The trouble with your videos, Alex, is I always want to launch random comments in response to interesting points you raise during the videos, but if I do that, it’d make your comment sections a mess. This is probably the most back-handed compliment ever, but heck, please keep doing what you do. It’s really fun.
do it, there many who don't hold back, if that brings you more enjoyment and interest, then do it... I'll survive - I might mute phone from notifications from youtube, but I'll survive ;-)
44:17 While I was watching your Economic Focus section and you mentioned going “maximum cruiser” my first thought was that you could use the County-class hull for an early Light Fleet Carrier (“cruiser carrier”) as a fifth hull ordered each year. 4 years of that and you sort of get 4 ready-to-go squandrons of 4 cruisers and a carrier with very easy interoperability and a lot of experience in proto-task force style operation. My evil Treasury employee brain also thinks it’s an easy budget suggestion as I could see “5 ships for the price of a battle cruiser” arguments going over very well if you point out the economic multipliers. Also, that map of the Empire has me thinking about the effects of building a robust rail link right down the Nile and beyond from Cairo to Cape Town. As an economic backbone of the continent it could have a massive long term benefit beyond just the Empire if you’d tried it. Yes, the costs would be nuts and the geography is a nightmare, but doing it would have been a massive stimulus to kickstart the African economy and by the 1940s it’d be a massive edge for trade route resilience.
Yeah the Generals & Admirals who visited it and wrote the recommendations for the report didn't feel that, but politicians and some newspapers certainly did... especially those who'd never seen a jungle
@@DrAlexClarke Also their assumptions were based upon the rather foolish belief that the Japanese Infantry Divisions were similarly organised to the British Infantry Division, which they were not! The Japanese Infantry Divisions were simply more suited organisation wise for the Jungle terrain. They were lighter, with less motor transport, which ironically enough made them more mobile in Jungle terrain rather than less. In a European war the Japanese Infantry Division would have been at a major disadvantage, but in the Jungles of SE Asia their lighter organisation was a serious advantage which is all too often ignored. Everyone seemed to forget that the Japanese Army had been fighting in China since what, 1933 on and off, and 1936 if you are only counting a full scale war. China, a country I might add with often very poor infrastructure making supply often difficult.... There was a REASON the Japanese Infantry Divisions were relatively light compared to British, American, German or even Soviet. They were used to fighting in regions with often poor logistics infrastructure.... The press and politicians were basing their estimations on the viability of the Jungle terrain on what they thought BRITISH Divisions could pass, not Japanese... and even THERE they were wrong. British Divisions could pass through that kind of terrain, its just in that period of the war they could not fight very well in it at a Divisional level.
Lets be honest, another advantage of Alternate History is its fun! Its like my lot arguing about potential evolutionary outcomes on alien worlds. It helps keep us warm in winter, because our pay isn't! On a more serious note though, it is enjoyable so long as its not taken too far.
The 18” guns on Gibraltar would’ve upset the Spanish, who would’ve joined the Axis. The extra swordfish carriers wouldn’t be able to operate effectively, in high wind areas in the Far East. There would be too much risk of losing planes and pilots at sea. They would be vulnerable to enemy fighters. They would need extra fuel, ammo, equipment and food supplying. The USA wouldn’t like Britain’s navy being too powerful and may not became allies, may not supplied Britain and may’ve sided with Germany. The French also would’ve got upset with Britain and not declared war, when Poland was invaded. Possibly even ending up on Germany’s side instead. Likewise, the extra investment in shipbuilding facilities and hard defences, would’ve been seen as threatening and isolated Britain. The larger guns at Singapore wouldn’t have helped, bc the defence doctrine wasn’t against the land side. The possibility of another world war, wasn’t taken as seriously as it should’ve been. Britain could’ve helped the Chinese Nationalists, to defeat the Communists and then been able to curtail Japan’s expansion.But Britain wanted China to be divided and weak, so that Britain could exploit and dominate China. Britain helped Japan build its navy and could’ve easily prevented WW2, by not doing so. Instead of your navy expansion investment plan. Britain could’ve invested in technology instead. For surface vessels, aircraft and submarines. Britain could’ve also invested in its colonies, for them to produce more food, industry and their own merchant navies. After WW1, the Allies could’ve controlled the politics in Germany and Italy more and prevented extremist regimes coming to power. Britain could’ve also prevented the Communists, from controlling all of Russia and becoming the major threat that was perceived by Hitler and German government. Britain and France were plenty powerful enough, to enforce the League of Nations and preventing Germany remilitarising, but chose not to. Thus guaranteeing the inevitable start of another war. It was the fear of war that caused the war.
