Triple Alliance wins Great War ... (some help needed)

[Musketeer513]

I'm working on an alternate timeline where the Triple Alliance wins the Great War. (Some help is needed.)

My POD is that Italy does enter the war on the side of it's Allies in the Triple Alliance, sometime before May 1915. The war would end before March 1917 forestalling the Russian Revolution. The territorial outcome of the war follows;

[In Europe and the Mediterranean]
Germany gains: the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg.
Austria-Hungary gains: Congress Poland, Bessarabia, Romania north of the Danube.
Italy gains: Savoy, Nice, Corsica, Tunisia, Malta, Cyprus, Albania, Montenegro, Serbia.

Bulgaria and Turkey which will join with the Triple Alliance
Bulgaria gains: Romania south of the Danube.
Turkey gains: Persia, Nejd.

Neutral Sweden and Spain make the following gains
Sweden gains: Denmark, Iceland, Norway.
Spain gains: Portugal, French Morocco.

[In Africa]
Germany gains: French Equatorial Africa, Rio Muni, Belgium Congo.
Italy gains: Abyssinia, French Somaliland, Madagascar.
Britain gains: Portuguese Guinea, Angola, Mozambique.

[In Asia]
Germany gains: Dutch East Indies.
Britain gains: Afghanistan, Portuguese India, Tibet.
Russia gains: Sinkiang, Mongolia, Manchuria.
Japan gains: Hainan

[In America]
America gains: the Danish, Dutch and French colonies in the America.

Politically, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxemburg are allowed more autonomy than what Bavaria enjoyed in the German Empire. Their colonies remain their colonies. Pre-war German colonies are transferred to Bavaria. Alsace-Lorraine is transformed into a Kingdom, Lorraine, with Louis Philippe as King. The French colonies gained in the war become colonies of Lorraine.

Austria-Hungary becomes the Austria Empire composed of 5 Kingdoms; Austria, Bohemia, Croatia, Hungary (which includes what was Romania), Poland (Galicia and Congress Poland).

Italy which acquires Albania, Montenegro and Serbia and removing a problem for Austria.

Scandinavia under Sweden becomes the Scandinavia Empire composed of the Kingdoms of Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden.

America acquires the former European colonies by sale and using the Monroe Doctrine for justification.

With Portugal being conquered by Spain the British gain it's colonies. China loses territory to the Triple Entente and Japan as a form of compensation.

 

[M79]

Greetings Musketeer!

A few questions:

*Why does a neutral country like the Netherlands become part of the German sphere?
*Why does Congress Poland become Austrian instead of (all but) German?
*Why does Serbia become Italian instead of Corsica and/or Tunisia?
*Why would Romania's fate be different than OTL Treaty of Bucharest?
*Didn't China stay largely out of World War I?
*What prompts Scandinavian unification?

 

[yourworstnightmare]

There need to be territorial transfers from Austria to Italy, for Italy staying with the Triple Alliance.

Why would neutral countries gain anything?

You're overdoing it with territorial changes. Many places wouldn't necessarily be annexed but rather fall under influence of the winning power. See German ambitions in Eastern Europe that was more to create a wall of loyal semi- independent puppet states between them and Russia (such as Lithuania, Baltic German Duchy, the Ukraine).

I don't think Romania would be annexed, but they'd be forced to sign treaties binding them politically, economically and militarily to the Triple Alliance.

And the Ottomans gaining Persia, lol, they'd actually need to conquer it and hold it for that. Would not go well for them.

 

[lukedalton]

As said above, too much annexation, there is a limit at what a nation can absorb and everyone was aware of it.

Romania and Russia receive the OTL treatment (treaty of Bucharest and Brest-Litivosk); France get the septemberprogram treatment (tweaked in someway depending on the contingent military and political situation and what the UK can bargain).
Serbia is on the Austrian sphere, Wien had started the all mess for that and doubt that she will renouce, expecially in favor of a nation that it's in her own interest keep out of the Balkans; same as Montenegro, dinastic tie aside, if Italy keep Albania, A-H keep Montenegro, otherwise italian control of the Adriatic will be excessive.
The Ottoman will gain what OTL gave them in the various treaty, plus a nullification of debt and capitulation, plus some greeks island and the Dodecanese if the italians can make agreeable to the situation.

