I've read that the GF had a lot in systemic problems with command etc and Jellicoe used the 2 years between his appointment and Jutland to remedy the worst of these. Without these 2 years the Germans may do better than they did at Jutland and really knock the GF around. But the RN did have a lot of 15" ships buolding or in planning so by 1916 they'd be ready to rock and roll again. The same can't be said for the Germans, who'd come out for a second round with a much smaller and obsolescent (against the 12 x 15" RN ships) fleet and get drilled.
Hochseeflotte and Royal Navy go full bore in North Sea 1914
- Thread starter Commissar
- Start date
There was very, very little in the way of mutiny in the British/Empire Army.
See: http://www.westernfrontassociation.com/great-war-on-land/43-britain-allies/416-brit-mutiny.html
Da Pwnzlord
Banned
Maybe this is true. But there are a million ways this could branch off from your already pretty much ASB scenario where both fleets loose every single one of their capital ships. For all we know we see premature development of aircraft carriers and Switzerland conquers Europe in 1945. I'm just saying that your scenario results in Allied naval suppremacy and that's got to be worth something.
Damn your right, samething happened on HMS Lion as I recall but yeah Tirpitz would have to command the fleet I believe he would have been more aggressive and willing to use the fleet to its optimum capabilities. I know the German ships did have superior shells as British shells tended to explode on contact rather than penetrating.
Kharn
Banned
HSF could easily take a massive toll out of the GF. And yes, the Battlecruiser of the GF will be popping left and right. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IIRC, in a one-shot battle, the HSF was superior in armor and gunnery. But see, Jutalnd is about the only time I can think of where injuring your enemy actually was superior to outright killing them. Again, IIRC, the British had a few shipes sunk while most of the GF was undamaged. The entire HSF survived but what wasn't heavily damaged was atleast mildly shot up. The British rebuilt there losses easily while the Germans had to take apart and basically rebuild a lot of there ships. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In a pure suicide run, with tactical odds even at the beginning, the Germans should be able to punch well above their weight at first and the initial slaughter will be lopsided. This might be enough to cause the rest of the GF to perform slightly worse, exacerbating the issue. But numbers and endurance will decide this day. At the end of the battle, most German fire might very well be erratic, uncoordinated and poorly aimed but the British will keep up there skills throughout the fight. I'm guessing, but while the British loose more than the Germans, the Germans loose everything. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In fact, the best/realistic scenario is actually a bloodbath where the Germans get a good 10-15 ships(Likely mostly BCs, but best case would be mostly BBs) by getting initial tactical advantage and tearing utter holes in the Fleet, forcing it to reform a few times before the real duel begins. This ends with the British loosing too much of the real valuable resource, the trained men. Sure, Britain can easily train new men and build new ships by 1916, but that's more than a year too many for any potential foreign blockade runners to get funny ideas. If even semi-trade relations with America get re-established, Wilson could(Doubtful, a boycott is likely) be faced with the political reality of having to pressure Britain into letting America trade with Germany go unblocked. Even if the Germans can't get loans, any amount of food will definitely help. And once America decides the blockade is basically over, there little anyone could do at this point. Britain could only have stalled America if it had wished it OTL, ITTL, it is utterly powerless to say no with any real meaning. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The True Best Scenario? America sees the British as a potential threat to their trade and Teddy's Great White Fleet is much larger, not quite as large as Germany's, but the precedent is set for America to begin a massive Naval Build-up that will either force Britain to reconsider its position and maybe solidify its empire into something more permanent while WW1 goes on, or attempt the futile effort of matching the American build-up and German build-up. It would either see the Empire last as a true superpower with its Navy either matching or surpassing the USN is at least sheer size and it mercantile fleet being utterly gargantuan, or have itself defeated at the zenith of its power. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Also, why doesn't normal spacing work?
Indeed, for there probably won't be any need for them.
The crucial point is that continued US neutrality probably means no further loans. All the Allied property in N America, used to serve as security for such loans, was pretty much used up by end 1916, and the Federal Reserve was warning American banks not to subscribe to unsecured ones, as these were too high-risk.
From what I've read, most writers on the subject believe that Britain could still, just about, have financed her own war effort without such loans, but could not have continued to subsidise her Continental allies. So we're looking at France and Italy reaching the end of their tether by about Dec 1917, which leaves Britain in a situation akin to 1940, but in some respects worse due to greater war-weariness and the stronger German Navy. It's a pretty certain CP victory, the only question is how big.
Last edited:
Commissar
Banned
Perhaps, but the French were folding big time. Petain had to go out and personally tell units to hang on, the Americans are coming. We aren't launching any offensives till they get here.
No American intervention, means the French fold and British positions become untenable.
They had access to their Ukranian breadbasket iotl, but it never helped. The blockade by the RN meant that there was starvation in Germany. link.
