Hochseeflotte and Royal Navy go full bore in North Sea 1914

[Mikestone8]

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.

They could still have been wreaking quite a bit.

Even before USW, total tonnage sunk had roughly tripled, from 123,100 in Dec 1915 to 355,100 in Dec 1916. In Jan 1917, the final month before USW kicked in, it rose again to 368,500. Had that been maintained through 1917, total tonnage sunk would have been around 4.4 million, compared with approx 6.3 million OTL This is indeed a substantial drop, but still about equal to 1914, 1915 and 1916 losses combined.

Also, it appears from President Wilson's actions (or inactions) about sinkings of armed merchantmen in 1916, that a declaration of USW against armed ships only would have passed muster with him. Since virtually all Allied merchantmen were armed or in process of being by 1917, this would have been the same as full USW so far as they were concerned. Sinkings of neutral ships would still have been lower than OTL, but OTOH the Allies might have lost the use of many neutral ships which might have preferred to take refuge in US ports. OTL, of course, they didn't have this option. Indeed US belligerancy meant the Entente was "the only game in town" as far as trade was concerned. There just weren't enough neutrals left to keep a shipping line in business. It was a choice between accepting the risks and trading with the Allies, or going broke.

There would also be indirect losses. If purchases from the US dried up, fewer US ships would be calling at Allied ports, while Britain would have had to buy from places willing to be paid, effectively, in IOUs. Except for Canada, virtually all of these would have been a lot further away than the US. Any given ship could make less than half as many voyages to and from, say, South Africa than to and from the US. This would probably more than offset the reduction in losses to u-boats.

Paradoxically, there would be some benefit to Britain if and when her allies collapsed, since the large part of British shipping currently engaged in supplying the latter could then be used to supply Britain herself. But in such circumstances there would seem little point in continuing the war, particularly if the RN itself was in danger of being crippled by a dwindling oil supply - probably a greater danger than food shortage.

 

[Fletch]

Which is a drop in the bucket compared to the Military struggle.

See Wikings post, which on this I agree totally.

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.

Not just the Tanks, but I used them as an example. The CP had lost the tech war, and in terms of Tactics, they were being outthought(see British tactics in otl Battle of Amiens as an example).

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.

This is a scenario where the German fleet has been destroyed. What is to stop the blockade? Rifles and rowing boats?

No American loans or entry and the Blockade will be forced to scale back enough to allow blockade runners to get supplies in.

Which is moving the goalposts.

The thread is questioning a decisive battle between the Grand Fleet and the HSF. If the HSF is destroyed, as would be likely, how would this stop the Americans giving loans to the Entente? I accept, their entry may be less likely, but they would still financially support the Entente. Also, see Wikings post re. food to the Germans.

 

[Don Lardo]

Also, it appears from President Wilson's actions (or inactions) about sinkings of armed merchantmen in 1916, that a declaration of USW against armed ships only would have passed muster with him.

And just how in Hades is a sub commander squinting through a periscope supposed to make the determination that a given ship is armed or not? They already couldn't even determine, or bother to determine, if a ship was neutral or not.

Look at the many failed neutral shipping "guarantees" Germany gave during the war. Vessels had to be painted in certain ways, lit in certain ways, fly certain numbers of flags in certain ways, only steam along certain courses to certain ports during certain periods and, despite that, German subs still sunk them. Because German subs were sinking or trying to sink anything that swam into their ken, Britain had to set up convoys for the shipping of the Scandinavian nations as it crossed the North Sea even though a portion of that shipping wasn't trading with Britain.

Suggesting that the sub commanders who couldn't determine or didn't care that a ship dressed up like a circus tent was neutral will suddenly be looking for gun emplacements before firing torpedoes is ludicrous.

An announcement that you'll only sink armed ships is nothing more than propaganda because your subs cannot operate that way and the neutrals effected will see it as nothing more than propaganda. Germany has already broken a series of pledges regarding merchant sinkings, so announcing another one isn't going to make any difference.

 

[Mikestone8]

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

Incidentally, AF Pollard's A Short History of the Great War (available online) makes a passing reference to British officers being hissed in the streets of Paris in March 1918. Evidently a lot of Frenchmen interpreted the British retreat before the Michael offensive as the beginning of a withdrawal, and assumed that "Les Anglais" were about to leave France in the lurch.

