WI: Austro-Hungarian Cruiser Fired on by the USN during the Spanish-American War

Delta Force

Banned
During the Spanish-American War, the Austro-Hungarian armored cruiser SMS Kaiserin und Königin Maria Theresia was sent to evacuate Austro-Hungarian and German citizens from Cuba and was almost fired upon by the USS Indiana after it was mistaken for a Spanish cruiser. Moments before firing, the ship was properly identified and the attack was canceled. What if the mistake hadn't been realized, and the Indiana had opened fire on the Austro-Hungarian ship?
 
likely a diplomatic crisis between AH and the US that gets patched after a bit. nothing much. AH nor the US wouldnt want to risk a war over a mistake anyways.
 
likely a diplomatic crisis between AH and the US that gets patched after a bit. nothing much. AH nor the US wouldnt want to risk a war over a mistake anyways.

especially when they both win nothing and can't even fight the war over that distance. Most likely the US pays them a substantial amount. Also sympathies for the war within the US are diminished
 
^^ This. The US and A-H can't really go to war with each other... Neither could successfully launch a one off invasion of the other... though a declaration of war I suppose could lead to a wonky detail of an alternate present day where the US and one of the 'successor' states to AH were still technically at war, which could then be a question at bar trivia competitions across the world.
 
What if the mistake hadn't been realized, and the Indiana had opened fire on the Austro-Hungarian ship?

Probably nothing. On 3 July 1898 at Santiago, the USN force of four battleships and an armoured cruiser opened fire on four Spanish cruisers (one armoured, three protected). Here's Indiana's armament compared to the number of hits recorded by the full US force:

13in guns: 47 rounds, 0 hits
8in guns: 219 rounds, 10 hits
6in guns: 744 6in/5in rounds, 17 hits
6pdr guns: 6553 rounds, 76 hits

The likely scenario is that Indiana opens up with everything she's got, the Austro-Hungarian ship gets slightly splashed before hoisting a signal instructing the Americans in no uncertain terms to quit it, and the US captain hosts a slightly uncomfortable apology session in his cabin.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Probably nothing. On 3 July 1898 at Santiago, the USN force of four battleships and an armoured cruiser opened fire on four Spanish cruisers (one armoured, three protected). Here's Indiana's armament compared to the number of hits recorded by the full US force:

13in guns: 47 rounds, 0 hits
8in guns: 219 rounds, 10 hits
6in guns: 744 6in/5in rounds, 17 hits
6pdr guns: 6553 rounds, 76 hits

The likely scenario is that Indiana opens up with everything she's got, the Austro-Hungarian ship gets slightly splashed before hoisting a signal instructing the Americans in no uncertain terms to quit it, and the US captain hosts a slightly uncomfortable apology session in his cabin.

That's a rather low hit percentage, especially since engagement distances were so much closer in the 1890s than they would be during the Russo-Japanese War and later conflicts.
 
especially when they both win nothing and can't even fight the war over that distance. Most likely the US pays them a substantial amount. Also sympathies for the war within the US are diminished
This is the most likely scenario in the short term. But how would this affect the mid term scenario with WWI still likely only 15-20 years away? Could this affect attitudes in the US and Germany regarding unrestricted sub warfare? With the Lusitania being sunk the Germans and Austro-Hungarians can point to this incident as kind of a "shit happens in war" excuse and defuse some anger in the US, making their entry harder.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
It was basically a stern chase/running battle

That's a rather low hit percentage, especially since engagement distances were so much closer in the 1890s than they would be during the Russo-Japanese War and later conflicts.

It was basically a running battle and a stern chase, and given the dispersal of the US squadron, some of the US ships were unable to get within range...and yet it still ended with the entire Spanish squadron driven ashore; Colon hadn't even been hit before her captain scuttled her.

The only significant action in the same decade was Yalu, and given that the disparity in gunnery between the Japanese and Chinese was only slightly less appalling than that between the US and Spanish at Santiago and Manila Bay, I don't know that one can make much of a judgment.

From a tactical and positional point of view, the operational situation at Santiago was tougher for the Americans than Yalu was for the Japanese, and certainly Schley's squadron had a lot more to do than Dewey's...

Of course, the Russians at Tsushima were kind enough to allow the Japanese to cross their T and kept closing the range, after all.

WW I is more than a generation later, in terms of technology; can't really be compared.

