Hochseeflotte and Royal Navy go full bore in North Sea 1914

[Kharn]

What exactly was the issue that made Germany lag behind in Cap Ship construction? Is there anyway that could be remedied or the gap closed a bit? Or better yet, how many way are there to have the USN begin to be built up with the intent of being a Blockade breaking Navy?

 

[stevep]

What exactly was the issue that made Germany lag behind in Cap Ship construction? Is there anyway that could be remedied or the gap closed a bit? Or better yet, how many way are there to have the USN begin to be built up with the intent of being a Blockade breaking Navy?

Kharn

a) Britain had at the time the largest and most efficient ship-construction industry in the world, supporting both the largest navy and merchant marine and construction even more ships, both merchant and naval for 3rd parties.

b) Britain needed this because it had a large empire spread across the oceans and massive foreign trade lines, on which the homeland depended for its survival and wealth.

c) Germany had a larger population and industrial base than Britain but was a continental power positioned between a highly militarised France and the Russian empire. As such while a powerful navy was an expensive luxury for it a very large and powerful army was essential.

Steve

 

[Don Lardo]

Pulls out...

Rather than that book, and remember we all have the same books, you should have pulled something else out of somewhere else instead.

You wrote that "... both sides still have strong Cruiser forces which did the bulk of the blockade fights.", yet, other than two skirmishes involving German auxiliary cruisers attempting to break through the British blockade, you listed no incidents in which German cruisers attempted to break the British blockade of the North Sea.

And that's because there were no incidents in which German cruisers attempted to break the British blockade of the North Sea.

Sinking a disguised German mine layer, the scuffles around Heligoland, shooting at a zeppelin, and actions in the Far East (???) are not attempts by German cruisers to break the British blockade either.

Then there is the fact the British Blockade was maintained by Cruisers...

Bollocks.

The blockades at the northern entrance to the North Sea and the western end of the Channel were initially performed by elderly Edgar-class cruisers. Coaling and mechanical issues immediately arose with those old warships so they were all replaced beginning in November of 1914 by converted passenger liners which carried nothing larger than 6-inch guns.

Less than two dozen of those "mighty" vessels stopped enough merchant traffic to starve Germany until well into 1919 and the Kaiserliche Marine never made a single attempt to disrupt their operation. As I already noted, the only times those blockaders were attacked was when German auxiliary cruisers attempting to break through to blockade were detected and forced to fight.

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

Having cruisers do it was a waste also because, seeing as Germany never attacked the blockade, Britain was able to use passenger liners for the work.

The continual mine laying, mine sweeping, and skirmishing "deep" within the North Sea were not part of the merchant blockade. Instead, they were attempts by either side to blockade the movement of military vessels. The merchant blockade which starved Germany operated in two places, the western end of the Channel and the gap between the Shetlands and Norway, and the German navy never interfered or attempted to interfere with blockading vessels in either location.

Your claims regarding "... strong Cruiser forces which did the bulk of the blockade fights." is not supported by the historical facts.

 

[Kharn]

Kharn

a) Britain had at the time the largest and most efficient ship-construction industry in the world, supporting both the largest navy and merchant marine and construction even more ships, both merchant and naval for 3rd parties.

b) Britain needed this because it had a large empire spread across the oceans and massive foreign trade lines, on which the homeland depended for its survival and wealth.

c) Germany had a larger population and industrial base than Britain but was a continental power positioned between a highly militarised France and the Russian empire. As such while a powerful navy was an expensive luxury for it a very large and powerful army was essential.

Steve

I know. But it doesn't answer my question. What were the construction techniques, and technology that Britain employed at the time?

 

[Commissar]

You wrote that "... both sides still have strong Cruiser forces which did the bulk of the blockade fights.", yet, other than two skirmishes involving German auxiliary cruisers attempting to break through the British blockade, you listed no incidents in which German cruisers attempted to break the British blockade of the North Sea.

Probably because the mine warfare combine with regular cruiser and destroyer patrols kept the mainline German Cruisers penned into the Heligoland Bight. Even so the Germans made several attempts to break out only to penned back in. That by definition is a blockade.

The rest of your post shows a serious lack of strategic understanding of the blockade.

In order to be successful the Blockade had to do several things. One it had to ensure the main elements of the HSF remained penned to the Helioland Bight and shipping denied through that.

That was accomplished by mining the area and performing regular patrols with Cruisers, Destroyers, and smaller escorts with the BCs on standby. Skirmishes were regular occurrences.

