Alex Milman
2018-03-28 15:09:12 UTC
What if war of 1904 - 05 ended with a stalemate?
Russia is reasonably victorious on the land and Japan on the sea.
Russian chances of a naval victory exist mostly in the modern Russian alt-history books (a very popular subject):
1st, it would require a long-term fundamental change in naval construction: in OTL Russian navy was heavily relying upon the French designs (not very good ones, to put it mildly).
2nd, there would be a need to move most of the Baltic fleet to the Pacific BEFORE the war.
3rd, AFAIK, the port facilities on the Far East were not adequate for serving the needs of a major war.
4th, naval base in Port Arthur (separated from Russia proper) added vulnerability.
Then come reasonably minor things like faulty construction of the armor-piercing shells, big openings in the desk-houses (hopefully, I'm using the right term :-)), a lot of exposed wood, etc.
OTOH, victory on land was quite realistic with the reasonably small changes:
1. Getting rid of the "shrapnel obsession" in a favor of the explosive shells.
2. Usage of the trenches (WWI style) as a main style of the field fortifications instead of sticking to the obsolete field forts and lunets which were leaving personnel unprotected from enemy's barrage.
3. Incorporate fortified (earth and wood) placements for the machine guns into the field fortifications, preferably with the embrasures on the sides (like the Finns had in Mannerheim Line) to make their detection more difficult.
4. Get rid of the obsolete "smoothbore artillery" ideology advocated by some old generals which required placing exposed artillery as close to the front line as possible and place the guns well behind the front line in the covered positions.
5. Take care of having more troops on the Far East by 1904 and to place in the region adequate supplies of ammunition.
6. Try to attract the local Chinese and use them for collecting intelligence: Russians were not too good but the Japanese were worse. Also, conduct a thorough mapping of the Russian Manchuria. Judging by the contemporary memoirs, Russian military intelligence in that war was absolutely inadequate and the same goes for the knowledge of the local geography.
7. This, of course, could be a serious problem but find the better generals for the top positions (both Kuropatkin and Linevich were inadequate for the role of c-in-c).
So, on the land Russian troops are managing to push Japanese back. No need in the spectacular Cannae-like action favored by the modern Russian alt-writes, just steady moving forward with an ultimate goal to prevent blockade of Port Arthur (and not being beaten in a process). At some point front stabilizes and there are no major actions: aggressive moves proved to be too costly for both sides.
On the sea, Port Arthur squadron behaves approximately along the OTL lines:
Few sorties with no serious results, perhaps a little bit more stress on mining. Basically, the Pacific squadron is bottled in Port Arthur.
No suicidal mission of the Baltic fleet (and no resulting major embarrassment). Japanese are more or less controlling the seas.
The only possible change is Russians using available resources to arm the high-speed steamships and use them the same way as the German raiders in WWI: Japan heavily depended upon the imports and any serious disruption could (optimistically) cause big problems.
With a stalemate achieved by the early 1905 both sides are ready to negotiate (directly or with the US as a mediator, does not matter). Let's say the peace leaves things more or less in pre-war situation with few minor adjustments here and there for the face saving on both sides.
What are conditions and what are the short- and long-term consequences?
In Russia a shorter and reasonably victorious war:
(a) Would probably prevent the mass unrest in 1905 thus making Constitution of 1905 less likely (but not impossible)
(b) Would strengthen the regime making "face-saving" actions of 1914 at least somewhat less likely.
In Japan the militaristic faction ends up being less powerful (and less self-assured). Long term consequences?
What else?
Russia is reasonably victorious on the land and Japan on the sea.
Russian chances of a naval victory exist mostly in the modern Russian alt-history books (a very popular subject):
1st, it would require a long-term fundamental change in naval construction: in OTL Russian navy was heavily relying upon the French designs (not very good ones, to put it mildly).
2nd, there would be a need to move most of the Baltic fleet to the Pacific BEFORE the war.
3rd, AFAIK, the port facilities on the Far East were not adequate for serving the needs of a major war.
4th, naval base in Port Arthur (separated from Russia proper) added vulnerability.
Then come reasonably minor things like faulty construction of the armor-piercing shells, big openings in the desk-houses (hopefully, I'm using the right term :-)), a lot of exposed wood, etc.
OTOH, victory on land was quite realistic with the reasonably small changes:
1. Getting rid of the "shrapnel obsession" in a favor of the explosive shells.
2. Usage of the trenches (WWI style) as a main style of the field fortifications instead of sticking to the obsolete field forts and lunets which were leaving personnel unprotected from enemy's barrage.
3. Incorporate fortified (earth and wood) placements for the machine guns into the field fortifications, preferably with the embrasures on the sides (like the Finns had in Mannerheim Line) to make their detection more difficult.
4. Get rid of the obsolete "smoothbore artillery" ideology advocated by some old generals which required placing exposed artillery as close to the front line as possible and place the guns well behind the front line in the covered positions.
5. Take care of having more troops on the Far East by 1904 and to place in the region adequate supplies of ammunition.
6. Try to attract the local Chinese and use them for collecting intelligence: Russians were not too good but the Japanese were worse. Also, conduct a thorough mapping of the Russian Manchuria. Judging by the contemporary memoirs, Russian military intelligence in that war was absolutely inadequate and the same goes for the knowledge of the local geography.
7. This, of course, could be a serious problem but find the better generals for the top positions (both Kuropatkin and Linevich were inadequate for the role of c-in-c).
So, on the land Russian troops are managing to push Japanese back. No need in the spectacular Cannae-like action favored by the modern Russian alt-writes, just steady moving forward with an ultimate goal to prevent blockade of Port Arthur (and not being beaten in a process). At some point front stabilizes and there are no major actions: aggressive moves proved to be too costly for both sides.
On the sea, Port Arthur squadron behaves approximately along the OTL lines:
Few sorties with no serious results, perhaps a little bit more stress on mining. Basically, the Pacific squadron is bottled in Port Arthur.
No suicidal mission of the Baltic fleet (and no resulting major embarrassment). Japanese are more or less controlling the seas.
The only possible change is Russians using available resources to arm the high-speed steamships and use them the same way as the German raiders in WWI: Japan heavily depended upon the imports and any serious disruption could (optimistically) cause big problems.
With a stalemate achieved by the early 1905 both sides are ready to negotiate (directly or with the US as a mediator, does not matter). Let's say the peace leaves things more or less in pre-war situation with few minor adjustments here and there for the face saving on both sides.
What are conditions and what are the short- and long-term consequences?
In Russia a shorter and reasonably victorious war:
(a) Would probably prevent the mass unrest in 1905 thus making Constitution of 1905 less likely (but not impossible)
(b) Would strengthen the regime making "face-saving" actions of 1914 at least somewhat less likely.
In Japan the militaristic faction ends up being less powerful (and less self-assured). Long term consequences?
What else?