Talking about economics, but no mention of currency...this is bound to create some misperceptions. Okay, quick history in three events and a period: the UK, Germany and France exited the gold standard on 4 August 1914 because of, in addition to the commencement of the Schlieffen Plan, a massive financial crisis also concurred with the culmination of the July Crisis. This effectively switched the world's reserve currency from the pound Sterling to the U.S. dollar, both because the financial crisis turned the U.S. from a debtor nation to a creditor for the first time in American history, just in time to begin making large loans to the European belligerents; and the fact that Britain crashed into deflation starting in 1921 and remaining in a deflationary spiral for the next 12 years despite the British not returning to the gold standard until 1925. The next event was in September 1931, where the UK wisely exited the gold standard for the final time due to a little problem known as the Great Depression. Unfortunately, the U.S. dollar remained stubbornly unmoved, and Britain's deflationary woes continued. Finally, on 5 June 1933, the U.S. revalued gold from $20.67 a troy ounce to $35 a troy ounce and reverted it's domestic economy to the silver standard. By New Year's Day 1934 the deflation had ended on both sides of the Atlantic (except for in France, which stubbornly held onto the gold standard until 1936), and English-speaking governments could finally function again. If this sounds profoundly stupid...it was. The U.S. $20.67 valuation of gold dated from the Coinage Act of 1834, while Britain's valuation of £4.25 per troy ounce was set by Isaac Newton when the great scientist as Master of the Royal Mint had set such a valuation on 22 December 1717. If the UK and US could have coordinated the changes to their currency conversion practices in 1921 or 1922 (the worst of the deflation hit Britain that year), perhaps the devastation of these intervening years could have been avoided, but countries do not change currency practices because they want to--they only change when FORCED to. Deflation is so destructive Herbert Hoover claimed in his memoirs that Andrew Mellon advised the U.S. president to 'liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate. Purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. ... enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people.' This naturally, suspiciously sounds SS-like, which is what Hoover probably was going for when he published his memoirs in 1951, but disturbingly describes the policies of both Washington and Whitehall until June 1933. Even a politician as gifted as FDR couldn't change the gold standard until push came to shove...calling into question whether the destructiveness of the gold standard could have been alleviated any sooner.
honestly because this was 2hrs long, from 6hrs of recording time... my lungs were mildly knackered by the end - adding in currency and that is at least another hour, so probably 2-3 more hours of recording time to get to me being happy with it... I just didn't have that in me that day, sorry.
@@DrAlexClarke Hey, kudos to you--I've been run over by a bout with COVID this last week--can't imagine recording anything when one is that under the weather. Nor was this an oversight on your part--economics as a field is painfully unaware of its own history. I'm only well-versed because economic history has a tendency to intersect with military history. I didn't realize until last night that explaining how destructive the gold standard had become is perfectly encapsulated in the shared UK-US difficulties with the Treaty System of the '20s and '30s--thank you for that. But the fundamental problem is it doesn't make sense. We've been living under the floating exchange rate system since 19 March 1973--understanding an anachronism like the system of fixed exchange is almost too foreign in this day and age, less understand that central bankers and finance ministries really did target up until the 1930s a gold to gbp ratio Sir Isaac Newton created in 1717 on the fly (he failed by the way--his instruction from the monarch was to get silver back into circulation in the wake of the 1688-97 war--he instead created the gold standard, quite by accident).
If the Doctor Clarke used his mind for Evil, it would be terrifying and yet tremendously interesting ….. .Thanks for a fascinating video on how things can stack if you play with the bricks of reality. 👍
I ran that alternate scenario once in Axis & Allies War at Sea River Plate Admiral Graf Spee vs HMS Cumberland HMS Ajax HMS Achilles The dice Gods favored Graf Spee early. Sank Cumberland and damaged both light cruisers. But the then Ajax and Achilles closed in, shelled and torpedoed Graf Spee to death
I was so tempted to write a comment abot Crete all the way through but held firm - and you didn’t let me down…😁 The only requirement for your premise to be fulfilled would be the Britain as a nation decided to take the risk of WW2 seriously and build armed forces capable of ensuring Pax Britannica rather than an imperial gendarmerie which in turn would have required the development of a proper joint doctrine. Back to Crete - that would be a good worked example of the strategic and organisational failure of the British Armed Forces.
About sloops exceeding 20 knots: The 16 knot Flowers were kicking ass and taking names. It'sa shame not more of them were at hand. Genuine and honest 19,5 knot sloops would have been fantastic. And that is before you get to engine rooms that were designed for but not fitted with.
Had we bulked up the navy and shipbuilding infrastructure in the 1920s and 30s, WW2 would’ve never happened. Thus negating the need, to build up the navy and shipbuilding infrastructure.
I think the war in the Far East certainly still happens, and there is still the potential for a european conflict, but I agree, I am doubtful of it being a world war
@flashgordon6670 to be fair the British help had mostly been prior to or during WWI, when Japan was an Ally... I'm not sure what your other comment was - although if it's the value of building up infrastructure & navy, I'd say if that succeed in deterring war then it would certainly have been worth it - the trouble with deterrence is it's easy to measure when it fails, difficult to evaluate when it succeeds.
