lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,966 
Likes: 49,370
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 20, 2020 17:01:36 GMT
So reading the Alternate timeline early 1910s Greek Battleships & Battlecruisers on the All the World's Battlecruisers forum i started to wonder, what if like the Argentine–Chilean naval arms and the South American dreadnought race there was a Greece-Turkish naval arms race starting from 1910 onwards, how would their countries be effected during the Great War having build up larger navies than they had in OTL and what effect would i have on the war itself. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Sept 20, 2020 19:38:14 GMT
So reading the Alternate timeline early 1910s Greek Battleships & Battlecruisers on the All the World's Battlecruisers forum i started to wonder, what if like the Argentine–Chilean naval arms and the South American dreadnought race there was a Greece-Turkish naval arms race starting from 1910 onwards, how would their countries be effected during the Great War having build up larger navies than they had in OTL and what effect would i have on the war itself.
Its an interesting idea but not sure whether Greece had the economy to match the Ottomans. Remember reading on one of the naval sites that Greece actually had extensive plans for a pre-emptive attack on Turkey prior to the planned Turkish dreadnoughts arriving. Including landings at Gallipoli, Smyrna and the Cilicia region IIRC. Of course Turkey never got those ships and WWI intervened.
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,966
Likes: 49,370
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 21, 2020 2:42:47 GMT
So reading the Alternate timeline early 1910s Greek Battleships & Battlecruisers on the All the World's Battlecruisers forum i started to wonder, what if like the Argentine–Chilean naval arms and the South American dreadnought race there was a Greece-Turkish naval arms race starting from 1910 onwards, how would their countries be effected during the Great War having build up larger navies than they had in OTL and what effect would i have on the war itself. Its an interesting idea but not sure whether Greece had the economy to match the Ottomans. Remember reading on one of the naval sites that Greece actually had extensive plans for a pre-emptive attack on Turkey prior to the planned Turkish dreadnoughts arriving. Including landings at Gallipoli, Smyrna and the Cilicia region IIRC. Of course Turkey never got those ships and WWI intervened. Steve
Sorry, fix it i hope. |
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Sept 24, 2020 22:09:19 GMT
So reading the Alternate timeline early 1910s Greek Battleships & Battlecruisers on the All the World's Battlecruisers forum i started to wonder, what if like the Argentine–Chilean naval arms and the South American dreadnought race there was a Greece-Turkish naval arms race starting from 1910 onwards, how would their countries be effected during the Great War having build up larger navies than they had in OTL and what effect would i have on the war itself.
In this thread
over on alternatehistory.com, Lascaris sated that the Greeks were interested in three 15in armed battleships from the UK
They were actually in discussions with Britain for 15in battleships when the war start. Some details can be found both in Fotakis Greek naval strategy 1910-1919, according to which Greece wanted a "Valiant class" hence a Queen Elizabeth clone, while per Friedman's British battleship the Coventry syndicate had offered at least two designs one of 26,900t and 21.5kts and one of 27,200t and 23kts while it was not known if Vickers or Armstrong had made offers (most certainly had IMO, given Zaharof's connections to the Greek government.)
Regards,
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,966
Likes: 49,370
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 25, 2020 8:21:04 GMT
So reading the Alternate timeline early 1910s Greek Battleships & Battlecruisers on the All the World's Battlecruisers forum i started to wonder, what if like the Argentine–Chilean naval arms and the South American dreadnought race there was a Greece-Turkish naval arms race starting from 1910 onwards, how would their countries be effected during the Great War having build up larger navies than they had in OTL and what effect would i have on the war itself. In this thread over on alternatehistory.com, Lascaris sated that the Greeks were interested in three 15in armed battleships from the UK
They were actually in discussions with Britain for 15in battleships when the war start. Some details can be found both in Fotakis Greek naval strategy 1910-1919, according to which Greece wanted a "Valiant class" hence a Queen Elizabeth clone, while per Friedman's British battleship the Coventry syndicate had offered at least two designs one of 26,900t and 21.5kts and one of 27,200t and 23kts while it was not known if Vickers or Armstrong had made offers (most certainly had IMO, given Zaharof's connections to the Greek government.) Regards, So if they got those, would the Ottomans respond buying buying from the Germans to counter them. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Sept 25, 2020 9:37:54 GMT
So reading the Alternate timeline early 1910s Greek Battleships & Battlecruisers on the All the World's Battlecruisers forum i started to wonder, what if like the Argentine–Chilean naval arms and the South American dreadnought race there was a Greece-Turkish naval arms race starting from 1910 onwards, how would their countries be effected during the Great War having build up larger navies than they had in OTL and what effect would i have on the war itself.
