Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

Germany would have been better served with more cruisers and maybe battlecruisers. Less of an overt threat to the British and more useful for the colonial empire.

  • 1 year later...
Posted

Less of an overt threat to the British and more useful for the colonial empire.

 

It will not helpe, British did try to balance the power in Europe, since the Napoleonic era. But now the united Germany is rising to superpower status, economically, culturally, politically, economically. Whaderver German do it will shatter the old power balance in Europe at the British expense. Even if Willhelm II order the German industrial might to build him romantic fairytale castle (as his precursor have done) insted of a war fleet.

  • 1 year later...
Posted

But cruisers would have been less threatening to the British unlike battleships. Cruisers would have been much more useful to protect the colonies.

Posted

Germany's colonies were doomed from the start in any war because of their isolation as well as being surrounded by unfriendly colonies with their own naval stations and forces to bolster them.

  • 4 years later...
Posted

Reading Castles of Steel, I am of the opinion that if the German High Seas Fleet had better commanders, and the Kaiser had let it do its job, it probably could have won the battle against the British fleet early in 1914/1915.  German ships had better armor and damage control, and Beatty would have lost quickly (His flag LT Seymour could have caused chaos as he did in real life).  I think an all out clash in 1914/1915 would have resulted in German naval superiority in the North Sea/North Atlantic.

The problem the Germans had was also shared by the British- Poor commanders who were not really up to the new reality of naval combat.  Jellicoe was actually the best the British had, and the rest (of the admirals with few exceptions) were by Nelsonian standards, good, brave officers, totally unsuited to the age of steam.  Keyes is one of the exeptions.

Posted
1 hour ago, Murph said:

Reading Castles of Steel, I am of the opinion that if the German High Seas Fleet had better commanders, and the Kaiser had let it do its job, it probably could have won the battle against the British fleet early in 1914/1915.  German ships had better armor and damage control, and Beatty would have lost quickly (His flag LT Seymour could have caused chaos as he did in real life).  I think an all out clash in 1914/1915 would have resulted in German naval superiority in the North Sea/North Atlantic.

Glad your back Murph.

Assuming that the Germans fought and won a naval battle in early 1915, the problem was that the Entente could basically surrender the North Sea and pull back to beyond the operational radius of the German torpedo boat squadrons.  This should protect the SLOC necessary to fight the war, because the HSF would not be able to come into the Western Approaches or English Channel to for more than a short period at a time.

 

Posted
2 hours ago, Murph said:

Reading Castles of Steel, I am of the opinion that if the German High Seas Fleet had better commanders, and the Kaiser had let it do its job, it probably could have won the battle against the British fleet early in 1914/1915.  German ships had better armor and damage control, and Beatty would have lost quickly (His flag LT Seymour could have caused chaos as he did in real life).  I think an all out clash in 1914/1915 would have resulted in German naval superiority in the North Sea/North Atlantic.

The problem the Germans had was also shared by the British- Poor commanders who were not really up to the new reality of naval combat.  Jellicoe was actually the best the British had, and the rest (of the admirals with few exceptions) were by Nelsonian standards, good, brave officers, totally unsuited to the age of steam.  Keyes is one of the exeptions.

Then you should read: https://www.amazon.es/Rules-Game-Jutland-British-Command/dp/1591143365

Pertinent:

 

Posted
2 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Glad your back Murph.

Assuming that the Germans fought and won a naval battle in early 1915, the problem was that the Entente could basically surrender the North Sea and pull back to beyond the operational radius of the German torpedo boat squadrons.  This should protect the SLOC necessary to fight the war, because the HSF would not be able to come into the Western Approaches or English Channel to for more than a short period at a time.

 

Thank you.  Very true and good point, but if they had beaten the RN, and sunk or crippled most of the British battlefleet then they could have raided the coasts of the UK as they did during that time period.  Plus they could have attempted to interdict the flow of troops and supplies to France.  I think if the majority of the RN's most modern battleships and battlecruisers were at the bottom of the North Sea it would have been a game changer.  

