Fisher's Baltic Project

[Zmflavius]

Before the Gallipoli Campaign, during WWI, there was a scheme proposed by Admiral John Fisher to try and knock out Germany from the war through an Anglo-Russian naval landing in Pomerania, from which they would attack Berlin. The plan was, OTL, abandoned in favor of Gallipoli.

Link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Project

What would have been the result of such a plan being approved as described in the wikipedia article, and the subsequent effect on the war in general? Would it have been likely to succeed or fail?

[Tongera]

I think the Germans would have substantial forces near Berlin and would probably defeat the Russians and British. The British and Russian navies would defeat the German navies if it came to that, but they would lose on land, most likely.

[Cymraeg]

I think that it would be right up there with an attack on those islands that begin with an F...

[mowque]

Disaster that would merely be a larger version of Gallipoli (if it even gets that far).

[Julius Vogel]

Originally Posted by Cymraeg

I think that it would be right up there with an attack on those islands that begin with an F...

Which islands would these be and did the Germans install any coastal defence hedge rows?

[deathscompanion1]

Step one destroy the Kriegmarine.

Step two make an opposed landing agianst superior enemy numbers

Step three march through a 100 miles of enemy territory all the while defending your flanks and keeping an intact supply line.

Step four take the enemy captial.

Step five Hold the enemy capitial.

Step Six wait until relieved.

In short D-Day x 10 with zero preperation no air support and facing an effective navy capable of opposing them.
The only question is wether it's a complete disastor or if it will draw of reserves that the Germans need at the fron thus possibly keeping the Russians in slightly longer.

[BigWillyG]

Whether or not the operation is a success we could see some big butterflys. Especially with the postwar RN. If Fisher's project goes forward than HMS Furious and her sisters will probably be completed as planned, possibly sunk or at least worn out by heavy service and won't be available for conversion into carriers.

[Zmflavius]

Originally Posted by deathscompanion1

Step one destroy the Kriegmarine.

Step two make an opposed landing agianst superior enemy numbers

Step three march through a 100 miles of enemy territory all the while defending your flanks and keeping an intact supply line.

Step four take the enemy captial.

Step five Hold the enemy capitial.

Step Six wait until relieved.

In short D-Day x 10 with zero preperation no air support and facing an effective navy capable of opposing them.
The only question is wether it's a complete disastor or if it will draw of reserves that the Germans need at the fron thus possibly keeping the Russians in slightly longer.

This is actually a WWI proposal. Destroying the Kaiserliche Marine will be a lot harder and in the Baltic Sea, a much more chancy prospect.

[BlairWitch749]

send the GF through the teeth of the HSF; through the skaggerak; through any defensive minefields/artillery positions and then have the british and russian army's both of whom had a difficult time in regular well supplied warfare against the germans march on the german capital; with the germans having total free reign to use their excellent rail network to surround the bridgehead and pummel the living shit out of it with their much much much MUCH better atillery park

that would make the soviet debacle at kerch look like dragoon

[Zmflavius]

Originally Posted by BlairWitch749

send the GF through the teeth of the HSF; through the skaggerak; through any defensive minefields/artillery positions and then have the british and russian army's both of whom had a difficult time in regular well supplied warfare against the germans march on the german capital; with the germans having total free reign to use their excellent rail network to surround the bridgehead and pummel the living shit out of it with their much much much MUCH better atillery park

that would make the soviet debacle at kerch look like dragoon

Dragoon?aaaaa

[Shtudmuffin]

Originally Posted by Zmflavius

Dragoon?aaaaa

Operation Dragoon, the invasion of southern France in WWII and the follow-up to Overlord. Though I don't know much about it, I take it that the invasion must have gone pretty smoothly, considering the context it was used in by the previous poster as well as its lack of notoriety.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Zmflavius

This is actually a WWI proposal. Destroying the Kaiserliche Marine will be a lot harder and in the Baltic Sea, a much more chancy prospect.

Very near impossible.

The U-boats, torpedo boats, and minefields will have great success. Any UK ship damage seriously will be lost since it will be so hard to retreat to friendly ports. The Germans will likely be able to keep the entrance to the Baltic mostly shut. The UK troops have to come from somewhere, so the Germans can pull reserves from that location. The area being landed on is of lower value to the Germans at the immediate coast line.

Basically, the UK loses a full army. The Germans High Seas Fleet has a chance at a decisive battle, especially if it can close the entrance to the Baltic with mines and non-capital ships.

It may not be a war winner, but it would go along way towards that objective. Now add a lost Army to the RN losing the Grand Fleet, and I think we have a CP win.

Originally Posted by Shtudmuffin

Operation Dragoon, the invasion of southern France in WWII and the follow-up to Overlord. Though I don't know much about it, I take it that the invasion must have gone pretty smoothly, considering the context it was used in by the previous poster as well as its lack of notoriety.

It was basically unopposed.

