Who could stop Tirpitz and the 1st/2nd Naval Laws

BlondieBC

Banned
I only have Influence of Sea Power on History 1660-1783. I'd be interested in getting some of those other books too.

Read this.

Naval Strategy Compared and Contrasted ... A. T. Mahan. 1911

I use him as the least biased prewar expert. He is not trying to gain funding such as British or German Admirals would be trying.

If you go to page 129-130, you will see Mahan talk about how you can't supply surface ships. He talks about how SW Africa makes a good base for Germany in relation to raiding UK merchants. While Mahan tends to focus on USA/UK/Germany/Japan, the logic works well for a war against France. Again the key is the German attitudes and intentions, which the UK will see through over time. Place a lot of ships in German East Africa and constantly do drills that look like practicing cutting the Suez Canal will drive the UK crazy. Place ships where they can hurt France such as West Africa and the Pacific Islands (Rabual), and the UK can also accept some deployments in the Indian Ocean. To hurt the UK, i would want most of my forces in the Indian Ocean to deny access to India (Jewel of Empire) and Persian Gulf Oil. France lacks important colonies in the region, and to hurt France I need a much more West Africa/Pacific focus. Just imagine a WW1 type war, but with the UK neutral and the Germans having a major naval base in SWA or Kamerun. The French navy would have fits trying to neutralize cruisers and AMC operating out of these bases.

If you go to page 145, you will see Mahan praise mines as weapons to keep ports open. Page 146 talks about how you need coastal guns defending ports. Page 147/148 starts talking about torpedo ships (torpedo boats and U-boats). Submarines/torpedo boats are a weapons to keep cruisers away from ports to enable surface ships to get out of port. In other parts of the book he analysis the Russo-Japanese war, so the lessons should be obvious about Tsingtao. It was screaming for U-boats and torpedo boats. So one very easy solution that the Kaiser would love is for the German Navy to send existing ships (6 U-boats and 6 newer torpedo boats) to Tsingtao. By ignoring urgent military needs to keep ship in the North Sea, the Germans look agressive against the UK as opposed to protecting German merchant interest. The key is getting your mind around what U-boats and torpedo boat do. When combined with coastal naval artillery and minefields, they keep crusiers and battleships 20-50 miles away from your ports. Torpedo boats patrol at night, and day-time torpedo boats (U-boats) patrol in the daytime. Unlike the main battle fleet which tends to be concentrated, the U-boats and the share of torpedo boats allocated to port defense should be spread around all ports, both military and civilian.

So how do you switch to smaller ships and make the UK happier at the same time. Merely building 20 U-boats/Torpedo boats instead of one dreadnought may make the UK more nervous. But if you share with the UK leaders that these new boats are being designed for tropical/colonial conditions AND actually design them with these uses in mind, the UK will accept. It will make sense to the UK. The UK used mostly cruisers for this role, but they would understand the Germans taking the cheaper route to defend their overseas ports. For the super win for the Germans, you immediately begin transfering the extra ships overseas over a 1-2 year time frame, and then build the replacement ships over a 2-3 year period. Now I know i keep hammer the point, but it is critical not to read too many post war books when working on ALT. You end up with too much post knowledge. U-boats were not see as a potentially decisive weapon. Neither were torpedo boats or light to medium cruisers.

p. 336/337. He states that Heligoland makes the "blockade of their coast extremely hazardous". This begs the question for why the High Seas Fleet is even kept in the North Seas, not the safer Baltic. An easy answer, if one did not know the history of the early days of WW1, would be the Germans intended to do a "Copenhagen" attack on the British.

If you look at the totality of this book, and think about just how the UK using Mahan like ideas would analyze the German budget, the UK would be delighted if the Germans spent more money on the network of ports need to fight France, and build fewer dreadnoughts capable of ambushing the Grand Fleet. While in retrospect, we know these changes would be disasterous for the UK in WW1, we should look at what the prewar beliefs are when doing political what ifs.

Ask your self the simply question: If the UK had allowed the High Seas Fleet in the English channel and stayed neutral as long as German did not do amphibious operations in Channel, how is Germany going to maintain a close blockade of French ports? Or a distant blockade? Where do the cruisers get more coal? men? ammo? etc. Providing answers to these question to the UK would provide reassurance, as long as we don't do something stupid like try to get a German naval base in Morocco.