In this thread
over on alternatehistory.com, Lascaris sated that the Greeks were interested in three 15in armed battleships from the UK
They were actually in discussions with Britain for 15in battleships when the war start. Some details can be found both in Fotakis Greek naval strategy 1910-1919, according to which Greece wanted a "Valiant class" hence a Queen Elizabeth clone, while per Friedman's British battleship the Coventry syndicate had offered at least two designs one of 26,900t and 21.5kts and one of 27,200t and 23kts while it was not known if Vickers or Armstrong had made offers (most certainly had IMO, given Zaharof's connections to the Greek government.)
Regards,
Thanks for that. Interesting discussion and as said a lot depends on the details without WWI or after an alternative end. If there has been a war and depending on the status of both economies and war not occurring pretty much immediately as OTL how much can both economies support in an expensive naval race? If something like Wilson's proposals lead to peace the Ottomans still have a much larger economy but then Greece hasn't really been involved in WWI and hence is in a better condition. Also in such a situation can the two fight without other powers, most especially Germany, Britain and a surviving non-communists Russia being drawn in? Would Germany allow Turkey, still no doubt seen as an ally, to get humbled and similarly would Britain or Russia be willing to allow Turkey to get too strong at Greek expense. As such any naval race is likely not to go hot without dragging in others.
The idea of Greece getting say three Valiant versions, especially probably somewhat improved if after WWI is interesting but could they actually support them that well or would that require sending them back to Britain say for periodic refits? Not to mention they would probably need to increase their port facilities.
In terms of the comments on AH I can't see any WWI settlement leading to a version of the WNT. For one thing there would be a lot more mistrust. For another the US - which wouldn't be actively involved in a conflict in this scenario - and Japan have started their own race, which is likely to continue further under those circumstances and Britain at least couldn't ignore that. Especially since war usage and the rapid development of ships in many categories means that a lot of the current Grand Fleet are already pretty much obsolete.
Interesting the mention of the Wilson agreements as its been argued elsewhere here that they were effectively demands that the allies concede territory and political dominance of Europe to imperial Germany.
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,966
Likes: 49,370
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 25, 2020 10:38:41 GMT
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Sept 25, 2020 11:37:43 GMT
They didn't have the Osman I. That was under construction in Britain and was taken over by the RN as HMS Agincourt, aka "the turret farm" once WWI broke out. We also took over another ship under construction for them and a couple for Chile. The Other Ottoman ship became HMS Erin and one of the Chilean ships became HMS Canada before being refitted and returned to Chile after the war. The other Chilean ship was retained and eventually completed as the CV HMS Eagle, which was probably an error as it was a poor conversion, small and slow. Being the country of choice for most 3rd nation sales had some advantages. 