This would remain as in otl(what goes on behind the lines is also important remember). As such, the political situation in Germany was far worse than in Britain certainly, but also in France. The food from the east would not be coming for a long time yet. Supplies would also be short. As a result, I suspect a political revolution in Germany would be a possibility. You also totally over-estimate the German position and under-estimate the Entente position.
In short, I disagree with you.
To say the least, that's a controversial position. You can't say with any degree of certainly what would have happened.
There's no perhaps about the fact that there was effectively no mutiny in the British/Empire Force.
The French mutinies were in the summer of 1917 and even at the height of Operation Michael (9 months after the mutinies) the line didn't collapse. Why should it collapse later? The mutineers didn't object to fighting the Germans, they objected to the way attacks were organised and to petty discipline. Petain made changes, such as more leave, and the mutinies ended.
To announce that the French were 'folding' is not supported by any evidence I've seen. Perhaps you can supply some?
Kharn
Banned
Yeah, it was mostly morale that we supplied by joining. But damn me to hell if that wasn't exactly what was needed. Sure, hindsight says the Germans would have starved out, but the Allies were running out of morale faster than the Germans were running out of food. Once America joined, it meant that victory was completely inevitable. Before, it appeared, keyword appeared, hopeless. PS: I know the reason Germany couldn't feed itself was that it was either putting its factory workers or farmers into the grinders, but was it the same in Austria? And why didn't they try putting women in factories?
Commissar
Banned
Actually your link shows that the effects were not as bad as stated. In any event, with no American Involvement, the Cargo Subs make more journeys to the U.S. and the German people with the defeat of Russia see the light at the end of the tunnel as no American intervention means they aren't facing yet another foe.
Frontline forces also get a boost because they will be receiving much needed reinforcements.
By Fall 1918 the Ukrainian Breadbasket would be coming in full tilt, relieving much of the strain.
Sorry, you are wrong. The blockade, along with the effects of the war is what brought the government down iotl. If you think over 750,000 deaths as a result of the blockade is not that bad, combined with the continuing trench warfare(until the Entente have enough Tanks) then there is not much I can say(remember it would be worse here). I repeat, had the Ukraine would have been important for the Germans in the long run, but in the first few years, not of much use. It doesnt take away a major source of unrest in 1918.
As a result, with the Royal Navy controlling the seas and political instability at home, Germany would be ripe for a revolution.
Da Pwnzlord
Banned
In a Germany-doesn't-try-USW TL, there are (get this) actually benefits to Britain. 
OTL, Britain may have been at the end of their tether, but who's to say that'll be the case without months of U-boats wreaking havoc.
OTL, Britain may have been at the end of their tether, but who's to say that'll be the case without months of U-boats wreaking havoc.Deleted member 1487
The blockade was been argued to death and I have read both sides of it; the case against for the blockade being the real cause of the collapse on the home front that seems the most credible comes from this work:
http://www.amazon.com/First-World-W...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1282493097&sr=8-1
The author, while making an interesting case, extrapolates the experience of the entire country from the records of Hamburg. Its a flawed methodology at best. Germany was suffering from shortages of every kind, food being the worst of all. Mismanagement was rife, as was profiteering and blackmarketing. Things got so bad that lead pipes had to be used for city drinking water!
Ukraine turned out to be much more trouble than its worth, as even by the armistice it had not produced food beyond supporting the occupying soldiers and in an "America never joins the war" scenario, it probably would never have been under CP occupation.
If the US doesn't enter the war, assuming a lot here just on this POD alone, then Russia is going to leave the war earlier. That means no Brest-Litovsk, because before the CPs started playing hardball by annexing all of Eastern Europe, they did not want to occupy Ukraine. So by 1918, assuming the war is still going on, which it probably would not be, there is no CP Ukraine, which paradoxically actually makes the CPs stronger militarily and politically for reasons that are too in depth to cover right now.
Honestly, the loans issue is what will knock Russia out in mid-late 1917. If the US is not making unsecured loans, the French and British cannot make loans to Russia, who will not be held hostage to her Western Allies' interests and also cannot finance the war. The Entente also no longer afford to send Russia materials of war, which, when coupled with internal instabilities, means Kerensky and the provisional government will have to drop out of the war. They will have no reason to stay in, no matter how much the army may want to. This means to Bolsheviks either.
Without the US, then the blockade is more leaky and may turn into a major issue with the US, as without the Entente orders rolling in, primarily thanks to no more US loans (secured loans cannot be financed by France or Russia...the British will have to cut down on loans as well), a new market will need to be found, which means the blockade my become a major political issue, as business will pressure Wilson to force Britain to back down.
Furthermore, another major part of the blockade will collapse without American financing: purchasing. The British were able to enforce the blockade partly by buying up useful war materials so that transshipments from countries like Denmark and Holland cannot be made. If the Entente needs to focus funding exclusively the war effort instead of denying Germany resources, more goods can start to be transhipped. It will be a trickle, but more than Germany had before.
