AHC/WI: Britain won world war 1 without becoming heavily indebted

[longsword14]

Well, they must dig trenches and earthwork at Franco-Belgium border and Southern Belgium and wait for the German like OTL ww2, not launching offensives like OTL ww1. The same things should be applied for German border

I mean that it is not possible to do so because past experience has shown otherwise. People fight the last wars, you cannot completely alter war in the West but could perhaps change the leadership to ensure that the allied learning curve is steeper.

 

[Thomas1195]

I'm don't agree I think if you attack and win at the Dardanelles the local casualties are irrelevant, they will be saved later far more by the extra Germans having to fight in the east with Russia gaining easy access to GB/USA arms and trade.
The defences when the RN attacked first where not very strong and small landing parties did land to destroy guns, but they then came back a later and the Ottomans had unsurprisingly built up.....
If GB send the later army first with surprise and better officers I think it could easily have worked even if its costly it would be well worth it.


Only with hindsight, if you think Germany is fighting equally on both fronts and has anyway a much smaller army (not using reserves)why would you not try and win.

Yeah, a surprise full scale assault without RN early bombardment on Gallipoli would be desirable, as the Ottoman would not have time to build up. Imagine the Brussilov offensive with sufficient supplies. But Evert, a uncontrollable variable, was even worse than Beatty in Jutland.

However, Dardanelle is still the most heavily fortified area in Ottomn Empire, so an assault there could fail like otl. Attack on alexandretta, on the other hand, would guarantee a success.

 

[deathscompanion1]

Well, they must dig trenches and earthwork at Franco-Belgium border and Southern Belgium and wait for the German like OTL ww2, not launching offensives like OTL ww1. The same things should be applied for German border

This will enrage the Russians who may make an earlier peace on the grounds they agreed years ago that both they and the French would attack at the same time. If the French just sit on the defensive then the Germans can shift the forces needed in the East to obliterate the Russian army and the Russians will feel they've been betrayed.

Just as importantly however is that sitting on the defensive means that Alsace Lorraine is not being liberated from the Germans which is a big chunk of the reason for fighting the war in the first place and French doctrine is entirely offensive after some hard lessons in their last major war about the power of well trained and motivated attacks backed by excellent field artillery (and the French believe they have the best field gun in the world at this time) to their logic a defensive war is one they are effectively losing from the start.


This whole question seems to be how to fight the second bloodiest and expensive war in Western human history on the cheap. The answer is not to fight it at all otherwise it will have to be paid for.

 

[BooNZ]

The easiest way for the British to win is probably for the Germans to fail to capture the nitrate stockpiles at Antwerp (400,000 tonnes) intact, which means they lose the ability to wage industrial scale war before they get the Haber process producing ammonium nitrate at scale, and the western front probably collapses with an Entente victory in 1915.

Probably not. Haber was rather dismissive of the relevance/ importance of the Belgium nitrates and even prior to their discovery those in Germany aware of the nitrates issue concluded without industrial scale production, Germany would likely need to seek terms in Spring 1915. In context, in Sep-Oct 1914 it was no a matter of when industrial production was achieved, but if industrial production would be achieved. Industrial production involved bleeding edge technology including recently discovered catalysts and additional scientific breakthroughs were needed to make it happen. The Belgium nitrates were a windfall gain that provided the Germans with a supply buffer, without which the Germans might have to moderate their use of ammunition for a couple of months - significant but not crucial.

That would also be a major vindication of British pre-war doctrine about the importance of economic warfare.

There was no coherent British pre-war doctrine on economic warfare. Conventional thought among many pre-war 'experts' was mondern railways meant an effective blockade of significant continental powers was no longer possible. The British sponsored and supported the 1909 London Declaration, which if ratified, would have made any kind of effective blockade illegal. A key proponent of the London declaration was Edward Grey.

The British did not abandon the concept of a close blockade until 1911-1912. The OTL British blockade was ad hoc and only started to become effective from 1916. It has been argued that for Churchill, the primary purpose of the blockade was not economic, but to entice the HSF to come out and play. The British shipping crisis, especially fuel tankers indicate the British struggled to grasp the importance of economic warfare well after the war was underway.