I hope this is helping, I have not yet found the source that summarized it so well.


And read this thread.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=189376&highlight=mahan&page=6
 
Last edited:

BlondieBC

Banned
Also read this post. Read the bold. One change assumption and Tripitz is hailed as the genius who lead the Germans to the naval portion of the victory that made Germany the most powerful nation in the world.

The interest of American in Internation Conditions, 1910, Mahan

P 43-44: Italy bound more to Entente than CP.

P 47: Germany has food weakness

P 55-57. It is a nice summary of close blockade and international law.

You have to add a couple more points, and you will get the need for a 2-1 ratio. The RN thought they always one even fights due to their superior seamanship. To blockade Germany, you need two fleets, one in Baltic and one in North Sea. Since Germany could move by the Kiel Canal, each fleet has to be the size of the RN. If you look at the ratio at the start of the war, 0.6 to 1.0, then Germany would have had a 0.6 to 0.5 advantage in the first decisive battle. When one adds that the Germans are very near their bases and the UK is far, combined with the many smaller/short-range ships the Germans could use, the outcome would have been inevitably a German win. Prewar analysis can easily see than if the UK does not do a distant blockade, the Grand Fleet becomes a coastal defense force. The amazing thing is both sides seem to stop there, and not analysis the what is next. Germany on how to deal with distant blockade and the UK on what Germany does in response. Submarines were understood to be able to sink merchant shipping if interntional law was ignorned. And how one could assume that if the UK ignored international law and Germany, is not easy to understand.

People will site next two largest navies as the reason for the 2-1, but that would mean that the UK need a fleet bigger than combined German/A-H navy, which the UK always exceed.

P60: "The river Rhine by itself, emptying through a friendly Holland, is a copious highroad to the interior of Germany which in no way can be closed by Great Britian." This sentence contains the single assumption that would make Tirpitz plans work. Mahan is probably the leading living Naval expert in 1910. As I said in an earlier post, a neutral US president can send convoys to Holland escorted by a single warship and end the UK blockade.

I know these post have been long, but you want details and sources.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
So how ASB would it be for the Kaiser to read Mahan, realize that Tsingtao and the rest are unsustainable in war, and dump the money into Duala and DarEsSalam.

This has kind of changed in my mind from a simple TL, about writing different 1st and 2nd naval law to a Kaiser Wilhelm reads Mahan...AND FOLLOWS HIM!

IMO, very unlikely. But the Kaiser often changed opinions and followed the last advisers advice.

Also, I game the premium, platinum plan for Africa.

In reality, for a few million marks per year (2-10) over 20 years would build the African bases. Say 4 million marks per year on a military budget of 2,500 marks is a rounding error. And it likely can be hidden in the colonial budget. Most of the needed port facilities are dual use. The same dry dock or crane that allows the repair of 4000 ton freighter will allow most repairs to a 3000 ton CL or DD(extended range). Coal and Oil need to refuel freighters work in navy ships. You have to look up the costs, but I doubt 3000 rounds of 15cm naval ammo or 3000 rounds of 10.5 Naval ammo cost that much. The same for a 5-10 15cm naval guns. Or even guns in the 20-25cm range.

While some others have different views of the Reichstag, IMO, if the German Navy ask to divert 5 million of its 500 million annual budget to overseas improvements, the Reichstag will have no issue. The same if the German Navy ask for 1 fewer dreadnought and 5 more cruisers or 20 more U-boats. I may be missing some political issue, but IMO, the Reichstag would be willing to adjust the naval laws to allow minor changes if the Navy says it needs them. The Reichstag main issue will be asking for more funds.

So about 10 million per port and 50 million in smaller ships will get you what you want. I have talked a lot about cruisers, and you should get five for this amount. But you probably end up with something closer to 2 cruisers, 6 torpedo boats, and 8 U-boats. It may sound trivial, but it would be by far the largest Navy in Africa south of the Sahara. Over a 20 year period, the German Naval budget easily exceed 5,000 million marks, so we are talking a % or two.

We don't need a Genius. We need a Zealot. A Zealot willing to follow a book, religiously.