Had this not been done, the HSF would have been free to sail to the next line of the Blockade which is a line between the Orkneys and Norway where Cruisers did regular patrols to catch blockade runners and neutrals for inspection before seizing or escorting them through the minefields. Not glamorous work and most of the seizures never make the usual histories. However, with the HSF not blockaded in Heligoland Bight, guess what, German BCs and Cruisers will go after British Cruisers in a cruiser war. I would love to see passenger liners try to win a cruiser fight if used to enforce a blockade when it should be transporting troops.

The third line of blockades in the Atlantic Patrols which inspected ships traversing the Atlantic.

The HSF fought back with its own blockade war of using subs and auxiliary cruisers, plus cut off Cruiser Squadrons, and minelayers to choke off Britain's SLOCs. We all know that failed.

In short, you are making a fool out of yourself by not understanding what a blockade is, and compounding it by not realizing what a blockade entails, then you dive off the deep end by not realizing the steps the British took ensured the Germans didn't go north past the Dogger Bank with its Cruisers thus ensuring its own Cruiser further North and in the Atlantic had little opposition. However, the British Cruisers south of the Dogger Bank were embroiled in a long war trying to keep the Heligoland Bight mined and blockaded and there were several battles of record for that area.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Kharn, stevep certainly did answer your question, regarding why Germany lagged behind and whether anything could be done to change that.

As for the USN, why would it need a sudden expansion, let alone one which could only be aimed at Great Britain?

 

[Don Lardo]

The rest of your post shows a serious lack of strategic understanding of the blockade.

No, but your posts shows an increasing desperation to "explain" or "back-peddle" from your original incorrect statement.

When you re-read my last post, and you should, you'll notice that I had already written about the two blockades you mention: The military one being fought with mines, raids, and the occasional large battle "deep" within the North Sea and the merchant blockade which operated almost wholly free of German interference at the western end of the Channel and the Shetlands-Norway entrance to the North Sea.

Yes, Britain's success in the military blockade "deep" within the North Sea helped defend the merchant blockade at the entrances to the North Sea, but Germany never attacked the merchant blockade in the manner you suggested occurred in your original post.

If an intact High Seas Fleet in the OTL couldn't protect it's cruisers long enough for them to steam far enough north to shoot up a gaggle of the armed passenger liners, your suggestion that a decimated High Seas Fleet would somehow be able to do the same in this ATL is complete nonsense.

The hole you've dug is deep enough, Commissar, it's time to put down your shovel.

 

[danwild6]

Even though the blockade wouldn't be broken, if the Germans sent all of Britain's BC's and a few BB's to the bottom inexchange for minimal losses, woudn't it be enough for the Germans to sail into the channel and interdict shipping and bombard port facilities to have a major impact on the western front? Also couldn't Germany in the event of a decisive HSF victory force Norway into giving coaling rights to the German Fleet?

 

[Kharn]

Kharn, stevep certainly did answer your question, regarding why Germany lagged behind and whether anything could be done to change that.

As for the USN, why would it need a sudden expansion, let alone one which could only be aimed at Great Britain?

No, he didn't answer my question, he merely repeated commonly known facts. I want to know the tech and techniques behind all this and what made it possible. Of course, you don't seem to be willing to answer this.

Also, why are you and so many others so adverse to a US more interested in protecting trade than beating Germany? What is it that makes it nigh-instinctual to argue against any timeline where the US decides to have a Navy more capable to pursue it's stated mission, "Freedom of the Seas"?

Actually, mind telling me what the consequences would be if the British opened fire on American Blockade runners trying to make a quick buck? Repeatedly?

 

[Don Lardo]

I want to know the tech and techniques behind all this and what made it possible. Of course, you don't seem to be willing to answer this.

They have answered your questions.

There were no technical "tricks" or "secret" techniques that led to Britain's ability to build ships faster. They didn't rivet hulls faster or make guns faster or balance turbines faster or anything like that. Britain edge was that Britain had more of what counted when it came to ship building.

Britain had more shipyards with more construction slips and more drydocks that could hold more ships and more tonnage. Britain had more shipyard workers too with more experience being directed by managers who had built more ships of more types.

Also, because Britain the Island didn't need to field an extensive army and build extensive fortifications, more of the steel and other heavy industrial products her industries produced could be directed towards building more ships. A smaller army meant more money and men could be directed towards building and manning more ships too.

This power of more is called 'comparative advantage" and it's one of the first things you learn in Economics 101.

 

[Kharn]

They have answered your questions.

There were no technical "tricks" or "secret" techniques that led to Britain's ability to build ships faster. They didn't rivet hulls faster or make guns faster or balance turbines faster or anything like that. Britain edge was that Britain had more of what counted when it came to ship building.

