WI decisive RN-HSF showdown early 1915?

[Christopher Marcus]

I've been thinking about this timeline where von Spee decides not to raid Stanley, makes it all the way to European waters and tries to reach Germany, going north around Britain. One of Spee's last orders from Germany indicated that if he made it this far, he would have to let the HSF know so they could "cooperate" (see Robert K. Massie's "Castles of Steel").

Suppose he makes it to somewhere around the entrance to the North Sea around new year 1914/1915 and said "cooperation" ends up in a major naval battle, like Jutland, but with a more decisive outcome:

1) The Grand Fleet gets badly mauled: At least 6 or more battleships are sunk, so there is de facto parity between the HSF and the RN in the North Sea from here on. It would probably have to be some kind of super-succesful trap involving subs and mines, as they planned in OTL before Jutland, but I reckon it's at least plausible.

2) Alternatively, the HSF get's caught - say Hipper's battlecruiser force and 3 or 4 (more more) of the major battleships are sunk. In short: Whatever plan the Germans have goes horribly wrong and they end up having to fight the better part of the GF and can't get away in time. It's disaster-time for the HSF. The Kaiser nearly gets a heart attack because he allowed the Fleet to sail. Spee probably ends here, as well, his worn ships in no condition to do much.

What I'm wondering is ...

What would be the consequences for the rest of the war's progression, if this early in the war either scenario 1 or 2 happens?

As for 1) The RN would still be powerful and able to secure supply lines until the U-boats really come out, but the psychological impact would be very great. Gallipoli is probably a no go.

As for 2) Would it really matter? (Except psychologically ... ) Germany'd be forced to build more U-boats, ASAP, because now they can't even pretend to have a fleet in being that will seriously be able to threaten the GF. Maybe, in some perverse way, an early elimination of the HSF as a serious naval force would actually have Germany increase its blockade chokehold on Britain by pushing for more U-boat warfare earlier in the war. (Which might also get the US in earlier ... if they go unrestricted a year or so before OTL).

Thoughts? Comments? Is there a real game-changer in either of these scenarios?

And if not, how much worse would either scenario have to be in order to have a serious impact on the rest of the war?

[Christopher Marcus]

And today is the anniversary of the Battle of Jutland ... well, the timing was almost right.

Another thought occurred to me: The Channel was 'only' guarded by a handful of pre-dreadnoughts (okay, and mines and subs and that destroyer flottila in Harwich), so at least for drama's sake a case could be made for a scenario where a homecoming East Asia Squadron decides to chance it and make a Channel Dash, assuming it still is in a condition to make good speed and that for some reason or other believing they believe they can evade those destroyers, too. It would probably go down in flames, anyway, but at least it'd make for a good story.

And the possible combination of said Dash with a HSF raid designed to lure away, split and destroy a portion of the Grand Fleet would still be an option ... at least on paper.

Anyway, I'm a battleship afficionado, and feeling increasingly drawn to reading about and exploring PODs with relation to WWI, after a year-long interest mostly in WWII. So I guess I'll inevitably end up thinking up a more detailed suggestion for a story and and outcome that would have serious consequences for the rest of the war ... even if this What If doesn't manage to garner interest on the first try.

[sharlin]

Running the original twins up the channel would be suicide. You've got the Harwitch destroyer force, any Pre-dreads in the channel that outgunned and would probably outrun the tired germans and what else was down that way as well as many French warships.

Nice idea but impossible to carry out.

Regarding the RN taking heavy casualties people forget that it was only Beatty's ships that removed the anti-flash protection on his ships and that was AFTER the Dogger Bank battle. All the British Dreadnoughts were equipped with anti-flash protection that was never removed so you'll not have RN ships doing impromptu fireworks displays. Also early in 1915 the RN has not shot off most of its pre-war ammo which was of a better quality than the mass produced crap they were saddled with at Jutland.

If the Grand Fleet and High Seas fleet had a punch up early in 1915 i'd not want to be the Germans. The German ships were magnificently built, amazingly tough and well armoured but they would be outgunned and outnumbered and the fight would be taking place in summer, nice clear conditions on the North Sea for a gun battle.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Christopher Marcus

I've been thinking about this timeline where von Spee decides not to raid Stanley, makes it all the way to European waters and tries to reach Germany, going north around Britain. One of Spee's last orders from Germany indicated that if he made it this far, he would have to let the HSF know so they could "cooperate" (see Robert K. Massie's "Castles of Steel").