Best,
 
Last edited:
That's a rather low hit percentage, especially since engagement distances were so much closer in the 1890s than they would be during the Russo-Japanese War and later conflicts.
The hit percentage at Manila, against a stationary Spanish opponent, was slightly better (between 9% for the 8in guns and 1% for the 6in guns). However, the results were nowhere near the 40% rate the Royal Navy made in a trial conducted under similar circumstances. They even compare unfavourably to the results of the Sino-Japanese war (c.10% for Japan, 5% for China), particularly when you consider that the Spanish at Manila were not moving; at Santiago they were trying to run away and were unable to respond effectively due to defective or missing guns. Most of the damage to the Spanish at Santiago was actually caused by fire, as the Spanish cruisers lacked steel plating over their decks and the wood had dried out in the heat, hence why they ended up beaching their ships rather than managing to flee.

Though in these circumstances it would have avoided a nasty international incident, which is obviously for the best, I'm not sure the failure would have been sufficiently prominent to lead the US Navy to seriously improve its gunnery training.
 
This is the most likely scenario in the short term. But how would this affect the mid term scenario with WWI still likely only 15-20 years away? Could this affect attitudes in the US and Germany regarding unrestricted sub warfare? With the Lusitania being sunk the Germans and Austro-Hungarians can point to this incident as kind of a "shit happens in war" excuse and defuse some anger in the US, making their entry harder.

The AH cruiser is an actual war ship

The Lusitania is a passenger ship
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Fascinating; did the British trials involve moving targets

However, the results were nowhere near the 40% rate the Royal Navy made in a trial conducted under similar circumstances.

40 percent hits in an exercise...fascinating; did the British trials involve moving targets firing back?

That had been supported initially by shore batteries and Clydebank-built torpedo boat destroyers?

And after the ships involved had been at sea and on active operations for eight weeks?

Best,
 

Delta Force

Banned
40 percent hits in an exercise...fascinating; did the British trials involve moving targets firing back?

That had been supported initially by shore batteries and Clydebank-built torpedo boat destroyers?

And after the ships involved had been at sea and on active operations for eight weeks?

Best,

It seems to be something of a rule that tests and military exercises almost always result in far higher effectiveness ratios than actual combat. There were quite a few overly optimistic projections for hit ratios in the dreadnought and interwar period that were never achieved operationally.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Indeed; personal experience...

It seems to be something of a rule that tests and military exercises almost always result in far higher effectiveness ratios than actual combat. There were quite a few overly optimistic projections for hit ratios in the dreadnought and interwar period that were never achieved operationally.

Indeed; personal experience...

Simply making the point that there is a difference between the range and the field.

Especially when the other poor dumb SOB is trying to make you die for your country...

Best,
 
It seems to be something of a rule that tests and military exercises almost always result in far higher effectiveness ratios than actual combat.
The exception being armour, which seemed to perform better in reality than in trials- though this of course implies the guns were doing worse. I don't think the trials are completely incomparable, and nor did DK Brown (hence why I included them). After all, the Spanish at Manila weren't moving any further than the Royal Navy's target was, and I doubt anybody would claim the Spanish fire was a serious detriment to the US Navy's operational effectiveness. Had the shore batteries been in range, things might have been different. You'd expect the hit rate to be less than a trial, but the fact it's so much less is suggestive.

Overall, though we may quibble about how much less effective the US Navy's gunnery in the war was that the hypothetical contemporary average, it doesn't seem to make a lot of difference to the basic premise that even if the Indiana opens fire, most people come through thankfully unscathed.
 

LordKalvert

Banned
That's a rather low hit percentage, especially since engagement distances were so much closer in the 1890s than they would be during the Russo-Japanese War and later conflicts.

There were a lot of advances in gunnery after the Spanish War- range finders and telescopic lenses for example. Plus gunnery gets practiced more

The Japanese score only about six percent and the Russians one. Its really hard to hit a ship in battle- what splash comes from what gun, the men are fatigued and trying to fire as fast as they can and the ships move as well

Most of the hits at Tsushima came late and from the smaller guns after the range was closed
 

Grey Wolf

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Did people expect to hit? Or might it be like a boxing match where you lay into your opponent but most of the hits don't hit home, but the ones that do, do the damage?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

Delta Force

Banned
We're straying off topic at this point, but now I can see how the semi-dreadnought concept became popular. Semi-dreadnoughts planned on using several smaller guns that you might find as the main armament on an armored cruiser (such as 9.2", 9.4", and 10" guns) to damage the enemy ship, with the 12" main armament intended to be used at close range to finish it off.
 
Top