Wilhelm II, Kaiser. A man barely sane. Gentleman, we can rebuild him. We have the technology. We have the capability to make the world's first Mahan-man. Kaiser Wilhelm will be that man. Better then he was before. Better, more stubborn, willing to spend stupendous sums of money because of a book.

There is an easier way. Prince Henry was widely respected. He had much better international relations than Tirpitz. He was a 5 star admiral. Just have Prince Henry win a power struggle with Tirpitz, and you get a much more forward thinking leader the UK is much more comfortable with. Instead of PH being exiled to inspector General, make him the new Naval commander in 1911 (you have to check date).
 

BlondieBC

Banned
This excerpt is from 1910. I'm using the 1890 book, with the idea for a timeline in 1890.. He brings up the Rhine, in its value as it relates for Holland, in fact it is worth more to Holland then to Germany. And he repeatedly stresses that Britain will violate a neutral to win a war as a mater of policy.

It would be interesting to compare the two books. Where did you get your copy?

I believe he was talking a Copenhagen type event. And he was right (Oran 1940). Violations of Suez neutrality. Seizing of Ottomans and Latin America Dreadnought. Minefield covering too large an area. He was thinking of other types of activities, and I believe his 1910 work is consistent with his 1890's work.
 
So how ASB would it be for the Kaiser to read Mahan, realize that Tsingtao and the rest are unsustainable in war, and dump the money into Duala and DarEsSalam.

This has kind of changed in my mind from a simple TL, about writing different 1st and 2nd naval law to a Kaiser Wilhelm reads Mahan...AND FOLLOWS HIM!

What good does Douala do? Its going to be blockaded from the start, its near enough that Britain can send a full battle squadron if it wants. Its just making itself a bigger target - like with Tsingtao. Its not going to survive to be useful as a fleet base.

TBH I don't think Dar-es-Salaam would be either. That's why the Konigsberg went up the Rufiji, it was a delta with lots of channels and inlets. But you don't build bases on those. Von Lettow-Vorbeck survived in the INTERIOR, he didn't last long on the coast once Britain was able to bring forces to bear there.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Churchy CLAIMED, of course, in his book on the war to have ended the naval race by making it clear to German leaders that they couldn't hope to win a naval race, between the better British Imperial economy and the fact they cared more.

Churchill said a lot of things that were wrong. For example, his mocking of Italy in WW1, when Italy not entering would have clearly resulted in a CP win. This is another one. The naval race was cooling down, and the UK willingness to keep building was a part of it, even though they had abandoned the 2-1 lead standard. Germany need to spend more on Army due to France/Russian spending was a large part of it. The Boer War slowly receding into the past is another. It is a lot of issues that resulted in it slowing down.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
What good does Douala do? Its going to be blockaded from the start, its near enough that Britain can send a full battle squadron if it wants. Its just making itself a bigger target - like with Tsingtao. Its not going to survive to be useful as a fleet base.

TBH I don't think Dar-es-Salaam would be either. That's why the Konigsberg went up the Rufiji, it was a delta with lots of channels and inlets. But you don't build bases on those. Von Lettow-Vorbeck survived in the INTERIOR, he didn't last long on the coast once Britain was able to bring forces to bear there.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Well, remember we are trying to switch focus from a fleet that can only fight in the high seas to a much more flexible fleet that is less threatening to the UK only. And when planning, we don't know exactly what WW1 will look like.

WW1 without UK: I am not raising the naval budget, just changing how it is spent. I am still strong enough to defend the North Sea Coast. Now France has to react and they have no good options:

1) Ignore: Win for Germany because the merchant raiding and perhaps even attacking of French colonies. While I think MittelAfrika was a waste of resource, the Germans of the day did not share my views.

2) Transfer Naval forces down there. Port Safe. Much less effective naval war for Germany but by pulling forces from the Med/North Atlantic, they make the High Seas Fleet job easier or the A-H/Italian.

3) Transfer Army and Navy. Win for Germany. I have just moved a French Corp out of Europe. Every little bit helps. Who knows, might win in Africa, might lose.

War with USA. Will be great to raid USA commerce. USA will have no bases in area.


