Indirect approach doctrine in world war one

Well, as we know one of the biggest problems to germany in WWII was that they had too much BBs and they became a burden, even more because the germans still kept producing BBs during the conflict and never really used them against the british (except the battle of Jutland, and it was inconclusive)

So what if the germans had used (with a PoD in the early 1900s) the indirect approach doctrine in the sea? concentrating their production in way more light and heavy cruisers and submarines?
 
light and heavy cruisers
- Not sure but CL and CA is LNT (1930) language not 1900s
- British battle cruisers will kill them if they fight and coal ships cant really have the range to raid past GB into the Atlantic easily.
(So no really change apart from maybe cheaper if you build less ?)

submarines
- Are new rapidly improving technology so might be picked in 1910 but in 1900 not sure.
- Don't work without USW and that A) illegal and unplanned pre war B), will get the neutrals very annoyed.

Why not spend it on the army ? (just make it bigger and full of middle class officers from city's or even better buy trucks for the right wing)
 
Well, as we know one of the biggest problems to germany in WWII was that they had too much BBs and they became a burden, even more because the germans still kept producing BBs during the conflict and never really used them against the british (except the battle of Jutland, and it was inconclusive)

So what if the germans had used (with a PoD in the early 1900s) the indirect approach doctrine in the sea? concentrating their production in way more light and heavy cruisers and submarines?


Well Handelkrieg was something the German's considered the problem was that convoys work well against both cruisers and submarines.

However it might be if the Germans avoid building against the British then there may be less hostility there. Say coastal submarines to defend colonies and cruisers to defend troop transports and trade. It might not work but it might work a lot better than trying to build a navy against the British.
 
why not have them build the first aircraft carriers then? Give them a fleet of Seaplane tenders that work suprisingly well at holding off the British fleet and break the blockade and then have them have a full blown carrier finished before the end of the war and then have them sink a British dreadnought with it. Imagine that.
 
why not have them build the first aircraft carriers then? Give them a fleet of Seaplane tenders that work suprisingly well at holding off the British fleet and break the blockade and then have them have a full blown carrier finished before the end of the war and then have them sink a British dreadnought with it. Imagine that.
You can imagine it all right, but that's all it is - science fiction. An aircraft capable of carrying a torpedo fit to threaten a battleship and lifting it off a carrier deck just didn't exist until 1918 in the form of the Sopwith Cuckoo. Bringing it in earlier isn't really feasible because it needed some of the most powerful engines available (200 hp) to work. Even then it was only considered capable of attacking ships in port rather than at sea.
Next is the issue of innovation. Simply put, the British were much better at it than the Germans - the aircraft carrier, torpedo bomber and using them in raids on enemy ports were all RN concepts, and there are many other similar examples. If they can come up with the ideas, they can work out counters to them - more lead paint in the tea at the Admiralty to get it to work against them?
Finally, breaking the blockade is really hard for Germany because it was a DISTANT blockade, not a close one. The real work was done by Armed Merchant Cruisers North-West of Scotland, with the Grand Fleet in Scapa Flow to prevent any attempt by the Germans to sink the AMCs. So breaking the blockade means forcing the fleet far from Scapa (even the Clyde probably isn't far enough away). At this point it should be noted that the carrier attacks of the time were a one-way mission - the first ever deck landing was in August 1917, and the pilot (Squadron Commander Dunning) was killed when he attempted the third ever landing. Essentially you need the aircraft and more importantly the carriers to reach 1920s levels of technology before this can be feasible - from a standing start and without all the experience that the RN gained while pushing very hard indeed in OTL.
 
