swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,156
- Jun 25, 2013
The Germans were mercenaries; their units were hired by the British. Whether the rank and file soldiers were voluntarily doing so is a separate question.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Germans were mercenaries; their units were hired by the British. Whether the rank and file soldiers were voluntarily doing so is a separate question.As a side note, I was listening to BBC History Extra podcast and it said the movement of troops to reinforce Britain's armies North American constitued the largest sealift of manpower in history, more than D-Day, etc., but that seems unlikely, perhaps they meant up to that point. Considering many were Germans, I wonder what they thought they were fighting for, money I suppose.
Well, they were mercenaries. The units were hired, although I haven't any information about whether the rank and file were actually volunteers or conscriptsAs a side note, I was listening to BBC History Extra podcast and it said the movement of troops to reinforce Britain's armies North American constitued the largest sealift of manpower in history, more than D-Day, etc., but that seems unlikely, perhaps they meant up to that point. Considering many were Germans, I wonder what they thought they were fighting for, money I suppose.
The bill for defending the 13 colonies was paid by the British tax payer not the American ones who paid very little tax by comparison. A notable reason for asking the Americans to help fund their own defence which they took as unreasonable. Fortunately they won the rebellion so American taxes must have returned to being negligible.........One wonders what the typical Briton thought about the fighting in the 13 colonies during the French & Indian War (part of the Seven Years War, but this is not mentioned in most US school history), where those 13 colonies (plus Vermont) started pushing for independence within a few years after.
It's true, but Britain needs to be seen as an aggressive nation, not to be messed with. Hitler saw Britain as pansies, unwilling to challenge his remilitarization of the Rhineland, et al. Japan needs to be convinced otherwise. Active deterrence means taking action to show Japan that Britain means business, and that means marching the Australians into FIC as soon as France surrenders, just the same as Britain seized French Madagascar.The Australian Army didn't believe this would ever materialise and that a large army and air force would do a better job of deterring Japan. Its an interesting read.
You're right.Two stacks, HMS Eagle.
,It's true, but Britain needs to be seen as an aggressive nation, not to be messed with. Hitler saw Britain as pansies, unwilling to challenge his remilitarization of the Rhineland, et al. Japan needs to be convinced otherwise. Active deterrence means taking action to show Japan that Britain means business, and that means marching the Australians into FIC as soon as France surrenders, just the same as Britain seized French Madagascar.
Is this vid of the Singapore is that HMS Hermes? What aircraft are those?
Some interesting info on USA bombing of Singapore in 1944
U.S. Air Force actually bombed S'pore 7 times during Japanese Occupation
My harbour defence ships won't be available until 1934/35 and hopefully at a much lower cost than the 60 million spent on Singapore which turned out to be a complete waste of money. My seaplane tenders will be good for use up until 1943. Us Brits had shed loads of crap flying boats to deploy in the 1930's but the Catalina first flown 1935 was ace. So by 1941 that's my first choice. Scrapping the Iron Duke class and Tiger, and also the 3 ocean navy sent the wrong signal to the Japanese.
You missed the bit about keeping demilitarised ships although I can't recall how many were allowed. So maybe we have to reclassify the Iron Dukes as gunnery training ships with the 3 aft turrets removed and replaced by seaplane tendering facilities. I can't see how much more useful life past 1940 we could have got out of them without a massive refit which couldn't be justified cost wise. I'm basing this on the assumption that the service life of a battleship is 26 years. Its how you spin it. We scrap the Iron Dukes in 1931/32 and the next thing you know, the Japanese have invaded Manchuria. There's no longer deterrence. The Brits can't be taken seriously. I think we can keep them a bit longer, that by 1932 the Washington Treaty is dying and effectively dead by 1937 when the Japanese invade China.Keeping the Iron Dukes and the Tiger means a completely different Washington treaty. As does many of the other proposals put forward.
from Wiki, corrections welcome.
"Article XIX of the Treaty also prohibited Britain, Japan, and the United States from constructing any new fortifications or naval bases in the Pacific Ocean region. Existing fortifications in Singapore, the Philippines, and Hawaii could remain."
At what point expanding or adding to an existing fortification or base breaks the treaty I don't know but building new bases/fortifications would certainly break the treaty.
for aircraft carriers
"Aircraft carriers were limited to 27,000 tons and could carry no more than 10 heavy guns, of a maximum calibre of 8 inches. However, each signatory was allowed to use two existing capital ship hulls for aircraft carriers, with a displacement limit of 33,000 tons each (Articles IX and X). For the purposes of the treaty, an aircraft carrier was defined as a warship displacing more than 10,000 tons constructed exclusively for launching and landing aircraft. Carriers lighter than 10,000 tons, therefore, did not count towards the tonnage limits (Article XX, part 4). Moreover, all aircraft carriers then in service or building (Argus, Furious, Langley and Hosho) were declared "experimental" and not counted (Article VIII). "
this was to stop just such shenanigans as is being proposed here. Take a battleship or battlecruiser add some minor aircraft capability (or a bit more than a few recon planes) and call it an aircraft carrier. BTW total tonnage of aircraft carriers was also limited. US and Britain both got 135,000 tons and the Japanese got 81,000 tons. and no you can't just call it a seaplane tender and not an aircraft carrier and get around the treaty that way.
