storm occurs during naval battle of Jutland

[ghappy1000]

If there were to be a storm to strike a navy at the battle of Jutland, what happens? I mean the storm happens on the night of 31st May 1916.
What will be the consequences of such an occurrance on either side's fleets?

 

[Dayton Kitchens]

The battle sucks even worse than it did in real life.

 

[ghappy1000]

The battle sucks even worse than it did in real life.

This is a too short answer.
Anyway, there is a thread asking what if Jutland had been more destructive. As we all know, since the battle was an inconclusive stalemate, the effects on WW1 are minimal, if any, so I'm not asking it.
But to get to the question, the pod is a storm on the night of 31st May 1916. Assuming it happened, here are the losses I can expect [minimum]:
Britain loses Marlborough, Tiger[?] and Warspite plus otl but saves at least one armoured cruiser.
Germany loses three battlecruisers plus otl but saves Pommern.

 

[HMS Warspite]

In general, the battle itself could be fought in a stormy condition, but in general at a more closed ranged form, due to lessened optical options. This in the end would have favoured the British, due to their in general larger calliber guns, which were at the same time more numereous as well. It would all come to a point, where the torpedo carrying vessels could have been brought into battle, as these could have inflicted serious harm to both sides.

In the OTL, German gunnery was more effective, as their optical systems were generally better, while the ranges to fight were a bit longer, benefitting these advances. In poor visibility, theis bonus would not likely have been there, so the two sides would have to face eachother at more equal terms in capabilities at least. Herre the numerical advantage would be crucial, as the German ships in general would be tougher to defeat, but face a possible outnumbering by 2 to 1. The heavier shot of the British could defeat the thick armor of the German ships at short ranges, while at the same time increasing the change of scoring hits, due to the shorter range.

Finally it would possibly come to a point where the increased safety on the German ships in ammunition handling after the earlier experiences, would come into play, as the shorter range would equally increase their own changes of scoring hits on British ships, which had been known to take a loop in safety messures in ammunition handling at the time. It could in theory be possible to see more ships blowing up, after hits on turrets, like in the OTL on four British ships (Indifatigable, Queen Mary, Invincible and Defence)

 

[zert]

It might also depend on what type of storm are you talking about. Something with gale force winds, driving rain, and huge waves just might cause both sides to stay in port. Also heavier seas could have effects on shot sightings and corrections. Torpedoes launches and ranging might also be effected.

 

[David S Poepoe]

I suspect that someone would notice the glass falling and that the battlelines would seek to open the ranges and disengage. It would be in the interest of the commanders-in-chief to maintain the fleets in tact. Both would also fear that heavy seas would scatter not only their main battleline, but more importantly, scatter their destroyer forces.

In short, battle called because of inclement weather.

 

[Maniakes]

It'd also affect the effectiveness of destroyers as offensive weapons. OTL, both sides sent destroyers to make torpedo attacks against the enemy line of battle (the Germans during the main fleet engagement, ending in a withdrawal in the face of concentrated fire, and the British in several smaller engagements during the night phase of the battle, sinking a pre-dreadnought and a few lighter vessels).

One one hand, a storm would greatly reduce visibility and make gunnery less accurate, giving destroyers better opportunities to close to torpedo range. But on the other hand, a bad enough storm would leave the destroyers with their hands full just riding out the storm.

 

[Delta Force]

I doubt the fleets would sortie under such poor weather conditions. Torpedo boats and destroyers aren't the most seaworthy ships in the early 1900s.

 

[Grognard49]

As a general rule, the ships of the Royal Navy had a higher freeboard than those of the Kaiserliche Marine. This should give the RN an advantage since their gun positions should be less affected by waves breaking aboard and wind blown spray. The same is true of gunnery control positions.

The secondary battery positions of both fleets would essentially by unusable in heavy weather conditions. They were mounted too low in the hull and would likely be flooded if they were used. So if the destroyers were able to attack, which might be impossible due to the small size and limited seakeeping ability of WW I destroyers, the battleships would not be able to effectively defend themselves. A lot will depend on just how bad the sea conditions really are.

Read about the Battle of North Cape in WW II if you want to find out just how terrible sea conditions can affect a battle.

 

[Captain Jack]

In general, the battle itself could be fought in a stormy condition, but in general at a more closed ranged form, due to lessened optical options. This in the end would have favoured the British, due to their in general larger calliber guns, which were at the same time more numereous as well. It would all come to a point, where the torpedo carrying vessels could have been brought into battle, as these could have inflicted serious harm to both sides.

In the OTL, German gunnery was more effective, as their optical systems were generally better, while the ranges to fight were a bit longer, benefitting these advances. In poor visibility, theis bonus would not likely have been there, so the two sides would have to face eachother at more equal terms in capabilities at least. Herre the numerical advantage would be crucial, as the German ships in general would be tougher to defeat, but face a possible outnumbering by 2 to 1. The heavier shot of the British could defeat the thick armor of the German ships at short ranges, while at the same time increasing the change of scoring hits, due to the shorter range.