If France's fall is wholly or partly due to the ending of British subsidies, expect the cry of "Perfide Albion" to be heard from all directions, and for France to try and buy easier terms by co-operating with Germany against Britain.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Incidentally, AF Pollard's A Short History of the Great War (available online) makes a passing reference to British officers being hissed in the streets of Paris in March 1918. Evidently a lot of Frenchmen interpreted the British retreat before the Michael offensive as the beginning of a withdrawal, and assumed that "Les Anglais" were about to leave France in the lurch.

If France's fall is wholly or partly due to the ending of British subsidies, expect the cry of "Perfide Albion" to be heard from all directions, and for France to try and buy easier terms by co-operating with Germnay against Britain.

Many in the German military and government viewed Britain as the main foe, which means they might well do just that: minor annexations near the border (Vosges, Briey-Longwy), some colonies, and a free hand in the East, Belgium, and Luxembourg. No indemnity though, or a minor one. They can't screw over Britain too much though because of the sums owed for loans and issues with trade and remaining colonies. Britain would be right on board though once France confirms its need for an armistice, no sense being left out in the cold.

 

[Commissar]

See Wikings post, which on this I agree totally.

Which doesn't change the facts that the death toll was a drop in the bucket.

Not just the Tanks, but I used them as an example. The CP had lost the tech war, and in terms of Tactics, they were being outthought(see British tactics in otl Battle of Amiens as an example).

You mean French? There were only three British Divisions involved in the 25 division assault of which roughly half were French. Also the Germans were already giving ground in the area when the Allies launched the early morning assault in dense fog, throwing the German withdrawal into confusion and resulting in a route before the German officers rallied the defense.

Weather and timing played a much better role than the skills of the British who were outperformed by the Canadians.

This is a scenario where the German fleet has been destroyed. What is to stop the blockade? Rifles and rowing boats?

Er no, reread the op again. In any case, if both Battlelines (BBs, BCs) annihilate each other, both sides still have strong Cruiser forces which did the bulk of the blockade fights.

Which is moving the goalposts.

Because maintaining the blockade doesn't require money and fuel

The thread is questioning a decisive battle between the Grand Fleet and the HSF. If the HSF is destroyed, as would be likely, how would this stop the Americans giving loans to the Entente? I accept, their entry may be less likely, but they would still financially support the Entente. Also, see Wikings post re. food to the Germans.

The Americans absent joining the fight were not going to make anymore loans past 1917 because they couldn't be secured.

 

[Fletch]

To be frank, I cannot be bothered arguing further with you and typing out a long reply, which I may do later, but you are talking twaddle as to the loans(At least in respect the Brits who were owed almost as much as they borrowed iotl), the death toll and a few other things.

You are making statements as if they are certain, when in fact they are as shaky as a very shaky peg. The Germans would have lost imo.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

I always enjoy these claims that Germany would be able to purchase all manner of goods from the United States when Germany's debt situation was even worse than the Allies.

As for the contest of resources just how much is freed up for the Allies if the German High Seas Fleet has been shattered early in the war? How many units did the British hold back in the Home Islands, just in case? How much in terms of armor, heavy guns, ammunition production and so forth no longer needed at Scapa Flow? And what might this mean to the neutrals when they know with absolute certainty that the United Kingdom can not be invaded under any circumstances AND the bulk of the RN is available for use outside the North Sea?

 

[Don Lardo]

... both sides still have strong Cruiser forces which did the bulk of the blockade fights.

Cruisers fighting the "bulk of the blockade fights"?

I know I'm not alone when I say I'd love a cite for any North Sea battles featuring German cruisers fighting British cruisers in an attempt to break the blockade. So how about it? Names? Dates? Results? Got any?

When you make stuff up on these boards, it's usually best not to make the lies too big because there is always someone else who knows far more on any given topic than you do.

It's always best to put down the shovel when you find yourself in a hole too.

 

[miketr]

It comes down to exact timing.

For example August 28 there was the battle of Heligoland Blight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Heligoland_Bight

Detached RN Cruiser force raids German waters.

December 16 there was the Scarborough Raid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Scarborough,_Hartlepool_and_Whitby

The British early in the war showed a willingness, or rather the Admiralty did in doing detached actions; Jellicoe wasn't in favor of allowing these.

Early in the war at various points a number of BC's were detached from the Grand Fleet, HMAS Australia was in the Pacific to start the war,a pair of BC's were in the Med. Sturdee had two BC's in December in the South Atlantic to destroy Von Spee.