 

[BooNZ]

I don't think that Britain needs to use more Dominion troops

Personally I feel that they did more than enough as it was

Agree

What was needed was to concentrate OTL British Empire and French Empire forces on the Western front earlier rather than 'pissing' them away in peripheral locations - AKA Side shows such as Salonika, Dardanelles, Italy etc

Mostly agree

Turkey could have been dealt with either politically before Turkey joined the CP

Agree strongly

or a more decisive Battle Cruiser Push through to within range of the capital before the straights could be mined and defences prepared - shell the Arsenal and other locations and perhaps force the issue early on.

hmmmm... To put things in perspective, even before the war commenced the Gallipoli peninsula was the most heavily fortified part of the Ottoman Empire with its defenses being prioritized from 1912 against an imagined Greek invasion. The OTL 1914/15 defense of the peninsula was largely in accordance to plans put together in 1912-13. Mine defenses were always a priority and able to be deployed in a matter of days or even hours. Mobile howitzers were capable of breaching the decks of all but the most modern war ships. In summary, a great way to lose a few crusiers.

Notwithstanding the above, an earlier and more decisive attack of the Dardanelles would have been better then OTL, but you would need visionary hindsight and multiple PODs to make that pig fly.

 

[Thomas1195]

This will enrage the Russians who may make an earlier peace on the grounds they agreed years ago that both they and the French would attack at the same time. If the French just sit on the defensive then the Germans can shift the forces needed in the East to obliterate the Russian army and the Russians will feel they've been betrayed.

Just as importantly however is that sitting on the defensive means that Alsace Lorraine is not being liberated from the Germans which is a big chunk of the reason for fighting the war in the first place and French doctrine is entirely offensive after some hard lessons in their last major war about the power of well trained and motivated attacks backed by excellent field artillery (and the French believe they have the best field gun in the world at this time) to their logic a defensive war is one they are effectively losing from the start.


This whole question seems to be how to fight the second bloodiest and expensive war in Western human history on the cheap. The answer is not to fight it at all otherwise it will have to be paid for.

At least they should fight a defensive war in belgium front (like ardennes) to bog down the german there, thus protecting their industrial centre

 

[Thomas1195]

Probably not. Haber was rather dismissive of the relevance/ importance of the Belgium nitrates and even prior to their discovery those in Germany aware of the nitrates issue concluded without industrial scale production, Germany would likely need to seek terms in Spring 1915. In context, in Sep-Oct 1914 it was no a matter of when industrial production was achieved, but if industrial production would be achieved. Industrial production involved bleeding edge technology including recently discovered catalysts and additional scientific breakthroughs were needed to make it happen. The Belgium nitrates were a windfall gain that provided the Germans with a supply buffer, without which the Germans might have to moderate their use of ammunition for a couple of months - significant but not crucial.



There was no coherent British pre-war doctrine on economic warfare. Conventional thought among many pre-war 'experts' was mondern railways meant an effective blockade of significant continental powers was no longer possible. The British sponsored and supported the 1909 London Declaration, which if ratified, would have made any kind of effective blockade illegal. A key proponent of the London declaration was Edward Grey.

The British did not abandon the concept of a close blockade until 1911-1912. The OTL British blockade was ad hoc and only started to become effective from 1916. It has been argued that for Churchill, the primary purpose of the blockade was not economic, but to entice the HSF to come out and play. The British shipping crisis, especially fuel tankers indicate the British struggled to grasp the importance of economic warfare well after the war was underway.

Is there any way to force the German to abandon Schlieffen?

 

[deathscompanion1]

At least they should fight a defensive war in belgium front (like ardennes) to bog down the german there, thus protecting their industrial centre

They tried OTL. They did not have the manpower to do both at the same time.

 

[BooNZ]

Is there any way to force the German to abandon Schlieffen?

If the Germans abandon the Schlieffen plan, greater resources will be focused in the East. Instead of the invading Russian First and Second armies being beaten by 1 German army, they will be annihilated by 3 German armies and the recently formed/forming Russian Tenth Army is likely to suffer a similar fate rather rapidly. This puts the Russian Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Army in harms way. An early Russian 'Great retreat' would be on the cards, including the early abandonment of Polish territory/resources and A-H avoiding the worst of the OTL mauling it received in the opening months of the war. On balance, a total disaster for Russia, but an enduring boon for the CP powers, especially with the influence such victories would have on neutral powers like Italy.

