Carriers at Jutland?

Has anyone read or know of any AltHistory story where one or more Royal Navy carriers appeared at Jutland? Maybe it was a single ship, maybe multiple ships like the fleet at Taranto or maybe those of the BPF, possibly even with escorts. Nothing newer than WW2 ships though.

Just an odd idea that came to mind and I wondered if anyone had ever seen it before?
 
They did have a seaplane carrier, HMS Engadine I believe and I think one of her seaplanes spotted the German fleet but the message did not make it back to the fleet. What kind of carrier force did the RN have at the time?
 
Engadine was one of two seaplane carriers assigned to operate with the Grand Fleet and Battle Cruiser Fleet (she operated with the BCF at the time). The other was the Campania, a converted ocean liner, which was based at Scapa Flow with the main battlefleet at the time of Jutland. Campania had missed the signal to sail to Jutland, as she had been moored in a separate part of the harbour from the rest of the fleet. She set off about two hours later, but was commanded to return to Scapa as she would be passing, unescorted, through U-boat infested waters.

Two other seaplane carriers, Vindex and Riviera, operated with Harwich Force, which did not sortie at Jutland. The rest of the British seaplane carriers were in the Mediterranean. There, Ark Royal (the only aircraft carrier built with a sail) was operating as a base-ship at Imbros, while Ben-my-Chree, Empress, and two converted German merchants operated against Ottoman forces in the Eastern Mediterranean and Red Sea. The air wing of Ben-my-Chree probably had more experience with torpedo bombing than anyone else in the world, and its certainly interesting to imagine how they'd fare at Jutland. The main torpedo-carrying seaplane used, the Shorts Type 184, struggled in the hot conditions of the Mediterranean but managed to score a few torpedo hits when operating from Ben-my-Chree - Engadine was operating the Type 184 at Jutland, but I don't believe she carried any torpedoes, and her air wing had little experience with them. Still, none of these ships had enough aircraft, even put together, to score more than one or two hits on the High Seas Fleet. Still, a single torpedo hit was enough to make things tricky for most WWI-era battleships, and would likely have been very bad for a pre-dreadnought.
 

Redbeard

Banned
It would hardly be plausible to have carriers be decisive at Jutland as a battle, but even a single torpedo hit on a capital ship might be enough to change naval history.

In short the advocates of naval air strength will be greatly boosted and the battleship gang will be much more defensive. Would probably mean a lot more carriers built before and a lot of battleships not.
 
It would hardly be plausible to have carriers be decisive at Jutland as a battle, but even a single torpedo hit on a capital ship might be enough to change naval history.

In short the advocates of naval air strength will be greatly boosted and the battleship gang will be much more defensive. Would probably mean a lot more carriers built before and a lot of battleships not.

I think they would be very decisisve in providing more timely contact information on the were abouts of the HSF to Jellico rather than forcing him to rely upon the broken reed that was Beatty and his own intuition (which was almost spot on).

With more information Jellico can spring his trap earlier with improved positioning and given that the HSF only escaped that trap by the skin of its teeth and running like feth for the Jade once night fell OTL an extra hour in battle might very well turn the result from the Grand Fleet 'maintaining the status quo' to it winning 'a second Trafalger'.
 
I think the op is looking for an asb timeline where a carrier group from ww2 is isot to Jdutland and wins the battle. I havent seen one but I would be interested in seeing one if anyone can find one.

Now regarding what everyone is talking about Engadine the seaplane carrier would definitely have been helpful scouting at Jutland.
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
I think the op is looking for an asb timeline where a carrier group from ww2 is isot to Jdutland and wins the battle. I havent seen one but I would be interested in seeing one if anyone can find one.

Now regarding what everyone is talking about Engadine the seaplane carrier would definitely have been helpful scouting at Jutland.
And 3-5 super lucky torpedoes hit 3-5 different HSF BBs, each torpedo for each German ship.
 
And 3-5 super lucky torpedoes hit 3-5 different HSF BBs, each torpedo for each German ship.