German UK War: With only two in the war, the UK will likely just take. Least value here, but in any Germany/UK only war, it is very hard to keep the German colonies. It is also impossible for the UK to win by taking Germany, and impossible to blockade Germany without trigger WW1.

Now to your modified WW1:

1) I think the most likely scenario is the UK will not move major forces down here prewar. I don't think it attacks in the first 12 months, so the most likely run will be similar to my TL, so i will skip the repeating here.

2) UK has small countering force but not overwhelming. Less than 4 cruisers and support ships and less than 3 regiments available. Assume no major blunders either side.

A) You can't really blockade that easily. With coastal artillery and some mine fields, there is too many outlets. And with ships based at Freeport (do you have another location?), the UK can only keep half it ships on station. Germany can do short sorties of 100%.

B) You can't come up the Ubangi in a practical manner. You can't land on the short coast. You are talking about landing at Port Harcourt and fighting through a malarial swamp. Bases is safe.

Split for length to get to you preferred scenario.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
What good does Douala do?

Part 2:

UK either has or sends full battle squadron. Lets call it Beatty with his battlecruisers as base. We have to assume the forces to land. Japan landed 25K men, this will have much greater logistical issue, so lets call it a full corp. 1.5 attack divisions with a lot of extra logistic units. I hope this is close enough to what you have in mind. So to impacts, butterflies and mini TL.

1) Now removing these capital ships give the High Seas Fleet an opportunity, but 95% chance they squander it.

2) The only place to pull a full corp is the BEF. You need someone who knows the battle for France much better than I, but it likely hurts a little. Either Germany gets a little more land towards Marne (extreme case holds it) or a little more land in race to sea. I tend to give Germany the Ypres area as an example, it is about the right amount of land and gives an important but minor strategic advantage.

3) Beatty will make some sweeps of the African Blight, but will not keep his troops on station. Eventually, the risk of U-boat or night torpedo boat attack will have him pull back. On plus side for UK, you lose at least 75% of effectiveness of Douala for base for German merchant raiding.

4) Your amphibious assault: It will take a few months to get the troops setup and ready to go out of Freeport. You also probably will skip hurricane season. Call it November. Now you have a few options:

A) Attack directly through minefields and coastal guns. D-Day for Kamerun. No one does this unless last option. Not Gallipoli, not Tsingtao, not Basra, not Tanga. No one lands under coastal artillery. Beatty is daring but this is a bit much for him and can easily be a disaster like Gallipoli.

B) Up Ubangi or other ways from south. Logistical and Malarial nightmare.

C) Take Spanish Island, fortify, neutralize base. Two major issues. Germans will likely take it early in the war. Second, diplomatic issue of UK blantantly violating neutrality so soon after Belgium. Unlike first two, I won't rule this one out.

D) Nigerian Route. Like Port Harcourt. Fits common naval pattern for amphib which is to land outside of defenses then do classic siege from interior method. Good: This plan will work 100% of time. Bad: have to build RR from Port Harcourt to Douala then fight deep into interior. It will take over a year to take Douala, and you will need to keep the naval ships here the entire time. It will take at least another year to take interior Kamerun. It ties up an entire UK corp for at least 2 years. Maybe more if one assumes higher German troop levels. It is fought in Malarial zone. You will take a 25% death rate each year from disease. So the total cost will be over 20,000 White dead from disease plus the battle losses. Black porters will be much worse, but back then, no one cared.

So net, net. Germany loses a few cruisers and 2-5K white men. No major budget costs. UK ties up squadron of something for year. Has over 1 corp less on western Front. Takes 50K casualties of which over half are dead. German win compared to OTL.

And to be far, the big gain is diplomatically. By putting ships where they threaten vital French interests and fewer UK interest, it makes good German/UK relations easier.
 

In this thread DerGreif mentioned Vice-German Admiral Galster and posted a link to an (incomplete) online collection of his letters (in German and starting in 1908).

