Flanking amphibious operation in ww1

Can the German navy pull off a flanking amphibious operation in 1915 to 1916 period to go around the trench warfare in France ?

what kind of ships would be needed for this ?
What is the minimum amount of troops needed ?
What kind of resistance French and British navy mount ?
How will Germans logistically support such a force ?

thanks
 
No. They'd have to run the force into the Channel, which is roughly akin to sticking your dick in a pencil sharpener and about as smart. There were simply too many coastal guns, torpedo ships, and mines; they'd either lose the invasion force, take unacceptable casualties to the High Seas Fleet, or both.
 
No. They'd have to run the force into the Channel, which is roughly akin to sticking your dick in a pencil sharpener and about as smart. There were simply too many coastal guns, torpedo ships, and mines; they'd either lose the invasion force, take unacceptable casualties to the High Seas Fleet, or both.
It would also bring the Grand Fleet down on them triggering a climatic engagement the High Seas Fleet knew it couldn't hope to win. Which is why they ran from Jutland.
 
No. They'd have to run the force into the Channel, which is roughly akin to sticking your dick in a pencil sharpener and about as smart. There were simply too many coastal guns, torpedo ships, and mines; they'd either lose the invasion force, take unacceptable casualties to the High Seas Fleet, or both.
even early in the stalemate around the time of Battle of Neuve Chapelle?
 

Riain

Banned
The British planned to undertake a flanking operation at Ostend in 1917, it was to be a massive operation.

"The operation may, therefore, be considered from the Militaby Point of View as starting with 10,000 men, placed alongside the quays at Ostend in a manner to suit military requirements.

"The position would then be:

"(1) Ninety trawlers, each carrying 100 men, and their machine-guns, divided into divisions of six boats each, are alongside a jetty, 10 feet above the water-level, and the boats are provided with gang-boards so that the men can land quickly.

"(2) Six monitors, each mounting two 12-inch guns, two 12-pr. 18 cwt., one pom-pom, one 3-pr., and two maxims, as normal armament, and additional light guns if considered necessary, would be placed so as to cover with their heavy guns the whole front of the houses.

"(3) One monitor carrying one 9.2-inch, one 12-pr. 18 cwt., one Q.F. 6-pr. and two maxims, to supplement the 12-inch monitors.

"(4) The 12-inch monitors could each carry 300 men, who could walk ashore.

"(5) The large space available on the spar-deck of the 12-inch monitors would permit of extra guns being mounted, or of field-guns being carried, or armoured cars being carried.
"(6) The whole of the reserve ammunition and immediate necessaries for the men would be carried by the monitors and landed by their crews where required.

The force was to consist of: Advanced guard, 1st Divisional Headquarters, 3 Infantry Brigades, 3 Field Companies Royal Engineers, 4 Divisional Cyclist Companies, 5 Motor Machine-gun Batteries, 16 18-pr. guns, 12 4.5-inch howitzers, 22 armoured cars, 16 Tanks.



The Germans had nothing like this in Flanders, indeed even requests for coast defence battleships in 1915 were rejected and these ships scrapped.
 
It would also bring the Grand Fleet down on them triggering a climatic engagement the High Seas Fleet knew it couldn't hope to win. Which is why they ran from Jutland.
Can the germans send most of the fleet in coastal convoys and keep their other side protected by mines submarines and coastal guns ? Obviously they would need the dutch to be entirely passive throughout this
 
The Germans had nothing like this in Flanders, indeed even requests for coast defence battleships in 1915 were rejected and these ships scrapped.
why was this rejected ? Germany had plenty of real battleships in ww1 so these older vessels must be quite "expendable"
 
even early in the stalemate around the time of Battle of Neuve Chapelle?
Given the Channel Fleet at this time consisted of four destroyer flotillas, most of Britain's predreadnoughts, a couple dozen torpedo gunboats, 60 submarines, and 36 torpedo boats, hell no I don't want to take anything important into the Channel. And that's just the Brits. The French can contribute about half as many light combatants.

