World War I starts in 1924: state of military technology and the military balance of power

[Driftless]

To throw the cat among the pigeons, IF no OTL WW1 to utterly consume every nations attention and budget, in some form, what post 1914 hot spots could flare up driving confrontations and potential arms races? There was always some crises coming to a boil somewhere and there was no "kumbaya" feelings across the board.

 

[Drunkrobot]

@Driftless The primary point I'd want to contribute there is that I don't seriously think the initial crisis has to seem all that important. Part of the puzzle of 1914 was how it managed to start from an incident that all the great powers, *even Austria*, treated as relatively minor. Sure, Franz Ferdinand was the heir to an Emperor that everybody expected to kick the bucket soon, and was already taking positions in the military apparatus so wasn't a nobody, yet as Sean McKeekin said in a wonderful lecture about the July Crisis, Franz Ferdinand arguably wasn't even the most exciting or surprising assassination of that season in 1914. The July Crisis is a truly bewildering escalation that happens faster than virtually everybody expects, it takes a week to go from the continental major powers (Russia, France, Germany at least) to agree in principle to arbitration between Austria and Serbia, to Russia ordering general mobilization which even Tsar Nicholas understood to be the "Start a continent-wide war" button. And there actually were "Kumbaya" feelings across the board, contemporary newspapers and private letters were full of expectation that previous crises only made the continent more peaceful (Fashoda, for example, came close to starting an Anglo-French war, but paved the way for the Entente Cordiale) and almost nobody in the other great powers were seeing a spat between Austria and Serbia as a way to achieve their own strategic aims; nobody in France exactly reacted to the assassination with "Yes, finally we get to take back Alsace-Lorraine!". It's only after war breaks out that old grievances and rivalries flare up, fuelled by a universal feeling that at least one neighbor had appeared to be preaching peace and then revealed themselves to be a warmonger - the French felt that way to the Germans, and the Germans felt that way to the Russians - and the tragic trap is that it's only after the battles start happening and the bodies start piling that emotions and nationalist hatreds make it politically impossible to admit a desire to stop fighting - the war bizarrely becomes its own justification, with actual strategic aims difficult to articulate.

 

[Fehérvári]

By 1914 the global naval balance had settled on Squadrons (8 ships per squadron) of 5:3:3:2:2:1.5:1.5:1 ratio (GB:Ger:US:Fra:Rus:Jap:Ita:A-H)

By 1920, the Italians would have 8 pre-dreadnoughts and 10 dreadnoughts, while the Austro-Hungarians would have 6 pre-dreadnoughts, 3 semi-dreadnoughts and 8 dreadnoughts. By 1924, both powers could have 4-4 additional dreadnoughts. There would be a numerical parity in terms of capital ships. A-H was behind in smaller ship quantity, but I do think it could mostly close the gap in this extra ten years. I'm not sure which side could claim the technical superiority though.

 

[RanulfC]

The US is largely irrelevant to European building. However, the USN will continue to be a strong innovator having instituted superimposed turrets, turbo-electric propulsion, all-or-nothing style protection, naval aviation etc. A lack of cruisers could fuel the need for naval aviation and airships. An airship costs about as much as a destroyer. Both Germany and the US will need to shoulder losses to make these platforms viable. It would be interesting to see how many casualties they could stomach before the technology is abandoned. The airship will continue to have appeal although the lifting gas alternatives; hydrogen is explosive, and helium is poisonous (you 'drowned' in it, this was mistaken for 'its poisonous'). Crashes are no more serious than losing a destroyer. In war, Zeppelin crew casualties ran at 40%.

Helium isn't that easily found in quantity and I'm pretty sure that Germany didn't have access to any useful quantities unless the Soviets (or Russians) are willing to trade.

At the time, the US was really the sole source for industrial quantities.
The Russian and Polish deposits were post WWII.

The Germans were moving towards the use of Zeppelins for fleet scouting and recon purposes but the US wasn't really seeing a use for airships pre-WWI OTL. A longer delay may allow German use to become interesting enough for the US to pursue but the problem is that the US 'production' of helium is very low and the infrastructure for extraction (and especially storage) is almost non-existent. Even OTL after Congress mandated only the use of helium in American LTA craft there was not enough extraction or storage infrastructure to support more than one "airship" being in operation at a time. Hydrogen is likely used more as it's cheaper and easier to make and store than helium.

If the US Navy can get some competent LTA designs into work (not a given with American LTA design at the time) to actually work with the fleet it might generate some interest but LTA's biggest flaw is weather which most platforms can't handle much of. Destroyers (and eventually dedicated cruisers) will probably make more sense.