Well, as we know one of the biggest problems to germany in WWII was that they had too much BBs and they became a burden, even more because the germans still kept producing BBs during the conflict and never really used them against the british (except the battle of Jutland, and it was inconclusive)

So what if the germans had used (with a PoD in the early 1900s) the indirect approach doctrine in the sea? concentrating their production in way more light and heavy cruisers and submarines?
A problem is that does not get them what they want

The German Battle Fleet was a negotiating tool, after Germany got screwed out of some concessions, it was to be powerful enough that everyone would have to take it into account and toss Germany a few bones to keep them neutral during a crisis. Too much weaker and Britain would have the ability to both keep the fleet bottled up and engage a major naval war elsewhere, and not need to secure Germany's neutrality with concessions. As is Britain essentially had to keep 90% of their modern heavy units in home waters, to ensure they had enough margin of superiority for a worst case scenario

With perfect foresight yeah having one less BB and a few more SS pre war would be useful, as would stopping work on Sachsen at wars beginning and not laying down Wurttemburg or the Mackensens too free up steel and labor but that requires perfect foresight
 
- Not sure but CL and CA is LNT (1930) language not 1900s
- British battle cruisers will kill them if they fight and coal ships cant really have the range to raid past GB into the Atlantic easily.
(So no really change apart from maybe cheaper if you build less ?)


- Are new rapidly improving technology so might be picked in 1910 but in 1900 not sure.
- Don't work without USW and that A) illegal and unplanned pre war B), will get the neutrals very annoyed.

Why not spend it on the army ? (just make it bigger and full of middle class officers from city's or even better buy trucks for the right wing)

Well, that doctrine is based on winning a war of attrition against huge ships by using fast raider tactics, can't this be adapted to WWI? A dreadnought can sunk a light cruiser without a problem, but what about a large force of faster and lighter ships (comparated to a BB of course) attacking from many different directions?
 
The only anti commerce campaign that works is submarines and even then that's the nautical version of trench warfare, prolonged and with constant back and forth of the advantage.

Surface raider sucked in both wars. Firstly in WW1 how do they get out of Germany past a much larger RN mounting a distant blockade? And if they are already at sea what's stopping another Battle of the Falklands or a WW2 version River Platte? What's more without a powerful battlefleet what's stopping the RN from taking the war right up to the German coast and clearing a path into the Baltic?
 
There is also the strategic-political problem: sinking ships of neutral nations tend to piss them off. And when one of said neutral nations is the United States of America...
 
Well, that doctrine is based on winning a war of attrition
The only anti commerce campaign that works is submarines and even then that's the nautical version of trench warfare, prolonged and with constant back and forth of the advantage.

If the Germans think war means a long war they might try very hard not to fight ! Nobody really wins from a long war....

against huge ships by using fast raider tactics, can't this be adapted to WWI? A dreadnought can sunk a light cruiser without a problem, but what about a large force of faster and lighter ships (comparated to a BB of course) attacking from many different directions
Not really, it only works at night really and even then you need to get lucky with your torpedoes and complicated coordination was not the strong point of WWI forces !

Surface raider sucked in both wars. Firstly in WW1 how do they get out of Germany past a much larger RN mounting a distant blockade? And if they are already at sea what's stopping another Battle of the Falklands or a WW2 version River Platte?
the only good surface raider are AMC and that's just because they are so cheap long ranged and they can hide but they will lose any battle if cornered.
 
Reflect on the origins of the German battle fleet: their overseas empire. To secure that empire, they needed control of the seas. To win control of the seas, they needed a large seagoing navy with cruisers and battleships. Without battleships, the cruisers can be defeated in detail; without cruisers, trade can be overwhelmed - a point that the USN never quite figured out.

If Germany doesn't build a fleet, that's because it doesn't see the need, which means there's no ambition to an extensive overseas empire. Which conveniently removes direct competition with Britain. This may well in turn fundamentally alter the alliance system which led to WW1.
 

LordKalvert

Banned
First, Germany does put a lot of effort into surface raiders. It had the second largest merchant fleet and most of them were designed to be converted for war

Second, the Germans lacked the overseas bases to make it work. Every ship would have to run the gauntlet of the Channel or the North Sea repeatedly- not a winning proposition

Third, submarines were just beginning to be practical for long range missions. Other than harbor defense, they wouldn't begin to be practical until 1910 even if the Germans pushed the research

Fourth, the British would respond by building more Battlecruisers than Dreadnoughts

Fifth, there is no strategy that will work if you have the second largest navy and go to war with the first, third, fourth, fifth and sixth largest fleets
 
Would some sort of an armored "mothership" for torpedo boats work - I would assume that even in 1900, the range of a torpedo boat is larger than the range of the BB main armament? The armouring should be just enough to enhance survivability, to allow the "torpedo boat carrier" to get away from major engagements?

