AH Challenge: Russo-Japanese war lasts longer
- Thread starter Mako-Chan
- Start date
Kadyet
Banned
1903: Baltic Fleet moved to Vladivostok on fears of war with Japan, while building of a new Baltic fleet begins.
February 1904: Simultaneous torpedo attacks on Port Arthur and Vladivostok damage three battleships. The presence of the two fleets prevents the Japanese from trying to block either one in their ports.
March: The combined fleets steam out (after repairing the ships) and a series of indecisive naval engagements begin between them and the Japanese. Meanwhile troops are being sent along the TSR.
June: Japanese land at Pusan, attempting to push north through Korea. Russians follow a peaceful landing (they get invited by King Gojong to help, said invite being partly because of the Japanese landings and party because of Russian influence) at Inchon, and hold the Japanese along the Han River.
July: Russian fleets do their best to cut off supplies between Japan and its forces in Korea (this switch is effectively permanent for the time being, since their ports are protected from an attack by sea) while frantically building a railroad connecting Seoul to the TSR.
October: Russian attacks on Japanese logistics have prevented the Japanese from advancing very far. The war has degenerated into trench warfare with the line of control mainly along the Han River, with a Japanese bulge inbetween Suwan and the Han River, though still 20 miles behind the Han River in that sector (Russians have retained control of Inchon and Seoul through this).
January 1905: Railway connection to TSR is complete. The Tsar decides to ship in enough men to replace losses as well as provide a large enough reserve to stop a Japanese attack while modernizing the rest of his forces, a process expected to take two to three years. Lines remain the same.
I'll add on more later if this stands as is (Could be wrong about their ability to fight well enough to hold that which they do).
February 1904: Simultaneous torpedo attacks on Port Arthur and Vladivostok damage three battleships. The presence of the two fleets prevents the Japanese from trying to block either one in their ports.
March: The combined fleets steam out (after repairing the ships) and a series of indecisive naval engagements begin between them and the Japanese. Meanwhile troops are being sent along the TSR.
June: Japanese land at Pusan, attempting to push north through Korea. Russians follow a peaceful landing (they get invited by King Gojong to help, said invite being partly because of the Japanese landings and party because of Russian influence) at Inchon, and hold the Japanese along the Han River.
July: Russian fleets do their best to cut off supplies between Japan and its forces in Korea (this switch is effectively permanent for the time being, since their ports are protected from an attack by sea) while frantically building a railroad connecting Seoul to the TSR.
October: Russian attacks on Japanese logistics have prevented the Japanese from advancing very far. The war has degenerated into trench warfare with the line of control mainly along the Han River, with a Japanese bulge inbetween Suwan and the Han River, though still 20 miles behind the Han River in that sector (Russians have retained control of Inchon and Seoul through this).
January 1905: Railway connection to TSR is complete. The Tsar decides to ship in enough men to replace losses as well as provide a large enough reserve to stop a Japanese attack while modernizing the rest of his forces, a process expected to take two to three years. Lines remain the same.
I'll add on more later if this stands as is (Could be wrong about their ability to fight well enough to hold that which they do).
The Japanese economy was damn close to collapse by the end of the war in OTL. Had it continued any longer, it would have collapsed, thus knocking the Japanese out of the war.
In OTL,
if all they need is money, the British can extend the role they played in Europe for two centuries and pay the Japanese to fight for them. Or the US can anticipate its WWI lending.
True commercial creditworthiness is not as much of an issue if a government decides it is important for Japan to win or just sustain the conflict. Or at least it's not much of an issue for a while.
if all they need is money, the British can extend the role they played in Europe for two centuries and pay the Japanese to fight for them. Or the US can anticipate its WWI lending.
True commercial creditworthiness is not as much of an issue if a government decides it is important for Japan to win or just sustain the conflict. Or at least it's not much of an issue for a while.