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,966
Likes: 49,370
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 25, 2020 11:50:44 GMT
over on alternatehistory.com, Lascaris sated that the Greeks were interested in three 15in armed battleships from the UK
They were actually in discussions with Britain for 15in battleships when the war start. Some details can be found both in Fotakis Greek naval strategy 1910-1919, according to which Greece wanted a "Valiant class" hence a Queen Elizabeth clone, while per Friedman's British battleship the Coventry syndicate had offered at least two designs one of 26,900t and 21.5kts and one of 27,200t and 23kts while it was not known if Vickers or Armstrong had made offers (most certainly had IMO, given Zaharof's connections to the Greek government.) Regards, Reading the Greek battleship Salamis it seems that Germany and the United Kingdom where doing their best to favor the Greeks and Ottomans in buying their ships. |
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Sept 27, 2020 3:30:37 GMT
The Ottomans might stick with the British builders. I would say it would depend on where relations between the nations were at the time, but the Ottoman Navy seemed to me to be more on the British side, the Ottoman army more pro-German. But I'm not an expert on the Ottoman Empire...
Regards,
|
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Sept 27, 2020 3:51:38 GMT
Thanks for that. Interesting discussion and as said a lot depends on the details without WWI or after an alternative end. If there has been a war and depending on the status of both economies and war not occurring pretty much immediately as OTL how much can both economies support in an expensive naval race? If something like Wilson's proposals lead to peace the Ottomans still have a much larger economy but then Greece hasn't really been involved in WWI and hence is in a better condition. Also in such a situation can the two fight without other powers, most especially Germany, Britain and a surviving non-communists Russia being drawn in? Would Germany allow Turkey, still no doubt seen as an ally, to get humbled and similarly would Britain or Russia be willing to allow Turkey to get too strong at Greek expense. As such any naval race is likely not to go hot without dragging in others. The idea of Greece getting say three Valiant versions, especially probably somewhat improved if after WWI is interesting but could they actually support them that well or would that require sending them back to Britain say for periodic refits? Not to mention they would probably need to increase their port facilities stevep,, Good points on economics and affordability. Sometimes programs get divorced from reality, but this one would not be able to do so. Interesting the mention of the Wilson agreements as its been argued elsewhere here that they were effectively demands that the allies concede territory and political dominance of Europe to imperial Germany.
Steve
If there is no war or an early settlement, the naval programs are going to be further along. A Treaty driver for the US was the fact the 1918 battleship got delayed until 1920/21 in laying down. By that time, the USN had rethought some of the design decisions they made in the previous years. With no war, those ships would likely be in commission, and newer, different designs on the ways. Agreed, a treaty scenario would be more difficult. Not impossible, but more difficult to realize. There would also be more participants, and Germany, likely Spain, the Ottomans and Greeks would be invited as well if additional dreadnoughts were on the ways for those nations... My thoughts,
Getting a minimum word warning when I try to post this, so I'm adding this sentence....
|
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Sept 27, 2020 3:55:35 GMT
Very nice images. Interesting to see Sultan Osman I on the Ottoman silhouettes but not the Resadiye class.
I think had the Ottomans laid the battleship down a year earilerby the time the war came around she would already have been in service in the Med. No chance of seizing her and driving the Ottomans closer to the Germans.
Plus the need for support for a major investment like a dreadnought might have kept the Ottomans out of the war altogether. Goben makes for Austria-Hungary?
Regards,
|
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Sept 27, 2020 3:59:11 GMT
They didn't have the Osman I. That was under construction in Britain and was taken over by the RN as HMS Agincourt, aka "the turret farm" once WWI broke out. We also took over another ship under construction for them and a couple for Chile. The Other Ottoman ship became HMS Erin and one of the Chilean ships became HMS Canada before being refitted and returned to Chile after the war. The other Chilean ship was retained and eventually completed as the CV HMS Eagle, which was probably an error as it was a poor conversion, small and slow. Being the country of choice for most 3rd nation sales had some advantages.
Steve
As I recall the name India had been allocated to Admiral Cochrane should she have been completed as a battleship.
Regards,
|
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Sept 27, 2020 4:05:23 GMT
Reading the Greek battleship Salamis it seems that Germany and the United Kingdom where doing their best to favor the Greeks and Ottomans in buying their ships. Salamis was an interesting design, small but powerful with those 14in/45 guns. and a handsome ship with good lines.
