Thread: What if? The US entered WWI on the side of the Central Powers

I beleive the elevation of the guns would make a difference, the superfiring turrets allowed fewer guns to do the same job, but damage to any of the guns would be more crippling. So, IMO, the superfiring turrets alone wouldn't be very decisive.

Superfiring turrets is a term used to describe a turret that fires over another one. How does that help? Many of the RN ships only had one turret forward. In a meeting engagement she could only fire 2 guns where the US BBs could fire 4.

There are lots of questions I've picked up while reading this that I will ask later.

My biggest one so far though is How did the RN send so many ships here? Zraver says the Grand Fleet +. In real life, The RN didn't win the Battle of Jutland and were forced to keep a large force in the area to contain the KM until the end of the war.
So what has happened here to change that?

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

Superfiring turrets is a term used to describe a turret that fires over another one. How does that help? Many of the RN ships only had one turret forward. In a meeting engagement she could only fire 2 guns where the US BBs could fire 4.

There are lots of questions I've picked up while reading this that I will ask later.

My biggest one so far though is How did the RN send so many ships here? Zraver says the Grand Fleet +. In real life, The RN didn't win the Battle of Jutland and were forced to keep a large force in the area to contain the KM until the end of the war.
So what has happened here to change that?

Wouldn't one of the two British dreadnought wing turrets be able to fire on forward bearings? By steering a few degrees to the side or the other to unmask the wing turrets one at a time. The weight of two wing turrets (with inferior magazine protection) instead of one superfiring turret was the most important difference as I understood it; saving weight, improving magazine protection and freeing up space for more powerful engines. The British super dreadnoughts, from Orion on, had superfiring turrets forward and aft.

But then you have the added complication of Fire control solutions for the wing turrets. Being on a different height and axis than the centerline turret.

Originally Posted by zraver

If I develop a prototype and call it mk I, test it, make improvements call it mk II, do more improvements... so on and so forth how many have I actually made? If I am not using explosives, I may hav simply improved the basic model until I am ready to make a working example.. The American antenna mine isn't ready until July 17, and won't be ready for production for months after that.

Mark 3 were produced between 1915 and 1917, 140 pcs/week, with possibility to increase that to 500/week

Mark 4 Similar to the Mark 3 but larger, 33 inches (84 cm) in diameter with a 250 lbs. (113 kg) TNT burster. Not sure about production.

Mark 5 First USA designed mine. Moored type with Hertz horns. Still in use during World War II. 1,700 lbs. (771 kg) total weight, charge of 500 lbs. (227 kg) TNT.
USA Mines

What you are talking about is Mark 6, which was retired in the late '70s.

However, having means to lay those mines is a problem if the only mine boat is on the west coast as you suggested.

I know Wilson better... The decision for war would be quick, it would have to be or the natural forces of trade and culture would soothe the wounds... the very forces that kept the US from complaining too hard in real history. Plus a slow stop of trade guts the American economy...

As for Wilson his own people said he was a man of high ideals and no principles. He saw the ills in the American system and rather than workign to reform them, he changed them forever. He hated the US Constitution and political system and did his best to change it (he did). He limited freedom of speech, imposed unconstitutional taxes, gutted the militia system, imprisoned political opponents and signed away the voice of the states in D.C., .....

How this have anything to do with him not being too stupid to start a war at once, but to starve the enemy first while regrouping home production.
Don't mix this with his declaration of war to Germany. They also had a fair time of draining after they pushed Mexico to side with them. An overreacting man like you are describing would consider that enough.
Also, Germany was not in position to leave North Sea and threat US ports.

And NO, you wont have drop in sales, simply you wont produce as much because the workers are now conscripts training somewhere. USA conscripted close to 4 million people in 1 year and sent them in Europe, I bet they were able to conscript 4 million more and still have a better economy then Britain.
BTW, you didn't need that production as that was surplus you were exporting to Britain.

Didn't say that at all, but we are talking a few months, not a few years...

^^^

That is not love, I was simply pointing out Canadian raiders could do as much as American raiders could.

Canadian cities are closer to the border (which can be their advantage as well), but they have 3-4 divisions in Europe, some of them in very bad shape after Somme. We go in circles here.

Military deaths are not the same as battle deaths. Battle deaths are deaths on the battle field or as a result of wounds received. Military deaths are deaths including battle deaths of all persons in uniform by what ever cause- adding disease, suicide, accidents, exposure etc. If you compare US battle deaths and military deaths you'll see the US lost twice as many men to non-battle causes as to battle, principally becuase of the flu epidemic.

