TL 191: Which country should the U.S. attack first?

[bguy]

Logistics are easier at Salonica, plus it's not hard, Russia is going to be having trouble in 1915 already, another field army on its front will kill it

The German offensive on the Eastern Front for 1915 was already complete before the Salonica Campaign ever got going, so the lack of such a campaign is unlikely to make any difference that year.

Not hard, for all of 1916 you have 1 extra German Army to keep up the pressure on Russia, and 1 fewer Entente field Army (Romania) on the Russian front, Brusilov offensive cannot be launched and turns into disaster, Russia takes 1917 losses in 1916. Now 8 divisions may be more useful in France, but cancelling French offensives saves 8 divisions of casualties frex, so troops are available, now that would likely mean Verdun falls, but that happened in 191 anyways

Does the 11th Army even stay on the Eastern Front if there is no Salonica? Facing an additional 8 French divisions in France would seem to require the Germans to send additional troops to the Western Front to compensate, so the 11th Army would likely go there instead.

And the Brusilov Offensive being cancelled might be a net plus for the Russians as I've seen it argued that for all its OTL battlefield success, the Russians suffered losses in it that they just couldn't afford. Russia is probably better off in 1916 assuming a more cautious defensive strategy rather than trying for a knock-out punch against the Austrians.

The RN's probably has something based in Halifax to prevent that sort of thing, even Pre dreads would be enough, and as I said Britain could afford more dreadnoughts over OTL

I'm skeptical that the British TL-191 dreadnought fleet is (post-Pearl Harbor) significantly bigger than it was IOTL. It is implied in the novels that the Battle of Jutland came out much the same way as it did IOTL, and its hard to believe the British wouldn't have won a decisive victory there if they had had an extra 5 to 10 dreadnoughts. Thus either Britain's extra dreadnoughts were lost at Pearl Harbor at the start of the war (returning the British to their approximate OTL dreadnought numbers) or the British extra dreadnought builds were matched by additional builds by the Germans (leaving the British with pretty much the same margin over the Germans in the North Sea that they had IOTL.) Either way it means the British don't have a sufficient enough edge over the Germans in the North Sea to be sending dreadnoughts off to fight the Americans.

Pre-dreds in Halifax is an interesting idea though that is going to reduce the British margin in the Med even more so. (As well as meaning less pre-dreds available for protecting British convoys in the Atlantic.)

Mahan also thought Dreadnoughts and Armored Cruisers were bad ideas, yet the OTL US built plenty, I'm assuming the US builds some, if they don't the US is at a serious disadvantage in a big gun battle, and the one we hear about they won so implies BC. Also Assuming 6-8 in Pacific, have to be that many, unless Japan is really sandbagging in the 3 Navies, because they have 2 Dread and 2 semi dread BB assuming they won't risk the Kongo's or Fusos, plus 4 12" gunned ACR rated as BC, plus whatever UK brings

You may be correct about the battlecrusiers, but even if the U.S. has 6-8 dreadnoughts (at whatever mix of battleships and battlecruisers) in the Pacific that would still leave from 16-18 dreadnoughts for the Atlantic Fleet which even after allowing for a QRF and some ships in refit is still going to be something like 8 to 10 dreadnoughts on station near Halifax.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

The German offensive on the Eastern Front for 1915 was already complete before the Salonica Campaign ever got going, so the lack of such a campaign is unlikely to make any difference that year.

Exactly, the UK and France know Russia is in trouble in 1915. Seeing Russia having trouble against the forces arrayed against it in 1915, it's not hard to see how one or two extra field armies would turn trouble into a disaster

Does the 11th Army even stay on the Eastern Front if there is no Salonica? Facing an additional 8 French divisions in France would seem to require the Germans to send additional troops to the Western Front to compensate, so the 11th Army would likely go there instead.
And the Brusilov Offensive being cancelled might be a net plus for the Russians as I've seen it argued that for all its OTL battlefield success, the Russians suffered losses in it that they just couldn't afford. Russia is probably better off in 1916 assuming a more cautious defensive strategy rather than trying for a knock-out punch against the Austrians.