Can the germans send most of the fleet in coastal convoys and keep their other side protected by mines submarines and coastal guns ? Obviously they would need the dutch to be entirely passive throughout this
See above regarding French forces.

why was this rejected ? Germany had plenty of real battleships in ww1 so these older vessels must be quite "expendable"
A good quarter of Germany's predreadnoughts were still operating with the High Seas Fleet. Most of the rest were in the Baltic keeping an eye on the Russians. And the remainder are badly outnumbered by Britain's predreadnoughts.
 

Riain

Banned
why was this rejected ? Germany had plenty of real battleships in ww1 so these older vessels must be quite "expendable"

Intra-service politics.

This is one of many examples where Germany's lack of a 'Jackie Fisher' to decide which fleet and which naval station got what resources by balancing overall priorities had negative effects. These were old ships, Germany's first pre-dreads with a single 9.4" gun and wee used as coastal defence ships in the Baltic, but were scrapped rather than giving Flanders these ships and more importantly the men to crew them.

Not that these ships would have been suitable to mount an amphibious assault, but they're an example of how starved of resources the forces closest to the enemy were while other resources sat idle. If MKF can't get a couple of obsolete ships destined for retirement during the war for coastal defence they'll never get the resources needed to make a flanking assault from the sea, let alone on of the scale the British planned to mount.
 
Given the Channel Fleet at this time consisted of four destroyer flotillas, most of Britain's predreadnoughts, a couple dozen torpedo gunboats, 60 submarines, and 36 torpedo boats, hell no I don't want to take anything important into the Channel. And that's just the Brits. The French can contribute about half as many light combatants.


See above regarding French forces.


A good quarter of Germany's predreadnoughts were still operating with the High Seas Fleet. Most of the rest were in the Baltic keeping an eye on the Russians. And the remainder are badly outnumbered by Britain's predreadnoughts.
How long will it take to transport men and material from williamshaven to Calais in one lift? Ofcourse the british have crushing superiority in numbers but the germans could certainly catch them off guard with this move and perhaps if they have some good fortune [like in the channel dash] they could land a few thousand troops behind enemy lines. Problems are
1 Can these ships return back to germany ? Probably not would have to be grounded there to provide fire support for their troops
2 The troops landed can they counter attack the enemy lines , what kind of artillery support will they have?
3 How can germans provide these troops with food and munitions after the initial landing
 
IIRC it was Adm Fisher who was defending the RNs role in the war who pointed out that without the RN, Germany could have carried out a Gulf of Riga - Operation Albion against the Cherbourg Peninsula for a coup de main against the French.

In 1915, the Germans were too busy pouring concrete and wallpapering their dugouts along the Western Front as the new 'frontier' to think of such operations against the French.

The Germans would only have limited capacity. In Friedman's, "Fighting the Great War at Sea" the author highlights RN studies into what the Germans could hyperthetically do. There was the spectre of all the shipping immobilised by the British blockade, sufficient, it was thought, for 250,000 troops.

In a test landing at Clacton in 1904, about 12,500 men, 2500 horses, 55 guns and 320 vehicles were landed from ten transports, six ships being cleared in an average of under 20 hours and four more averaging under 28 hours. It seemed that this underestimated what could be done in wartime, when safety precautions would be relaxed.

At Gallipoli, 29,000 men with seven days’ supplies had been disembarked in 12½ hours, but it helped enormously that the Mediterranean is tideless; on the other hand, the landing had been opposed fiercely.

In November 1915 the army’s Director of Military Operations (DMO) estimated that the Germans could assemble a force of 50,000 to 100,000 infantry at any time they were not mounting a major operation. The conference translated that as a ten-division threat. DMO added that he was not at all confident that the British would know about such an operation even at the point at which it embarked. In the instructions to be followed in the event of an invasion, the CID maximum estimate became a minimum enemy force.