Posted
3 hours ago, Murph said:

Reading Castles of Steel, I am of the opinion that if the German High Seas Fleet had better commanders, and the Kaiser had let it do its job, it probably could have won the battle against the British fleet early in 1914/1915.  German ships had better armor and damage control, and Beatty would have lost quickly (His flag LT Seymour could have caused chaos as he did in real life).  I think an all out clash in 1914/1915 would have resulted in German naval superiority in the North Sea/North Atlantic.

The problem the Germans had was also shared by the British- Poor commanders who were not really up to the new reality of naval combat.  Jellicoe was actually the best the British had, and the rest (of the admirals with few exceptions) were by Nelsonian standards, good, brave officers, totally unsuited to the age of steam.  Keyes is one of the exeptions.

Twenty years ago, there was an alternate history work based on that premise: a Jutland battle fought one year early, written by one Jim1 in the old Naval Fiction forum of warships1.com. Again, @Argus should remember that.

Dunno if it still could be found anywhere...

Posted
4 hours ago, Murph said:

Reading Castles of Steel, I am of the opinion that if the German High Seas Fleet had better commanders, and the Kaiser had let it do its job, it probably could have won the battle against the British fleet early in 1914/1915.  German ships had better armor and damage control, and Beatty would have lost quickly (His flag LT Seymour could have caused chaos as he did in real life).  I think an all out clash in 1914/1915 would have resulted in German naval superiority in the North Sea/North Atlantic.

Why? Quantity has a quality all its own.

The Grand Fleet started with a a 22:15 superiority in dreadnoughts, 8:4 in battle cruisers, 40:22 in pre-dreadnoughts, 34:8 in armoured cruisers, 52:17 in protected cruisers, 35:16 in scout and light cruisers, and 221:90 in destroyers. The only numerical superiority held by the Germans was in torpedo boats, which was marginal, 115:109.

By 22 February the Grand Fleet had 32 dreadnoughts to face 17 German ones. The Grand Fleet had 9 battle cruisers to face 4 German ones. It only got worse as British shipyards were simply more numerous and capable.

I don't think better German armor and damage control was sufficient versus those odds, especially given that about half of the Grand Fleet's dreadnoughts had the excellent 13.5" Mark V gun, which effectively eliminated the German armor advantage. Worse, it was Dogger Bank, 24 January 1915 that resulted in the improved German "damage control", which was actually simply a change in ammunition-handling SOP. Those changes were introduced into the Hochseeflotte over the next four months so would have had zero effect on an all out clash prior to Jutland. Furthermore, given that Jutland was basically "won" (yeah, I know) by the British Battle Cruiser Fleet and Fifth Battle Squadron there isn't much that indicates that a similar engagement earlier would have had much of a different result.

Posted

True, but you are also not counting ships in dry dock, ships not available due to other deployments according to the book.  And I agree with the current command in place the High Seas Fleet would not have been able to pull it off.  

Posted
28 minutes ago, Murph said:

True, but you are also not counting ships in dry dock, ships not available due to other deployments according to the book.  And I agree with the current command in place the High Seas Fleet would not have been able to pull it off.  

Curious why you might think there would be a different ratio of RN ships in dockyard hands than of HSF ships in dockyard hands. I have data on the former (four of the 32 on 22 February 1915) but not the latter.  However, I did not count Grand Fleet vessels such as Inflexible, which was in the Dardanelles as of 22 February 1915.

I can't imagine any command in place with the HSF that would have been able to "pull it off" unless they have the assistance of ASB.

Posted
42 minutes ago, RichTO90 said:

Curious why you might think there would be a different ratio of RN ships in dockyard hands than of HSF ships in dockyard hands.

I recall that in Castles of Steel it was mentioned that, due to the incomplete status of Scapa Flow's defenses, the Grand Fleet spent an inordinate amount of time at sea during the first period of the war.  I believe it is mentioned that in the period Murph mentions in early 1915, the British were actually down to a very slim (1?) dreadnought advantage vs. the HSF.