This raises an interesting question: if a battleship or two is successfully torpedoed, what does Scheer do? The battleships probably aren't going to be in a condition to fight, and might be slowed enough to make escaping difficult. Does Scheer abandon them to their fate, or does he seek to escort them home, accepting that this might let the Grand Fleet force him to battle?
 
This raises an interesting question: if a battleship or two is successfully torpedoed, what does Scheer do? The battleships probably aren't going to be in a condition to fight, and might be slowed enough to make escaping difficult. Does Scheer abandon them to their fate, or does he seek to escort them home, accepting that this might let the Grand Fleet force him to battle?
If you are looking at a torpedo that a sopwith cuckoo (1918) could carry the more modern battleships would probably shrug it off and loss a knot or two while the earlier battleships and predreads would lose quiet a few knots(say 5-7).

If as the op asks for an isot of the British Pacific Fleet or the force at Taranto well the torpedoes have 3 times the explosives and the explosive is torpex rather than tnt which is a more dangerous explosive so a battleship successfully torpedoed would be heavily damaged with even the most modern battleships in the high seas fleet being crippled.
 
And 3-5 super lucky torpedoes hit 3-5 different HSF BBs, each torpedo for each German ship.

Do we have any data for how reliable the contemporary torpedoes were? Because even in WW2, there were serious problems with fuses and such, and I can only imagine such things being much worse twenty years earlier. They'd need extreme luck to hit anything, and extreme luck to not be duds.
 
If you are looking at a torpedo that a sopwith cuckoo (1918) could carry the more modern battleships would probably shrug it off and loss a knot or two while the earlier battleships and predreads would lose quiet a few knots(say 5-7).

The 18 in Mark VI torpedo used by at least some contemporary British aircraft had a 320 lb (145 kg) warhead. The German 50 cm G/6D torpedo had a 364 lb (164 kg) warhead - a hit by this torpedo on Marlborough, one of the most modern British battleships in the battle, reduced her speed to 16 knots (a five knot loss of speed). While the British torpedo did have a slightly smaller warhead, German ships had slightly worse subdivision than on British ships (more bulkhead penetrations and larger compartments, such as torpedo flats and magazines). As such, it seems reasonable to assume that a hit from such a British aircraft torpedo would have a similar effect as the hit on Marlborough. However, it's more likely that the seaplanes from the carriers would be carrying the 14in Mark XI, with a 120 lb (55 kg) Amatol warhead. A hit from this would have hurt, but it really depends on the compartment hit - a hit on the torpedo flat, for example, would have caused significant flooding.

Do we have any data for how reliable the contemporary torpedoes were? Because even in WW2, there were serious problems with fuses and such, and I can only imagine such things being much worse twenty years earlier. They'd need extreme luck to hit anything, and extreme luck to not be duds.

The 14in torpedo used by the Shorts 184 was notably more reliable than the 18in torpedo, which had a tendency to make a steep dive on entering the water. The slow speed and low altitude drops that the 184 used also helped increase the reliability of the torpedoes compared to those used in WWII. I don't have a good figure for the reliability of WWI-era torpedoes, but will point out that the problems with WWII-era British (or German) torpedoes were mainly to do with the magnetic exploders, which weren't used in WWI, while contact exploders were generally reliable in both wars. The RNAS had a good rate of hits during torpedo-bombing operations in the Dardanelles, but these were against slow merchants, so might not be the best example for an attack against the High Seas Fleet.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
The RNAS had a good rate of hits during torpedo-bombing operations in the Dardanelles, but these were against slow merchants, so might not be the best example for an attack against the High Seas Fleet.
Well, but BB anti-air guns were underdeveloped, so the seaplanes might try to fly closer, somewhat borderline Kamikaze.
 
Do we have any data for how reliable the contemporary torpedoes were? Because even in WW2, there were serious problems with fuses and such, and I can only imagine such things being much worse twenty years earlier. They'd need extreme luck to hit anything, and extreme luck to not be duds.