[jkay]

I've come to think this probably would've worked because several similar works were taken with naval superiority in ACW, a similar military era; though a siege likely would've been needed. The outnumbering troops wouldn't'vee been able to take it back without absurd casualties any more than when Union was similarly outnumbered because the British would entrench.

Remember, like our ironclads, the key parts of the fleets were armored, making them hard to take out easily even with mines or the early, troubled torpedoes,

It probably would've sunk alot of the German High Seas Fleet, though alot would've also scattered, likely, instead of being neatly easy to contain in Kiel.

It could've given the Entente the Baltic and tightened the siege far more.

It could've potentially helped Russia with at least some of their massive ammo trouble, though they still likely would've fallen.


I think it wasn't done because it definitely would've been a risk to not just their fleet, but to invasion of Britain if it'd gone too pear shaped. The upside was pretty good, but not THAT good.

[dropbearabroad]

"Remember, like our ironclads, the key parts of the fleets were armored, making them hard to take out easily even with mines"

The 1915 naval campaign of the Dardanelles is a lot more relevant than any battles of the ACW, and the 3 battleships sunk and 3 badly damaged there indicate that a Baltic campaign would have been a disaster for the RN.

[BlairWitch749]

Originally Posted by jkay

I've come to think this probably would've worked because several similar works were taken with naval superiority in ACW, a similar military era; though a siege likely would've been needed. The outnumbering troops wouldn't'vee been able to take it back without absurd casualties any more than when Union was similarly outnumbered because the British would entrench.

Remember, like our ironclads, the key parts of the fleets were armored, making them hard to take out easily even with mines or the early, troubled torpedoes,

It probably would've sunk alot of the German High Seas Fleet, though alot would've also scattered, likely, instead of being neatly easy to contain in Kiel.

It could've given the Entente the Baltic and tightened the siege far more.

It could've potentially helped Russia with at least some of their massive ammo trouble, though they still likely would've fallen.


I think it wasn't done because it definitely would've been a risk to not just their fleet, but to invasion of Britain if it'd gone too pear shaped. The upside was pretty good, but not THAT good.

what happens when the battlewagons run out of ammo? (assuming they don't expend all of it and need months in the dry dock sinking the HSF) and in that time what stops the germans from installing big coastal guns or lay mine barrages from rostok to trap the GF in the baltic ensuring their doom

what stops the Germans from encircling the bridgehead and beating it brains in with artillery and poison gas... the battlewagons can only fire a few hundred rounds before they have to leave station; ww1 battles are measured in MILLIONS of rounds

[Tyg]

Originally Posted by BlairWitch749

what happens when the battlewagons run out of ammo? (assuming they don't expend all of it and need months in the dry dock sinking the HSF) and in that time what stops the germans from installing big coastal guns or lay mine barrages from rostok to trap the GF in the baltic ensuring their doom

what stops the Germans from encircling the bridgehead and beating it brains in with artillery and poison gas... the battlewagons can only fire a few hundred rounds before they have to leave station; ww1 battles are measured in MILLIONS of rounds

Or for that matter, what stops the Germans from occupying Denmark and covering the Great and Little belts with artillery, torpedo boats, mines, etc? Especially after the RN has entered the Baltic!

[BlairWitch749]

Originally Posted by Tyg

Or for that matter, what stops the Germans from occupying Denmark and covering the Great and Little belts with artillery, torpedo boats, mines, etc? Especially after the RN has entered the Baltic!

that was my rostock point... any trip by the GF into the baltic would be one way

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Tyg

Or for that matter, what stops the Germans from occupying Denmark and covering the Great and Little belts with artillery, torpedo boats, mines, etc? Especially after the RN has entered the Baltic!

My understanding that is the working understanding of most historians on this issue. The only real question is does Denmark join the CP or is it conquered.

Originally Posted by BlairWitch749

that was my rostock point... any trip by the GF into the baltic would be one way

Agreed under most scenarios.

[deathscompanion1]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

My understanding that is the working understanding of most historians on this issue. The only real question is does Denmark join the CP or is it conquered.



Agreed under most scenarios.

Joins CP IMHO the Entente probably wouldnt have a spare army and the Danes dont want to be a war zone so they Help the Germans cut the Baltic the British lose an entire army and the CP gain a ally who could provide bases for the U-boat campaign.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by deathscompanion1

Joins CP IMHO the Entente probably wouldnt have a spare army and the Danes dont want to be a war zone so they Help the Germans cut the Baltic the British lose an entire army and the CP gain a ally who could provide bases for the U-boat campaign.

I have done a TL on a month by month basis. The UK does not have a spare Army in 1914/15/16. The UK probably doesn't in 1917. Germany has internal lines of communication, so whichever front the UK pulls an army, the Germany/CP will just move troops from there.

I am not so sure on the Danes reaction. They could lose Iceland and Greenland. It also depends on which year, and the attitude of the USA. The U-boats bases will not be hugely helpful, it only saves the U-boast maybe a half day travel each way.

Losing an army will go a long way towards making the UK think about peace. Losing the fleet is enough to begin to see peace talks in many scenarios.