Unrestricted Submarine Warfare 1916

Garrison · Oct 3, 2015

Okay so in 1917 Germany resorted to unrestricted submarine warfare for the second time in WWI, gambling that they could starve out the British before the USA could make any signficant difference to the fighting on the Western Front. They lost the gamble because of the speed of US mobilization and the British introducing convoys for all Atlantic shipping.

The first time the Germans intitiated USW in 1915 they backed down in the face of diplomatic threats from the USA. What if instead the Germans decided to make the same strategic gamble in 1915 they did in 1917 and press on with USW?

Amongst other things:

Will the US actually enter the war earlier than OTL?
Will it affect the 1916 presidential race?
Will it have any impact on the Russian revolution?

ghappy1000 · Oct 9, 2015

Depends on the events resulted and the date of decision. If the decision was made in early 1916, the Verdun and Asiago offensives would be impacted, along with Jutland.
If the Americans were at war with Germany before 30 May 1916 [to allow for changes to battle plans], could the High Seas Fleet be more aggressive at Jutland? Or could the force be destroyed if the Americans join before 1 May 1916 [allowing some 4 weeks to get the American navy to mobilise and sail for Scapa]?

Saphroneth · Oct 9, 2015

I think...

...first off, if there's enough losses the British go to convoy tactics (they knew how, it just took some persuading to get them to do it).

The 1916 presidential election would have been fought on the German question (Roosevelt/Root '16: "Hang the Kaiser!").

Even if the AEF took as long to get going as OTL, there'd have been an American army in the field before the Russians broke OTL, so there'd be enough will to push all the way into Germany.

No backstab-legend, no Hitler, no WW2.

kodak · Oct 9, 2015

Saphroneth said:
I think...

...first off, if there's enough losses the British go to convoy tactics (they knew how, it just took some persuading to get them to do it).

The 1916 presidential election would have been fought on the German question (Roosevelt/Root '16: "Hang the Kaiser!").

Even if the AEF took as long to get going as OTL, there'd have been an American army in the field before the Russians broke OTL, so there'd be enough will to push all the way into Germany.

No backstab-legend, no Hitler, no WW2.

A repeat of the election of 1912 would be crazy.

usertron2020 · Oct 9, 2015

Early enough and the Sixth Battle Squadron (American) gets formed as part of the Grand Fleet, pretty much making a breakout for the High Seas Fleet go from highly dangerous to suicidal. American cooperation with the RN in WWI was a model that Admiral Ernest J. King did NOT follow up on in the next war, though his subordinates did.

But if USW is going on, then like OTL the British may ask the Americans to send the older coal-burning battleships to help alleviate Britain's oil shortages.

LordKalvert · Oct 10, 2015

Saphroneth said:
I think...

.

Even if the AEF took as long to get going as OTL, there'd have been an American army in the field before the Russians broke OTL, so there'd be enough will to push all the way into Germany.

This is an interesting part of the puzzle though. The Tsarist regime was extremely unpopular in America, especially among Jewish Americans (can't imagine why)

The overthrow of the Tsar does remove a major objection to American entry

Saphroneth · Oct 10, 2015

LordKalvert said:
This is an interesting part of the puzzle though. The Tsarist regime was extremely unpopular in America, especially among Jewish Americans (can't imagine why)

The overthrow of the Tsar does remove a major objection to American entry

Still gives several months - months when the Tsar's out but the Russian regime is moderate.

kodak · Oct 10, 2015

LordKalvert said:
This is an interesting part of the puzzle though. The Tsarist regime was extremely unpopular in America, especially among Jewish Americans (can't imagine why)

The overthrow of the Tsar does remove a major objection to American entry

In Wilson's state of the union in 1917, he referred to "the lovely things that have recently happened in Russia". And this is coming from a notorious anti-socialist.

Cryhavoc101 · Oct 10, 2015

ghappy1000 said:
Depends on the events resulted and the date of decision. If the decision was made in early 1916, the Verdun and Asiago offensives would be impacted, along with Jutland.
If the Americans were at war with Germany before 30 May 1916 [to allow for changes to battle plans], could the High Seas Fleet be more aggressive at Jutland? Or could the force be destroyed if the Americans join before 1 May 1916 [allowing some 4 weeks to get the American navy to mobilise and sail for Scapa]?

If the HSF is more aggressive at Jutland instead of running at the first sight of the Grand fleet would it not face utter ruin.

Its out gunned and out numbered @ Jutland - the HSF did run away for a very good reason after all - no amount of aggression can change this.

The HSF was very capable of getting itself destroyed by the British long before a single American Ship arrived at Scarpa Flow.

Saphroneth · Oct 10, 2015

It is a credit to Scheer's skill at Jutland that he ran for it as soon as he realized both that he was facing the whole Grand Fleet and that they'd crossed his T.

It's a criticism of his command that he didn't realize Beatty was running north to link up with Jellicoe - and that he went back north for another go, which just led to him taking another shoeing.

It's Jellicoe's greatest credit as a commander that he managed to make the snap decision on how to deploy into line the moment he had sufficient information to do so, and got it just about perfect.

It's probably his biggest mistake - such as it is - that he didn't cover the eastern minefield gap.