Randy

 

[CaptainCalvert]

The Germans were moving towards the use of Zeppelins for fleet scouting and recon purposes but the US wasn't really seeing a use for airships pre-WWI OTL. A longer delay may allow German use to become interesting enough for the US to pursue but the problem is that the US 'production' of helium is very low and the infrastructure for extraction (and especially storage) is almost non-existent. Even OTL after Congress mandated only the use of helium in American LTA craft there was not enough extraction or storage infrastructure to support more than one "airship" being in operation at a time. Hydrogen is likely used more as it's cheaper and easier to make and store than helium.

If the US Navy can get some competent LTA designs into work (not a given with American LTA design at the time) to actually work with the fleet it might generate some interest but LTA's biggest flaw is weather which most platforms can't handle much of. Destroyers (and eventually dedicated cruisers) will probably make more sense.

Randy

And unlike airships, aircraft can be stored, maintained and transported on the ship itself, while floatplanes can also land at sea if needed and be collected (or the crew rescued) later.

 

[M79]

We may see the catamaran-hull rigid airships with 400+ passengers not only proposed but actually made. Perhaps from there a true floating airstrip becomes possible.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/483785184966774282/

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

To throw the cat among the pigeons, IF no OTL WW1 to utterly consume every nations attention and budget, in some form, what post 1914 hot spots could flare up driving confrontations and potential arms races? There was always some crises coming to a boil somewhere and there was no "kumbaya" feelings across the board.

Russia, ottomans or A-H collapsing into civil war could do it.

 

[Gannt the chartist]

It's only after war breaks out that old grievances and rivalries flare up, fuelled by a universal feeling that at least one neighbor had appeared to be preaching peace and then revealed themselves to be a warmonger - the French felt that way to the Germans, and the Germans felt that way to the Russians

This. There is actually a decrease in European tensions over time and noone expected the Sarajevo incident to get out of control.

A few other issues.

All metal aircraft will not be a thing, at least at any scale. The metal production levels just are not there to make things common. Its not common through most of the interwar period and very few places have the Al production to make it viable at scale.

Warship propulsion is shifting over to oil for them as have access to it so any numbers count has to include the issue that a coal fired ship needs around 60% of the crew as stokers and an oil fired one about half that ( freeing up crew for gunnery, radio work, range finding etc.) And the oil fired ship can go further faster with less issues on refuelling.

The French will be expanding their artillery to include lighter howitzers. There is a fairly complex dynamic going on here but the major issue is the germans expected to meet fairly substantial fortifications, hastily built, 1m of overhead concrete being the metric - static target you could engage with light howitzers the French did not so the procurement emphasis was different. Until you get a very quick fire control system for the artillery you need a static target to engage with howitzer fire. As things move from shouting and waving flags for control to laying phone lines quickly this happens. They will also be looking at AFV and mechanical transport far faster than the germans as will the British ( who had already decided to move to MT as much as possible after the Boer war.)

Incidentally horse drawn kit is actually more tactically mobile than motor vehicles in many circumstances, less so in NW europe.

All of this is capital intensive and the German and Austrian issue will be getting the money. The Reichstag had already balked at funding the 1913 bill and actually had no way of paying for it. Everyone has the issue but the bigger the army the bigger the issue. Britain and France have the most developed financial systems ( generally and in terms of parliamentary debate) and biggest automotive sectors.

They are also more likely to learn more quickly about aircraft capabilities and useage. For the colonial powers having aircraft is probably a cost saving very quickly and for the British they had already decided on a big investment in naval aviation - incidentally incendiary ammunition vs airships was regarded as quite acceptable. The High Seas Fleet is the target, Taranto and Pearl Harbour did not come from nowhere. The dynamics of hunt the raider change with the first aircraft carrying ships and with no treaties easy to see lots of experimentation with numbers and sizes.

Semi auto rifles probably not. Everyone had been looking at them noone was really keen. To reequip a millions strong army is a big undertaking so there has to be a clear advantage to the average conscript. Especially with everything else going on and with aircraft demanding lighter weight MG issuing one of those to the infantry platoon instead of 30 semi auto rifles is a good start, which is how the Lewis gets its start.

 

[Fehérvári]

Russia, ottomans or A-H collapsing into civil war could do it.

Why would any of these powers fall into civil war? Revolutions in Russia and the Ottoman Empire are on the table, but they would be unlikely to develop into civil wars, imo. A-H shouldn't even be mentioned here.

 

[Gannt the chartist]

Why would any of these powers fall into civil war? Revolutions in Russia and the Ottoman Empire are on the table, but they would be unlikely to develop into civil wars, imo. A-H shouldn't even be mentioned here.

Not really. Russia, AH and for that matter Germany are all consequences of wartime events and food shortages in the cities. No war that just does not happen. The Russian revolutions are not scripted events that must happen on cue. The Arab revolt's success is kinda dependent on the Turkish army being destroyed by the British. There may be a revolt but its going nowhere.