Well, here I am 21 minutes in and that's already one or two huge AH scenarios. The one with the building up of industry in the colonies makes a lot of sense if you are worried about global competition. But post 1918 the Empire was the sole global superpower. Lest Germany overran France, Italy joined Germany and so did Japan but that's crazy talk. Anyways, go on.
The mutiny was because some admiral had the bright idea to save a little money by putting the pre-wwi & wwi ratings onto the lower post wwi pay scale without warning them... add in fumbling of complaints and like almost every other navy at the time the RN had a mutiny. The Imperial coffers were definitely not empty and it was Admirals that were forced to resign over their mishandling off it - basically it was a 1930s repeat of the factors that led to Nore Mutiny which really annoyed the RN.
I can't help but think having a few cruiser carriers and a few dozen sloops would have made a massive difference in the crucial first couple of years of the war. The cruiser groups all have a light carrier with them to spot and scout. Plus the effect of a dozen swordfish carrying out a torpedo attack on fir example the graf spee before the cruisers windmill in. Same applies to the early asw activities if the escort and support groups have several 24 knot sloops and air cover from the start. Submarines get far less effective and many more get sunk. These two things combined eould mean the british and commonwealth economies were a lot healthier in 1942, possibly the building pause never occurs and power projection is a lot stronger in the med (with a greater impact on axis convoys and supplies).
Absolutely right. People overlook how important the medium & light forces were. One thing which really helped turn the battle against the u-boats in the allies favour were the hunter groups of sloops/frigates & escort carriers. Something they could have done from the beginning, if they had enough ships. And some extra cruisers in the right place at the right time might have changed the course of the war. A squadon of County Class hanging around Singapore or the eastern Indian Ocean in 1941 (maybe having a rest from the front line in the Mediterranean), with some friends a week's sailing away in say the Red Sea, would have given the Japanese planners something to think about. They could have done an awful lot of damage to the invasion fleet, requiring a stronger escort of fast capital ships (which were also needed elsewhere).
Hindsight is a wonderful thing! The truth is that in the 1920's there was no significant threat for to plan against and in the 1930's, the UK was utterly broke. Over all, the UK went into WW2 with a very effective navy and it was the nature of the terrible conflict, that the peer opponents also had very good hardware, tactics & leaders. Had more cruisers been available with poor anti-aircraft defence, they might have provided better targets for Stukas, or Japanese Long Lance torps. No nation ever has enough destroyers, although the Americans certainly tried hard to be sufficient. You make a good point about infrastructure but I am surprised by how many big RN ships ended up in US dockyards, being provided with top notch Yank technology. The extra (expensive) shipyards for the empire were not needed. Technical question Dr Clarke, if you would not mind answering. During big gun actions, what did the anti-aircraft crews do? It seems a bit unfair to expose them up top, when their mates in the turrets were fairly well protected. Did the pom pom and other light gunners have a secondary role?
About those big RN ships ending up in US Yards. Have you really thought about possible reasons for that? I can think of one major one right off the top of my head. The UK did have the yards to repair or refit those ships, problem for much of the war was not the existence of suitable yards in the UK, but the existence of German Bombers. The US yards were not in the range of German Bombers, many of the yards suitable for large ships in the UK WERE. In that respect if the major Yards in Scotland and Northern Ireland are all busy, it makes sense to send a damaged British Carrier to the US Yards for repair and refit than to a free capital ship capable yard in the South of England because it removed the possibility of that ship receiving further damage because the Luftwaffe decided to, oh I don't know, bomb her while under repair in Portsmouth!!! While its not the only reason I can think of, its certainly a major one, especially in the early and middle period of the war when the Luftwaffe were very much still a credible threat. EDIT: And in most cases they were not getting Yank technology.... The British sent not only the blueprints, but also the major equipment being replaced. So if a British ships Radar was being replaced for example they would not use a US Radar, they would use a British Radar. Same with fire control. Same with turrets. Same with machinery. What the US offered was SAFE dockyard space where damaged British ships could be repaired by highly qualified workers to British specifications... The only ship I can think of that had US equipment put on her during a refit was HMS Victorious when she served for a while in the Pacific with the USN, and with the exception of the extra AA guns that was all removed when she was transferred back over to the Royal Navy once she was no longer required. EDIT OF AN EDIT: This is excluding the superb late war MK 48 dual purpose fire control system. When they saw that excellent piece of kit the British bought as many as the US could make for them and fit them to any British ship they could that carried 4 inch and 4.5 inch guns, especially Capital ships with those guns as their secondary armament, and Destroyers. That fire control system was an exception rather than the rule however, it was just that damned good.