David S Poepoe
Banned
DMS said:
Well, historically the British WEREN'T going to be extending them any more credit - so thats out of the question. The only way I can see it is if the war had blossomed into an Anglo-Russian War also. But politics in Europe, particularly the growing Anglo-French friendship, and particularly Paris, wasn't going to allow the conflict to widen. The British and French were working out an understanding that would allow them to face Germany.
Why the US would do any lending to the Japanese is a crazy suggestion. The US Navy has already identified Japan as the most likely rival in the Pacific for the United States.
?
"Well, historically the British WEREN'T going to be extending them any more credit - so thats out of the question."
Not going to get too much AH with that kind of attitude.
Obviously, we need a POD. As suggested earlier in the thread, a tie into a larger war. In such a war, perhaps financial support for Japan wouldn't be out of the question.
Let's work backwards:
OTL, Japanese win a short war.
ATL longer war would require some luck/help for the Russians, but then the Japanese can't sustain their part without help. So either a crushing Russian victory scares someone or the help the Russians get triggers countervailing assistance to the Japanese.
Who would most want to avoid a triumphant Russia? Does Germany have the money to keep Japan going?
Who is most likely to help the Russians directly? France probably can't. Is the US willing/able to act in 1904? What would it take for Roosevelt to want to go to war and be able to muster the support to do so?
If someone picks this up, please don't interrupt Russian emigration to the US during this period as my grandfather came over then and I prefer not to disappear.
"Well, historically the British WEREN'T going to be extending them any more credit - so thats out of the question."
Not going to get too much AH with that kind of attitude.
Obviously, we need a POD. As suggested earlier in the thread, a tie into a larger war. In such a war, perhaps financial support for Japan wouldn't be out of the question.
Let's work backwards:
OTL, Japanese win a short war.
ATL longer war would require some luck/help for the Russians, but then the Japanese can't sustain their part without help. So either a crushing Russian victory scares someone or the help the Russians get triggers countervailing assistance to the Japanese.
Who would most want to avoid a triumphant Russia? Does Germany have the money to keep Japan going?
Who is most likely to help the Russians directly? France probably can't. Is the US willing/able to act in 1904? What would it take for Roosevelt to want to go to war and be able to muster the support to do so?
If someone picks this up, please don't interrupt Russian emigration to the US during this period as my grandfather came over then and I prefer not to disappear.
Maybe the Chinese could get involved, possibly supplying materials to Russia in exchange for land in Siberia or other disputed territories.
Grey Wolf
Donor
Kadyet, the Paific Squadron was a squadron of the Russian Baltic Fleet (hence it not being called the Pacific Fleet). Virtually all its first line units were already in the East or were enroute there (the Osliabia, Aurora etc were in the Med). The Borodinos are not ready for service, and apart from maybe a couple of modern cruisers, after them you're down with the coastal defence vessels and rebuilt old ships (e.g. what Nebogatoff had). I suppose you could send the Sissoi Veliki back out to the Far East in addition to the Osliabia, but she is going to be the oldest Russian ship there and not a great boon to the Russians.
I also do not believe that it is within the realms of reasonable possibility to launch a torpedo attack upon Vladivostock. It has to be noted that this was only possible upon Port Arthur because the battlefleet was anchored in the outer roads and not in the port basin itself.
Grey Wolf
I also do not believe that it is within the realms of reasonable possibility to launch a torpedo attack upon Vladivostock. It has to be noted that this was only possible upon Port Arthur because the battlefleet was anchored in the outer roads and not in the port basin itself.
Grey Wolf
David S Poepoe said:
So let's change that. Have Kaiser Frederick III, who was very popular in Britain, survive his cancer in 1888. Germany never starts the naval build-up that alienates Britain. Germany and Britain join in an alliance to offset the Franco-Russian alliance. So we have 2 competing alliances when the Russians attack the British fishing fleet in the North Sea. The British Home Fleet attacks the Russian Baltic Fleet, causing heavy casualties, sparking a general war in Europe. Germany and Britain both provide support to Japan to keep them in the war to occupy the Russian forces in the Far East.