A 1 January 1916 conference, chaired by Adm of the Fleet Sir A K Wilson, sought to determine the largest force the enemy might be expected:

(i) to transport to British shores and
(ii) succeed in landing before the operation was interrupted by the navy.

To avoid underestimating the threat, the conference assumed that enemy numbers would be limited only by transports. Recent experience (transport to France and, presumably, overseas) was that it took 6 GRT to transport each man, so the million tons available to the Germans equated to 170,000 men (a CID estimate of the largest force that could be embarked with artillery, etc., was 135,000).
 
Germany had a large merchant marine in World War One, but a lot of it was trapped outside of the country.
 

Riain

Banned
What's being suggested here, a seagoing long range assault launched from Germany and landing deep behind the lines or a coastal operation launched from Belgium and striking no deeper than long range friendly artillery?
 
Can the germans send most of the fleet in coastal convoys and keep their other side protected by mines submarines and coastal guns ? Obviously they would need the dutch to be entirely passive throughout this
If the Dutch were 'Passive' then they are no longer defending their neutrality meaning that the Entente are within their rights to come in and defend it for them
 

Riain

Banned
The Germans transported UB and UC class uboat and A class torpedo boats in prefabricated section to Antwerp by rail, assembled them in Antwerp's shipyards and then sailed them through the inland canal system. Apparently the Zeebrugge to Bruge canal was big enough for a light cruiser.

Given these two factors I can't see any need to sail the sort of light craft needed to mount a limited attack behind Allied lines from Germany, they could be built in Antwerp and bought to the starting point by inland canal, indeed this could dictate the size of any potential amphibious operation.
 
How long will it take to transport men and material from williamshaven to Calais in one lift? Ofcourse the british have crushing superiority in numbers but the germans could certainly catch them off guard with this move and perhaps if they have some good fortune [like in the channel dash] they could land a few thousand troops behind enemy lines. Problems are
1 Can these ships return back to germany ? Probably not would have to be grounded there to provide fire support for their troops
2 The troops landed can they counter attack the enemy lines , what kind of artillery support will they have?
3 How can germans provide these troops with food and munitions after the initial landing
A few thousand troops aren't going to be able to do much. Entente operational plans on the Western Front tended to involve significant reserve forces for rest and refit, and to try and exploit breaches in the trench lines. A landing of a few thousand troops is just going to see a reserve division detached to smash it flat.
 
A few thousand troops aren't going to be able to do much. Entente operational plans on the Western Front tended to involve significant reserve forces for rest and refit, and to try and exploit breaches in the trench lines. A landing of a few thousand troops is just going to see a reserve division detached to smash it flat.
In general I agree. However, I could absolutely see a German general, following the initial end of the "race to the sea" for instance, thi k that landing a brigade right behind the lines while assaulting said lines would provide the flanking maneuver that they'd been gunning for.

The issue I see here is that, as you noted, it may just not be enough. Landing a larger contingent takes longer, exposing the shipping to attack, and landing it further back where the enemy formations are less dense requires amphibious sustainment that again exposes the shipping to attack.

What's being suggested here, a seagoing long range assault launched from Germany and landing deep behind the lines or a coastal operation launched from Belgium and striking no deeper than long range friendly artillery?
That is my question too.
 
What about just using the HSF battleships for coastal bombardment well that help in achieving a breakthrough in the northern part of the line? Perhaps some Troops can we landed for sabotage
 
What's being suggested here, a seagoing long range assault launched from Germany and landing deep behind the lines or a coastal operation launched from Belgium and striking no deeper than long range friendly artillery?
Essentially yes but would is not involve the Anglo French forces to redirect their energies in another direction making the German breakthrough more likely
 
What about just using the HSF battleships for coastal bombardment well that help in achieving a breakthrough in the northern part of the line? Perhaps some Troops can we landed for sabotage

How do you plan on getting these battleships back out of the Channel again once they're done? Parking them along the French coastline is a great way to make them into targets.
 
Top