The UK will get a white peace, probably keeping the german colonies conquered plus some gain around south-iraq; the fate of the Belgian congo depend on the fate of Belgium...Germany can keep it if Belgium is vacated and get a status-quo border (even if neutralized), if Berlin go with his plan doubt that London will let them have it.

Afghanistan can become part of the British sphere, but more due to the third anglo-afghan war than to ww1

 

[MichaelWest]

My thinking on crafting a Triple Alliance victory is to alter the way the war begins. I think you need Russia clearly the aggressor to force Italy to honor the Alliance. Even better if you draw the Germans away from violating Belgium to keep the British out or have it look even more ambiguous so Germany is not so easy painted the naked aggressor. One can do that inside the events after the assassination but it requires something to force A-H to be more aggressive and less dithering, the Russians more supportive of Serbia and so forth. Even better if you look further back and improve the relations between Italy and A-H. That is a tall order. My thinking is to move the war forward into 1913 over Albania, here the Russians nearly went to blows and are going to look more the villain. Germany I think is less ready to strike France through Belgium, it has no heavy siege guns for example, the British are less ready to commit to war in France, the Italians would be bound to defend its partners if Russia declares war and it has a stake in fighting over Albania. That might be fertile ground to create a Triple Alliance war versus France-Russia (and likely not the UK).

Next you want to look at the discussions on how a Germany more focused East, using more Corps there and less offensive towards France might succeed, the effect of Italian naval action to thwart France's connections with North Africa, blockade Russia, etc. Even better if you get A-H to step up its defense spending to improve its military. Now the big break will be the British delivering the Ottoman battleship and the Greeks sinking it. Assuming you agree that it would happen and in all the discussions about it one could find arguments that it would blow open the Balkans to thus draw in the British creating a truly European war but not fully a world war. All a steep climb but in that fray you might get some of the things you want.

Italy certainly helps to push the Triple Alliance to victory but only more certainly without the British. France can import and without losing so much territory is less dependent, Russia can afford to buy and only its ineptness will ruin it, Germany without a blockade is better off but still has limits, this war should go about as long and be about as ruinous. The Triple Alliance here must still impose untoward misery upon the French and Russians, piling up casualties until the things looks hopeless, and then there is not much that a victory will truly alter. Some maps redrawn, mostly in the East and the Balkans, some colonies swapped or lost or gained. I have little confidence in such a victory looking anything like what some people confusing think will be a prequel to Hitler's dreams, but it will potentially leave the world with Germany and Britain as the two greatest powers, one naval and one continental, that is quite an interesting future to play upon.

 

[M79]

Musketeer, I appreciate your vision and hope to read a timeline based on it in the near future. The gains you depicted initially were impressive to the point they would confirm a war for the next generation - if they could actually be achieved. The following is a primer of what might be more plausible, and feel free to modify or disagree as you like:

[Europe and the Med]
Germany annexes: Belgium east of the Meuse and Luxemburg. Rump Belgium, Congress Poland, Finland, and later Denmark along with the Netherlands become economic satellites of Berlin. France becomes more bound to German economics (ironically showing the advantages of the EECM decades ahead of schedule) but retains more of her independence minus the balance of northwestern Lorraine which is annexed to Germany.

Austria-Hungary gains: Serbia, Montenegro, Albania, Border areas for Romania and Gallicia, and at least parts of the Ukraine. Romania (+ Moldavia), Greece, and to a lesser extent Bulgaria find themselves in Vienna's economic orbit.

Italy gains: Savoy, Nice, Corsica, and Tunisia. Malta is firmly British but they eventually realize the futility in trying to keep it supplied and sell it to the Italians for a princely sum after negotiating rights to bases in the Baeleric, Adriatic, and Aegean islands.