In OTL yeah 8 divisions would require compensation. In 191? With Britain deploying less troops (and 4 divs less Canadians), the OTL forces in the west can likely handle the extra French 8 divisions. In 191 yeah Russia is better off now that I think about it, Italy neutral means A-H has the reserves to stop it. If Italy wasn't neutral, well Brusilov diverted troops from the west and Italian fronts

I'm skeptical that the British TL-191 dreadnought fleet is (post-Pearl Harbor) significantly bigger than it was IOTL. It is implied in the novels that the Battle of Jutland came out much the same way as it did IOTL, and its hard to believe the British wouldn't have won a decisive victory there if they had had an extra 5 to 10 dreadnoughts. Thus either Britain's extra dreadnoughts were lost at Pearl Harbor at the start of the war (returning the British to their approximate OTL dreadnought numbers) or the British extra dreadnought builds were matched by additional builds by the Germans (leaving the British with pretty much the same margin over the Germans in the North Sea that they had IOTL.) Either way it means the British don't have a sufficient enough edge over the Germans in the North Sea to be sending dreadnoughts off to fight the Americans.

Pre-dreds in Halifax is an interesting idea though that is going to reduce the British margin in the Med even more so. (As well as meaning less pre-dreds available for protecting British convoys in the Atlantic.)

Britain got rid of a lot of pre dreads just before WWI, keep them in service say 3 years longer gives 8-9 more. We don't know where Britain's Dreadnoughts are, assume some lost at PH, some had to participate in 3 Navies, likely stayed in the Pacific after the loss, beyond that might be some parceled up in ones and threes elsewhere, like QE leading the Med fleet in OTL. Perhaps some in Halifax just to keep the port open, considering Canada consistently got supplies from the UK in 191. Britain had the margin of superiority it wanted in the North Sea OTL

You may be correct about the battlecrusiers, but even if the U.S. has 6-8 dreadnoughts (at whatever mix of battleships and battlecruisers) in the Pacific that would still leave from 16-18 dreadnoughts for the Atlantic Fleet which even after allowing for a QRF and some ships in refit is still going to be something like 8 to 10 dreadnoughts on station near Halifax.

Depends on the size of the QRF, at 4 cap ships, yeah they could blockade Halifax, if it is 8-10, then they can't without risking defeat in detail if Britain shakes loose 8 dreadnoughts for 3 months, especially if Britain has dreadnoughts in Halifax (or Canada got those Battleships it wanted)

 

[m0585]

So the U.S. should basically seize Winnipeg, take the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of Canada, then throw the rest of its efforts into stomping the CSA. Pretty sure if Canada lost those areas then it would be fatally wounded; which isn't to say that it couldn't still mount a stiff defense.

 

[Faeelin]

And the Brusilov Offensive being cancelled might be a net plus for the Russians as I've seen it argued that for all its OTL battlefield success, the Russians suffered losses in it that they just couldn't afford. Russia is probably better off in 1916 assuming a more cautious defensive strategy rather than trying for a knock-out punch against the Austrians.

Russia's on the defensive, the Americans are on the offensive, the Turks are doing at least as well as OTL against the British...

Where are the Entente winning in ATL 1916?

 

[Michael B]

Where are the Entente winning in ATL 1916?

They are taking out the German colonies. At least the British Empire and the Japanese are.

 

[Faeelin]

They are taking out the German colonies. At least the British Empire and the Japanese are.

I guess, but comparing Tanganiyka to Verdun... It seems like a poor trade.

 

[Michael B]

I guess, but comparing Tanganiyka to Verdun... It seems like a poor trade.

Not if a) you are thinking about after the war and b) it is not your troops in the mill.

After all, that is what the British did on OTL.

 

[Faeelin]

You really can't help but think that sometime in 1913, the British Lord of the Admiralty, facing the American and German fleets, must have put his pistol in his mouth.

 

[bguy]

Russia's on the defensive, the Americans are on the offensive, the Turks are doing at least as well as OTL against the British...

Where are the Entente winning in ATL 1916?

The war pretty much became unwinnable for the Entente the moment the Italians decided not to ally with them. (Though even if the Italians had come in on their side, the Entente would still have been facing pretty long odds.)

 

[m0585]

Barring a miracle, the Entente lost the second the U.S. declared war. The Entente simply could not compete with the industrial output and resources of the Central Powers.

 

[The Gunslinger]

So the U.S. should basically seize Winnipeg, take the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of Canada, then throw the rest of its efforts into stomping the CSA. Pretty sure if Canada lost those areas then it would be fatally wounded; which isn't to say that it couldn't still mount a stiff defense.

They don't even need most of that. If the USA nabs Vancouver and throws everything at Montreal that's pretty much it for Canada. Whatever's left will wither on the vine.

You really can't help but think that sometime in 1913, the British Lord of the Admiralty, facing the American and German fleets, must have put his pistol in his mouth.

