Britain is triumphant at Jutland
- Thread starter zoomar
- Start date
Not sure why France's adopt a different strategy from OTL and decides to attack at all costs in 1915, which was not done TTL.
It is very simplistic to portray the French high command attitude in WW1 as being focused on attacking only ...
Ryan
Donor
well the Germans are on the attack in Russia, so no doubt the Russians will want the French to take some pressure off (essentially the opposite of otl)
What does this do for post-war German naval construction? ITTL the HSF can claim they went out and fought and died and while they may have "lost" in a strict tactical sense, their loss helped bring about an earlier end to the war on terms fairly favorable to Germany.
Probably gives them some leverage.
Probably gives them some leverage.
Since the treaty limits the German navy to 1/2 the tonnage of the Royal Navy, there will be definite limits on post war German construction, especially if Britain decides to retire all of its 12' gun BBs and BCs (something that might be considered in a peace-time environment even absent a broader naval reduction treaty akin to OTLs Washington Treaty).
Assuming that, Britain's fleet in 1918 would comprise 21 battleships (5 Warspites and 5 "R"s, together with 11 older 13.5" ships nearing the end of the usefulness). Given the fact that Germany's BC fleet was essentially eliminated at Jutland, I could see Britain scrapping the majority of its own wartime BCs and completing the Renown and Hood classes - perhaps six BCs, with the 1921 BCs being in development (I'm presuming the Glorious CV conversions).
Using the estimates of a RN with 21 active battleships (10 with 15" guns) and 6 planned or soon to be active BCs (all with 15" guns"), Germany would already be at, or nearing treaty limits: 10-11 battleships and 3 battlecruisers. New ships could be constructed only by scrapping existing ships. Of the German BBs, only the 15" gunned Baden class could be considered modern (let's assume all 4 are completed), although the surviving Konigs might still be useful for a while (I'm assuming one or two may have survived the Jutland debacle). Probably Germany would be better of scrapping all the remaining obsolescent and obsolete 12" and 11" gunned BBs, so that leaves maybe 4-5 ships of a new class. It would be interesting to see Germany go the fast battleship route for these. Regarding BCs, the situation is clearer. Hindenburg (the only BC not at Jutland) and two Mackensens.
Regarding the British Glorious class, if they are converted into CVs as in OTL, this would allow Germany to follow suit. Possibly Hindenburg (relatively undergunned) might be converted to a CV, and an incomplete Mackensen might also be considered as well.
All this is presuming that Britain in 1918 does not try to match the US and Japan in their own naval race, seeing neither nation as a direct threat at the moment (Japan is still technically an ally and the US is a "friendly" non-aligned nation). Later, after the Anglo-Japanese alliance lapses, my TL presumes that the UK seeks a diplomatic "understanding" with the US equivalent to a non-aggression pact, so penny-pinching Conservative Party governments only need to stay ahead of Germany.
It may be a while, actually. All of this is background for a CP-victory TL I'm writing that focuses at present on a German-aligned Zionist state in Palestine. An early version of which can be seen here:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=345349
Rather than try to write a global history, I am focusing on regional snippets for this overall CP-victorious TL. But a naval war between the US and Japan can never be far from my heart.
In interesting notion. How would this be spun by British and German propagandists? An even more cowardly retreat or an exciting escape? Could this prompt either Germany or Britain to intervene in these countries - Britain to "Copenhagen" the German ships, Germany to seize them? Those are interesting possibilities I hadn't considered.
Zoomar, sorry to nag 
, but the RN even in WWI was massivley larger in tonnage then the HSF. What you proposed was raw tonnage! Not tonnage per class.
That is an important differentiation as the British need a p**spott full of cruisers and escorts for colonial and Empire duty.
And a Germany without colonies could again build a battlefleet to threaten the Isles if they do not need the numbers of cruisers and destroyers to match the RN.
, but the RN even in WWI was massivley larger in tonnage then the HSF. What you proposed was raw tonnage! Not tonnage per class.That is an important differentiation as the British need a p**spott full of cruisers and escorts for colonial and Empire duty.
And a Germany without colonies could again build a battlefleet to threaten the Isles if they do not need the numbers of cruisers and destroyers to match the RN.
Zoomar, sorry to nag
That is an important differentiation as the British need a p**spott full of cruisers and escorts for colonial and Empire duty.
And a Germany without colonies could again build a battlefleet to threaten the Isles if they do not need the numbers of cruisers and destroyers to match the RN.
Yeah, that 50% limit is actually very generous indeed for Germany and would create huge problems for the RN, attempting to dominate the North Sea and maintain a global presence. Even the AGNA was only 35%.
This isn't a treaty that ends the German naval challenge to the UK and it's a tough pill for the RN to accept - after destroying one German fleet they won't be too happy about allowing another to be built.
Zoomar, sorry to nag
That is an important differentiation as the British need a p**spott full of cruisers and escorts for colonial and Empire duty.
And a Germany without colonies could again build a battlefleet to threaten the Isles if they do not need the numbers of cruisers and destroyers to match the RN.
Sorry, the text excerpts did not include footnotes I have in the stand-alone MS Word version. I don't know how to get these added to the text in these posts.
The footnotes clarify that the treaty specified that the 50% ratio would apply separately to each class of combatant. It also provided for further negotiation regarding upper limits per ship in terms of tonnage and weaponry (which I don't describe further - it is in a footnote after all). This would both eliminate the German battle fleet as a serious threat to British maritime dominance in the North Sea and also ensure that Germany would be unable to build enough cruisers (and submarines for that matter) to seriously threaten Britain's trade networks.
Last edited:
Driftless
Donor
To be sure, that development could open a whole can of worms on both the diplomatic and military fronts.
* What if a few damaged German destroyers/light cruisiers seek refuge in Danish waters
* Or a damaged German capital ship manages to limp into Malmo harbor in Sweden.
*Or one or several fully war-capable German capital ships retreat to the fjords of Norway, particularly one of the fort-protected ports (Olso, Bergen, Trondheim, etc)
As you note, do the British do the full "Copenhagen" treatment and go in guns blazing, or do they extend a close blockade - River Plate style? Either way, that leaves all three groups: British, Germans, and any or all of the Scandanavian countries on the diplomatic hot seat. The Germans probably lose fighting credibility, but could gain significan diplomatic leverage.
*edit* Those events could be a POD for some form of direct Scandanavian involvement in WW1 fighting
They sure could! But for other reasons I am committed to a TL that ends WW1 as described in this TL. Having the Scandinavians involved throws in all sorts of butterflies I don't want to consider. Feel free to explore this fascinating possibility in an alternate TL to this alternate TL.
I think a British "Copenhagen" is the only way Germany could come out of this situation looking good. After a few days, the neutrals would be under pressure to intern the ships and crews as required by international law - which the Germans would probably have to accept. It's virtually certain this would happen. If the neutrals refused to intern the German ships and in effect were protecting them, then Britain would be seen as acting within its rights if they took military action. This seems especially likely if your fjord and fort scenario applies. On the other hand, it is possible that the Germans might try to pull a "Goeben"... offer to sell or transfer the ships to the "host" nation and hope this might lead to an alliance of sorts. I'd be surprised if any of the Scandinavian neutrals with unwanted German capital ships in their harbors would accept the offer. Unlike Turkey, they never sought to procure dreadnoughts and have little reason to need them. In the long run, having ships of the HFS flee to be interned would only reiterate the magnitude of the German defeat.