How would Admiral Lord Fishers Baltic plan had worked if it was done

Jack Fisher was a British admiral and a total revolutionary in naval war. He developed the first large dreadnought battleship and invented many new types of ships in his time.
He developed a brilliant strategy for a potential war with Germany, to land a number of troops off the german coast a few hundred miles from Berlin itself.

He said that to send troops to the front in a Continental war was total stupidity. He was right with that. I am discussing world war one, not two. The trenches and lines that were stuck for years along france and Yipers, Somme, Verdun.

I think it was never really done because it was never conceived in that time. Landings of troops were done in friendly territory. It was never conceived or thought of to try to land in enemy area and fight to claim it. That was never done until the next war.

Fisher started building a fleet to try it, and some very stupid ships for it. Like the Glorious, a enlarged destroyer with one 18 gun on it.

So for this, lets assume the british built a proper fleet to make the worlds first landing on enemy territory, and landed a 10,000 troops in Pomerania around 1914

How would it have gone
 
There's a colossal naval battle at the time when German naval strength was closest to British strength, in a location highly advantageous to Germany. The ten thousand troops are surrounded by German reserves deploying rapidly by rail and ground down into the dirt.

Fisher had a good idea, but the logistics and knowhow didn't exist to implement it successfully.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The British tried the same plan in WW I; it was called

Jack Fisher was a British admiral and a total revolutionary in naval war. He developed the first large dreadnought battleship and invented many new types of ships in his time.
He developed a brilliant strategy for a potential war with Germany, to land a number of troops off the german coast a few hundred miles from Berlin itself. He said that to send troops to the front in a Continental war was total stupidity. He was right with that. I am discussing world war one, not two. The trenches and lines that were stuck for years along france and Yipers, Somme, Verdun. I think it was never really done because it was never conceived in that time. Landings of troops were done in friendly territory. It was never conceived or thought of to try to land in enemy area and fight to claim it. That was never done until the next war. Fisher started building a fleet to try it, and some very stupid ships for it. Like the Glorious, a enlarged destroyer with one 18 gun on it. So for this, lets assume the british built a proper fleet to make the worlds first landing on enemy territory, and landed a 10,000 troops in Pomerania around 1914. How would it have gone

The British tried the same plan in WW I; it was called the Dardanelles campaign.

Didn't work that well for them.:rolleyes:

Best,
 
Yes you are right

There's a colossal naval battle at the time when German naval strength was closest to British strength, in a location highly advantageous to Germany. The ten thousand troops are surrounded by German reserves deploying rapidly by rail and ground down into the dirt.

Fisher had a good idea, but the logistics and knowhow didn't exist to implement it successfully.

You are probably right. The problem is 10000 troops is a lot to land considering 1914 and I cant imagine any more than that, and that is a stretch. Probably why it wasnt done.

Even if we sprinkle fairy dust and suddenly they could land 10 times that many, lets say they landed 100000 troops. The germans would have dug in and we would have trenches there.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
Beside the wish to do so - massive landing fo troops on Germanys northern Baltic Sea coast - has there ever been any more ... concrete plans been set or thought up by Fisher and his followers ?


However, all I can see is a massive slaughter :
1. The HSF get THE chance to engage the RN on most favorable terms. A battle of Jutland going much worse - for the RN.
2. The ships transporting the troops : while the RN fleet is engaged by the HSF they would be an all too easy prey for T-boats and subs or any other 'smaller' vessel of war
3. Even if they might come through the Skagerag, Denmark won't be just 'waving' them through their extremly narrow, easy to defend waters to reach the Baltic Sea.
4. Even if Denmark would do so : they would be awaited not only by remaining HSF forces comming through the Kiel-Channel - another heavy battle for a most likly already quite decimated RN - but also by almost every T-boat and ... mine-layer available

To overcome all these obstacles you need adman awfull lot of PODs maybe dating back well before 1900 - or many flapping ASBs. :D
 
3. Even if they might come through the Skagerag, Denmark won't be just 'waving' them through their extremly narrow, easy to defend waters to reach the Baltic Sea.
That's not an issue - Fisher's plan assumed that the Army would be shipped to Denmark and embark the battlecruisers from there, so clearly Denmark has to be a co-belligerent with Britain.

As an aside, the COURAGEOUS class light battlecruisers were not intended to provide fire support. They were intended to carry 10,000 men each for the landing force, with RENOWN and REPULSE carrying the same for a total of 50,000 men. Earlier plans had two COURAGEOUS and four FURIOUS types, for 60,000 men, and drew 3 feet less water - with RENOWN and REPULSE the operation would have to take place in spring when the Baltic is deeper due to meltwater.

The idea was that they'd use their light draught and high speed to drop off the infantry then leg it before German naval forces arrived. Presumably the landings would have used the 'Y Lighter', a kind of proto-LCVP. Quite how the troops were then to be supported is unclear - clearly German flotilla forces would have to be defeated at some point, and on extremely unfavourable terms. Of course, with Denmark a belligerent power basing is easier.
 