In the West, the Germans would have avoided the losses incurred at Marne and be defending a far shorter front with generally more defensible terrain. Due to its entirely [suicidal] offensive doctrine and treaty with Russia, the French would certainly bleed themselves white on offensives against entrenched German positions. OTL in 1914 and 1915 the Entente lacked the equipment and tactics to realistically threaten a strategic breach of the German defenses. In the above scenario it would be far more difficult and the losses will be disproportionately heavier on the Entente side. By not involving itself heavily on continental Europe the British might initially save a truckload of cash, but by 1916 the French and Russian armies would be an incoherent mess, while the CP powers, with the possible exception of the Ottomans, would be far stronger than OTL.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Is there any way to force the German to abandon Schlieffen?

Well Germany's generals could actually obey the Kaiser's orders not to invade Belgium for a start. A clear statement by Britain that it would enter the war if a single German soldier violated Belgian neutrality in any way MIGHT make that more likely.

 

[Thomas1195]

They tried OTL. They did not have the manpower to do both at the same time.

No, they got their asses spanked because of their excessive offensive spirit. Trench warfare was not adopted until September 1914, after the Battle of the frontiers. And ironically, the German was the first army to dig trench after falling back from Marne.

 

[Thomas1195]

If the Germans abandon the Schlieffen plan, greater resources will be focused in the East. Instead of the invading Russian First and Second armies being beaten by 1 German army, they will be annihilated by 3 German armies and the recently formed/forming Russian Tenth Army is likely to suffer a similar fate rather rapidly. This puts the Russian Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Army in harms way. An early Russian 'Great retreat' would be on the cards, including the early abandonment of Polish territory/resources and A-H avoiding the worst of the OTL mauling it received in the opening months of the war. On balance, a total disaster for Russia, but an enduring boon for the CP powers, especially with the influence such victories would have on neutral powers like Italy.

In the West, the Germans would have avoided the losses incurred at Marne and be defending a far shorter front with generally more defensible terrain. Due to its entirely [suicidal] offensive doctrine and treaty with Russia, the French would certainly bleed themselves white on offensives against entrenched German positions. OTL in 1914 and 1915 the Entente lacked the equipment and tactics to realistically threaten a strategic breach of the German defenses. In the above scenario it would be far more difficult and the losses will be disproportionately heavier on the Entente side. By not involving itself heavily on continental Europe the British might initially save a truckload of cash, but by 1916 the French and Russian armies would be an incoherent mess, while the CP powers, with the possible exception of the Ottomans, would be far stronger than OTL.

The doctrine would be changed faster than OTL because the German would not occupy all of Northern France like OTL, so less pressure for the French to retake their precious lands at all costs, which means Joffre might actually adopt Kitchener's bite and hold tactic.

Well, the extra cash and export profit could be used to launch a new naval expansion phase which could be at least greater than the Japanese 8-8 program. And they should keep this new program in secret, at least like the way the Yamato class was kept hidden in OTL. In addition, they could also send Kitchener and co to the battlefield as experts and observers, and even ''volunteers'' (British soldiers in disguise) to France.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Well, I mean if Hood, which was 45000 tons, was never built, then besides the OTL Nelrods, you would be allowed to build another Nelson class to reach the 5:5:3 parity, and after that you still have unused 10000 tons, because a Nelson only cost 35000 tons.

No it would not have worked out like that, because there would not be 10,000 tons unused.

The OTL Washington Treaty allowed battleships to displace a maximum of 35,000 tons and tonnage quotas that would allow fleets of 15 UK, 15 US, 9 Japanese, 5 French and 5 Italian capital ships of that displacement by 1942.

No new battleships could be laid down before the end of 1931. Except that because the British, French and Italians had older fleets than the Americans and Japanese they were allowed to build 70,000 tons of capital ships each before 1931 or put another way two 35,000 tons each. The British used their 70,000 tons to build Nelson and Rodney. The French and Italians didn't use their 70,000 tons by the time the Washington Treaty expired, but it was carried forward to the end of 1936 by the First London Treaty, which allowed the French to lay down Dunkuerque and Strassbourg and the Italians Littorio and Vittorio Vento before the end of 1936.

IOTL the 70,000 tons allowance was so that the British would have 3 post-jutland ships by 1931 to match the 3 belonging to the USN. With no Hood they will be allowed 105,000 tons for three 35,000 ton battleships.