There's no way that Britain would have been dumb enough to do everything in its power to drive America into the arms of Germany in the first place. By 1913 Britain has been wearing the dunce hat for decades.

 

[Faeelin]

There's no way that Britain would have been dumb enough to do everything in its power to drive America into the arms of Germany in the first place. By 1913 Britain has been wearing the dunce hat for decades.

Well, How Few Remain felt plausible to me, as did the British Intervention in the Civil War. No doubt some of the posters who think the Trent Affair would be awesome played a hand in British foreign policy .

And after you seize Maine and intervene twice, how do you appease the USA?

 

[The Gunslinger]

Well, How Few Remain felt plausible to me, as did the British Intervention in the Civil War. No doubt some of the posters who think the Trent Affair would be awesome played a hand in British foreign policy .

And after you seize Maine and intervene twice, how do you appease the USA?

I seem to recall Britain never intervening in the Civil War, merely recognizing the CSA after Antietam.

But the whole political aspect of the premises is insane. Why is Britain allied to the CSA? In the twenty intervening years between 1862-1881 they stayed allied to slave holding state? It seems more likely that Britain would be pro-Union if nothing else because now she's much weakened and less a peer competitor. Britain was perfectly content to let America do whatever it wanted OTL in order to preserve the trading relationship it possessed, but here they throw it away to uphold a slave holding state? Parliament would have been in an uproar.

And why would America start a war with the CSA when they it's allied to France and the UK? That's suicide. And if America was bone headed enough to start a great power war the peace would have been far more onerous than OTL because they would have an eye on the horizon for America joining up with a foreign power and be looking to knock America down a peg.

I enjoyed the series, but it doesn't hold up to serious inspection.

 

[m0585]

I seem to recall Britain never intervening in the Civil War, merely recognizing the CSA after Antietam.

But the whole political aspect of the premises is insane. Why is Britain allied to the CSA? In the twenty intervening years between 1862-1881 they stayed allied to slave holding state? It seems more likely that Britain would be pro-Union if nothing else because now she's much weakened and less a peer competitor. Britain was perfectly content to let America do whatever it wanted OTL in order to preserve the trading relationship it possessed, but here they throw it away to uphold a slave holding state? Parliament would have been in an uproar.

And why would America start a war with the CSA when they it's allied to France and the UK? That's suicide. And if America was bone headed enough to start a great power war the peace would have been far more onerous than OTL because they would have an eye on the horizon for America joining up with a foreign power and be looking to knock America down a peg.

I enjoyed the series, but it doesn't hold up to serious inspection.

I seem to recall, if I remember "American Front" correctly, that the British Ambassador, Lord Lyons, implied that Britain would intervene directly if Lincoln didn't agree to a mediated peace arrangement. The only reason that the U.S. went to war with the CSA in 1881 was to lose and set up the rest of the series. A victorious U.S. in the Second Mexican War would not bother to ally itself with Germany. I agree that the U.S. premise for declaring war was completely silly, as was its actual execution of the war.

 

[shadow]

I am with you The Gunslinger once the British and French intervene to support the CSA in the Second Mexican War something which is already skating thin ice on plausibility anyway. The British and French are basically given the idiot ball till the start of the First Great War. Otherwise why didn't the British and France not try to impose a harsher peace treaty of US following victory or help the Spanish crush the Japanese in the Spanish-Japanese War and finally backing Italian colonial ambitions in Northern and Eastern Africa. The addition of Spain and Italy into the Entente while not war winners would help to ease the manpower crunch facing the British and French and could help free some French navel assets for the struggle in the North Atlantic. But nope Europe remains unchanged for reasons.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

I am with you The Gunslinger once the British and French intervene to support the CSA in the Second Mexican War something which is already skating thin ice on plausibility anyway. The British and French are basically given the idiot ball till the start of the First Great War. Otherwise why didn't the British and France not try to impose a harsher peace treaty of US following victory or help the Spanish crush the Japanese in the Spanish-Japanese War and finally backing Italian colonial ambitions in Northern and Eastern Africa. The addition of Spain and Italy into the Entente while not war winners would help to ease the manpower crunch facing the British and French and could help free some French navel assets for the struggle in the North Atlantic. But nope Europe remains unchanged for reasons.