The idea would be to sacrifice a few torpedo boats in exchange for a capital ship? It would be easily countered later on by a destroyer screen but for a first few engagements it might just work.
 
Would some sort of an armored "mothership" for torpedo boats work - I would assume that even in 1900, the range of a torpedo boat is larger than the range of the BB main armament? The armouring should be just enough to enhance survivability, to allow the "torpedo boat carrier" to get away from major engagements?

The idea would be to sacrifice a few torpedo boats in exchange for a capital ship? It would be easily countered later on by a destroyer screen but for a first few engagements it might just work.

So you need basically a battlecruiser but with awkward torpedo boats rather than large calibre guns what can possibly go wrong?

Well for a start torpedo boats are not terribly effective. Not useless but they are more in the essence of presenting threat rather than being very likely to sink a battleship or an armoured cruiser or a light cruiser or a destroyer...these ships all have guns that out range torpedoes and allow a lot more shots.

Also a commerce raider's place is out at sea in all weathers. Bad weather will diminish the effectiveness of a gun and torpedo armed raider but for torpedo boat armed raider will find it is able to neither launch nor recover its weapons.

Also what happens when a light cruiser (the main commerce warfare vessel of most contemporary navies) catches you with your boats up, you cannot deploy the boats as you need to run but unless you are very fast any hits that the light cruiser scores are likely to destroy your boats.

Also coordination in theory a shell of torpedo boats ought to extend the effective interception horizon of the mothership, the problem is if the boat has to chase off after the target does the mothership follow to keep in contact with it or wait for the other boats in the shell?

In essence you are going to have a very expensive raider that is not much more effective than a light cruiser.
 
Reflect on the origins of the German battle fleet: their overseas empire. To secure that empire, they needed control of the seas. To win control of the seas, they needed a large seagoing navy with cruisers and battleships. Without battleships, the cruisers can be defeated in detail; without cruisers, trade can be overwhelmed - a point that the USN never quite figured out.

If Germany doesn't build a fleet, that's because it doesn't see the need, which means there's no ambition to an extensive overseas empire. Which conveniently removes direct competition with Britain. This may well in turn fundamentally alter the alliance system which led to WW1.

This. Also, without a threatening navy, there's no invasion scare - the channel cannot be forced by cruisers, so there's no chance of the German army marching down Whitehall and so Germany is no threat to Britain. No need to change the foreign policy of hundreds of years and get a rapport with France, or give up the Great Game and make friends with Russia. The threatening German Navy (in fact, it's ability to allow the highly trained and large German Army to land in the UK) was a major driver of British foreign policy from the mid 1890s
 

trajen777

Banned
The dreadnaught changed the rules of ships -- all pre were obsolete -- finding the new tech is the only chance the Germans had to beat the British.

If Germany produced more ships the Brit capacity was always greater.

The Brits were terrified of mines and torpedios feeling this was the only chance the Germans had.

The Germans had some chances (conventional) in WW1 - several early engagements to attach part of the Brit fleet and destroy it and then make the numbers more evenly -- had to happen in 1914 or early 1915 the later less likely

On unconventionally we have an attack on Scrap Flow by German DD and subs - it was massively undefended early in the war (Read Dreadnaught)

Best situation : small fleet - Brit alliance offered in 1900 / meet French % of their population in the army and have 2-3 more armies -

2nd best : Find unconventional method -- massively flooding the channel etc with mega amounts of floating mines -- have subs mine layers drop endless mines all around Britain //// Invest in aircraft - e boat types --- poison gas --

Would these succeed or fail??? But a BB race could not be won and the cost of the 2nd is infinitely less then the BB race -- also the resources could add to the German army
 
Top