There would be no unused 10,000 tons. For a start the Washington Treaty rated Hood at 41,200 tons, not 45,000 tons so it was going to be 6,200, but there is not going to be even that. The 20 capital ships that the British would have when Nelson and Rodney were completed came to 558,950 tons, which was considerably more than the 525,000 ton quota. By contrast the 18 ships retained by the USA came to 525,850; the ships retained by France displaced 221,000 tons, considerably more than their 175,000 tons; Italy had 182,000 tons, which was slightly more than their 175,000 tons; and only Japan with 301,000 tons was below their quota of 315,000 tons.

 

[BooNZ]

No, they got their asses spanked because of their excessive offensive spirit. Trench warfare was not adopted until September 1914, after the Battle of the frontiers. And ironically, the German was the first army to dig trench after falling back from Marne.

Trenches were a prominent feature of the German war games in the decade preceding the war. I'm certain trenches would have featured during the Battle of the Frontiers and rudimentary earthworks were likely a feature of the German victory over the French during their advance through the Ardennes. The Germans may have been the first to employ trenches as a semi-permanent fixture, resulting in what we understand to be trench warfare.

The doctrine would be changed faster than OTL because the German would not occupy all of Northern France like OTL, so less pressure for the French to retake their precious lands at all costs, which means Joffre might actually adopt Kitchener's bite and hold tactic.

Probably not. Joffre was obsessed with the cult of the offensive and this was reflected in the doctrine and the population of like minded French officers. The heavy losses could be rationalized by the French treaty and military commitments to the Russians. Without the 'Miracle at Marne' Joffre would not be invulnerable, but he would probably last long enough to absolutely wreck the top tier of the French army.

If the Germans are on firmly on the defensive in the West, the British and the French would not be able to assess/copy any German offensive innovations. Without experiencing significant German offensives, the development of effective Entente offensive doctrine could be retarded. Also from what I can gather, bite and hold was effectively introduced in 1917, but Kitchener died in 1916?

Well, the extra cash and export profit could be used to launch a new naval expansion phase which could be at least greater than the Japanese 8-8 program. And they should keep this new program in secret, at least like the way the Yamato class was kept hidden in OTL. In addition, they could also send Kitchener and co to the battlefield as experts and observers, and even ''volunteers'' (British soldiers in disguise) to France.

Why would a slightly less broke Britain not agree to the OTL naval treaty, since prima facie it provides for Anglo-American naval dominance with a budget price tag. I also struggle to see how British expertise on continental warfare would be much better than the French or what would inspire the French to listen to British advice. In 1916 with Russia effectively out of the war and the French with heavily depleted ranks, the French will need more than advice...

 

[Thomas1195]

Trenches were a prominent feature of the German war games in the decade preceding the war. I'm certain trenches would have featured during the Battle of the Frontiers and rudimentary earthworks were likely a feature of the German victory over the French during their advance through the Ardennes....

If the Germans are on firmly on the defensive in the West, the British and the French would not be able to assess/copy any German offensive innovations. Without experiencing significant German offensives, the development of effective Entente offensive doctrine could be retarded. Also from what I can gather, bite and hold was effectively introduced in 1917, but Kitchener died in 1916?

Why would a slightly less broke Britain not agree to the OTL naval treaty, since prima facie it provides for Anglo-American naval dominance with a budget price tag. I also struggle to see how British expertise on continental warfare would be much better than the French or what would inspire the French to listen to British advice. In 1916 with Russia effectively out of the war and the French with heavily depleted ranks, the French will need more than advice...

Well, but the battles of the frontiers were still mostly classic encounters, with both sides attacked.

Well, I am wrong, it was Henry Rawlinson, but he proposed the tactic well before 1917. But it was Kitchener who stressed on a long attrition warfare as early as 1914 (and the only figure in Entente to foresee it), which is the basis of bite and hold tactic. OTL, actually Kitchener was able to persuade Joffre to reduce the scale of his offensives to some extent (well they could be even bigger and crazier), but could not make them totally move to slow attrition tactic (until Petain took on the role) because of the pressure to retake precious lands.

An earlier move on the next phase of naval expansion would help RN to have a better shape than OTL , with more new BBs better than QE class being actually commissioned, rather than just Nelrods. RN then would have a better bargaining position in WNT

 

[Thomas1195]

Well Germany's generals could actually obey the Kaiser's orders not to invade Belgium for a start. A clear statement by Britain that it would enter the war if a single German soldier violated Belgian neutrality in any way MIGHT make that more likely.

But if this happens, would Britain be obliged to stay neutral? Oh, well, they might create a casus belli (for example, sinking a ship and blame the German, or create some provoking events in Ottoman Empire like actively supporting Arab rebellions inside the Empire).