"All other warships were limited to a maximum displacement of 10,000 tons and a maximum gun calibre of 8 inches (Articles XI and XII)."
So a seaplane tender of around 30,000tons and with ANY 13.5in guns violates the treaty in two ways.
as a result of the treaty "the United States had to scrap 30 existing or planned capital ships, Britain 23 and Japan 17"
The question is not whether the British negotiated a good deal or a bad deal. The question is if Britain kept 3-4 Iron Dukes and the Tiger what would the Japanese been allowed to keep, rebuild or build from new? The US got permission to build two additional Colorado class battleships (although one {the fourth} had to be scrapped) and the British got permission to build two new ships with 16 in guns that would turn into the Nelson and Rodney, this was due, in part, to the Japanese having two battleships with 16in guns while Britain had none.
If the British get to keep 125,000tons worth of old battleships do the Japanese get to build 75,000 tons of new battleships? or a mix of battleships and carriers or................??
Obviously all kinds of of alternative time lines can be spun out of this.
But Hitler was a 'useful fool' that could be used to counter the USSR. I'm beginning to understand the Vichy attitude which I imagine was 'not fighting to the last French man to save the British Empire'.,
Perhaps if Britain had actually supported France when that country complained about Germany's violations of the Versailles Treaty -- which started under Weimar -- instead of ignoring them, Hitler would have been deterred. Britain seemed more concerned in poking a stick into the figurative eye of France than worrying about the rise of violent nationalism, based on the "stab in the back" lie, infesting Germany. Anything that Britain could have done to demonstrate the falsehood of that particular lie would have weakened, possibly precluded, Hitler's rise to power.
There's also the 4 Hawkins class cruisers, one of which, Vindictive, was trialled as an aircraft carrier. No further development because the Admiralty thought it would be too small to be an effective carrier. However, it was under 10,000 tons, outside the Treaty limits, and could have been used as a fighter carrier being the same sort of size as Audacity.You missed the bit about keeping demilitarised ships although I can't recall how many were allowed. So maybe we have to reclassify the Iron Dukes as gunnery training ships with the 3 aft turrets removed and replaced by seaplane tendering facilities. I can't see how much more useful life past 1940 we could have got out of them without a massive refit which couldn't be justified cost wise. I'm basing this on the assumption that the service life of a battleship is 26 years. Its how you spin it. We scrap the Iron Dukes in 1931/32 and the next thing you know, the Japanese have invaded Manchuria. There's no longer deterrence. The Brits can't be taken seriously. I think we can keep them a bit longer, that by 1932 the Washington Treaty is dying and effectively dead by 1937 when the Japanese invade China.
The only thing we're lacking is a dive bomber that could be added to the Iron Dukes. How about a Skua with Roc floats and a Taurus engine?There's also
There's also the 4 Hawkins class cruisers, one of which, Vindictive, was trialled as an aircraft carrier. No further development because the Admiralty thought it would be too small to be an effective carrier. However, it was under 10,000 tons, outside the Treaty limits, and could have been used as a fighter carrier being the same sort of size as Audacity.
So I see no reason why we couldn't have 4 Iron Duke hybrid battleships carrying Swordfish float planes on their aft seaplane handling deck and 4 Hawkins class fighter carriers on patrol in the South China Sea, perhaps assigned to harbour defence if required.
There are two other WW1 battleships that I think could have been retained, Agincourt and Erin. So perhaps Australia gets Agincourt, Canada Erin. Maybe Australia with NZ assistance, along with Canada could have formed a joint Commonwealth Pacific Fleet assigned to the defence of Rabaul, the Bismarck Archipelago, the Solomons and Admiralty Islands. Again useful service life to 1940, extended to 1943 with a refit. Unfortunately both were scrapped in 1919.The only thing we're lacking is a dive bomber that could be added to the Iron Dukes. How about a Skua with Roc floats and a Taurus engine?
Theoretically, since the Iron Duke class, Tiger, Erin and Agincourt are 1914 service entry ships then providing you lay them all up from 1932 to 1937 then they are usable until 1945. These ships give me something to work with to deter the Japanese. Do I care about China? All I'm interested in is Hong Kong. Which side posed the biggest threat in 1932-37, Imperialist Japan or Nationalist Socialist China? You all need to be read up on the KMT. I think I'd want to contain both these entities, warlord run regions were probably more manageable.There are two other WW1 battleships that I think could have been retained, Agincourt and Erin. So perhaps Australia gets Agincourt, Canada Erin. Maybe Australia with NZ assistance, along with Canada could have formed a joint Commonwealth Pacific Fleet assigned to the defence of Rabaul, the Bismarck Archipelago, the Solomons and Admiralty Islands. Again useful service life to 1940, extended to 1943 with a refit. Unfortunately both were scrapped in 1919.