AH is maybe if Plan U is implemented when the succession happens and the Hungarians fighting back

 

[Bougnas]

Semi auto rifles probably not. Everyone had been looking at them noone was really keen. To reequip a millions strong army is a big undertaking so there has to be a clear advantage to the average conscript. Especially with everything else going on and with aircraft demanding lighter weight MG issuing one of those to the infantry platoon instead of 30 semi auto rifles is a good start, which is how the Lewis gets its start.

France's reequipment with a semi-auto rifle from 1914 on had only been stopped by the outbreak of the war. They were coming.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

Why would any of these powers fall into civil war? Revolutions in Russia and the Ottoman Empire are on the table, but they would be unlikely to develop into civil wars, imo. A-H shouldn't even be mentioned here.

All were highly unstable. A poorly timed recession at the wrong time in the late 1910s or early 1920s could blow up all three without a world war needed.

 

[marathag]

All metal aircraft will not be a thing, at least at any scale. The metal production levels just are not there to make things common. Its not common through most of the interwar period and very few places have the Al production to make it viable at scale.

Per my earlier Post https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ilitary-balance-of-power.534701/post-23626091, Hugo Junkers will still be doing his thing with metal for the same reason that automakers went away from wood framed car bodies, stronger, lighter and lasted longer
The durability of wood for aviation was even worse that autobodies, as pointed out here from https://www.aircraftsystemstech.com/2017/05/aircraft-fabric-covering.html
The use of fabric covering on an aircraft offers one primary advantage: light weight. In contrast, fabric coverings have two disadvantages: flammability and lack of durability.

Finely woven organic fabrics, such as Irish linen and cotton, were the original fabrics used for covering airframes, but their tendency to sag left the aircraft structure exposed to the elements. To counter this problem, builders began coating the fabrics with oils and varnishes. In 1916, a mixture of cellulose dissolved in nitric acid, called nitrate dope, came into use as an aircraft fabric coating. Nitrate dope protected the fabric, adhered to it well, and tautened it over the airframe. It also gave the fabric a smooth, durable finish when dried. The major drawback to nitrate dope was its extreme flammability.

To address the flammability issue, aircraft designers tried a preparation of cellulose dissolved in butyric acid called butyrate dope. This mixture protected the fabric from dirt and moisture, but it did not adhere as well to the fabric as nitrate dope. Eventually, a system combining the two dope coatings was developed. First, the fabric was coated with nitrate dope for its adhesion and protective qualities. Then, subsequent coats of butyrate dope were added. Since the butyrate dope coatings reduced the overall flammability of the fabric covering, this system became the standard fabric treatment system.

​

The second problem, lack of durability, stems from the eventual deterioration of fabric from exposure to the elements that results in a limited service life. Although the mixture of nitrate dope and butyrate dope kept out dirt and water, solving some of the degradation issue, it did not address deterioration caused by ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun. Ultraviolet radiation passed through the dope and degraded not only the fabric, but also the aircraft structure underneath. Attempts to paint the coated fabric proved unsuccessful, because paint does not adhere well to nitrate dope. Eventually, aluminum solids were added to the butyrate coatings. This mixture reflected the sun’s rays, prevented harmful UV rays from penetrating the dope, and protected the fabric, as well as the aircraft structure.

Regardless of treatments, organic fabrics have a limited lifespan; cotton or linen covering on an actively flown aircraft lasts only about 5–10 years

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Only two BBs?
So the US goes for a pair of Tilmanns

If you can convince congress to pay for them!

 

[marathag]

The other problem with wood structure with wood structures, is what holds them together.
In WWI, Glue Technology was no different that what it had been for hundreds of years, animal based protein glues.
These were not waterproof, and the bond itself was weaker than the wood itself, and it was very tasty to a variety of insects, and above 90 degrees, began to lose strength. This wouldn't change til WWII with new glues.

So wooden aircraft would fail in flight over the Teens and Twenties, finally the in air breakoup of a Fokker Trimotor of TWA Flight 599 that carried Knute Rockne and 5 other passengers along with the Crew resulted in the end of wood for structural use in Commercial Aviation for Passenger travel

All it took was somebody really famous dying in a plane crash

 

[Driftless]

How likely/unlikely would be more monocoque construction with no OTL WW1? The French very successful Deperdussin Racer of 1912 -1913 got things rolling, only to be derailled by the volume demands of the War. Later in the war, the Germans picked up the method for the Roland aircraft. Probably not for volume construction without wartime budgets and with the same caveats as marathag notes above about animal glue durability.

 

[Gannt the chartist]

France's reequipment with a semi-auto rifle from 1914 on had only been stopped by the outbreak of the war. They were coming.