Tyr Anazasi

Banned
Okay, this plan was the brightest idea a British admiral could have- from the German pov. NoMommsen has already said everything to counter it.

However, let's play it through:

1. With Denmark: The day Denmark declares war on Germany will be the day German forces will massively invade the country. The British forces are needed to keep Denmark in game. Even with their help they would need to resupply the forces there, which would give the Germans the best possibilities to make hit and run attacks. Eventually Denmark will fall. And with Denmark in firm German hands the plan would be a suicide mission.

2. Without Denmark: On the way to the Baltic Sea Uboats and the HSF will intercept the landing fleet. Perhaps even the HSF will wait and let the Uboats do the first attacks. Then the British fleet will have to pass the Skagerrak and the Kattegat, where German mine layers will have laid some surprises for the British. Soon after the British will have to pass neutral Danish waters, which were also defended by minefields. If they did not wish to be dealt as hostile power by the Germans the Danish navy will have to fight. That means mostly coastal batteries and torpedo boat attacks. In the end the RN will pass them. Up until now the RN should have had higher losses than at Jutland. If they reach the Baltic Sea they have to pass the Fehmarn belt. Here another minefield, destroyers and Uboats will wait.

As the Baltic is very shallow in this area they have to use the Kadetrinne, a 20 nm long valley of 10-30 m between the German Darß peninsula and the Danish island of Falster. You can assume this is now mined as well.

And now the HSF will have the Grand Fleet for lunch.

Even if they land the British will lack to be resupplied so in the end Bismarck's bonmot may become true: If the British army landed he would send the police to arrest them.
 
As the Baltic is very shallow in this area they have to use the Kadetrinne, a 20 nm long valley of 10-30 m between the German Darß peninsula and the Danish island of Falster. You can assume this is now mined as well.
Fortunately, the large light cruisers that were to carry out the landing were extremely shallow-draught, at least as far as 20,000-ton, 32-knot ships go, specifically to address that issue.

It's still an idiotic plan on logistical and strategic grounds, but the tactics got some thought. One usually expects Admirals to do a bit better than that, though.
 
I have heard it said that the whole thing was a piece of disinformation designed to make the Germans retain forces in Germany to repel any such attack.

The only trouble is that even the dimmest intelligence officer could see that Britain had deployed everything the army had to France in 1914.
 
The Danes mined their waters, supposedly against both sides, but of course the Germans had completed the Kiel canal and weren't affected.

The logical target for an amphibious British landing in the North Sea would be Copenhagen, like in the Napoleonic wars. They also tried for Norway in World War 2.

The first attempt at an amphibious invasion in the machine age was Gallipoli, where the British made a lot of rookie mistakes that they presumably would have made with a North Sea landing. Even during the age of sail these things were difficult to pull off, and failed more often than not. Also, the entire German naval strategy was organized around ambushing the British if they tried anything close to German waters, which they never did.

There were plans drawn up at the Admiralty to land on the island of Borkum, close to the German-Dutch border. I have to admit I never understood what the point of that would be.

The falling out between Churchill and Fisher seems to mainly have been a personality conflict, but there was an argument that Fisher thought the big amphibious project should have been in the North Sea or Baltic, not the Mediterranean. Churchill was correct.
 

Redbeard

Banned
The Danish straits leading to and from the Baltic were heavily mined already in 1914 and on German request - by that time Denmark de facto was a German vassal.

On top of that the Great Belt was difficult to navigate and the more natural gateway to the Baltic - the Oeresund - was heavily defended by coastal batteries, the heaviest having 14" guns.

Copenhagen itself was defended by comprehensive and relatively modern fortifications and manned by 50.000 troops after the partly mobilisation in 1914. After full mobilisation the Danish army would contain 5 Infantry Divisions (all to be placed around Copenhagen) plus support troops (IIRC incl. a Cavalry Division). The army was well equipped with modern artillery and light machine guns (Madsen). The navy was built around laying and defending minefields. So coastal battleships to keep the minesweepers away and torpedoboats and submarines to deal with the ships supposed to protect the minesweepers. IIRC 18 coastal submarines were in service, alone enough to cause serious looses to any enemy.

With 99% likelyhood any Danish government would zealously defend Danish neutrality against a British intrusion and soon accept "offers" about alliance from Germany.

A British plan to penetrate into the Baltic would need control over Oeresund which again requires control over Copenhagen and at least eastern Zealand. If following the old thumb rule of an attacker needing 3:1 superiority in numbers it would take 15 Divisions to just open the Baltic (ie. the max number engaged at OTL Gallipoli) plus substantial naval forces. After that waits the German army and navy!

I'm a devoted admirer of Admiral Fisher but that also involves a stern belief that the "Baltic Plan" never was serious, but just was intended to secure Fisher his part of budgets. In that sense it worked just fine :D
 
Top