Jutland Redux - A summer soltice shootout

[naraic]

Hey Johnboy. Loved the timeline. I'm sure you figured out from the engagement level but saying it doesn't hurt.

Ok, I must say this was a very well written TL, but I have some problems understanding the whole point of It; It was obvious from the start that in a full engagement betweeen the two fleets, the British would have won hands down, if anything because of sheer numbers.

I think a discussion about what a British victory would look like has definite value. Here we see German battlecruiser losses and predreadnought losses but minimal dreadnought losses.

More to the the point is the question what would change in the rest of the war. Presumably in this story the Grand Fleet stays very "together" and doesn't release forces for other theaters due to the threat of a German sortie.

Many of the big ships sunk were withdrawn from the High Seas Fleet after Jutland to police the Baltic but the Russians were sufficiently quiet that the Baltic didn't need to be policed. The Germans seem to have followed this up by withdrawing further torpedo boats from the Baltic. In fairness the Germans had to withdraw from somewhere to reinforce the High Seas Fleet and the choice was Baltic or the Belgian coast.

Withdrawals from the Belgian coast would open up options for British activity ie Ostend/Zebrugges raid etc. Especially if more destroyers from the grand fleet could be released.

Thats a different story though. The author of this story excellently exhibited what a reasonably better Jutland would look like for the British given existing British problems and then concluded and to me this could be the most interesting part of the timeline and its not shown as much more than a throw away line WW1 ended at more or less the same time as it did historically and therefore a reasonably better Jutland as modeled by the author would not change WW1.

 

[Driftless]

The near term implications have been discussed here at the British and German armament and armored ship level, but what about down the road and for other navies observing the outcome?

This Jutland has two modern peer navies banging away at each other and pounding the crap out of many ships, especially the "weak sisters". The newer dreadnoughts stood up pretty well. The British sense that their shooting accuracy was expected, even if inadequate, but can only surmise that there were various problems with the shells. Other navies, with limited access to British or German post-battle analyses are likely to draw their own conclusions about how they might fight a similar engagement in future.

What info would the British pass on to the French and Japanese, who were Allies at that point? What info would they pass on to the Americans(amicable neutrals), at some point? What do the Italians make of the battle? I don't think the Austro-Hungarians or Russians matter at that point.

Improving spotting a fleet is one area where improved technology (aircraft) would likely be considered in the near term by everyone. How might the various navies improve shooting accuracy at that late 'teens and early 20s time frame? Were other navies as hampered by dubious quality of their shells?

 

[Captain Seafort]

That wasn't my point. Hood was an existing ship that violated the limits and could be pointed to as a reason for allowing exceptions, like the WNT's limit of 35,000 tons and 14" guns, except for the three US, two Japanese, and two British ships that were allowed to have 16" guns.

I think you're getting Washington confused with 2nd London here

Without Hood, there would be less pressure for exceptions, since the biggest one doesn't exist. With all existing battleships under 35,000 tons, that can be set as a limit without having to build in exceptions.

There were already plenty of exceptions - Mutsu was the big one (since, however strongly the IJN might claim otherwise, she wasn't finished) but Nelson and Rodney were significant. Without Hood, there would be even greater pressure for exceptions, as the RN would have no wartime battleship designs at all, let alone post-Jutland ones.

 

[pjmidd]

Err, then why did it happen in OTL. The limit was accepted at 35,000 tons. I am not suggesting a lower limit, just less pressure for exceptions. As for the size of ships, yes, bigger battleships have fewer compromises. Unfortunately, numbers are also important. A navy with four 45,000 top battleships might think it is better off than one with six 35,000 ton battleships, except when the war starts with one of them in a refit and another gets torpedoed, so now they have to fight the war with two.

The limit was 15" guns with exceptions for 16", only 14" treaty battleships ever built were the KGV's.

 

[Captain Seafort]

The limit was 15" guns with exceptions for 16", only 14" treaty battleships ever built were the KGV's.

The WNT limit was 35,000 tons and 16" guns. The 2LNT limit was 35,000 tons, and 14" guns, with 45,000 tons and 16" guns as the first escalator clause and "fill yer boots" as the second escalator clause.

 

[Trevayne]

The limit was 15" guns with exceptions for 16", only 14" treaty battleships ever built were the KGV's.

The WNT limit was 35,000 tons and 16" guns. The 2LNT limit was 35,000 tons, and 14" guns, with 45,000 tons and 16" guns as the first escalator clause and "fill yer boots" as the second escalator clause.