Bulgaria gains: Romania's Danube corridor, Macedonia, and western Thrace.

Turkey gains: Nejd, Kars, Yemen, Kuwait, and some arrangement with Egypt. Oman and the Gulf States are economic dependencies, but only the invigoration of oil money into Turkish coffers saves the Ottoman Empire.

Neutral Sweden and Spain make no gains as they did not participate. However, the brutal devastation is enough to force the merger of Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, and Norway into Scandinavia.

Spain gains a lot of influence in French Morocco but it still answers to Paris if only nominally. Portugal begins flirtations about a new Iberian Union though they ultimately fall through.

 

[Magyarország]

While I agree that outright annexation of Congress Poland by Austria is implausible (as much as Karl wanted it), a more successful A-H certainly would fight to keep it in its sphere, placing Karl Stefan on the Polish throne and Wilhelm on the Ukrainian one (if the Ukrainians rise up against the Russians or if the CP occupy that far, at least). I would argue that the Austro-Hugarians might even be willing to partition Galicia between their two new allies to solidify their hold and influence of them, though I'm sure someone will argue otherwise.

Serbia will only be directly annexed if Austria-Hungary is willing to push for reforms and push for a pro-Austrian, likely Croat-dominated South-Slavic crownland, which was considered very dangerous by A-H higher-ups and would require something to be done with the Hungarian half. Either way, Serbia will be partitioned between Bulgaria and either Austria-Hungary themselves or a rump puppet state in Belgrade. Austro-Hungarian-Bulgarian relations are going to be pretty nice pose-war.

A-H is also in a good position to get Romania in its sphere. Hell, pre-1914, the latter already was heavily dependent on the former economically regardless of irredentism.

Still, as yourworstnightmare said, Italy wanted Austro-Hungarian land that A-H was completely unwilling to give up. However, a better performing A-H can butterfly Italy's entry anyways.

 

[Ludwig von Stieglitz]

I'm working on an alternate timeline where the Triple Alliance wins the Great War. (Some help is needed.)

My POD is that Italy does enter the war on the side of it's Allies in the Triple Alliance, sometime before May 1915. The war would end before March 1917 forestalling the Russian Revolution. The territorial outcome of the war follows;

[In Europe and the Mediterranean]
Germany gains: the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg.
Austria-Hungary gains: Congress Poland, Bessarabia, Romania north of the Danube.
Italy gains: Savoy, Nice, Corsica, Tunisia, Malta, Cyprus, Albania, Montenegro, Serbia.

Bulgaria and Turkey which will join with the Triple Alliance
Bulgaria gains: Romania south of the Danube.
Turkey gains: Persia, Nejd.

Neutral Sweden and Spain make the following gains
Sweden gains: Denmark, Iceland, Norway.
Spain gains: Portugal, French Morocco.

[In Africa]
Germany gains: French Equatorial Africa, Rio Muni, Belgium Congo.
Italy gains: Abyssinia, French Somaliland, Madagascar.
Britain gains: Portuguese Guinea, Angola, Mozambique.

[In Asia]
Germany gains: Dutch East Indies.
Britain gains: Afghanistan, Portuguese India, Tibet.
Russia gains: Sinkiang, Mongolia, Manchuria.
Japan gains: Hainan

[In America]
America gains: the Danish, Dutch and French colonies in the America.

Politically, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxemburg are allowed more autonomy than what Bavaria enjoyed in the German Empire. Their colonies remain their colonies. Pre-war German colonies are transferred to Bavaria. Alsace-Lorraine is transformed into a Kingdom, Lorraine, with Louis Philippe as King. The French colonies gained in the war become colonies of Lorraine.

Austria-Hungary becomes the Austria Empire composed of 5 Kingdoms; Austria, Bohemia, Croatia, Hungary (which includes what was Romania), Poland (Galicia and Congress Poland).

Italy which acquires Albania, Montenegro and Serbia and removing a problem for Austria.

Scandinavia under Sweden becomes the Scandinavia Empire composed of the Kingdoms of Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden.