It is still a loss of military personal. US has 0 losses as they are neutrals prior to 1917.

The basis premise is still valid, the USN must give battle, it must roll the dice. It's guided by admirals who are Mahanians and who will think like Mahanians, Wilson is also a Mahanian. Unlike the HSF, the massive US coast prevents the existence of a fleet in being as a sole justification for its existence. It has to come out and give battle, and risk destruction. If it doesn't it risks being bottled up in what ever port or ports it takes refuge in. The USN has some good ships, some not so good ships, and a real numbers and speed problem. The number of options are limited and risky. To save any of the fleet the battle has to be close to a protected harbor like Like Island, Chesapeake etc that the fleet can retreat into ahead of the British blocking efforts. But far enough at sea to allow freedom of movement. To meet the needs of national defense the fleet needs to fight far enough north that its retreat into a protected harbor or bay prevents the easy movement south of the (bulk of the ) British big gun ships.

Long Island Sound is the first real place that offers that opportunity. Boston and points north are pretty much screwed. Many pages ago I postulated that the easiest way to achieve this was the use of a double battle line. The modern US ships starting much farther out to the NNE and fighting a running battle towards shore. As the battle develops the much slower second line can move to take up blocking positions to allow the better ships to escape south towards the Chesapeake. Then the slower ships would try to fight their way into Long Island Sound if they could get the British to engage them, or at least detail off enough of the GF to give the US dreadnoughts better odds on their run south.

Are we talking Alfred Mahan here?

IIRC, his almost 30 years old strategy wrt to Britain was to keep entire Eastern fleet in NYC ports, while defending other ports with subs. That strategy is based on much weaker USN wrt to RN.

So, USN is keeping the ships in the ports, bringing RN closer to NYC will sink their DNs as agreed before. Now what?

I have pointed this in the previous post, in the WWII, operation Barbarossa thought us that superior tech vs vast men will lose. Britain doesn't have time on their side nor more man to conscript, USA does.

Drop 2 shells anywhere on CONUS or march to Moscow and you have unrestricted home support to wage the war as long as needed.

An appeal to both Zraver and tgbyhn to cheer up and not to take anything in the posts as personal assault, but sheer opinions.

Disagreeing or strongly disagreeing by anyone with your views is not by any means an ad hominem attack.

Originally Posted by Doktor

However, having means to lay those mines is a problem if the only mine boat is on the west coast as you suggested.

It isn't a problem. Zraver is only looking at Navy assets. The Army takes care of Harbor Defense forts. The assets are there to deploy mines. You also don't need specialized boats to lay mines.

My biggest one so far though is How did the RN send so many ships here? Zraver says the Grand Fleet +. In real life, The RN didn't win the Battle of Jutland and were forced to keep a large force in the area to contain the KM until the end of the war.
So what has happened here to change that?

In his strategy, it's basically try to shock the US into a surrender with 30 dreadnoughts, 8 battlecruisers, 24 cruisers, and 78 destroyers while taking the chance against the full strength of the KM (his view being the remnants of the the RN, 5 dreadnoughts, RN predreadnoughts, and the eventual reinforcement of 4 French/Italian dreadnoughts would be enough to counter the KM).

Originally Posted by tgbyhn

In his strategy, it's basically try to shock the US into a surrender with 30 dreadnoughts, 8 battlecruisers, 24 cruisers, and 78 destroyers while taking the chance against the full strength of the KM (his view being the remnants of the the RN, 5 dreadnoughts, RN predreadnoughts, and the eventual reinforcement of 4 French/Italian dreadnoughts would be enough to counter the KM).

You are also forgetting the escorts for the merchant ships from the colonies.

Though developed a dacade later; War Plan Red - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gives some insight into the US thinking about a British War.

Originally Posted by zraver

On to the forts, and visibility.... a hundred different vantage points is not a single vantage point that matters when it comes to directing guns... Line of sight at sea leave is about 5km. Ships sitting 4x as far away behind the curvature of the earth are not visible to anything less than 100' high. Something you don't get naturally on Long Island or the Jersey Coast.

Whats the height of the highest point of the ship?

The ship cannot control fire unless the gun directors on the forward mast have visibility.

And to repeat an old axiom "If you can see them, they can see you"

Plus lets assume fort A can see a ship, how does that translate in to workable intel for Forts B and C?

Come on Zraver

Its called triangulation through range and bearing. We learned about it in 7th Grade geometry class.

Guy named Pythagoras of Samos wrote about it long ago.His buddy Euclid backed him up.

The Royal Navy however has airplanes and great big hinking gun durector towers on the ships.