Yes, it was 16" guns, but the battleship building holiday meant none of the big three were building anything new aside from Nelson and Rodney. They weren't an exception to the size or gun-size rules, just that they were the only post-1922 ships that the RN, USN, or IJN were allowed. IIRC that was why the RN only got two, because the US and Japanese pointed out that their 16" gunned ships were years older in design. Thus the USN got three Colorados to counter the two Nagatos, but the RN only got the two Nelsons.

 

[Captain Seafort]

Yes, it was 16" guns, but the battleship building holiday meant none of the big three were building anything new aside from Nelson and Rodney. They weren't an exception to the size or gun-size rules, just that they were the only post-1922 ships that the RN, USN, or IJN were allowed. IIRC that was why the RN only got two, because the US and Japanese pointed out that their 16" gunned ships were years older in design. Thus the USN got three Colorados to counter the two Nagatos, but the RN only got the two Nelsons.

I agree with Drach's interpretation of this one - the USN and RN got three apiece to two IJN, to (roughly) match the 5:5:3 ratio, because Hood counted as being as good as the Colorados. The USN was certainly in a position to know, because Stanley Goodall had been seconded to the US C&R in 1918-20ish, and had taken Hood's design drawings with him. The US conclusion was that her combination of firepower, mobility and protection was impossible under USN construction standards.

 

[johnboy]

I believe the British lost the armoured cruiser Shannon and the Germans lost the gunboat panther after this.

Emperor of India was the ship the Brit's lost.

 

[johnboy]

I agree with Drach's interpretation of this one - the USN and RN got three apiece to two IJN, to (roughly) match the 5:5:3 ratio, because Hood counted as being as good as the Colorados. The USN was certainly in a position to know, because Stanley Goodall had been seconded to the US C&R in 1918-20ish, and had taken Hood's design drawings with him. The US conclusion was that her combination of firepower, mobility and protection was impossible under USN construction standards.

This is true. The USN design team were, in 1918, a world away from the efficiency and technical innovation. The U.S achieved parity in this area, but not really until the 1930's.

 

[johnboy]

Hey Johnboy. Loved the timeline. I'm sure you figured out from the engagement level but saying it doesn't hurt.


I think a discussion about what a British victory would look like has definite value. Here we see German battlecruiser losses and predreadnought losses but minimal dreadnought losses.

More to the the point is the question what would change in the rest of the war. Presumably in this story the Grand Fleet stays very "together" and doesn't release forces for other theaters due to the threat of a German sortie.

Many of the big ships sunk were withdrawn from the High Seas Fleet after Jutland to police the Baltic but the Russians were sufficiently quiet that the Baltic didn't need to be policed. The Germans seem to have followed this up by withdrawing further torpedo boats from the Baltic. In fairness the Germans had to withdraw from somewhere to reinforce the High Seas Fleet and the choice was Baltic or the Belgian coast.

Withdrawals from the Belgian coast would open up options for British activity ie Ostend/Zebrugges raid etc. Especially if more destroyers from the grand fleet could be released.

Thats a different story though. The author of this story excellently exhibited what a reasonably better Jutland would look like for the British given existing British problems and then concluded and to me this could be the most interesting part of the timeline and its not shown as much more than a throw away line WW1 ended at more or less the same time as it did historically and therefore a reasonably better Jutland as modeled by the author would not change WW1.

I think even a decisive British victory would not have changed WW1. It was events on land that really mattered. A decisive German victory would have changed things. Yet, it's hard to see how that happened without really wanking things. I liked Letterstime to, but it was a wank. Paradoxically enough, a crushing British victory at sea may have been worse ofr Britain, as it would move the German fully to submarine warfare. Of course, it would also allow the British to build far more DD's in response.

 

[johnboy]

The near term implications have been discussed here at the British and German armament and armored ship level, but what about down the road and for other navies observing the outcome?

This Jutland has two modern peer navies banging away at each other and pounding the crap out of many ships, especially the "weak sisters". The newer dreadnoughts stood up pretty well. The British sense that their shooting accuracy was expected, even if inadequate, but can only surmise that there were various problems with the shells. Other navies, with limited access to British or German post-battle analyses are likely to draw their own conclusions about how they might fight a similar engagement in future.

What info would the British pass on to the French and Japanese, who were Allies at that point? What info would they pass on to the Americans(amicable neutrals), at some point? What do the Italians make of the battle? I don't think the Austro-Hungarians or Russians matter at that point.