Maybe, MAS had tooled up for 5000 per month and an entirely new cartridge ( unknown volumes) but by 1916 had only made 1013 with 300 in troop trials. That suggests to me that the 5k per month was the promised level when spun up not necessarily the level in April 14 when there is no crisis. And you then get the RSC which uses the 8mm lebel.

If you go all in on the Meunier cartridge, fair enough and the French probably would have wanted to but that means rechambering the 8mm lebel MGs to take the new standard round or passing them on to second line colonial and allied forces.

But then some bright spark comes along with this idea for an Air Force and Char D'Assault and motorising the loggies and that's where the money goes.

The general problem with semi auto rifles is they were seen as the solution to providing suppressing fire to the attacker. Its not the only way. Defensively machine guns to the job and when they start coming in at 9-13kg not 130kg which they will be doing by 1916 anyway why not give every company say 4 of them in the existing ammo rather than change over. The French and the British have reasons for changing the ammo type anyway.

On the metal aircraft there are two issues. Having part of the structure metal and being all metal are different. Yes Junkers does an all metal aircraft in 1915 and others follow in the 20s but its really 1930s technology and cost, you need to have enough dural to make it economic, which is why a steel or dural frame covered in fabric is in use for a long long time. And the dural prodution requires smelters and they require electricity at the required levels. Earlier aircraft like the Bulldog used a riveted steel structure covered in fabric.

All wood frame people will move away from All metal needs more powerful engines. The limited durability of fabric is 5 -10 years. In term sof development of everything else aircraft related thats forever.

 

[Thoresby]

Semi auto rifles probably not. Everyone had been looking at them noone was really keen. To reequip a millions strong army is a big undertaking so there has to be a clear advantage to the average conscript. Especially with everything else going on and with aircraft demanding lighter weight MG issuing one of those to the infantry platoon instead of 30 semi auto rifles is a good start, which is how the Lewis gets its start.

Semi-Auto rifles were definitely coming with the French adopting the 7×59mm Meunier round to replace 8mm Lebel and Meunier rifle as their primary small arm. The British were also abandoning the rimmed .303 in favour of .276 Enfield though that was still needing more R&D before it could be adopted, presumably they'd go initially P13 Enfield until they can come up with a semi auto

 

[Fehérvári]

Not really. Russia, AH and for that matter Germany are all consequences of wartime events and food shortages in the cities.

That's completely true in the case of A-H and Germany, however Russia's case is a bit more complicated. There has been quite a few threads debating about this exact topic:

Crises in a no ww1 world

What major crises would happen in a world where ww1 is averted due to Russia not helping Serbia? From the top of my head I can imagine a crisis over Albania, likely with Italy and Austria Hungary both trying to get influence there and with Greece wanting Southern Epirus. A crisis over the Greek...

www.alternatehistory.com

Russian revolution without WW1?

I am having another thread about crises in a no ww1 world. In this thread it is claimed that one crisis would be a Russian revolution, I counter by saying that it took brutal war and starvation and million dead to achieve revolution IOTL. User @Catsmate brutally destroys and humiliates me by...

www.alternatehistory.com

Russia in a world with no World Wars

A little while ago, I made a thread about culture in a world with no World Wars, but some of the discussion there made me want to talk about Russia in particular, and beyond just culture. After seeing folks like WIAH and plenty of other Anti-communists talk about how well off Russia would be...

www.alternatehistory.com

There's no consensus on the matter, that's why I wrote "revolution is on the table" for Russia. It's hardly garantueed, but it is a not too far-fetched possibility.

The Arab revolt's success is kinda dependent on the Turkish army being destroyed by the British. There may be a revolt but its going nowhere.

I wasn't thinking about the Arab Revolt though. Ottoman politics were quite volatile in general at the time. Revolution is not a far-fetched idea, it already happened once in 1908 and there was even a coup in 1913. The CUP one-party state could quite easily trip over some old or new issues, its enemies would be more than willing to capitalise on the opportunity.

AH is maybe if Plan U is implemented when the succession happens and the Hungarians fighting back

Plan U is a meme, just like the USGA. FF had no desire to implement either.

 

[YYJ]

One thing that occurs to me. The delay probably means that the dreadnought Sultan Osman I is delivered to the Ottomans rather than being commandeered and becoming HMS Agincourt. Assuming the other dreadnought under construction is also delivered that should somewhat improve relations between the British and the Ottomans.

Without World War One, Britain would have exported the Sultan Osman I (HMS Agincourt) and Resadiye (HMS Erin) to Turkey and Almirante Latorre (HMS Canada) to Chile, so would be short these 3 super dreadnoughts that sailed with the OTL Grand Fleet at Jutland.

Almirante Cochrane (HMS Eagle) would have been exported to Chile and not be available for carrier conversion.

Greece would also has the Salamis.

Greek battleship Salamis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org