So you are adding the seaplane carrier Ark Royal to the RN OOB?
Also note that not all of the RN BBs had their gun directors on the mast.
Many had them on the turrets. Whisky is a bit more knowledgeable on that point.


Why don't you think we will use airplanes for Fire support observation?

Both the Army Signal Corps Aviation section and the New York National Guard were trained in Aerial Observation. They had a school co located at Ft Sill to train observers back in 1915. The 1st Aero Squadron had been doing that mission in Mexico earlier.

The Navy is in an even better spot to do the same. In fact they had worked with Army Batteries at Fortress Monroe Va spotting mortar fire back in 1915.

Only a few Rn ships have AA guns. And all those are large cal guns, without FD, designed to take out Zeppelins

Assaulting the forts... the guns have an average sweep of 170 degrees with overlapping fire to the front 90 degrees or so. 171 degrees past the last flank gun equals no fire. So land down the coast, march up and take the fort. If the US tries to block- NGFS. The unblooded, not combat ready ready US troops and militia in hasty positions subjected to heavy artillery from enflilade.....

Wont go into this much, but refresh yourself on the RN NGF support of an amphibous operation (Is this Grand Fleet+ bringing ships to land troops with?) during Gallipoli operation. (IOW the British are not going to do it)

Jay, I've never advocated pasting civilian areas, rather I've been consistent on hitting economic targets like Nantucket harbor, wall street, factories, refineries etc. Just pasting Brooklyn Brownstones is a death wish for GB.

And in order to get to the Wall Street section you will have to shoot through lots of brownstones when your guns only shoot low angle fire.

Originally Posted by zraver

Yup, and the USN was on average 2 knots slower, 4 knots if they include the South Carolina's. The lack of battle cruisers is a problem for the USN as well.

That 2 Knot advantage is only useful if both are jockeying for a position. The US Navy is already here. Other use is that they can outrun the enemy during a long get away.

With limited fuel, I don't see the RN cruising around at full speed anywhere. They are not fighting at full speed. No One does.

As for Battlecruisers. I would say, after the experience at Jutland, the disadvantage goes to the RN for having them. They blowup real easy.
Have you noticed that the concept went away soon after?

The RN was limited to 20deg. (which kills your "High Angle Plunging fire), and only with KGV (1911) class ships and higher. Most RN ships main batteries could only elevate 13.5 to 16 Deg.

15-20 degrees is still enough to drop in behind the ramparts. As for the 13.5 degrees. Well guess they load up on APC instead of HE.

15/20deg will get rounds shooting right over the guns causing no damage. Unless there is a close-in backstop.

I figured roughly 50/50. Enough to fight a major fleet engagement or two, some fort suppression to open them up for assault and a credible threat of bombardment of industrial areas. The logistics can't be done underway, but the US coast is full of Islands other areas where ships can lay up and re-arm.

And you think the US is just going to let them do so? And BTW, there isn't lots of islands that ships this size can dock and resupply. They need to do that, the British are not taking coal barges and loading equipment with them. Nor are they transferring ammo ship to ship just because they are in a protected waterway.

(edit: Bring plenty of ammo. The Grand Fleets BBs had an impressive 3 to 4% hit rate at Jutland)

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

(edit: Bring plenty of ammo. The Grand Fleets BBs had an impressive 3 to 4% hit rate at Jutland)

Actually, it was 1.25% for all shells fired 11" and up. The Grand Fleet has a capacity of about 30,000 large shells. 8,000 were fired at Jutland.

Yes, the Army handled the forts, mine laying and mine control for 150 years after 1907 with a specialized Coastal Artillery Corps, they had a large number of ships and boats for this, and the shore based guns had large range finders too - the typical long range shore batteries could elevate to 45 degrees and and use super charges, which ships couldn't do. The 12" mortars can drop 700# projectiles on the GF's decks at 75 degrees out to about 12 miles.

In 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt convened an-other board, this one under his secretary of war William N. Taft, to update and review the progress on the earlier board's program. Most of the changes recommended by this board were technical; such as adding more searchlights, electrification including lighting, communications, and projectile handling, and a more sophisticated optical aiming technique. The board also recommended the fortification of key harbors in the newly acquired territories of Cuba, the Philippines and Hawaii, and a few other sites. (The Panama defenses were authorized by the Spooner Act of 1902 which authorized the construction of the Panama Canal.) The Taft program fortifications differed slightly in battery construction and had fewer numbers of guns at a given location than those of the Endicott program. These two modern programs, although not fully realized, gave the United States a coastal defense system that was equal to any other nation by the beginning of World War I.

http://www.cdsg.org/cdsghis4.htm