I'll leave the rest for scuttlebutt 5, but on the threats in the 1920s, Imperial Japan & Italy were both big enough to be the subject of many Imperial Conferences and discussions, plus there was the soviet union and it's threats to India... when you're an empire, the size of the British it’s not a case of who's the enemy, it's who is the enemy today....
One thing that always stumped me is why they chose 8 inch gun caliber for the heavy cruiser format when the RN used 9.2 inch guns for its traditional armoured cruisers of pre WW1 era?
@@DrAlexClarke For another AH scenario, what if the UK would have been really keen on limiting cruisers to 6" during the Washington treaty negotiations? They would have had to sacrifice the Hawkins class, either by regunning them with 6" or outright scrapping. But arguably they would have been better off, by being able to afford more smaller cruisers without being outgunned by the cruisers the other powers would be building. One might even argue everybody would have been better off, by avoiding the glass cannon 8" 10kton cruisers. (And as a minor side-effect of this, presumably aircraft carriers would also then have been limited to max 6", including the Lexington class conversions)
The problem with a railway from India to Singapore apart from the terrible terrain... Is that it would need to go through neutral Thailand (Siam) who in 1941 were not unfriendly to Japan. Prior to the late 1930s good look in getting the treasury spending money on defence...There world view was you cut expenditure in a depression. Not invest. Fortifing the land side of Malaya/Singapore alot more could have been done after the outbreak War, maybe not on the level suggested, but field fortifications. But again the colonial officials objected.
by 1941 they were not unfriendly to Japan, but if the British had spent the previous 20yrs building a railway through them, connecting them into the world, bringing them favourable trade and economic growth... that situation might have been very different- especially as such a railway linking them to global economic hub and huge market would have not exactly been lacking in opportunities. Agreed about the field fortifications, Sir Shenton Whitelegge Thomas manages to neatly blame the army for everything, but honestly he was a problem when it came to the war preparations.
I was preparing to leave a comment about cat 7 not being the upgrade over cat 6a people assume (higher number better). But of course you gave your reasons for selecting it and know exactly why you want it. I would suggest reconsidering making your own patch cables though. As well as being a lot of work & frustration, unless you have a proper (expensive) cable tester it's easy to end up with cables which appear to work, but throw up random problems in the future (nightmare to troubleshoot). Also cat 6 or higher cables are much harder to work with & crimp plugs onto than cat 5. Also, I think heard you mention putting plugs on leftover cat 7 cable. (Apologies if I misheard.) Best not to use solid core cable for patch cables at all, the conductors are prone to breaking from fatigue (cue more random intermittent problems). Solid & stranded cable are also supposed to use different types of terminal/plug (insulation displacing vs insulation piercing).
to be honest the patch cables idea is just me musing(as I hate to waste cable, but will probably end up storing it in case I need it for future), as for my cabling experience, I spent two summers as part of my university IT team relaying the cables and sockets for entire buildings on campus... the kit I have is the same kit I had then, it's reliable - but goes through batteries like a ***** with a ******** addiction, but it works well. I do have CAT 7 plugs(that protect the core as part of their design) in another of my bags though and have done that before now, CAT 7 cables make great cables for use outside when running Warhammer tournaments in the garden and various things like that. Thanks for the advice, it's always helpful to be able to check your decisions on something with a well informed discussion. I will admit neither the sockets shown in the video, or the ones I'm currently(www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0CZHTZT5D/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?smid=ACFIAEAPFKU24&psc=1) considering are technically CAT 7 sockets (although they are RJ45 fine and wiring fine, www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0CGQYZ6DN/ref=ox_sc_act_title_3?smid=A1WYE05QX00JPN&psc=1) - which is something I've pulled off before in a home a enviroment where you are not worried about electronic issues at the sockets really, but are concerned more about along the way issues. However, saying that the cables do require some care and reinforcing(usually a nice wrap in electrical tape... and seeing as I will have ten cables, wrapping them in the ten colour combos (Blue for Office one, Red for Office two, Green for Lounge and then Yellow, Orange, Black & Brown for numbers 1-4) actually will make it easier to organise as I distribute them. Hopefully that has put your mind to ease on it all, I may be a little rusty, but I seem to end up doing this almost every year for one family member or another, so I've had regular refreshers.
on the CCA cable covering, this particular brand I've used several times before and it's been fine... honestly I used it first for a garden application for a cousin, it worked well and was fine, so I've stuck with them as a brand for a few years now... decent cables, a little on the pricy side, but quality has proved to be consistent which has been my main problem with other brands previously...
potentially, but the question is would Britain have been a member... if they could without violating the agreements with the Commonwealth, well then they probably would have joined European Common Market - putting Britian in an exceptional economic position, but the European Union as it's current form would definitely have caused friction if not outright violation of any commonwealth in that form