Britain had more shipyards with more construction slips and more drydocks that could hold more ships and more tonnage. Britain had more shipyard workers too with more experience being directed by managers who had built more ships of more types.

Also, because Britain the Island didn't need to field an extensive army and build extensive fortifications, more of the steel and other heavy industrial products her industries produced could be directed towards building more ships. A smaller army meant more money and men could be directed towards building and manning more ships too.

This power of more is called 'comparative advantage" and it's one of the first things you learn in Economics 101.

I understand more. Don't assume I don't. I just assumed that their Shipyards were more efficient for whatever reason. So in other words, GB was a giant, glorified Naval Base with the Civilian populace largely just supplying funds and labor to maintain the Navy?

 

[Mikestone8]

Also, why are you and so many others so adverse to a US more interested in protecting trade than beating Germany? What is it that makes it nigh-instinctual to argue against any timeline where the US decides to have a Navy more capable to pursue it's stated mission, "Freedom of the Seas"?

Two reasons.

Firstly, the US was doing pretty well selling to the Allies. The Western Front created a huge "market" which more than offset the loss of trade with the CP - a trade which had been less than that with GB and France even before the war.

This is what makes the loans issue so crucial. If financial constraints sharply reduce Allied purchases from the US, the latter has less reason to be patient with the Allies, and more incentive to want an early end to the war, so may get tougher.

Secondly, though it was occasionally discussed [1], a head on challenge to the RN simply wasn't necessary. If the US ever decided to get tough with the Allies, it could do so more easily by imposing economic sanctions - something which Congress, in reaction to British "blacklisting" of US firms which didn't co-operate with Allied blockade measures, had empowered the President to do in September 1916. In the event, Wilson postponed action until after his Peace moves at the end of the year, and the advent of USW made the question moot.

Actually, mind telling me what the consequences would be if the British opened fire on American Blockade runners trying to make a quick buck? Repeatedly?

Serious - and not totally impossible. I was surprised to find that even someone as pro-Allied as TR talked about carrying mails on US warships to avoid Allied inspection, or if this proved impractical, on "convoyed" merchantmen with a US Naval escort. Despite his Allied sympathies, there were limits to what even he would put up with.

Personally, though, as stated above I think economic retaliation would have been far more likely.



[1] Istr President Wilson saying at one point "Let's build a bigger navy then them and just do as we please". I don't know how seriously meant it was, and it may just have been impatience and frustration talking, but such notions were in the air.

 

[David S Poepoe]

I understand more. Don't assume I don't. I just assumed that their Shipyards were more efficient for whatever reason. So in other words, GB was a giant, glorified Naval Base with the Civilian populace largely just supplying funds and labor to maintain the Navy?

Another point is that the German's built very good and solid battleships and battlecruisers, unfortunately the German Admiralty was very tough in regards to quality control and their high standards for various parts, from the smallest valves on up, slowed construction down. It is another example of the Germans overengineering their weapons systems.

 

[stevep]

I understand more. Don't assume I don't. I just assumed that their Shipyards were more efficient for whatever reason. So in other words, GB was a giant, glorified Naval Base with the Civilian populace largely just supplying funds and labor to maintain the Navy?

Kharn

No. It was a matter of specialisation. Britain depended on the sea and hence naturally had a markedly larger shipbuilding industry and, equally importantly, public and political support for it. Germany as a continental power with powerful hostile neighbours couldn't afford to spend the same amount of effort on a navy. Once Britain overcame its political restrictions ~1910/11 it accelerated away from Germany which had shown signs of giving up the race before the shooting actually started.

Steve

 

[stevep]

Also, why are you and so many others so adverse to a US more interested in protecting trade than beating Germany? What is it that makes it nigh-instinctual to argue against any timeline where the US decides to have a Navy more capable to pursue it's stated mission, "Freedom of the Seas"?

Because you're missing a very important point. Naval power is very, very expensive. The US was virtually getting trade protection for free, along with most other powers, thanks to the Royal Navy. I read once Roosevelt himself [Teddy not FDR] argued against any restriction on the RN because it was the best [and free] protection of US interests.

That wasn't always the case. As you meant when Britain is at war it wants to prevent anybody strengthening its enemy by trading with them, especially strategic materials. It caused occasional clashes but generally most Americans decided it was best to let the RN do the work rather than duplicate their efforts.

This changed after WWI in part because there was more tension and disagreement and in part because there were strong economic interests in the US wanting a large fleet because they could make money out of it. Coupled with a more assertive nationalist coming out of the involvement in WWI and you got the planned US expansion. Another factor was that, while some interests argued for building against Britain to give an excuse for the size of the plans they did have genuine differences with Japan and were in a naval race against them.

Steve