The letters are interesting, to say the least. Galster (born November 1851, died 1931) left (voluntarily given his age of 54?) active service in September 1906 (early retirement while still staying on the reserve officers list). I´ve only read the first few pages (letters from the 1908 period) yet but in summary he essentially says in 1908 (and wrote newspaper articles about it):

- With its hasty naval build-up (especially battleships) and official speeches, naval league, press and so on Germany is practically forcing the British to see Germany as the main danger in the future. Totally foolish approach in his opinion.
- The planned battleship fleet is too expensive. Not to mention that it can´t protect German maritime trade. And can´t defeat Britain either.
- He suspects the expensive naval build-up is harming the army.
- He favors more money spent on coastal defense (guns, mines, torpedo boats, submarines).
- And favors more cruisers deployed overseas. If possible even some larger ships.
(- To summarize the points above, a slow-down in building, even canceling some battleships. Some of the saved money should go to coastal defense, submarines, cruisers.)
- He sees airships as a major naval reconnaissance asset in the near future.
- He´d like to slow down battleship building (4 Nassau class ships were already launched in 1908, time of the 1908 letters). In fact he mentioned in a letter November 1908 that he would have preferred a slow-down in the launching of the later 3 Nassaus. He´d have preferred to test the first Nassau extensively in the first half of 1909 before building more dreadnought battleships. Arguing that it is cheaper and more effective to test the already built ship first, find out about deficiencies and only then complete / build additional improved ships.
- And if / when building new battleships - at a slower pace - keep an eye on British public opinion and on legitimate British security concerns.
- He´s also not impressed by the speed of the planned early German battleships. He favors fast battleships.
- In a late 1908 letter he advises that the planned "German large cruisers" (= battle cruisers in the Royal Navy) could be called fast battleships. And therefore could be classified as battleships politically. Which would mean that - according to the Naval laws - the number of dreadnought battleships still to be built should be reduced. A shrewd idea politically. (The Naval laws specified the number of battleships to be build. In OTL Tirpitz therefore called the battle cruisers "large cruisers" so that the Reichstag wouldn´t even think of reducing the battleship numbers.)
- In an early 1909 letter he admits to be surprised to learn that the first 3 Helgoland class battleships were already laid down in late 1908. Which - in his opinion - explains alarmist British newspaper articles.

All in all he seems to have proposed an "understanding" with the British Empire (some limitations on the German fleet given legitimate British security concerns) and a smaller more-balanced fleet. More cruisers, torpedo boats and submarines, less battleships. Better coastal defense. More cruisers deployed overseas.

That guy seems to almost perfectly fits the requirements of everything BlondieBC said. :D
(And once you actually deploy more German cruisers overseas, the coastal defenses there would be a concern too? So his package of coastal guns, mines, torpedo boats and submarines might be deployed there too?)
 

BlondieBC

Banned
That guy seems to almost perfectly fits the requirements of everything BlondieBC said. :D
(And once you actually deploy more German cruisers overseas, the coastal defenses there would be a concern too? So his package of coastal guns, mines, torpedo boats and submarines might be deployed there too?)

I think we can safely show what German port defenses would look like by using Tsingtao. Africa is less important, so I think between 0.5 and 1.0 of the Tsingtao level is reasonable after the port has existed as a military base for at least 10 years.

Add in the other things you listed for him, and i think we see a more balance fleet.

It could go a lot of ways, but I tend to see the standard overseas fleet as 1 battalion marines (8 or so companies + auxilleries), flag ship of armored cruiser or battlecruiser, about 3-6 light cruisers, 8-12 torpedo/gun boats, and maybe 4-6 U-boats by the late 1910's. Besides the short range, I have few good answers for why no U-boats were ever sent overseas, even for testing for operations issues in warmer waters. I guess U-boats were the red-head step child of the German Navy.

Douala and Dar-es-Salaam have one important difference from Tsingtao. Ships based out of those two can actually hurt the French and British war effort. Ships based out of Tsingtao might as well not exist.

The Emden alone did more to win the war for Germany against the UK than the all the Dreadnoughts. Moving the ships from Tsingtao to Germany would be a big net buff for the UK in an ATL.
 
Why wouldn't the Germans want Tsingtao to serve as their port for the burgeoning Chinese market?

Tsingtao as a civilian German owned trade port makes a lot of sense.

It just doesn´t make sense as a fortified (expensive) naval base. In OTL it proved to be defenseless against a land attack. And even if you spent a lot more money (land fortifications, more German soldiers, more supplies stored) it would still fall pretty fast in WW1. The (military) money spent there was wasted.