Furthermore, the triple hit of the US not entering the war/cutting loans, Caporetto, and Russia leaving the war early will have a massive effect on the Italian and French political scene. Italy may ask for an armistice in the wake of Caporetto, which will nearly guarantee France will ask for one too. Its all speculation and is not guaranteed, but with all these things coming together, I am willing to bet money that the warring nations will come to the negotiating table in December 1917 or January 1918. Germany will be launching offensives to support her position at said table, probably similar to Kaiserschlacht, which, if panic occurs among the Entente leadership something like OTL, will mean a better peace for Germany. Not a full win, but a victory nonetheless.
Also, I doubt that Clemenceau will become the French prime minister in 1917. Without the US in the war, loans cut off, and Russia out earlier, Joseph Caillaux is probably going to be named instead with a mandate to negotiate. France is probably going to have different expectations than OTL 1917, which means less will to conduct even limited offensives, which won't be able to be financed (the extremely prodigious use of artillery shells at Verdun in 1917 won't be affordable, nor will the French army likely to be as willing to go on the offensive, as THE most major component of Joffre's rehabilitation program was telling the soldiers victory was guaranteed if they could simply wait for the Americans to arrive, which won't be an option here. Source:
http://books.google.com/books?id=vZ...&resnum=7&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false), making them more willing to negotiate. Plus, without Clemenceau's 'brutalization' of French politics, i.e. demonizing the peaceniks and jailing their leadership including Caillaux and charging them with treason, the French home front, already wobbly as hell, will likely face a German-style 'stab in the back' collapse, as without hope, peace, even unfavorable, will be seen as necessary. Again source:
http://books.google.com/books?id=vZ...&resnum=7&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false
No US means very likely German minor victory. No Brest-Litovsk, however, CP Kingdom of Poland. More stabile Austria-Hungary than OTL (long explanation there), but it military oppression will keep it together and expect Karl to screw up the post war. Half of German colonies returned mostly in West Africa (horsetrading), though Belgian Congo is picked up and probably some French colonies too. Belgium itself is not annexed, though I could see the customs union being a compromise that means it is defacto a German economic satellite.
Commissar
Banned
Which is a drop in the bucket compared to the Military struggle.
Which are mechanically unreliable, break down after ten miles, and are penetrated by every single weapon in the German Arsenal, well they will do shit. Seriously, the early tanks had no suspension systems and were poorly built and designed.
Actually it would start kicking in by fall. Without America entering the fray, the Germans hold out long enough as they have a clear light at the end of the tunnel.
No American loans or entry and the Blockade will be forced to scale back enough to allow blockade runners to get supplies in.
o BBs were VERY tough, and BB rounds had nothing like modern bomb accuracy or power. So, virtually all the fleets would've survived - albeit with many dings. c It would've many battles to sink many/most.
o ...well, except, judging from other battles, UK BCs would've seen serious Hood-like losses, even more than their German counterparts. Either a REAL fix would've been made or they would've been changes of doctrine.
o Yeah, the Grand Fleet would probably've won, but there'd still be aLOT of ships left - even UK BCs.
Bestaluck to you and your family, MrP.
o ...well, except, judging from other battles, UK BCs would've seen serious Hood-like losses, even more than their German counterparts. Either a REAL fix would've been made or they would've been changes of doctrine.
o Yeah, the Grand Fleet would probably've won, but there'd still be aLOT of ships left - even UK BCs.
Bestaluck to you and your family, MrP.
Deleted member 1487
That is 40% of German military deaths. That also doesn't include 150,000+ for the flu pandemic, which was made worse by the blockade. It was huge for a country of 65 million. It also doesn't include people to weak to work, needing medical care, and the various epidemics caused by not having enough food to support an immune system. It was more than Germany could handle, which explains the revolutions taking place all over Germany and near constant strikes from 1917 on, partly thanks to mismanagement of the economy by Ludendorff's OHL, which made a desperate food situation critical.
Tanks are just one component of the Allied arsenal. It was really the massive artillery, infantry, aircraft, gas and everything else advantage in combination with tanks that produced victory.
It never kicked in, not by 1918. Ukraine never produced food for the CPs, and probably never would because of destruction, political instability (the separatists that the CPs backed were trying to survive independent of them, because they didn't trust or want the Germans in Ukraine, but were toppled by the Ukrainians themselves, only to be reinstalled by the German military. This is an issue that was never resolved OTL by November 1918), and the hate of the locals who hid food instead of giving to the CPs.
That also disregards that there would have been no Brest-Litovsk without the US entry into the war.
Incidentally, US intervention made the blockade a lot more effective than it had been heretofore. Most of the Northern Neutrals' imports (whether for their own use or for re-export) came from the US, hence after April 1917 could be controlled at source without the need for a physical blockade. This left the CP pretty well cut off from the outside world. Needless to say, without US belligerancy it wouldn't have happened. The blockade would still have been painful, but not as crippling.