Suppose he makes it to somewhere around the entrance to the North Sea around new year 1914/1915 and said "cooperation" ends up in a major naval battle, like Jutland, but with a more decisive outcome:

1) The Grand Fleet gets badly mauled: At least 6 or more battleships are sunk, so there is de facto parity between the HSF and the RN in the North Sea from here on. It would probably have to be some kind of super-succesful trap involving subs and mines, as they planned in OTL before Jutland, but I reckon it's at least plausible.

2) Alternatively, the HSF get's caught - say Hipper's battlecruiser force and 3 or 4 (more more) of the major battleships are sunk. In short: Whatever plan the Germans have goes horribly wrong and they end up having to fight the better part of the GF and can't get away in time. It's disaster-time for the HSF. The Kaiser nearly gets a heart attack because he allowed the Fleet to sail. Spee probably ends here, as well, his worn ships in no condition to do much.

What I'm wondering is ...

What would be the consequences for the rest of the war's progression, if this early in the war either scenario 1 or 2 happens?

As for 1) The RN would still be powerful and able to secure supply lines until the U-boats really come out, but the psychological impact would be very great. Gallipoli is probably a no go.

As for 2) Would it really matter? (Except psychologically ... ) Germany'd be forced to build more U-boats, ASAP, because now they can't even pretend to have a fleet in being that will seriously be able to threaten the GF. Maybe, in some perverse way, an early elimination of the HSF as a serious naval force would actually have Germany increase its blockade chokehold on Britain by pushing for more U-boat warfare earlier in the war. (Which might also get the US in earlier ... if they go unrestricted a year or so before OTL).

Thoughts? Comments? Is there a real game-changer in either of these scenarios?

And if not, how much worse would either scenario have to be in order to have a serious impact on the rest of the war?

Despite the RN propaganda about a Jutland like battle, the Battle of Jutland (OTL) was a draw to slight German win, and was unimportant in the big scheme of things. If German sinks another 5 capital ships, the naval situation is the same. It also does no change if the RN sinks 6 more capital ships. The impact will only be large in the diplomatic sphere and the decision making process. For example, whichever size loses the 5 extra capital ships might be more open to a peace deal in 1916, which could have world changing impacts. For example, imagine if Germany did agree to give specific positions to Wilson in the winter of 1916/17, and these position include a neutral Poland and some reparations for Belgium. Or what if the UK public felt more vulnerable, and the UK moved two extra corp back to the UK to defend against Sealion. Or the big one, what if USW policy is different.

Now you want to do a major 1915 Jutland type battle, and you should, it would be interesting. I would recommend avoiding land based butterflies unless you can explain a direct link, and you will should explain the diplomatic butterflies. Just if you have Falkenhayn change his Russia strategy, think it through clearly.

Ok German do exceptional. I read your post as the UK loses 6 more capitals than Germany. I think Germany losing none is a bit unlikely. So lets say 9 to 3 win for Germany. To get this kind of win, you need both Germany to have a solid, well executed plan, and the UK to make a mistake. Recommended ideas.

1) Have the Zeppelins find the Grand Fleet early and keep eyes on it. Have battle on nice clear day.

2) Have the U-boats that are likely station near Scapa Flow sink some ships on the way to the battle.

3) Have the battle near Germany so damaged German ships make it back to port, but damaged UK ships are lost to weather/U-boats. For example, a few hours after the battle, have a big storm roll in.

4) Remember the bad ammo storage on the BC IOTL. Maybe some of the BB do the same.

5) Use more than one reason for the success. 1-2 lost to mines/U-boats coming out of the harbor, 1-2 lost to mistake of screening forces, etc. It will give a nice feel to the battle.

Now I have this in my TL due to buffing the German U-boats at the start of the war. I have huge diplomatic effects (Italy does not enter war, Bulgaria comes in month earlier) and different decisions (Gallipoli cancelled due to pulling naval forces to England to replace losses). I also have neutrals less friendly to the UK because the UK looks like it is losing. While the loss is not big, if everyone believes it is big, it is. Perception is reality. I have gone through it a dozen ways, and their is nothing big the Germans can do. I added one devastating attack on some shipyards on the east coast, and that is about it. The Germans would also try to force a second decisive battle, but IMO, the UK would learn quickly, and German probably can't get a second big win. Now the butterflies are almost too numerous to list, but some of them are.