America acquires the former European colonies by sale and using the Monroe Doctrine for justification.

With Portugal being conquered by Spain the British gain it's colonies. China loses territory to the Triple Entente and Japan as a form of compensation.

I do not know where to start with this timeline. I can only remind you that history, even alt-history is not a video game. You do not annex nations like there was no tomorrow, + there is no point in the pattern of your annexations:
A) why would Germany annex the Netherlands and Belgium, and how do they keep them in the face of growing resistance from local population? At the greatest you can have Germany annex parts if Belgium and transform the rest into a puppet country.
B) why would UK lose territory? Neither Germany or even less Italy had any ability to invade them or force their hand.
C) why would Sweden go on an annexing spree achieving ten control of Scandinavia which has eluded them for centuries without even shooting one shot, and annexing other neutral countries like Denmark or Norway? Otherwise how do you involve these countries into the war? Sweden joining is a long stretch, Norway and Denmark is ASB.
D) Austria had no desire to annex further nationalities and it had 0 capacity of controlling her post-war territory in 1918, even less to control a large coubtry like Poland and suppress inevitable rebellions there.
E) Spain was not in a condition as to wage war
F) Italy getting Montenegro may work (even though this would bottle Austria in the Adriatic sea. Italy getting Albania less so, as albania was not a belligerent, and 1917 Italy wad not fascist Italy
Outlast getting Serbia is pointless: nobody in Italy wanted Serbia.
In few word the true alliance gang-raping the whole of Europe is not only ASB,but even deeply counterproductive for the alliance itself.

 

[Michel Van]

Germany gains: the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg.
Austria-Hungary gains: Congress Poland, Bessarabia, Romania north of the Danube.
Italy gains: Savoy, Nice, Corsica, Tunisia, Malta, Cyprus, Albania, Montenegro, Serbia.

Some misconceptions
Luxemburg yes
German Empire never wanted the Netherland as Part of Reich, but as member in Zoll Verein (a Economic union)
That's also goes Partly for Belgium, they wanted Tribute state, with east part of Belgium (everything east of Rive Meuse) incorporated into German Empire

What is this about Denmark ?
Sweden and USA gain there Territory, that only work if Neutral Denmark join the Germans in WW1 and Attack Sweden and US ships, What is a absolute ABS scenario.

And why getting Neutral states suddenly Territory ?
Are Diplomats in post war Treaty completely drunk as they sign this agreement ???

This form of American Imperialism, not work under President Wilson but under President Teddy Roosevelt it has small chance...

 

[Musketeer513]

Thank you all for your suggestions and I will try to answer any questions that I can.

Greetings Musketeer!

A few questions:

*Why does a neutral country like the Netherlands become part of the German sphere? I imagined the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxemburg as a part of the German Empire but in a new kind of way. A complete economic unity but domestic political independence. The imperial government would only after the new members in financial and economic affairs. Lorrain and Bavaria would also move into this category.
*Why does Congress Poland become Austrian instead of (all but) German? The Germans did not want more Poles in Germany. Austria being composed of five nations, one a reborn Poland.
*Why does Serbia become Italian instead of Corsica and/or Tunisia? Italy had territorial designs on French and Austrian territory. In the war the gain the French territory and the Austrians will sign a treaty giving land to the Italians. Italy gains land in the Balkans hopefully occupying their attention.
*Why would Romania's fate be different than OTL Treaty of Bucharest? Uniting the Romanians in one country the enlarged Hungary. Romanians giving complete autonomy in the new Hungary. I think the Ukraine would become independent with the former King of Romania as King and closely tied economically and politically with Germany and Austria.
*Didn't China stay largely out of World War I? Yes it did but China would be unable to resist and the Triple Alliance hoped this would help mollify the Triple Entente.

 

[Riain]

Firstly I'd suggest Italy joining the CP in early 1915 could well be the tipping point for a CP victory, but would ask how that occurred. Italy would see how the war was playing out and make a decision the other way, so what happened: did the Germans take Paris, or win the Race to the Sea, or encircle and destroy the Russian 1st Army or did AH do better in the initial mobilisation-offensive, or a bit of all of that?