UK and France not imposing a harsher peace treaty in Second Mexican War makes sense, likely the war to prop up the CSA was not popular at home, plus as long as the US is not shipping grain the price of bread is through the roof, which is uncomfortable for any government, better make peace now with a victory (however minor)than drive the US to fight on for 6 more months, and have internal issues get worse and end up with status quo ante. Japan was allied to the UK already by Spanish Japanese War, intervene there on behalf of Spain and you could end up with a CP Japan, and put the colonies that actually made money at risk. Italy was a German ally from 1882 until late June 1914, if Germany is your enemy you don't want to give her allies more bases to attack you with

 

[The Gunslinger]

UK and France not imposing a harsher peace treaty in Second Mexican War makes sense, likely the war to prop up the CSA was not popular at home, plus as long as the US is not shipping grain the price of bread is through the roof, which is uncomfortable for any government, better make peace now with a victory (however minor)than drive the US to fight on for 6 more months, and have internal issues get worse and end up with status quo ante. Japan was allied to the UK already by Spanish Japanese War, intervene there on behalf of Spain and you could end up with a CP Japan, and put the colonies that actually made money at risk. Italy was a German ally from 1882 until late June 1914, if Germany is your enemy you don't want to give her allies more bases to attack you with

The lack of a harsh settlement makes little sense. Not intervening at all makes the most sense, followed by a much harsher treaty ensuring the security of the CSA and Canada.

By not imposing a harsh treaty all you've done is angered the USA and proven that the CSA can't stand on its own without Europe there to rescue it. You've given the world a green light to attack your allies because there won't be any lasting consequences.

One thing (not a criticism, more of a thought) would be the general idea in Europe that Britain and France have been engaged in a great power war on the same side ( Crimea, USA) in twenty-five years. The Germans would have thought been much more careful regarding Belgium had they known the British were willing to throw down the gauntlet.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

The lack of a harsh settlement makes little sense. Not intervening at all makes the most sense, followed by a much harsher treaty ensuring the security of the CSA and Canada.

By not imposing a harsh treaty all you've done is angered the USA and proven that the CSA can't stand on its own without Europe there to rescue it. You've given the world a green light to attack your allies because there won't be any lasting consequences.

The problem is that a harsh treaty means the US might say F*ck it and keep fighting, this was a negotiated peace, not a dictated one. The US could have kept fighting, it was beaten but not defeated. If you want a harder peace, you need to hurt the US more, that means stretching out the fighting. That means taking more casualties, spending more money and more time with the price of bread through the roof, none of these are good for the party in power, especially when the war is as unpopular as the Second Mexican is implied to be. The party in power wants to stay in power

The Internal politics of the UK and France make a relatively light treaty sensible. France and the UK do not have the popular support to fight to impose a harsh treaty on the US at this time, attempting to impose one could easily backfire

No Green light has been given, Britain and France fulfilled the terms of their alliance, given that it is at least implied they could have gotten out of it, they went above and beyond. There were no lasting consequences this time, but it has been demonstrated that France and the UK will fight alongside their allies, which means any war against such an ally is guaranteed to be long and costly even if you win it, and is a huge deterrent

 

[shadow]

But wasn't Franco-Italian hostilities driven principally by the French Conquest of Tunisia which occurred in 1881 OTL. The Conquest of Tunisia would begin right before the outbreak fighting in North America in this timeline. However given likely greater French economic interest in Mexico in universe the conquest could be delayed till after the fighting in North America by which point the Italians could beat the French in conquering Tunisia and remove a major point of contention between. Everything I ever seen on the Spanish-Japanese War in Timeline 191 has dated the conflict to the late 1890s early 1900s a decisive Anglo-Spanish and likely Russian victory over Japan would render them virtually irrelevant in the near future and Spain is far more useful as and ally to the entente were it matters anyway. Spanish Divisions supporting the French in Western Europe against Germany are of more value than Japanese Divisions on random German islands in the Pacific.

 

[The Gunslinger]

I don't think the bread issue would be as dire as it sounds. Western Canada was opening up, Russia had exports, the CSA will have some, and Britain was a very wealthy nation. The Brits may need to diversify, but it'll be continental Europe who suffers. All this implies that the Americans have enough political support for the war that they can tell their farmers, "Sorry, no exports. We need you to till your crop under." This is all happening while they're being blockaded, their coasts are being raided, their offensives are bogged down, and economy is in a state of free-fall.

In the minds of the CSA, this is the second time in twenty years the USA has set out to destroy them. Britain shares a border of thousands of miles with the USA and will clearly see a vested interest in making adjustments to it to preserve Canada.

The power of alliances alone didn't prevent war with America this time, why would it happen again? America started an offensively war over the most spurious pretext and threatened a British ally and a loyal British colony, Britain would have no qualms about expanding the war (which they're already winning).