1) UK/Germany radically changes its ship construction plan.

2) Timing and effect of USW is different.

3) Reaction of neutrals.

4) People entering war. Carefully review everyone who almost entered war or did. Maybe it is soon, maybe it is not done. Italy, Bulgaria and Greece actions have to be looked at in 1915.

5) Attack plans for major land battles. Ask if the same decision is made on any close call.

6) Troops will be in different locations. For example, if UK does badly, then UK likely has more corps in England, German might free up one corp. Or the reverse if the battle goes differently.

On Gallipoli, yes, I think it is a no go unless the battle is within days of the planned landing, where it may be impossible to call off. And once troops are on the ground, the UK likely keeps fighting. This has huge impacts and means the Ottomans are the most stable of the CP. It also means German is pressed harder because the extra troops will end up in France, most likely for some of them.

Yes Germany might build more U-boats, but I would not rule out the Kaiser doing the opposite. On this item, you just have to make a call an run with it.

As for major impact, easy. Either cancel Gallipoli or have the UK keep a lot of extra forces in England (at least 2 corp) or change when someone enters the war, or change the way the U-boat campaign goes. So while from a pure military perspective the battle does not matter, it is hugely important because everyone thinks it is important.

[Christopher Marcus]

Originally Posted by sharlin

Running the original twins up the channel would be suicide. You've got the Harwitch destroyer force, any Pre-dreads in the channel that outgunned and would probably outrun the tired germans and what else was down that way as well as many French warships.

Nice idea but impossible to carry out.

Agreed. As noted, I suggested it mostly for the sake of drama, since I'm a writer first and foremost. But I guess I secretly hoped that there would be somebody saying, 'yeah, this could work if ...' - however slim the chances.

But there would prob'ly have to be some insanely weighty reason for Spee to decide to chance it: Perhaps if Berlin gets word to him that he can expect backup because the HSF will be throwing Hipper's cruisers and a sh*tload of subs towards the Channel, to distract the RN. This could be a thinly veiled 'we'd like you to sacrifice yourself so we can bag as many British ships as possible who are coming out to destroy you anyway'-order, but from what I'd read about the Admiral he was the man to follow through on such an order.

Anyway, it feels like a no-go for a possible scenario+story. The only reasonable course of action (and the Brits know that) is to try to run the blockade between Norway and Northern England.

Originally Posted by sharlin

If the Grand Fleet and High Seas fleet had a punch up early in 1915 i'd not want to be the Germans. The German ships were magnificently built, amazingly tough and well armoured but they would be outgunned and outnumbered and the fight would be taking place in summer, nice clear conditions on the North Sea for a gun battle.

I would be sometime in early to mid January 1915, at the latest, so the weather could play a huge (albeit somewhat boring) part in determining the outcome of the naval battles. But the timing has to be like that. Even if Spee has to lie low for awhile to evade, or has lost a ship or two to a lucky sub, he would make it home sometime first in the new year ... that is if he gets to it, and makes a determined decision to get out out of the South Atlantic and go north in early December - instead of stopping by the Falklands. (Which is the premise for the POD)

Thanks again for your input - it is appreciated. And I tell you if this scenario won't carry much more than a Jutland-like battle shot back in time, I'll ISoT the whole bloody HSF back to the French-Japanese War (which we all remember so well from the history books!)

Chris

[Christopher Marcus]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

(snip very helpful long post).

BlondieBC, I'm very grateful for you taking the time to tip me on this. I have to get out the door and get my a@ to work now, but I look forward to writing a longer reply later tonight.

Meanwhile, just one Q: I assume the timeline in which you 'tried it all' with regard to RN-HSF is the "Rise of the U-boat"? I haven't read it yet, but now I definitely will. I think it is what they call 'required reading'

Thanks again, mate.

Chris

[Christopher Marcus]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

Despite the RN propaganda about a Jutland like battle, the Battle of Jutland (OTL) was a draw to slight German win, and was unimportant in the big scheme of things. If German sinks another 5 capital ships, the naval situation is the same. It also does no change if the RN sinks 6 more capital ships. The impact will only be large in the diplomatic sphere and the decision making process. For example, whichever size loses the 5 extra capital ships might be more open to a peace deal in 1916, which could have world changing impacts. For example, imagine if Germany did agree to give specific positions to Wilson in the winter of 1916/17, and these position include a neutral Poland and some reparations for Belgium. Or what if the UK public felt more vulnerable, and the UK moved two extra corp back to the UK to defend against Sealion. Or the big one, what if USW policy is different.