Secondly, and closely related to the first, War aims were closely linked to how the war was progressing on the ground. The infamous Septemberprogramme wish-list was drawn up when German Armies were sweeping all before them in France so focused on things in the west and colonies, later war aims reflected gains or losses in the east and other battlefield events. The upshot is, if you want those annexations or other types of incorporations you have to make the events on the battlefield pan out in such a way that they are reasonable demands; eg there is no point demanding Britain give up anything if the CP aren't parked on the French Channel coast making life hell for them.

Otherwise, go for it; a CP Italy will make the Med an active threatre and if that's a result of the Germans winning the Race to the Sea the British and French navies will really struggle to contain the CP at sea, which will limit the BEF on land.

 

[CountDVB]

You're also excluding the Ottomans (who, if they got control over Arabia back, could become a Great Power again with oil), along with the Dervish state (they'd want the Somali lands) and Darfur. They were in the Central Powers.

 

[vortiger]

Firstly I'd suggest Italy joining the CP in early 1915 could well be the tipping point for a CP victory, but would ask how that occurred. Italy would see how the war was playing out and make a decision the other way, so what happened: did the Germans take Paris, or win the Race to the Sea, or encircle and destroy the Russian 1st Army or did AH do better in the initial mobilisation-offensive, or a bit of all of that?

Secondly, and closely related to the first, War aims were closely linked to how the war was progressing on the ground. The infamous Septemberprogramme wish-list was drawn up when German Armies were sweeping all before them in France so focused on things in the west and colonies, later war aims reflected gains or losses in the east and other battlefield events. The upshot is, if you want those annexations or other types of incorporations you have to make the events on the battlefield pan out in such a way that they are reasonable demands; eg there is no point demanding Britain give up anything if the CP aren't parked on the French Channel coast making life hell for them.

Otherwise, go for it; a CP Italy will make the Med an active threatre and if that's a result of the Germans winning the Race to the Sea the British and French navies will really struggle to contain the CP at sea, which will limit the BEF on land.

i think italy joining the central powers would be the cause of the CP downfall. remember italy is pretty much useless, if they decide to attack southern France, they would probably be routed and france would take control of much of northern Italy(the industrial part). Germany and Austria would be forced to send men to reinforce the Italian lines, which would weaken both the eastern and western front. the Italian navy would just be bottle necked in the Adriatic sea. Italy would be just like in ww2 an unwanted burden on Germany. i think the war would be over by 1916 with a entente victory.

 

[lukedalton]

i think italy joining the central powers would be the cause of the CP downfall. remember italy is pretty much useless, if they decide to attack southern France, they would probably be routed and france would take control of much of northern Italy(the industrial part). Germany and Austria would be forced to send men to reinforce the Italian lines, which would weaken both the eastern and western front. the Italian navy would just be bottle necked in the Adriatic sea. Italy would be just like in ww2 an unwanted burden on Germany. i think the war would be over by 1916 with a entente victory.

Italy in the CP (by early 1915, after some much needed restocking of the equipment has been done), mean that the Entente is in big problem; Italy will not attack south France the terrain is too horrible and too favorable to the defenders...the plan is to sent men in the north to support Germany.
Talking about terrain, being favorable to the defender cut on both ways...so neither the French can launch a direct attack to North Italy, sure there is the possibility of landing behind the defensive line in Liguria...but after Gallipoli and with a bad terrain i doubt that the Entente will desire go for a bis (plus Regia Marina is much harder nut to crack than the Ottoman Navy).
Just keeping occupied French troops will be a drain of resources enough to cause butterfly (as even if not numerous in OTL they had been quickly sent in the north the moment Italy signed with the Entente due tot he dire needs of men).

A CP Italy mean that the Serbian Army is finished, much of the survivors were picked by italian ships and sent to Taranto, plus Vlore at the moment is under Italian occupation and the Adriatic blockade cannot be implemented; plus moving troops from Algeria towards France will be much more difficult.