Frankly, for Jutland to go badly in the clash of the main fleets you have to project all the disadvantages of the BC Squadron onto the grand fleet, which are disadvantages they manifestly did not have. (In the brief clash of gunline-to-gunline, the German capital ships took three times the hits that they made.)

usertron2020 · Oct 10, 2015

Cryhavoc101 said:
If the HSF is more aggressive at Jutland instead of running at the first sight of the Grand fleet would it not face utter ruin.

Its out gunned and out numbered @ Jutland - the HSF did run away for a very good reason after all - no amount of aggression can change this.

The HSF was very capable of getting itself destroyed by the British long before a single American Ship arrived at Scarpa Flow.

Apologies if I didn't make myself clearer earlier.

Of course the Grand Fleet could curbstomp the High Seas Fleet completely on their own. I just meant that the presence of a US battle squadron or two would simply mean that the chances of the German High Seas Fleet escaping to the open ocean of the North Atlantic, rather than being fought off in the North Sea, drops drastically. From a very distant chance to "just so much blue skies over the horizon."

A genuine military victory by the High Seas Fleet over the Grand Fleet was NEVER in the cards.

PMN1 · Oct 10, 2015

What does the RN have to counter the submarine in 1915 that it didn't have in 1917?

Saphroneth · Oct 10, 2015

PMN1 said:
What does the RN have to counter the submarine in 1915 that it didn't have in 1917?

It doesn't. It has what it did OTL 1917, though - convoy.
Convoys take most of the teeth out of the sub threat.

usertron2020 · Oct 10, 2015

Saphroneth said:
It doesn't. It has what it did OTL 1917, though - convoy.
Convoys take most of the teeth out of the sub threat.

And USW brings the problems of supplying Britain to light all the sooner, with the likelihood of causing the development of convoys at an earlier date.

Saphroneth · Oct 10, 2015

usertron2020 said:
And USW brings the problems of supplying Britain to light all the sooner, with the likelihood of causing the development of convoys at an earlier date.

Well, that's the funny thing.

The British had done convoys in the past, they knew how it worked, but they'd stopped circa 1870 for what are probably fairly questionable reasons. (The idea that a fast raider could dart in, destroy some ships, and dart out again before the escorts could respond.)

It's pretty much reversion to an old strategy, and it's if anything surprising they didn't do it sooner. Maybe because the submarine was still seen as basically a torpedo boat, and so the relatively long-range endurance took a while to percolate through.

pattersonautobody · Oct 10, 2015

It could work the opposite way, depending how close it is to the election and who wins. If Wilson runs on a peace platform, and so does the Republican, and then all of the sudden 2 months before the election the Germans go nuts, you can have Teddy throw his hat in the ring and split enough Republican votes where Wilson wins, has egg on his face, and molds policy to stop US trade with Europe until the war is over.

usertron2020 · Oct 11, 2015

Saphroneth said:
Well, that's the funny thing.

The British had done convoys in the past, they knew how it worked, but they'd stopped circa 1870 for what are probably fairly questionable reasons. (The idea that a fast raider could dart in, destroy some ships, and dart out again before the escorts could respond.)

It's pretty much reversion to an old strategy, and it's if anything surprising they didn't do it sooner. Maybe because the submarine was still seen as basically a torpedo boat, and so the relatively long-range endurance took a while to percolate through.

That they did this tells me that SOMEBODY (Pound?) in the Admiralty had this bright idea when they ordered PQ-17 to scatter.

pattersonautobody said:
It could work the opposite way, depending how close it is to the election and who wins. If Wilson runs on a peace platform, and so does the Republican, and then all of the sudden 2 months before the election the Germans go nuts, you can have Teddy throw his hat in the ring and split enough Republican votes where Wilson wins, has egg on his face, and molds policy to stop US trade with Europe until the war is over.

It's difficult to see both parties running Pacifist platforms in the same election cycle. YES, the GOP became very Isolationist after WWI, but it was only through the craven reversals of longstanding positions by the likes of Senator Henry Cabot Lodge that this happened.

In 1916, the Republicans were very much the party of Interventionism. I doubt that Teddy throws his hat in in 1916 though. Not after the humiliation of 1912. And Wilson showed that he had no problems with picking up the sword when it came time for him to do so. After all, OTL Congress DoW'ed the Central Powers just a few months after Wilson started his second term.

Michel Van · Oct 11, 2015

The Moment the German imperial navy sink a ship with US citizens on board,
The USA declare War to Imperial Germany

Admiral Halsey · Oct 11, 2015

Michel Van said:
The Moment the German imperial navy sink a ship with US citizens on board,
The USA declare War to Imperial Germany

You mean like after the Lusitania was sunk? It wasn't American citizens being killed from USW that pushed the US into war(though it didn't hurt it) but the money being lost by American businesses from it.

LordKalvert · Oct 12, 2015

Saphroneth said:
It doesn't. It has what it did OTL 1917, though - convoy.
Convoys take most of the teeth out of the sub threat.

USW makes convoys make sense. Before that, the losses in ships were relatively small and the convoy system inefficient

Convoys cause immense bottlenecks in ports and since all ships must travel at the speed the slowest ship can maintain, a convoy system is like sinking 25-33% of your merchant fleet Its just a devastating "own goal"