If you look at numbers of DN's and BC's available in 1914 the British don't have much of an advantage at all in capital ship. Depending on the exact circumstances not only could the Germans win but they could take out a detached element of the Grand Fleet for very light losses. In short Churchill and Fisher were too clever for their own good at times.

Also I could could construct a setup where the British maul the HSF with sub and light ship attacks and then crush them in a stand up fight. Again details and exact circumstances would be key.

As a general statement IF the Germans are willing to fight, considering habit of RN to conduct detached operations early in the war and IMHO a qualitative advantage to the HSF; I think the Germans have a better than even shot to win a fight to the finish.

Michael

 

[Da Pwnzlord]

It comes down to exact timing.

For example August 28 there was the battle of Heligoland Blight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Heligoland_Bight

Detached RN Cruiser force raids German waters.

December 16 there was the Scarborough Raid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Scarborough,_Hartlepool_and_Whitby

The British early in the war showed a willingness, or rather the Admiralty did in doing detached actions; Jellicoe wasn't in favor of allowing these.

Early in the war at various points a number of BC's were detached from the Grand Fleet, HMAS Australia was in the Pacific to start the war,a pair of BC's were in the Med. Sturdee had two BC's in December in the South Atlantic to destroy Von Spee.

If you look at numbers of DN's and BC's available in 1914 the British don't have much of an advantage at all in capital ship. Depending on the exact circumstances not only could the Germans win but they could take out a detached element of the Grand Fleet for very light losses. In short Churchill and Fisher were too clever for their own good at times.

Also I could could construct a setup where the British maul the HSF with sub and light ship attacks and then crush them in a stand up fight. Again details and exact circumstances would be key.

As a general statement IF the Germans are willing to fight, considering habit of RN to conduct detached operations early in the war and IMHO a qualitative advantage to the HSF; I think the Germans have a better than even shot to win a fight to the finish.

Michael

In 1914 the British had out built the Germans something like 25 dreadnoughts to 17, almost a 50% advantage. In battlecruisers, the British outnumbered the Germans 10 to 5. Even if 5 British BCs are off somewhere else, Beatty will still outnumber Hipper because the Goeben is in Turkey. Absolute best case scenario that's not ASB for the High Seas fleet is the British battlecruisers and a detached group of half a dozen dreadnoughts run into the entirety of the High Seas Fleet and are annihilated while the High Seas Fleet takes no loses. This changes nothing in the North Sea. The Grand Fleet still outnumbers the Hochseeflotte and has another dozen or so Queen Elizabeths and Revenges coming off the assembly line in the near future. The Hochseeflotte can still do nothing worse than raid costal towns for the lulz when it feels daring.

 

[NHBL]

Mutual anhilation = British Naval Superiority

IF (Very big IF) both fleets had wrecked themselves in battle, Britian has naval superiority. Germany has very few decent predreadnoughts, and Britain has so many that she didn't need them all---actually laid some up in OTL.

For sea control, cruisers in vast numbers can do this--Britain has them, Germany doesn't have all that many.

What Britian has is lots of 15" ships on the ways, aling with Canada (10 x 14" guns) and another 14" ship building for Chile.

However, the strategic situatiojn is unchanged. Britain controls the seas, but can't use it to invade, just to blockade. Germany doesn't bother, most likely, trying to replace the fleet, but keeps the resources with the army, other than ships almost completed. Britain, however has to replace the fleet. Being number 3 or 4 simply won't do; the Queen Elizabeth's and the R's are needed NOW.

I wonder if the USA would get ambitious, and up its building program to stay number one?

However, an immeadiate battle couild, IMVHO, go either way. I think that it would likely not be decisive, as both sides would be ore likely to run if loosing. A very destructive fight would, I suspect, only happen if the encounter was at very close range, where hits will happen fast once ships are sighted, and so close that there's lots of penetrating hits.