Theoretically, since the Iron Duke class, Tiger, Erin and Agincourt are 1914 service entry ships then providing you lay them all up from 1932 to 1937 then they are usable until 1945. These ships give me something to work with to deter the Japanese. Do I care about China? All I'm interested in is Hong Kong. Which side posed the biggest threat in 1932-37, Imperialist Japan or Nationalist Socialist China? You all need to be read up on the KMT. I think I'd want to contain both these entities, warlord run regions were probably more manageable.
I don't anticipate any problems with my ideas as it's 1939-41 before equivalent tonnage in the form of 4 Illustrious and 3 KGV class ships enter service.They couldn't just be "laid up"; they needed to be demilitarized in accord with the relevant international treaties to which the UK was bound. After that, they'd still need to be maintained because, as noted by Neil Young, rust never sleeps. As an aside, the Kuomintang, the party of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣中正) was not "national socialist"; it was nationalist, but republican (not Republican). One wonders how world history would have changed had the Qing (Manchu) dynasty been sufficiently competent to have resisted foreign intervention, especially the opium wars started by the most powerful and aggressive drug cartels in history.
I suspect that restoring Hong Kong would actually be fairly low on China's list of priorities; higher would be removing Japan and the USSR/Russia from Chinese territory and revoking the various foreign concessions in cities like Shanghai.
I would certainly agree that work would need to be done to these ships. The Washington Naval Treaty expired in 1936. Only France, America and Britain signed the follow up 2nd London Naval Treaty, both Italy and Japan declined. The Anglo-German Naval Treaty of 1935 was not affected by it. Hitler tore it up in 1939.First Kevin J , I wish to apologize for giving some bad information. The Iron Dukes and the Tiger were allowed to be kept under the Washington treaty.
The Thunderer, King George V, Ajax, Centurion were also kept but only until the completion of the Nelson and Rodney. Likewise the US kept the North Dakota and the Delaware until two ships of the West Virginia (Colorado) class were completed.
Other Navies were allowed to keep some older and much less effective ships, Like Italy was allowed to keep the four Regina Elena class ships
View attachment 565509
but chose not to fairly quickly. With 2-12in and 12-8in guns their ability to sand up to a dreadnought was not good.
Both Italy and France were allowed to lay down new ships in 1927. 1929 and 1931 but only up to the total tonnage and as replacements for scrapped ships. (it would take 2 or 3 of these old clunkers to equal one new battleship)
It appears (to my eyes anyway) that the treaty was effective in it's first years. However most of countries were either recovering from WW I or natural disaster (Japan's earthquake).
The treaty had the unintended consequence of starting the the heavy cruiser race. Numbers and total tonnage of cruisers was NOT governed by treaty, only the cap of 10,000tons per ship and a max caliber of 8in for the guns so this race for 2nd class battleships was on. No major country built cruisers of less than 10,000tons and with less than 8in guns for a number of years. Britain built 13 of the county type cruisers, all laid down within 2-3 years, for example and while not as expensive as a battleship they were not cheap, one cost is give as £2,180,000 mean. Which would pay for rather extensive modifications to an older battleship.
This cruiser race caused a meeting in 1927 which failed to reach agreement but did result in the 1930 London treaty, which did impose tonnage restrictions on cruisers, destroyers and submarines.
Unfortunately the Iron Dukes and the Tiger needed some serious work to stay effective even in the late 20s when they were taken out of service (Tiger excepted). Since they burned coal with an oil fuel supplement they would need new boilers to stay current, both anti-torpedo and anti-bomb/longe range gun fire protection was deficient. The guns were fine but the mounts limited the range. The fire control was falling behind. Some of these objections might not count for much if you plan to send them to some outpost and anchor them in place but short ranged "shore battery" with 2nd (or 3rd) class fire control might not be a good plan.
The Iron Dukes and the Tiger don't run afoul of the treaties until the British start laying down the KGVs but with the treaty restrictions on carrier tonnage you can't just cancel a few KGVs and build more carriers without breaking the treaty (which was crumbling pretty quick in the mid to late 30s anyway). The Americans and the British sticking to it better than the other navies but since they were most powerful navies under the treaties they had the least reason to cheat.
Part of the problem was that treaties counted from laying down. They also assumed about a 3 year period from laying down to completion.I don't anticipate any problems with my ideas as it's 1939-41 before equivalent tonnage in the form of 4 Illustrious and 3 KGV class ships enter service.