AHC: Can Germany win the (First) Battle of the Atlantic?

Was there any way that Germany could have taken Britain out of the war through submarine warfare and surface raiding or was the convoy system an inevitable trump card?

Was there any way to overcome the convoy system through any combination of taking the pas-de-calais ports, America remaining neutral, early implementation of Wolpack tactics (AFAIK they were being pioneered by the Mediterranean squadron by the end of WWI)?

Is there any realistic way that the convoy system is never widely introduced?
 
The 25 Destroyers the U.S. Navy added to the RN's totals allowed convoys to happen and the addition of their shipping to the Allied cause made good the losses being inflicted.

Here's what someone had to say on the subject over at AHF. What do you make of it? https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=243983&start=105

Terry Duncan said:
SpicyJuan said:
Regarding convoy tactics (I don't know too much about this subject), weren't they made possible/effective by the U.S. joining the war and greatly contributing/freeing the RN to supply convoys with escorts? Assuming the U.S. doesn't join in, are the convoys even possible without additional escorts and ship production?
Convoys were possible, the problem was maintaining the Grand Fleet, BCF, Dover Patrol, Harwich Force etc at battle efficiency and providing what was deemed a suitable convoy escorts. There were talks of forming convoys with no escorts in extreme circumstances, the idea was deemed as possible although the same 'merchant captains will not be able to maintain formation' objection was applied to this just as much to normal convoys. The idea was rejected due to what was deemed the effect on morale for the convoy crews who would feel abandoned and exposts with no escort at all. There were escorts in the pipeline however, such as the Kil class, and manpower in itself was not a problem. If there is no risk of a major fleet encounter then there will be sufficient destroyers to cover convoys.

Also, isn't it entirely possible to simply have unescorted convoys? Wouldn't they also severely reduce the rate of sinkings?
 
Was there any way that Germany could have taken Britain out of the war through submarine warfare and surface raiding or was the convoy system an inevitable trump card?

Was there any way to overcome the convoy system through any combination of taking the pas-de-calais ports, America remaining neutral, early implementation of Wolpack tactics (AFAIK they were being pioneered by the Mediterranean squadron by the end of WWI)?

Is there any realistic way that the convoy system is never widely introduced?
You mean as a Tactical decision during the war or with an earlier strategy?
 
Wouldn't an unescorted convoy just be a "target rich environment" for a wolfpack?

Up to a point. But two dozen cargo ships with 3" guns means there a lot of risk in a surface attack. You cant use cruiser rules and expect to hail down a merchant man with a shot across the bow. Your bow would be the aim point of every popgun in range, & some crazy old salt would try to ram you. Submersed attacks had a much lower success rate tho much safer.

The trouble with wolf packs is they require really good intelligence, and tight coordination. In 1942 the German Navy was reading the Allied convoy codes, had VLR recon aircraft, and reliable high powered radios. In 1917 the radios were improving, but information was far less, and no air recon to speak of.
 
Wouldn't an unescorted convoy just be a "target rich environment" for a wolfpack?
The chances of a u-boat intercepting a convoy of 50 ships is about the same as intercepting a single ship. So if they're sailing separately the chances of interception are approximately 50 times greater.
 
Was there any way that Germany could have taken Britain out of the war through submarine warfare and surface raiding or was the convoy system an inevitable trump card?

Was there any way to overcome the convoy system through any combination of taking the pas-de-calais ports, America remaining neutral, early implementation of Wolpack tactics (AFAIK they were being pioneered by the Mediterranean squadron by the end of WWI)?

Is there any realistic way that the convoy system is never widely introduced?

The task is very different in WW1 than it was in WW2, the main reason being that coastal shipping carried a large portion of Britain's domestic transport task, so sinking ships around Britain's coasts was akin to attacking trains in WW2.

The Dover Patrol's Admiral Bacon says:

About 120 ships passed Dover daily in 1915 and 1916, and between 80 and 100 per day in 1917. Therefore a similar number anchored daily in the Downs. Had the Channel traffic been suspended, or even largely reduced, London would have starved, and at least one-third of its population would have had to be removed immediately to the west coast of England, since the railways would have been quite unable to deal with the food-trains that would have been required to make up for the loss of sea transport.

https://www.naval-history.net/WW1Book-Adm_Bacon-Dover_Patrol.htm

If the Germans took Pas de Calais they could turn the eastern Channel into a war zone and perhaps cause 1/3 of London to be evacuated.