 

[miketr]

In 1914 the British had out built the Germans something like 25 dreadnoughts to 17, almost a 50% advantage. In battlecruisers, the British outnumbered the Germans 10 to 5. Even if 5 British BCs are off somewhere else, Beatty will still outnumber Hipper because the Goeben is in Turkey. Absolute best case scenario that's not ASB for the High Seas fleet is the British battlecruisers and a detached group of half a dozen dreadnoughts run into the entirety of the High Seas Fleet and are annihilated while the High Seas Fleet takes no loses. This changes nothing in the North Sea. The Grand Fleet still outnumbers the Hochseeflotte and has another dozen or so Queen Elizabeths and Revenges coming off the assembly line in the near future. The Hochseeflotte can still do nothing worse than raid costal towns for the lulz when it feels daring.

Sir check your dates of commission

HMS Benbow enter service 10/1914
HMS Emoerir of India enters service 11/1914
HMS Audacious LOST 10/1914

Counting the Agincourt and Erin the GF starts WW with 22 DNs vs 14 DN's for the HSF
Konig 1/1915
Mark Graft 1/1915
Kron Prinz 2/1915

This brings the totals to 23 vs. 17. If we assume the destroyed detached group the totals go to. (by the way this is 35% advantage not 50%)

17 vs. 17

HMS Queen Elizabeth 1/1915
HMS Warspite 3/1915
HMS Barham 10/1915
Others are 1916

Royal Soverign Class is 1916

So for all of early 1915 the Germans are looking at a 19 vs 17 in DN's then 20 vs. 17 in fall. I would NOT call a full calendar year, the near term.

The RN BC's were to be blunt defective white elephants there is a reason that they stopped building them pre-war. They were under protected and their munitions were a huge threat. I have heard various excuses, Beatty ignored protocol's, old powder, etc, freak accidents. The problem is the RN lost a dozen major ships to catastrophic magazine explosions, one of them IN PORT during the war. Vs. 1 major ship for the HSF. There is a pattern here. Of course the Germans didn't know this.

Now you have pointed out the RN's biggest trump card geography, the HSF can't realisticly go out of the North Sea. They could push the 10th cruiser squadron back with raids but it just shoves the distant blockade back the Denmark - Iceland - Scotland line.

What the Germans would need to do is suck the GF into a 2nd battle in 1915. If Jellicoe is willing to and London backs him he will refuse but doing so, especially after loosing 10 capital ships is going to horribly damage the government and to some extent the moral of the navy. The former matters a great deal more than the later. The problem is are the politicians in London going to allow Jellicoe to do his fabian strategy or are they going to demand action? If they demand action then again we are to circumstances.

Now what happens if the Germans manage to wreck the GF? Whatever government in London is in power is gone. There would be a panic and once the Germans don't invade, because they can't, the British calm down but they are going to put a huge effort into their fleet and laying down new capital ships. They will send fewer units to France and form less units as resources and workers go to rebuilding the RN.

On the German side I don't see why the Germans do USW in 1915 at all and that shoves off US entry. Tirpitz would demand more resources and get them but its not going to have the same drain.

Unless the Germans suck this reduced GF into a night brawl and does a one sided thumping the key is still geography. The Germans can't break the blockade or blockade the British. What they can do is hugely damage UK's prestige, force them to divert all sorts of resources away from British army and avoid ticking the US off. This has all sorts of positive ripples for the German's.

I don't see the UK exiting the war from lost naval battles unless the Germans could generate a 2 - 1 edge in operational units which I don't see how that could be done. It would require one perfect victory after another. No again what German naval victories does is change the production dynamics and the diplomatic dynamics and that COULD give them the war or the Germans do something stupid which they had a talent for doing and still fumble the ball.

Michael

 

[Mikestone8]

Sounds like the probability is well over 90% that the end result is essentially "Jutland" with somewhat higher casualties on both sides, and not a lot changed in the end. A bit dull, but a lot of WIs finish that way.

Makes me wonder if the Germans might have done better to just forget about fleet actions (after all, if your fleet is the smaller, they are most likely just a way to get defeated) and concentrate on raiding the British coast with Scarborough type bombardments, and perhaps even a small amphibious landing somewhere - a sort of Zeebrugge in reverse. With any luck, this might have increased fears of a possible invasion, and kept more troops tied up in England to guard against the non-existent danger.

More risky, but interesting, is the idea of a "hit and run" raid into the Channel, to try and disrupt the sailing of the BEF to France. Given that the GF is up at Scapa Flow, they should be able to get away before it can intervene. Even if the delay were only a few days, it might have side-effects - perhaps the BEF gets off its trains at Maubeuge just as Von Kluck arrives, or perhaps assembles somewhere else, so that French and Kluck go past each other instead of colliding head on. Either way, things are different.

