People think that the emergence of technology is time-locked but submarines being vital in 1899 or 1904 is not unlikely, they almost were.
Tanks or proto-tanks, earlier airships, earlier aeroplanes, all of these are possible. Of course, there is the issue of dependant technologies, but these are not insurmountable, and if you look at submarines for example, earlier submarines relied on differing technologies than later ones. Later and better technologies made it easier for submarines to develop an important role, but that does not preclude an earlier generation of such vessels from playing a more major part.
French submarines were the best in the world in the late 1890s, and had there been an Anglo-French war over Fashoda they would have been fully utilised. Their training was good, and the surface warships they had trained with had constantly failed to detect or protect themselves against them. Whatever the outcome of such a war, the world would have seen major British warships sunk by French submarines.
In 1904, Russia deployed a squadron of submarines in the Far East, and whilst their ability to attack the enemy was limited, on one occasion they came very close to actually doing so.
On one level it is surprising that it took so long to develop a functioning aeroplane. Gliders had a long and illustrious history in the nineteenth century, from George Cayley in mid-century to Otto Lilienthal in the 1890s. The problem of course was two-fold, on the one hand getting an engine that was light enough, and on the other getting the machine to take off. Gliders had the advantage of being launched from a high peak or point. Aerodynamics and mechanics needed to be successfully added on to existing successful technology.
Airships developed out of ballooning technology, which had a century more behind it and which had seen its own developments from Montgolfier to Jules Ferry escaping from a besieged Paris in 1871. The decade that was to follow would see the development of non-rigid dirigibles, and the latter quarter of the century would see airship competitions, especially in Paris, which had long been and remained a focus for aerial technology.
Rigid airships took longer, on the one hand potentially longer than they could have done, but on the other hand the actual real extent of 1900s airship use is frequently overlooked. Everyone knows the name Zeppelin but few realise that his airships were running a regular intercity service across the German empire in the decade before the First World War, or that the King of Wurttemberg and the German crown prince had both travelled on his airships. By 1914, the German navy had a fleet of airships for observation, but it was to be their use as bombers that would revolutionise aerial warfare.
Had there been a major war a decade earlier the same developments would have been seen, but it would have been a conflict where the aeroplane was far less developed, being still in its infancy, thus allowing the zeppelin a greater and longer dominance.
War, of course, brings its own technological developments, a child of necessity. Aeroplanes may only have been in their infancy in 1908, but had there been a war then, their progress would have accelerated way beyond that seen in this period in reality. The primacy of the zeppelin in itself would give a huge boost to throwing everything at developing an effective counter to it. France would probably have been world leaders, probably supplying aeroplanes to a Britain which at that time lacked any proper establishment in the air.
Tanks were born of very specific requirements for a very specific situation. Their modern role to an extent obscures this, but also highlights the fact that even in 1917 the use of tanks was not restricted to trying to breach trenchlines. The French tanks had a role much like today’s tanks, being designed to breakthrough in swift movement. They saw action in this role, both in French and American hands, in 1918. British readers know a lot less about this, than they do about Cambrai and Paschendale, naturally so of course, but it obscures the fact that tanks in essence had a duality of origin.
An alternate history which sees a war a decade, or even two, before 1914 may well see the development of proto-tanks on the French model. There is no necessity for deadlock in the trenches for the development of the tank; it was only one route. A war at an earlier date may well see the development of something different from OTL, based perhaps on armoured tractors and armoured cars. Steam tractors had long been used, and were even utilised on roads in the Boer War, where this was feasible in the terrain. Haulage away from the front could have developed into haulage at the front, the old horses and limber giving way to armoured tractors that could advance in the face of withering enemy fire.
There is a very sad video from 1914 showing an Allied supply line under bombardment from distant German guns (the sadness is especially seen when the guy with his horses sees them killed before him). This could well be a scene that develops into a use for the armoured tractor.
What this summary does show is not only that technological developments or their impact in war could have come earlier, but that the technology of our timeline is often overlooked, in terms of what was already happening. Gliders, intercity zeppelin services and steam tractors in the Boer War should all make people sit up and take notice. And to return to submarines, there is a longer, broader and greater history there than most people ever realise. Technological leaps do not always need to be made – often it is already there, just waiting to be utilised.
Grey Wolf
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ahf_fiction