Posted

Crap! I just realized I counted the 3d Battle Squadron's pre-dreadnoughts with the Grand Fleet. So the figures for dreadnoughts should be:

1 August 1914: 21:14

24 January 1915: 23 (2 in dockyard hands):17

22 February 1915 (1 in dockyard hands): 23:17

30 May 1916: 31 (3 in dockyard hands):18

It was not the incomplete status of Scapa's defenses that was a problem, it was the loss of Fisgard II (Invincible 1869), which foundered 17 September 1914 in route to Scapa. She had been fitted out as a training vessel for artificers and the loss of her training crew - twenty-three out of the sixty-four naval and dockyard ratings embarked - was sorely felt.

Anyway, there is no real evidence that the wear and tear of operations was felt inequitably by the RN versus the HSF and the supposition that it would be is unsupportable. For example, from 12 February to 3 March 1916, then 6 June to 17 July 1916 Großer Kurfürst was under repair, but otherwise good data on German serviceability seems lacking.

 

Posted

Its worth keeping in mind the 8x of the KM's Dreadnoughts (Nassau & Helgoland classes) were triple expansion ships. There's a hair to split about them being 'real' Dreadnoughts at all given they lacked turbine propulsion, let alone their other characteristics (I say nay on the Nassau's and yea on the Helgolands myself). Regardless, these ships are going to eat more maintenance hours per hour at sea ramping steadily upwards with hours at speed, than their turbine peers. The Grand Fleet ran their 12" Dreadnoughts out of life in 4 years of war (one reason the RN wasn't so upset about losing them to Washington). TRE ships trade off easier fixing for needing more of it, but asking the High Seas Fleet to do anything like the number of sea hours the GF was putting in historically, would have seen those ships along side for extended periods of time. 

Posted

But also there was the undefinable qualitative advantage that the German ships had over the RN, not the least in gunnery, and night actions.

Posted
1 minute ago, Argus said:

Its worth keeping in mind the 8x of the KM's Dreadnoughts (Nassau & Helgoland classes) were triple expansion ships. There's a hair to split about them being 'real' Dreadnoughts at all given they lacked turbine propulsion, let alone their other characteristics (I say nay on the Nassau's and yea on the Helgolands myself). Regardless, these ships are going to eat more maintenance hours per hour at sea ramping steadily upwards with hours at speed, than their turbine peers. The Grand Fleet ran their 12" Dreadnoughts out of life in 4 years of war (one reason the RN wasn't so upset about losing them to Washington). TRE ships trade off easier fixing for needing more of it, but asking the High Seas Fleet to do anything like the number of sea hours the GF was putting in historically, would have seen those ships along side for extended periods of time. 

Ok excellent point here.

Posted
33 minutes ago, Murph said:

But also there was the undefinable qualitative advantage that the German ships had over the RN, not the least in gunnery, and night actions.

It's not a differential I'd rest too happily on myself. As much as the RN admired German gunnery, contemporary German opinion in diaries etc had little uncomplimentary to say about RN gunnery. They were both impressed by the other. What the RN lacked were effective heavy calibre shells, and they sorted that out in time.  Likewise damage resistance, we credit the RN with flimsy ships and the Germans with floating blockhouses, but if they didn't take a flash to the mags, Warspite at Windy Corner, few ships died harder than Monmouth, HMS Zubian etc. There were differences to be sure, but at the end of the day I'm of the opinion that few forces were so equally matched in quality as GF and HSF. :D 

Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Argus said:

It's not a differential I'd rest too happily on myself. As much as the RN admired German gunnery, contemporary German opinion in diaries etc had little uncomplimentary to say about RN gunnery. They were both impressed by the other. What the RN lacked were effective heavy calibre shells, and they sorted that out in time.  Likewise damage resistance, we credit the RN with flimsy ships and the Germans with floating blockhouses, but if they didn't take a flash to the mags, Warspite at Windy Corner, few ships died harder than Monmouth, HMS Zubian etc. There were differences to be sure, but at the end of the day I'm of the opinion that few forces were so equally matched in quality as GF and HSF. :D 

And the Germans had flash over issues at Dogger Bank that they corrected.  Were there a rematch between the fleets after Jutland, I expect the British ships might not have gone boom so easily - and the Germans thinned out some of the weakest in the herd leaving the remaining total a bit stronger.

Edited by R011
Posted

Those are both good points, buy IIRC the RN never really did get the shell issue completely fixed by the end of the war, and possibly until mid point in the next?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...