 

[Mikestone8]

An announcement that you'll only sink armed ships is nothing more than propaganda because your subs cannot operate that way and the neutrals effected will see it as nothing more than propaganda. Germany has already broken a series of pledges regarding merchant sinkings, so announcing another one isn't going to make any difference.

Quite possibly, but if Wilson isn't eager to break relations, then it gives him an out. He had taken no action over the sinkings of the armed merchantmen Marina and Arabia, despite reminders from Secretary Lansing. And in this situation, the fight over the Armed Ships Bill isn't going to happen, and the Zimmermann Telegram may be butterflied away. It could add up to a significant difference.

 

[jkay]

The cruiser subthread's reminded me of the smaller units. In fact, it'd be the opposite of what the thread's thinking. BCs (esp UK), Cruisers, and DDs would be seriously reduced, but not gone. The BBs would be only mildly down in count, on both sides, though.

Lemme remind you again - BB armor was TOUGH. Both fleets would stay substantially in being. Plus, as Jutland shows, the the RN wouldn't have continued to accept battle at any kind of disadvantage, another factor tending to limit losses.

Tirpitz had the wrong job to've taken HF command personally. He would've worked closely with the planners and prep beforehand, but personal command wasn't an option. And Tirpitz was, er, literally positively Prussian in a dutiful society - he would've stuck to his job, as he did IOTL.

Yeah, the German fleet had better armor; but the British had bigger guns and better and better-trained people. The British had far more of each kind of ship, a vital advantage.

The most important thing in war's good command, and the Germans certainly didn't have a better fleet commander than Jellicoe. People grumble about his unwillingness to take big Nelsonian risks; but, remember, taking big risks and hopefully losing materiel, was what his ENEMIES wanted him to do.

 

[Mikestone8]

The most important thing in war's good command, and the Germans certainly didn't have a better fleet commander than Jellicoe. People grumble about his unwillingness to take big Nelsonian risks; but, remember, taking big risks and hopefully losing materiel, was what his ENEMIES wanted him to do.

It recalls a celebrated exchange from one of Rome's numerous civil wars.

One general, finding his opponent entrenched in an impregnable position, challenges him "If you are such a great general, come out and fight me".

The reply comes back "If you are such a great general, make me fight when I don't choose to".

 

[Devolved]

There is a good ATL thread on the web called Operation Unicorn in which the HSF destroys a portion of the Grand fleet in 1914 and then inflicts another defeat in 1915. The Gemans are then able to invade Ireland. The plan is to knock Britain out of the war by exploiting it's achilles heel in Ireland and scare the British to the negotiating table etc..

IMO he overdoes it on the superhuman genuis of the Germans in which British ships seem to blow up after taking a few salvoes while the German ships can only sink if they are terribly unlucky or out numbered a 100 to one and are given an elaborate death scene.

However one thing I agree with is that when defeated the British refused to negotiate a peace and instead focused on new construction of dreadnoughts.

I think this is what would have happened if the HSF had defeated the GF in a 1914 battle. The Germans would have suffered heavy battle damage and would not be able to exploit it's victory beyond attacking Ireland and weakening the blockade. If they invaded Ireland this would have consumed large resources and ultimately (perhaps a few months to a year) the invading force would be destroyed and their troops dead or in pow camps. This would cancel out the smaller British presence on the western front.

A HSF victory would have humiliated the British and made them angry. There would be a new government and the country would have gone to total war much faster and Britain would have become very ruthless (as they became in 1940).

The Germans would lose the war sooner.

 

[Commissar]

Cruisers fighting the "bulk of the blockade fights"?

I know I'm not alone when I say I'd love a cite for any North Sea battles featuring German cruisers fighting British cruisers in an attempt to break the blockade. So how about it? Names? Dates? Results? Got any?

When you make stuff up on these boards, it's usually best not to make the lies too big because there is always someone else who knows far more on any given topic than you do.

It's always best to put down the shovel when you find yourself in a hole too.

"Pulls out, The Dreadnoughts volume of The Seafarers by David Howarth and the editors of Time-Life Books"

Pg. 71

The vey first day of the war at sea brought an incident... the auxiliary minelayer Konigin Luise had slid out from Heligoland during the early night of August 4 to sow her deadly seeds around the Thames estuary. Next morning the new British 3,500-ton light cruiser Amphion, leading a hornet swarm of attackers against the Konigin Luise, hit a mine and went down

August 28 on Pg. 73 saw a fight with eight British light cruisers, 31 destroyers, eight submarines, with five BCs in reserve to ambush twelve German Destroyers. The fight quickly degenerated into an all out cruiser fight well into the night till the BCs intervened.