That was my impression, too, but I wanted to explore the possibilities. Compared to the research that is put into your Prince Henry-timeline, for example, (and similar timelines) I am only about 10% as knowledgable about the 'workings' of WWI. I simply do not have the overview.

Now you want to do a major 1915 Jutland type battle, and you should, it would be interesting.

It would. And I might as well come out of the closet and say that I would definitely love the idea of being able to do a big elaborate one that started with a naval battle and went on to land and for the duration of the war. However, it would also be a huge time-sink for a hobby vs. my other writing projects and my family/job - especially given where I'm starting from in terms of knowledge.

As indicated in my second post in this thread, I've only just begun discovering how interesting WWI is but my 'knowhow' of it needs a serious upgrade before I can do a timeline that would I would feel okay with doing in this forum, given the level of the 'competition'. You've definitely contributed to that knowledge - your post, seriously, did more to elucidate the options for me, than my previous two books about the war itself + so many Wiki-entries. (You may blush now )

Anyway, that's why I think it is such a frigging kewl thing to browse AHDB - I've learned more about history since I started here than I did during my formal education, and in many ways also compared to my spare-time readings during the years.

I would recommend avoiding land based butterflies unless you can explain a direct link, and you will should explain the diplomatic butterflies. Just if you have Falkenhayn change his Russia strategy, think it through clearly.

Yes (nodding gravely) - definitely. I hear you. I am allergic to handwavium, too.

Ok German do exceptional. I read your post as the UK loses 6 more capitals than Germany. I think Germany losing none is a bit unlikely. So lets say 9 to 3 win for Germany. To get this kind of win, you need both Germany to have a solid, well executed plan, and the UK to make a mistake. Recommended ideas.

1) Have the Zeppelins find the Grand Fleet early and keep eyes on it. Have battle on nice clear day.

2) Have the U-boats that are likely station near Scapa Flow sink some ships on the way to the battle.

3) Have the battle near Germany so damaged German ships make it back to port, but damaged UK ships are lost to weather/U-boats. For example, a few hours after the battle, have a big storm roll in.

4) Remember the bad ammo storage on the BC IOTL. Maybe some of the BB do the same.

5) Use more than one reason for the success. 1-2 lost to mines/U-boats coming out of the harbor, 1-2 lost to mistake of screening forces, etc. It will give a nice feel to the battle.

Listed and noted. I especially like the way the battle could be shaped by many small, and often not very 'epic' events - it definitely ads to the realism. Like Beatty's signal officer fumbling around .

Now I have this in my TL due to buffing the German U-boats at the start of the war. I have huge diplomatic effects (Italy does not enter war, Bulgaria comes in month earlier) and different decisions (Gallipoli cancelled due to pulling naval forces to England to replace losses). I also have neutrals less friendly to the UK because the UK looks like it is losing. While the loss is not big, if everyone believes it is big, it is. Perception is reality. I have gone through it a dozen ways, and their is nothing big the Germans can do. I added one devastating attack on some shipyards on the east coast, and that is about it. The Germans would also try to force a second decisive battle, but IMO, the UK would learn quickly, and German probably can't get a second big win. Now the butterflies are almost too numerous to list, but some of them are.

1) UK/Germany radically changes its ship construction plan.

2) Timing and effect of USW is different.

3) Reaction of neutrals.

4) People entering war. Carefully review everyone who almost entered war or did. Maybe it is soon, maybe it is not done. Italy, Bulgaria and Greece actions have to be looked at in 1915.

5) Attack plans for major land battles. Ask if the same decision is made on any close call.

6) Troops will be in different locations. For example, if UK does badly, then UK likely has more corps in England, German might free up one corp. Or the reverse if the battle goes differently.

On Gallipoli, yes, I think it is a no go unless the battle is within days of the planned landing, where it may be impossible to call off. And once troops are on the ground, the UK likely keeps fighting. This has huge impacts and means the Ottomans are the most stable of the CP. It also means German is pressed harder because the extra troops will end up in France, most likely for some of them.