Finally it would possibly come to a point where the increased safety on the German ships in ammunition handling after the earlier experiences, would come into play, as the shorter range would equally increase their own changes of scoring hits on British ships, which had been known to take a loop in safety messures in ammunition handling at the time. It could in theory be possible to see more ships blowing up, after hits on turrets, like in the OTL on four British ships (Indifatigable, Queen Mary, Invincible and Defence)

Agreed. If conditions had been worse that would have forced the range down and that would in turn have benefitted the British numerical superiority. Interestingly it might have improved the performance of the Battlecruiser Force. OTL Beatty chose to emphasize volume and rate of fire over accuracy as a result of Dogger Bank. As such the battlecruisers would have benefitted from a shorter range as it would have eroded, at least partially, the German's advantage in accuracy.

Personally, I think it's up in the air as to whether or not more British ships would have suffered catastrophic explosions as the battlecruisers did. If the range is closer then its reasonable to presume they will be hit more than they were OTL. The other side if that is that they would be hitting the Germans more as well. In the end it comes down to individual shells and shots which isn't something we can accurately speculate about. Connected to this is that shorter range would mean more shots landing on the armor belts instead of decks.

Regardless, the analysis of the battle would definitely be affected. For one thing there would be less emphasis on deck protection and long range fire simply because the battle wouldn't have shown contemporary estimates about battle ranges to be incorrect. Aspects which would recieve more attention than OTL would be seaworthiness, especially of light craft such as destroyers, and positioning of the secondary armament to make it workable even in heavy seaways. IIRC before the war the RN was looking into equipment and tactics that would allow one ship to relay its fire control solution to other ships of its squadron idiot achieved a hit. The idea was that as soon as a hit was scored the successful solution would be communicated to all nearby ships which would modify that solution for their own positions. I could see a lot more work in this direction if the conditions were bad enough.

Overall the shorter range and reduced accuracy a storm would impose on the combatants would favor the Royal Navy.

 

[zert]

If the seas weer too rough, might one side or the other attempt to ram their foe?

Have the call for boarding parties to take over their enemies?

 

[David S Poepoe]

If the seas weer too rough, might one side or the other attempt to ram their foe?

Have the call for boarding parties to take over their enemies?

No. Absolutely not. There would be no ramming. Neither commander will endanger their fleet in such a way.

 

[HMS Warspite]

Agreed. If conditions had been worse that would have forced the range down and that would in turn have benefitted the British numerical superiority. Interestingly it might have improved the performance of the Battlecruiser Force. OTL Beatty chose to emphasize volume and rate of fire over accuracy as a result of Dogger Bank. As such the battlecruisers would have benefitted from a shorter range as it would have eroded, at least partially, the German's advantage in accuracy.

Personally, I think it's up in the air as to whether or not more British ships would have suffered catastrophic explosions as the battlecruisers did. If the range is closer then its reasonable to presume they will be hit more than they were OTL. The other side if that is that they would be hitting the Germans more as well. In the end it comes down to individual shells and shots which isn't something we can accurately speculate about. Connected to this is that shorter range would mean more shots landing on the armor belts instead of decks.

Regardless, the analysis of the battle would definitely be affected. For one thing there would be less emphasis on deck protection and long range fire simply because the battle wouldn't have shown contemporary estimates about battle ranges to be incorrect. Aspects which would recieve more attention than OTL would be seaworthiness, especially of light craft such as destroyers, and positioning of the secondary armament to make it workable even in heavy seaways. IIRC before the war the RN was looking into equipment and tactics that would allow one ship to relay its fire control solution to other ships of its squadron idiot achieved a hit. The idea was that as soon as a hit was scored the successful solution would be communicated to all nearby ships which would modify that solution for their own positions. I could see a lot more work in this direction if the conditions were bad enough.

Overall the shorter range and reduced accuracy a storm would impose on the combatants would favor the Royal Navy.

Decks were not realy exposed at Juttland, as the gunnery was not at such a range, it would result in plunging fire. Shell trajectories still were relatively flat, mostly hitting a target in the side and not on the deck. Only after the Great War elevation of the big riffles was increased to a level, which allowed plunching fire to be developped.

 

[zert]

No. Absolutely not. There would be no ramming. Neither commander will endanger their fleet in such a way.

I was only vaguely serious with that post. It would only be a very desperate Captain who would have his ship ram another.

 

[Devolved]

If there were to be a storm to strike a navy at the battle of Jutland, what happens? I mean the storm happens on the night of 31st May 1916.
What will be the consequences of such an occurrance on either side's fleets?

The badly damaged Seydlitz would probably be lost. Jutland looks even less fun for the Germans.