The trans-Atlantic battle would be on top of this, and if patrol (not coastal) uboats were based west of the Dover narrows they would be more effective than OTL; longer on station and shorter transit times.

The RN would have to react, so the Channel fleet would not be sent to the Dardanelles.

I don't know if this will drive Britain to defeat in and of itself, but it will drastically change their war effort, so the BEF likely won't get to 5 armies and won't be the basis of the western front from 1916.
 
The task is very different in WW1 than it was in WW2, the main reason being that coastal shipping carried a large portion of Britain's domestic transport task, so sinking ships around Britain's coasts was akin to attacking trains in WW2.

The Dover Patrol's Admiral Bacon says:

About 120 ships passed Dover daily in 1915 and 1916, and between 80 and 100 per day in 1917. Therefore a similar number anchored daily in the Downs. Had the Channel traffic been suspended, or even largely reduced, London would have starved, and at least one-third of its population would have had to be removed immediately to the west coast of England, since the railways would have been quite unable to deal with the food-trains that would have been required to make up for the loss of sea transport.

https://www.naval-history.net/WW1Book-Adm_Bacon-Dover_Patrol.htm

If the Germans took Pas de Calais they could turn the eastern Channel into a war zone and perhaps cause 1/3 of London to be evacuated.

The trans-Atlantic battle would be on top of this, and if patrol (not coastal) uboats were based west of the Dover narrows they would be more effective than OTL; longer on station and shorter transit times.

The RN would have to react, so the Channel fleet would not be sent to the Dardanelles.

I don't know if this will drive Britain to defeat in and of itself, but it will drastically change their war effort, so the BEF likely won't get to 5 armies and won't be the basis of the western front from 1916.

I suppose I should have clarified my OP. From my understanding of the situation, shipping losses were already unsustainable for the British by late 1916. So my question is, if USW is never declared and the U.S. stays neutral, would the U-boats have been able to push Britain, who was already struggling to pay for the war, over the brink? Or would convoys save Britain? Could they have been implemented on a wide-scale without American intervention? And if they could, would they, or would the Admiralty in the face of a much worse crisis decline to implement them? If convoys were implemented, was there any sort of German counter to take the advantage again?

In short, I'm asking if convoys were unbeatable and/or inevitable.
 
I suppose I should have clarified my OP. From my understanding of the situation, shipping losses were already unsustainable for the British by late 1916. So my question is, if USW is never declared and the U.S. stays neutral, would the U-boats have been able to push Britain, who was already struggling to pay for the war, over the brink? Or would convoys save Britain? Could they have been implemented on a wide-scale without American intervention? And if they could, would they, or would the Admiralty in the face of a much worse crisis decline to implement them? If convoys were implemented, was there any sort of German counter to take the advantage again?

In short, I'm asking if convoys were unbeatable and/or inevitable.

OK, and I'll assume for the purposes of your question the Germans have won the race to the sea and hold Pas de Calais down past Boulogne.

I've not seen charts for WW1 like those for WW2 regarding imports vs sinkings vs shipbuilding but a few things come to mind. Adopting convoys immediately reduces imports by 1/3 by confining shipping to the requirements of convoys. Also convoys are vulnerable to surface ships, if a cruiser or two comes across a convoy it is virtually doomed.

For the trans-Atlantic task I think convoys will be introduced and be successful due to the rarity of surface ships beyond the Channel, they will still slip through but the Channel fleet will contain conventional warships. The biggest threat will then be wolfpack uboats operating from the Channel ports, but the western approaches will be teeming with RN ships and they will likely win like they did in WW2.

For the domestic task through the Channel directly to London I don't know if convoys are the answer. Merely introducing them will reduce the deliveries by 1/3 and then these will face the the threat of coastal guns, likely coast defence battleships, coastal uboats and destroyers maybe backed by light cruisers which convoys aren't the ideal answer to. I personally think, and others with more info can dispute this, that the Germans will likely close the channel for long periods if they hold Pas de Calais and give the area enough resources. But I don't think the significant contribution to CP victory will be because of the 'sinking ships faster than replacing them' equation.
 
Top