could do all sorts of naval things as well as blockade Germany. It was the Germans, well aware of their OTL inferiority who declined battle under the RNs terms.

For their part the Germans would have liked to engage portions the RN in battle in an area of sea very close to their bases under optimal conditions. These conditions never eventuated IOTL so this battle wasn't fought.

Therin lies the conditions for the WW1 naval stalemate.

BUT.... If the fleets were much more evenly matched TIOTL the Germans need not be so timid. The RN had to maintian it's strength ready for sea 24/7 so it needed a large fleet so 3/4 or so could be ready to sortie at the shortest notice, so of those 31 (projected) ships they could only get 26 to sea at any 1 time. IOTL the RN got 28 of it's 33 dreadnaughts to the battle of Jutland.

With the intiative of being the attacker the Germans could probably match this number from their own 25 (projected)ship lineup. IOTL the Germans got 16 of their 18 dreadnaughts to the Battle of Jutland. The Germans could aim to use this near parity to break the British blockade and enforce their own blockade.
 
Last edited:
With the intiative of being the attacker the Germans could probably match this number from their own 25 (projected)ship lineup. IOTL the Germans got 16 of their 18 dreadnaughts to the Battle of Jutland. The Germans could aim to use this near parity to break the British blockade and enforce their own blockade.

Riain, The Germans in OTL or TTL simply would never have the resources to blockade GB.

The best case for the Germans would be mutual destruction of both fleets involved. This MIGHT result in the blockade being lifted or being very very leaky.
The Germans never had the strength to blockade GB they could use u-boats to sink merchants but this would more or less lead to immediate US entry into the war on the side of the Entente if undeclared submarine warfare was used.

It is more likely if mutual destruction takes place the GB will seek an early peace as they are a naval power and to have the large part of their best ships destroyed would drop morale into the toilet.

The pollies would make an acceptable peace that benefit both Germany and GB. France and Russia would be left hanging although GB might still finance and trade with both sides just to keep the war going in the hope that even if ultimately victorious Germany would be so hurt that it would not be a threat for a couple of decades allowing the RN to be rebuilt.
Just like steve austin better faster stronger.
 
Not a proper blockade, but surface ships could regularly raid the British North Sea coast while Uboats worked the western apporaches. Commerce raiders could be kept at sea as could blockade runners. Keeping up a veneer of trade during the war would stave off the intervention of the US for longer. Maybe Lettow Vorbeck and Turkey could be helped.
 
Not a proper blockade, but surface ships could regularly raid the British North Sea coast while Uboats worked the western apporaches. Commerce raiders could be kept at sea as could blockade runners. Keeping up a veneer of trade during the war would stave off the intervention of the US for longer. Maybe Lettow Vorbeck and Turkey could be helped.

Blockade runners would be very difficult unless they were US flagged which in this instance the GB would be wise not to seize.

Unless the US gov changes I don't see this happening as the US gov's stance was you trade with the Central powers at your own risk.
The Entente knew that the ey only had to watch out for US flagged ships in the Americas if they ventured to european water they were fair game for the Entente.
 
German flagged blockade runners will get through if the RN doesn't have the resources to mount enough patrols to stop them.

Of course we come up against the Geography half of sea power that everyone seems to ignore in favour of the Fleet half. I think Germany would be better served winning the 'Race to the Sea' in 1914 and holding the French side of the Dover St throughout WW1 than it would having more ships in a less favourable geographical position.
 
I've been consulting Conway's while going over a friend's idea about Chinese battleships and came up with these thoughts:

1. Turbines while good are not necessary for the main battleline. I'm placing the refueling, less vibrating, etc. problems that faced Vertical Triple Expansion engines to the side. The general speed of the battleline goes up probably 3 knots, which the VTE were capable of matching. The turbines really payout with the battlecruisers with their speeds of 25+ knots (and smaller vessels as well).

2. Parsons wouldn't sign an exclusive contract with Germany, since, besides being patriot, that sort of thing wasn't done at the time. Or at least there would be serious repercussions that would effect trade relations between Britain and Germany. Not to mention the fact that historically Parsons built or licensed the construction of turbines in Germany. Parsons turbines figured in German warship construction thru out the war and were, in many cases, powered by Schulz-Thornycroft designed/licensed boilers. Really, turbines are nice and neat to have, but in the confines of the North Sea what is more important is fire control.

3. Parsons was the largest supplier of turbines, but certainly not the only one.

So I basically consider this POD a wash. The Germans may get the first turbines driven capital warship, but it wouldn't mean much since Britain could easily out build them and it would. There wouldn't be any additional ships for the Germans or a slimmer margin for the British, because the British had access to more shipyards. Remember how many export battleships are available to be purchased by the British with any given POD.
 
Top