 

[Riain]

i think italy joining the central powers would be the cause of the CP downfall. remember italy is pretty much useless, if they decide to attack southern France, they would probably be routed and france would take control of much of northern Italy(the industrial part). Germany and Austria would be forced to send men to reinforce the Italian lines, which would weaken both the eastern and western front. the Italian navy would just be bottle necked in the Adriatic sea. Italy would be just like in ww2 an unwanted burden on Germany. i think the war would be over by 1916 with a entente victory.

What forces would be available to rout Italy? France would need similar forces to those AH used to fight Italy, these would have to come from somewhere. While Italy mightn't shine on the battlefield she will have to be guarded against on land and sea and most likely campaigns undertaken to take her colonies. Her and AH navy might be able to close the Med to through shipping, increasing the bruden on British shipping already strained by the naval campaign against Germany.

Italy would also add to the general level of available resources; she could export some food to Germany for example and perhaps send labour to work in farms and factories.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

Italy in the CP (by early 1915, after some much needed restocking of the equipment has been done), mean that the Entente is in big problem; Italy will not attack south France the terrain is too horrible and too favorable to the defenders...the plan is to sent men in the north to support Germany.
Talking about terrain, being favorable to the defender cut on both ways...so neither the French can launch a direct attack to North Italy, sure there is the possibility of landing behind the defensive line in Liguria...but after Gallipoli and with a bad terrain i doubt that the Entente will desire go for a bis (plus Regia Marina is much harder nut to crack than the Ottoman Navy).
Just keeping occupied French troops will be a drain of resources enough to cause butterfly (as even if not numerous in OTL they had been quickly sent in the north the moment Italy signed with the Entente due tot he dire needs of men).

A CP Italy mean that the Serbian Army is finished, much of the survivors were picked by italian ships and sent to Taranto, plus Vlore at the moment is under Italian occupation and the Adriatic blockade cannot be implemented; plus moving troops from Algeria towards France will be much more difficult.

1. Odd, that diden't stop them from charging into the Austrian Alps and Isonzo River over and over again IOTL. Italy, like most other powers in the period, had a fundamentally offensive mindset in terms of military strategy... perhaps even more than the others. If her actual behavior/strategy is any indication, the Italian Army is going to be making a lunge to occupy those regions she wants to annex post-war; not lend her armies out to bleed for Germany or A-H's benefit.

2. Italian participation on the part of the CP likely butterflies away Gallipoli and greatly weakens the Franco-British position to strike directly at the Ottomans, since it makes the Med. a contested area. With the British Home Fleet mainly concentrated on defending the Channel and North Sea as well as enforcing the blockade, the French navy is the main force in the area who not only has the much softer target of Italy's long, geographically exposed western coast and commerce to raid, but has to deal with the Hapsburg navy now being in play alongside its Italian counterpart. The ability to commerce raid out of the Adriatic alone would dramatically complicate the logistics of any extended operations against the Straits or Salonika, limiting any British invasion of Ottoman territory to starting out of Egypt or the Persian Gulf (The former of which would require the delay of subduing Italian presence in the area, the later being a logistical nightmare), as well as nessecitiating a stronger Entente military presence to defend against/subdue the Italians in Tripolitania. This is, of course, assuming the presence of the Italians in the CP/leaning CP diden't convince the Ottomans to remain neutral to avoid allying with their recent Italian foe.

3. True that Serbia is going to be hopelessly isolated though; that's not going to be good for her ability to endure A-H, especially if the Austrians can afford to re-direct transport capacity and heavy weapons to the Danubian front from the West as well as have greater freedom to co-opt the Albanians and bring in the Bulgarians earlier. Greece is likely to be brow-beaten into neutrality or will at least put up a stiffer resistance to Entente operations in their territory, limiting the one last windpipe they have.