David S Poepoe
Banned
bekosh said:
Talk about historical cliches! Frederick III, like his father Wilhelm I, supported the development of the Imperial German Navy. If Frederick III was on the throne would he have permitted the German-Russian Agreement to lapse which lead directly to the establishment of the Franco-Russian Entente?
Your POD makes this ATL different than a 'Russo-Japanese War'. The Germans and British are likely to get into an alliance just assuredly as oil will nicely mix with water. If the war drags on, without a Tsushima like battle, then Japan will be defeated on the land since Russian manpower was massing for an advance. The war isn't going to last longer than one year since the Japanese can't afford it and they are reaching the end of their supply lines and are being drawn further into Manchuria. Look at the fact that Japan may have won the war but certainly lost at the peace talks at Portsmouth.
I've never heard that Frederick and Wilhelm I were that important to the development of the Imperial Navy (not saying you're wrong). I always thought that the Imperial German Navy began it's growth at the direction of Tirpitz & Wilhem II in 1897 and the 1898 German Navy Laws.David S Poepoe said:
Most of what I know of this period is from "Dreadnought" by Robert Massie, it seemed to me that many of the problems between Britain and Germany were created by Wilhelm II and his obsession with the Royal Navy. IIRC, Britain was actively pursuing an agreement with Germany even as late as 1905/06, but it kept running up against Wilhelm II (my take on Massie's book).
You maybe right about Frerderick and the Reinsurance Treaty with Russia. Although Germany being in the Triple Alliance with AH may have broken that up eventually anyway. The timeline of this is really weird.
Triple Alliance 1882
Reinsurance Treaty 1887-1890
With these treaties both in effect, Germany would have been obligated to both help AH vs Russia and remain nuetral.
David S Poepoe
Banned
bekosh said:
Tirpitz was a great PR man and he certainly exaggerated his influence on the growth of the German Navy. If you can take a look at Preparing for Weltpolitik: German Sea Power before the Tirpitz Era by Lawrence Sondhaus, its a really excellent book. Tirpitz was 'johnny come lately' to the big gun club, he made a name for himself trumpeting the torpedo boats for awhile. Massie did a fairly good job of just regurgitating alot of previously known stuff. I've read "Dreadnought" and think it pales in regard to recent research. Its alot of pages of fluff at times and I'm still planning to read the sequel "Steel Castles" (or whatever it is). Its good for beginners in introducing a fairly complicated subject, the Anglo-German Naval Rivalry, but well read historians can see the holes.
Thanks, I'll add it to my ever growing list of books to get.David S Poepoe said:
It's "Castles of Steel". I've read it too. I rather enjoyed both books. Massie, to me at least, seems to have a writing style that is very readable and less dry than many history books (for example Campbell's "Jutland"). When you say "can see the holes" do you mean that there are factual errors in the history? Or is it just that it is less in depth than other books on the period?David S Poepoe said:
Did the Russians have a Northern fleet at this time? It would have been a bit easier for one based at Mermansk to get to the far East than the Baltic fleet.
Grey Wolf
Donor
Richard1978 said:
The short answer is no - there was no perceived need for it, and no real infrasturcture to support it. Murmansk-na-Romanov was not much more than a fishing port, and any Northern force would have to be based at Archangel. But why would it be ? It is actually no easier at all to get from there than to get from the Baltic. I would say its at best the same distance, and probably further. In addition, it ices over up there, and who's the enemy, where are they ? Only Britain makes any sense, and in that case better to have the fleet in the Baltic !
The Russian, and indeed the German (more or less) way of doing things was to have the fleet in home waters (Baltic), then send squadrons from it into the Med, and thereon to the Far East. I've not seen any evidence that this didn't work.
Grey Wolf
Grey Wolf
Donor
David S Poepoe said:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/202-7216876-0247856
Do you know Sondhaus's books on the Austro-Hungarian navy ? How do they compare to others on it ?
Grey Wolf