Data

from US WW II data, it took about eight to ten torpedoes launched to hit a freighter. That's a PH of 10-12% Since the dud rate was about 1 in 2, assume two hits to ensure a kill. 1 in 16-20 means a PK of 5-6%. If British WW I torpedoes have that kind of rotten performance (and they should) it means that gunfire is more certain to cripple, and the torpedo is just the finisher.
 
from US WW II data, it took about eight to ten torpedoes launched to hit a freighter. That's a PH of 10-12% Since the dud rate was about 1 in 2, assume two hits to ensure a kill. 1 in 16-20 means a PK of 5-6%. If British WW I torpedoes have that kind of rotten performance (and they should) it means that gunfire is more certain to cripple, and the torpedo is just the finisher.

British torpedoes of WWI were, while not necessarily more accurate than the WWII American ones, were certainly more reliable. The British destroyers fired 33 torpedoes during the day action, scoring three hits, all of which worked. During the day action, 38 torpedoes were launched, scoring two (possibly three) hits and one dud, on Elbing.
 
British torpedoes of WWI were, while not necessarily more accurate than the WWII American ones, were certainly more reliable. The British destroyers fired 33 torpedoes during the day action, scoring three hits, all of which worked. During the day action, 38 torpedoes were launched, scoring two (possibly three) hits and one dud, on Elbing.

PH of <10% (more like 8%?). What is the PK? 2 out of 3 worked. Elbing was scuttled, so no way to tell if it was 6% PK or not for sure.
 
Last edited:
P(k)'s hard to measure. Both certain torpedo hits at night resulted in a sinking. One (and the possible) was on the pre-dreadnought Pommern, setting off the magazine, while the other was on the light cruiser Rostock, also sinking her. In daylight, one hit, on the torpedo boat V.29, resulted in a sinking. The other hits were on the cruiser Wiesbaden and battlecruiser Seydlitz. Neither sank as a direct result of these hits, but both were crippled by the hits and by a considerable number of gunfire hits. Wiesbaden eventually sank, but Seydlitz ultimately survived. I also noticed I missed two misses that could possibly be called duds - two torpedoes from Tipperary under-ran Westfalen, though they were fired at such close range that this was expected for the 18in torpedo in use, thanks to its tendency to dive steeply on first entry to the water.

Additionally, P(h) will be lower for destroyers than for aircraft, thanks to British destroyer doctrine. In a fleet action, destroyers were to fire so-called 'browning' shots, aimed at a formation rather than at a single ship, and this doctrine was followed at Jutland.
 

Redbeard

Banned
I think they would be very decisisve in providing more timely contact information on the were abouts of the HSF to Jellico rather than forcing him to rely upon the broken reed that was Beatty and his own intuition (which was almost spot on).

With more information Jellico can spring his trap earlier with improved positioning and given that the HSF only escaped that trap by the skin of its teeth and running like feth for the Jade once night fell OTL an extra hour in battle might very well turn the result from the Grand Fleet 'maintaining the status quo' to it winning 'a second Trafalger'.[/QUOTE

I thought of "decisive" as delivering the kills that make the difference, but indeed contact information at Jutland had the potential to make the outcome of that battle quite different from OTL. But wasn't the significant part, that available contact information at Jutland really wasn't utilised very well anyway, at least by the British?

But of course, if we also have some good contact information delivered by aircraft the chance that it is utilised of course must be increased and if so, a place of honour in naval history also be found.

My impression is however that airborne recon had a prominent and broadly recognised role already, also in the "battleship school" - they just maintained that aircraft really couldn't do serious damage to modern battleships. I guess the last did not give up until the South China Sea in December 1941. In that context I don't think a succesful airborne recon at Jutland would have changed that much in naval history. But even a single capital ship sunk by an aerial torpedo would be quite a different matter.
 
I was just thinking an ASB or something to get WW2 carriers in place, hence the possibility of both fleet and light carriers being used, plus any aircraft from stringbags to Seafires could be used. The damage they could do with or without their own cruiser and destroyer escorts would be incredible against the High Seas Fleet, torpedoes and bombs against battleships and battlecruisers and very little AA fire against them.

So I guess that no-one has seen anything like this?
 
Top