 

[BooNZ]

An earlier move on the next phase of naval expansion would help RN to have a better shape than OTL , with more new BBs better than QE class being actually commissioned, rather than just Nelrods. RN then would have a better bargaining position in WNT

Why would bulking up on white elephants put the Royal Navy in better shape? OTL the QE class were quite sufficient to deal with the German pocket battleships and intimidate the Italians for the course of the war - the Bismarck and the Tirpitz were ultimately foiled by airpower. The WNT actually chanelled research and funding to Aircraft carriers instead of a naval dead end.

 

[History Learner]

Long term, British decline is inevitable at this point regardless of how they come out of WWI. They can delay the process for another generation or two in this ATL, but long term the US, Germany and Russia will surpass it.

 

[Thomas1195]

Why would bulking up on white elephants put the Royal Navy in better shape? OTL the QE class were quite sufficient to deal with the German pocket battleships and intimidate the Italians for the course of the war - the Bismarck and the Tirpitz were ultimately foiled by airpower. The WNT actually chanelled research and funding to Aircraft carriers instead of a naval dead end.

Well, first, a better naval position would allow them to have a bigger role in dictating the limit, and thus might get a better ratio for them, such as 6:5:3 for BBs, not 5:5:3 like OTL. In addition, a similar ratio in CVs would allow more tonnage for RN to build bigger CVs with more aircrafts than Courageous, maybe converting Hood sisters (this would lead to very big aircraft carriers). You know that converting the big Lexington and Akagi BCs allow IJN and USN have a strong lead in CV.

Next, an economically better Britain might also have more funding for FAA; however, you have to admit that RN naval aviation doctrine and development suck from the beginning. The most important features of a CV is the number AND the quality of aircraft, not things like AA guns and armour.

For the QE class and even Hood, no one would dare to say that they were stronger than the newer BB tier like Colorado class (they were slower but more powerful) or Nagato (faster and more powerful) (in OTL, the problem was that there are 3 Colorado as Post 1916 ships vs 2 Nelrods, thus a numerical lead in new BBs for the US)
For a BB vs BB battle with no air support (like Denmark strait), firepower + armour > speed

 

[jsb]

Well, first, a better naval position would allow them to have a bigger role in dictating the limit, and thus might get a better ratio for them, such as 6:5:3 for BBs, not 5:5:3 like OTL.

I just don't see it without a massive change to GB/USA, both are really happy with the 5.5 part its the 3 bit that could hurt them so more likely 6,6,3 than 6,5,3 IMO.

On a solely navel front I would prefer less rather than more!
Finish the QEs then rather than Rs stop for ASW escorts rather than R&R, LLC, Hood (and starting sisters) The RN does better in WWI due to more light escorts and maybe completing Conte Rosso and Giulio Cesare as CVs in time for Jutland......

from the start of WWI to WNT each navy would have built the following,
the RN has 5 QEs and the only 2 working WWI CVs (really 20Kn CVEs) and has only just thought about starting 4 G3s, and is completing a set of 4 big (Renown/Ark Royal sized) CVs with its experience from the war.
the USN has built all the standards 11 (2N,2P,3NM,2T,2C) and working on 14 (2C,6SD,6L) more and one CVE,
the IJN has built 6 (2K,2F,2I,1N) and has 7 building (1N,2T,4A) and one CV (H)

With more cash I can still see GB wanting to accepting a 5,5,3 ratio,
CVs are easy as all navy's as OTL but RN has 4 Renown/Arks and 2 Argus, this would be acceptable to all IMO
(RN is better than OTL but not very obviously, 4 better CVs for 4 conversions but number similar, maybe USN/IJN get 3rd/4th conversion?)

In battleships the RN will scream that it needs newer ships to match the USN/IJN, and demands the 4 G3s what would be acceptable?
IJN has 10 new/useful 14"/16" ships built at a minimum, the USN/RN would need 16.6 ships (5,3)
USN has 13 or 15 of the new/useful 14"/16" ships and the RN has 5 ok/good 15" ships and up to 15 very hard worked/old 13.5" ships

Say a WNT that gives USN the 4 Colorado's in return for only having 15 or 17 with 2 12" ships (all 14"/16") ships ?, RN gets the 4 G3s and gets 17 (5QE+ 13.5") ship due to the weak old 13.5" ships ?

I will stop as wondering off topic...