It would make much more sense (and be cheaper) to fortify the Yap islands, Truk Lagoon or maybe even Rabaul. All German colonies before WW1.
All of them would have to surrender eventually but I suspect they would hold out much longer than Tsingtao in OTL. Given some coastal guns, mines, submarines, torpedo boats...
 
I think we can safely show what German port defenses would look like by using Tsingtao. Africa is less important, so I think between 0.5 and 1.0 of the Tsingtao level is reasonable after the port has existed as a military base for at least 10 years.

Generally agree.
Although if it were left to me :eek:, I´d abandon Tsingtao as a military base.
Can´t be defended (with the current amount of money spent) against an attack overland.
Yap islands, Truk Lagoon, even Rabaul would make a lot more sense as German naval bases in the Pacific Ocean. Try to invade them with a bit of coastal artillery, some mines and some submarines and torpedo boats around? I suspect they would hold out longer than Tsingtao?

Add in the other things you listed for him, and i think we see a more balance fleet.

I really was surprised reading just his 1908 letters (and him mentioning some newspaper articles supporting his approach).
I mean mentioning airships in 1908 as the future naval reconnaissance asset? Or already understanding in 1908 that fast battleships are the way to go? Or his politically shrewd idea that "large cruisers" could be classified as fast battleships and therefore reduce the number of slower German dreadnought battleships?

If somehow Wilhelm II turns to him in 1908, we certainly would see a much different German navy. Definitely more balanced.

It could go a lot of ways, but I tend to see the standard overseas fleet as 1 battalion marines (8 or so companies + auxilleries), flag ship of armored cruiser or battlecruiser, about 3-6 light cruisers, 8-12 torpedo/gun boats, and maybe 4-6 U-boats by the late 1910's. Besides the short range, I have few good answers for why no U-boats were ever sent overseas, even for testing for operations issues in warmer waters. I guess U-boats were the red-head step child of the German Navy.

Going from the 1908 letters Galster was fascinated by the possibilities of submarines. And furious that the German navy restricted visits to them to only a few selected persons. Not to mention that in 1908 only a few German submarines even existed.

So with him in command somehow, submarines would have a higher priority.
Likewise "lighter naval units" meaning cruisers and torpedo boats.
And following his "crusade" in 1908/09 for better German coastal defenses, I would assume that - a few years later - his attention would turn to German naval bases in the German colonies?
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Exactly. And the Emden was on a deathride with no base to go back to. Now imagine Emden had a base it could go back to. And other Emdens could base out of.

Emden died because its luck ran out. An extra base would not help, and in fact it could have went to Dar Es Salaam if needed. If you look at the list of WW1 merchant raiders, you will see they tend to have a short, effective, and glorious life. Great way to earn a postumous medal. They tended to last less than 90 days and almost always under 180 days.

When I did my TL, I settle on about 30 AMC at sea at any given time. While not state in the TL, this would likely mean 100+ or so ships would be lost this way with 40,000 casualties/POW. I figured each 2000 to 10000 ton unescorted AMC would claim around 20,000 tons of shipping before meeting its fiery end to a british cruiser or submarine. Even just meeting another armed merchant ship in a successful battle could mean an AMC is too crippled to make a friendly port for repairs. The saving grace is that if each ships sink/captures 4-5 ships on average before it is lost, we likely have 1-2 ships make it back to a friendly force, so the AMC threat will eventually require the UK to attack the ports.

In the scenario talked about in your ATL, the German warships would largely cease to exist within one year, but they could easily prove decisive in the war. By the second year of the war, the overseas ports will be down to AMC and whatever warships the local commander reserves for the local port defense.

The base is useful for a place to sail capture ships, unload with the cargo which is hopefully useful to the war effort, refit with 2 or so guns (10.5cm or 15cm), a handful of machine guns, and a few hundred privateers. It is also a useful refuge for merchant ships at the start of any war. These will also likely become AMC and provide the skilled crews needed. The less skilled labor is likely locally recruited/conscripted Africans.

The UK fear the Germans had a master plan to covert many of the freighters into AMC and fear many of them carried the conversion equipment in their own holds. But as in many other things, the German navy not only did not have good plans, they often did not have plans.
 
Top