 

[RMcD94]

Do you have a map for your original proposal

 

[Riain]

Italian participation on the part of the CP likely butterflies away Gallipoli and greatly weakens the Franco-British position to strike directly at the Ottomans, since it makes the Med. a contested area. With the British Home Fleet mainly concentrated on defending the Channel and North Sea as well as enforcing the blockade, the French navy is the main force in the area who not only has the much softer target of Italy's long, geographically exposed western coast and commerce to raid, but has to deal with the Hapsburg navy now being in play alongside its Italian counterpart. The ability to commerce raid out of the Adriatic alone would dramatically complicate the logistics of any extended operations against the Straits or Salonika, limiting any British invasion of Ottoman territory to starting out of Egypt or the Persian Gulf

The Med Fleet in 1914 had 3 modern BCs, a cruiser sqn and the 5th Destroyer flotilla of 16 modern destroyers, while the Channel Fleet had a battle sqn of 10 pre-dreads and a cruiser sqn of ~6 armoured cruisers. Not part of the CF but certainly in the area was the 7th destroyer flotilla, a 'Patrol flotilla' with 21 old Destroyers and 8 1st class torpedo boats (formerly known a cricket class destroyers).

However after Germany lost the RttS and it became clear that German heavy ships wouldn't enter the Channel the Channel Fleet was disbanded and the ships sent to the Med Fleet for the Daranelles campaign. In addition the 7th flotilla has lost all of its TBs and half of its destroyers for other locations.

The big question in my mind is what was the catalyst for Italy joining the CP? If it was Germany winning the RttS or enjoying almost any further success in the west I doubt the Channel Fleet would be sent to the Med.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

The Med Fleet in 1914 had 3 modern BCs, a cruiser sqn and the 5th Destroyer flotilla of 16 modern destroyers, while the Channel Fleet had a battle sqn of 10 pre-dreads and a cruiser sqn of ~6 armoured cruisers. Not part of the CF but certainly in the area was the 7th destroyer flotilla, a 'Patrol flotilla' with 21 old Destroyers and 8 1st class torpedo boats (formerly known a cricket class destroyers).

However after Germany lost the RttS and it became clear that German heavy ships wouldn't enter the Channel the Channel Fleet was disbanded and the ships sent to the Med Fleet for the Daranelles campaign. In addition the 7th flotilla has lost all of its TBs and half of its destroyers for other locations.

The big question in my mind is what was the catalyst for Italy joining the CP? If it was Germany winning the RttS or enjoying almost any further success in the west I doubt the Channel Fleet would be sent to the Med.

In my mind any Italy-CP scenario inevitably involves a better German performance in the West, as by its very nature any Italian mobilization/clear war preparations westward would draw French attention south. I was more referring to the the fact that the R.I remaining an unbottled fleet-in-being, supported by the presence and mobility of the Hapsburgs, makes any kind of force projection in the Med. to support an assault on the Straits dicey at best, and therefore unlikely to be attempted. If nothing else, the campaign against the coastal fortresses that convinced the Admiralty that sailing into Constantinople was a viable option would have been deeply complicated if said bombardment force had to operate with the risk of a CP naval assault.

 

[Riain]

In my mind any Italy-CP scenario inevitably involves a better German performance in the West, as by its very nature any Italian mobilization/clear war preparations westward would draw French attention south. I was more referring to the the fact that the R.I remaining an unbottled fleet-in-being, supported by the presence and mobility of the Hapsburgs, makes any kind of force projection in the Med. to support an assault on the Straits dicey at best, and therefore unlikely to be attempted. If nothing else, the campaign against the coastal fortresses that convinced the Admiralty that sailing into Constantinople was a viable option would have been deeply complicated if said bombardment force had to operate with the risk of a CP naval assault.

What are good fleet-in-being bases for Italy? Are there good fortified ports in threatening places like western Sicily, Pantelleria, southern Sardinia where a destroyer flotilla and a couple of cruisers could duck out, make an attack and get back under the coastal guns before the RN/MN can get to grips with them?

In theory of course, I wouldn't expect miracles from them.