It would be especially ironic if the Ottomans end up more stable (but because of a cancelled offensive). I think I read somewhere that Hindenburg (or another German high-rank) said that the OE entry added at least two more years to the war, because it diverted Entente resources from the Western Front. So if Gallipoli (designed to knock OE out) goes into the drawer and the Ottomans, in a way, become stronger (by getting less beaten up) - but the Entente Western Front actually becomes stronger, too, perhaps enough to tilt the balance at some crucial point ... well, that's the wonderful nature of butterflies.

*

Thanks a bunch, BlondieBC. You've really, really helped me get a clearer picture, not just of the possibilities - but also of my own options to explore them.

So let me try to wring some kind of conclusion out of it all - as for where I could go from here:

What Really Interests Me:

Action scenes – big battles, personal sacrifice, battleships - YES

Easily describable strategy decisions, tension - YES

The nitty details of weapons, tactics, ship engines’ internal workings, and political-logistical-economical ditto, etc. – naah

Scenarios on the table:

"Battle of the Faeroe Islands" - battleship showdown. Very attractive. And my knowledge of naval battles may be slightly higher than WWI poliecomili-workings in general, but not that much.

That + a longer timeline about the repercussions. Attractive. But the greatest challenge in terms of time/resources.

And ... maybe a third option:

A story, about how the EA Squadron – or a part of it – survives and reaches the North Sea: It will be a story about following the underdog, so to speak. From the Falklands and up through the Atlantic, chased by the British, dealing with adversity and loss, and we just follow the squadron and see what happens – who lives and who dies. It would be a ‘micro-alternate history scenario’, which could have BIG consequences. For once the big climax comes it is going to be a Jutland-like naval battle, which may go to either side. And which I can then do, when - or if - I feel ready - or leave it to others - or just leave it hanging. Same for the time after that.

Okay, such a story would have to deal with the ‘nitty-gritty’ to some extent … haha (for example, how does Spee solve whatever mechanical breakdowns and other problems that plague his deteriorating ships).
At least it would be on a scale I would, probably, feel comfortable with – i.e. mainly the ships in the EAS.

The question is whether or not to try to do it in ‘pure prose’ and move it to that sub-forum right away, or to have some parts of just describing what happens next and discussing options with people who’d like to comment.

I guess there'll also be plenty of comments on the 'plausibility' component of a story over in the writer's subforum, although comments in general may be tilted towards feedback on the writing itself.

Phew ... I have a lot to think about, but ... thanks again.

I think I'll go relax and read about some U-Boats now

Chris

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Christopher Marcus

BlondieBC, I'm very grateful for you taking the time to tip me on this. I have to get out the door and get my a@ to work now, but I look forward to writing a longer reply later tonight.

Meanwhile, just one Q: I assume the timeline in which you 'tried it all' with regard to RN-HSF is the "Rise of the U-boat"? I haven't read it yet, but now I definitely will. I think it is what they call 'required reading'

Thanks again, mate.

Chris

I have most of the sources bookmarked for a TL, I just need to know what you need. For what a British commander would do, look at Jellicoe book, which is free on-line. He spends a couple of chapters on the first six months of the war, so you should not even have to guess on the RN fleet locations, until Spee gets very, very close to Scotland. And remember the UK has many ships in the Med by 1915.

http://books.google.com/books?id=tAH...0fleet&f=false The Grand Fleet by Jellicoe

http://www.german-navy.de/information/index.html German Navy Order of Battle.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Christopher Marcus

Listed and noted. I especially like the way the battle could be shaped by many small, and often not very 'epic' events - it definitely ads to the realism. Like Beatty's signal officer fumbling around .

This is the writer's choice. It can be one big battle where the blobs met, or ti can be a series of battles over days, or even a week.

It would be especially ironic if the Ottomans end up more stable (but because of a cancelled offensive). I think I read somewhere that Hindenburg (or another German high-rank) said that the OE entry added at least two more years to the war, because it diverted Entente resources from the Western Front. So if Gallipoli (designed to knock OE out) goes into the drawer and the Ottomans, in a way, become stronger (by getting less beaten up) - but the Entente Western Front actually becomes stronger, too, perhaps enough to tilt the balance at some crucial point ... well, that's the wonderful nature of butterflies.

Well, I could have easily written the UK doing much better, even in my TL with a huge opening win for the Germany Navy. The issue is the Germans almost had their lines busted in 1915, so if the Gallipoli's resources are diverted to France, the Germans lines might be busted in France, and the Germans driven back 10-50 miles. The UK gambled huge at Gallipoli, and by losing the bet, may have added a year to the war.