Improving spotting a fleet is one area where improved technology (aircraft) would likely be considered in the near term by everyone. How might the various navies improve shooting accuracy at that late 'teens and early 20s time frame? Were other navies as hampered by dubious quality of their shells?

The shells were mainly an R.N thing. I think the results of this bring naval aviation to the fore, sooner. I think in the absence of Eagle, you get two Ark Royals. INstead on Nelsons, I think you get something like 3-4x J3 ships, likely 15 inch armed and capable of 26-27 knots on around 35,000 tons.

 

[johnboy]

I agree with Drach's interpretation of this one - the USN and RN got three apiece to two IJN, to (roughly) match the 5:5:3 ratio, because Hood counted as being as good as the Colorados. The USN was certainly in a position to know, because Stanley Goodall had been seconded to the US C&R in 1918-20ish, and had taken Hood's design drawings with him. The US conclusion was that her combination of firepower, mobility and protection was impossible under USN construction standards.

I would not be surprised if Washington looked like 550,000 tons. U.S build Washington. U.K builds 4x J3 series cut down ships. Japan keeps Nagato, Mutsu and builds Tosa.

UK keeps 2xRenown's, Tiger, 4x new ships, 5xR's, 5xQE's. Iron Duke'sx3 plus KGV'sx3 in service until new ships are built.

In this situation, maybe London never happens.

 

[steamboy]

I would not be surprised if Washington looked like 550,000 tons. U.S build Washington. U.K builds 4x J3 series cut down ships. Japan keeps Nagato, Mutsu and builds Tosa.

UK keeps 2xRenown's, Tiger, 4x new ships, 5xR's, 5xQE's. Iron Duke'sx3 plus KGV'sx3 in service until new ships are built.

In this situation, maybe London never happens.

Its possible for sure, I don't have springsharp or know how to use it, but you could probably do an AoN scheme on the J3's which would reduce their weight, and drop their speed to say 28 knots which is still faster than anything anyone else has afloat in terms of Battleships. This would reduce the size and weight of their powerplant and, if the UK did some 'creative' calculations with the weight like the USN did you could probably get their weight down to 35,000 tons honest (probably closer to 37 but who's counting a few tons here and there...)

The RN wouldn't have to create a new 16-inch gun if they accept having a longer caliber 15-inch, you'd probably save some more weight here too. Avoid wasteful things like underwater torpedo tubes and the like and I think you'd be onto something.

The Hawkins Redux would also set the tone for the heavy cruisers. And I'd assume you could drop them down in weight by eliminating the wing guns and their ammunition/crew requirements. Wing guns and shield mounts have had their day.

And in their defence, the J3 design was a looker, it was basically the Hood.

 

[johnboy]

Its possible for sure, I don't have springsharp or know how to use it, but you could probably do an AoN scheme on the J3's which would reduce their weight, and drop their speed to say 28 knots which is still faster than anything anyone else has afloat in terms of Battleships. This would reduce the size and weight of their powerplant and, if the UK did some 'creative' calculations with the weight like the USN did you could probably get their weight down to 35,000 tons honest (probably closer to 37 but who's counting a few tons here and there...)

The RN wouldn't have to create a new 16-inch gun if they accept having a longer caliber 15-inch, you'd probably save some more weight here too. Avoid wasteful things like underwater torpedo tubes and the like and I think you'd be onto something.

The Hawkins Redux would also set the tone for the heavy cruisers. And I'd assume you could drop them down in weight by eliminating the wing guns and their ammunition/crew requirements. Wing guns and shield mounts have had their day.

And in their defence, the J3 design was a looker, it was basically the Hood.

That is a handsome looking ship. Almost as good looking as me...

 

[johnboy]

Just a quick note to say thanks for all the interest in this timeline. I've placed it on Kindle now, mainly thanks to much of the good feedback. I have started ttwo(even three really) naval timelines that are new:

Salvos at Savo
A History of the second HMAS Australia
PG 17.5

You may wish to check them out, a lot has been written already, but:

I am away in Europe from 20.08.2022 to 19.10.2022 and will not update during that time.

John

 

[Paulo the Limey]

Just a quick note to say thanks for all the interest in this timeline. I've placed it on Kindle now, mainly thanks to much of the good feedback. I have started ttwo(even three really) naval timelines that are new:

Salvos at Savo
A History of the second HMAS Australia
PG 17.5

You may wish to check them out, a lot has been written already, but:

I am away in Europe from 20.08.2022 to 19.10.2022 and will not update during that time.

John

Might want to update with a link?