Those guns weren't quite the same as the 14in gun on the New Yorks, Nevadas and Pennsylvanias but the British found them to have a very long barrel life and to be very reliable in service. She makes an interesting contrast to the proposed 'Valiants' for the Hellenic Navy. They would have had a lot more tonnage, and have been more expensive for only a little more firepower, 8 x 15in versus 8 x 14in.... Regards, |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Sept 27, 2020 11:52:41 GMT
Thanks for that. Interesting discussion and as said a lot depends on the details without WWI or after an alternative end. If there has been a war and depending on the status of both economies and war not occurring pretty much immediately as OTL how much can both economies support in an expensive naval race? If something like Wilson's proposals lead to peace the Ottomans still have a much larger economy but then Greece hasn't really been involved in WWI and hence is in a better condition. Also in such a situation can the two fight without other powers, most especially Germany, Britain and a surviving non-communists Russia being drawn in? Would Germany allow Turkey, still no doubt seen as an ally, to get humbled and similarly would Britain or Russia be willing to allow Turkey to get too strong at Greek expense. As such any naval race is likely not to go hot without dragging in others. The idea of Greece getting say three Valiant versions, especially probably somewhat improved if after WWI is interesting but could they actually support them that well or would that require sending them back to Britain say for periodic refits? Not to mention they would probably need to increase their port facilities stevep ,, Good points on economics and affordability. Sometimes programs get divorced from reality, but this one would not be able to do so. Interesting the mention of the Wilson agreements as its been argued elsewhere here that they were effectively demands that the allies concede territory and political dominance of Europe to imperial Germany.
Steve
. A Treaty driver for the US was the fact the 1918 battleship got delayed until 1920/21 in laying down. By that time, the USN had rethought some of the design decisions they made in the previous years. With no war, those ships would likely be in commission, and newer, different designs on the ways. Agreed, a treaty scenario would be more difficult. Not impossible, but more difficult to realize. There would also be more participants, and Germany, likely Spain, the Ottomans and Greeks would be invited as well if additional dreadnoughts were on the ways for those nations... My thoughts,
Getting a minimum word warning when I try to post this, so I'm adding this sentence....
That was my prime thought. Without a longer war and US involvement their likely to start building the programme earlier, albeit with the early designs, such as a 10x14" Lexington. Not sure after such a massive programme, which might well be completed with continued naval tension in Europe as well as the Pacific with the Japanese response to the US, that Congress would be prepared to lash out on another big programme for quite a while. However the US programme, Japanese response and a continued German threat is likely to force more construction from Britain and Germany may well respond depending on its economic and political situation. Britain would want a clear edge over Germany and probably, if only for political reasons equality with the US. Which given the 1916 programme and the latter standards just before it would mean a lot of construction in the UK, especially as the older 12" and probably at least some of the 13.5" ships are retired. Possibly the three modified Admirals are completed here while the RN and constructors gear up for something like the G3's. They wouldn't have the experience from the captured Baden but tests of older ships and war experienced would still be present.
Odd that you got a minimum word message given the size of the post??
On another issue how were the US barrels constructed at this point. On another board a well respected poster was saying that the RN was having problems with the 12" designs at long range - or what was anything but short range by the end of the war. Two reasons were given one of which was that as 50 calibre they were long barreled and the wire-wound barrels had problems of vibration which caused wide dispersal problems. The actual section was and is at cycling-of-bcs-from-rosyth-to-scapa-for-gunnary-training, post 12 if your interested:
This prompted me to ask whether other 50+ calibre guns had similar issues - having seen the Drachinifel video on their 12"/52 calibre designs and knowing that a number of US designs had 50 calibre guns - had similar problems. John replied he didn't think that the Germans had the same problems but that the RN didn't think much of the US 14" guns accuracy - presumably when the US force were operating with the GF at Scapa in 1917-18 but that seems to be due to barrel droop rather than the oscillations he was mentioning above. Do you know anything about US gun designs of the period please?
Steve
|
|