There also the Cruiser fights between cut off German Cruisers in Asia and Commonwealth Cruisers.

Then there is the fact the British Blockade was maintained by Cruisers who had the endurance and speed to run down merchantmen and fight raiders. They did that by laying minefields to sink German Ships, stopped neutral shipping for contraband which was basically everything and often seized the cargos.

Having Dreadnoughts perform that action would have been a waste of resources.

Any case, pulling out some more information, lets see, ah, Action 16 March 1917.

Action of 4 May 1917, Zeppelin vs a Light Cruiser.

A German Minesweeping action began as an initial cruiser fight.

Action 29 February 1916.

There are also numerous British Cruiser Logs if you are interested regarding stops of Merchantmen if you want to go through them. Just contact the Naval Archives.

 

[HMS Warspite]

Sir check your dates of commission

HMS Benbow enter service 10/1914
HMS Emoerir of India enters service 11/1914
HMS Audacious LOST 10/1914

Counting the Agincourt and Erin the GF starts WW with 22 DNs vs 14 DN's for the HSF
Konig 1/1915
Mark Graft 1/1915
Kron Prinz 2/1915

This brings the totals to 23 vs. 17. If we assume the destroyed detached group the totals go to. (by the way this is 35% advantage not 50%)

17 vs. 17

HMS Queen Elizabeth 1/1915
HMS Warspite 3/1915
HMS Barham 10/1915
Others are 1916

Royal Soverign Class is 1916

So for all of early 1915 the Germans are looking at a 19 vs 17 in DN's then 20 vs. 17 in fall. I would NOT call a full calendar year, the near term.

The RN BC's were to be blunt defective white elephants there is a reason that they stopped building them pre-war. They were under protected and their munitions were a huge threat. I have heard various excuses, Beatty ignored protocol's, old powder, etc, freak accidents. The problem is the RN lost a dozen major ships to catastrophic magazine explosions, one of them IN PORT during the war. Vs. 1 major ship for the HSF. There is a pattern here. Of course the Germans didn't know this.

Now you have pointed out the RN's biggest trump card geography, the HSF can't realisticly go out of the North Sea. They could push the 10th cruiser squadron back with raids but it just shoves the distant blockade back the Denmark - Iceland - Scotland line.

What the Germans would need to do is suck the GF into a 2nd battle in 1915. If Jellicoe is willing to and London backs him he will refuse but doing so, especially after loosing 10 capital ships is going to horribly damage the government and to some extent the moral of the navy. The former matters a great deal more than the later. The problem is are the politicians in London going to allow Jellicoe to do his fabian strategy or are they going to demand action? If they demand action then again we are to circumstances.

Now what happens if the Germans manage to wreck the GF? Whatever government in London is in power is gone. There would be a panic and once the Germans don't invade, because they can't, the British calm down but they are going to put a huge effort into their fleet and laying down new capital ships. They will send fewer units to France and form less units as resources and workers go to rebuilding the RN.

On the German side I don't see why the Germans do USW in 1915 at all and that shoves off US entry. Tirpitz would demand more resources and get them but its not going to have the same drain.

Unless the Germans suck this reduced GF into a night brawl and does a one sided thumping the key is still geography. The Germans can't break the blockade or blockade the British. What they can do is hugely damage UK's prestige, force them to divert all sorts of resources away from British army and avoid ticking the US off. This has all sorts of positive ripples for the German's.

I don't see the UK exiting the war from lost naval battles unless the Germans could generate a 2 - 1 edge in operational units which I don't see how that could be done. It would require one perfect victory after another. No again what German naval victories does is change the production dynamics and the diplomatic dynamics and that COULD give them the war or the Germans do something stupid which they had a talent for doing and still fumble the ball.

Michael

Germany in early 1915 had only 13 dreadnoughts in commission, as the first of the König class still had to enter the fleet. The last of the Kaisar Class had just been commissioned, so the Brtiish still had many more in the starting months of the Great War. (4x Nassau + 4x Helgoland + 5x Kaisar = 13)