What happened to the Royal Navy?

Yes you are right, navies have limitations when operating within litorial waters. And this is why they make allowances for such things. Your "hundreds of ASM's" aren't going to be a lot of use for example if there is a heavy jamming environment and if target designating helicopters are being shot down by CAP before they can guide in their missiles.
 
I imagine bomb the living hell out of the island and then land from converted civillian liners as well as military transports.

I'm not arguing that navies are useless I'm arguing that they have clear limitations and while important there are other factors equal or more than importance to the state of a nations navy.

Every Sam, Jack, and Harry on Taiwan would be carrying around a stinger missile ready to blow the living hell out of any airliner. And in any case, if there was still a runway left on which to land these converted passenger planes after "bombing the living hell" out of the island, I'm pretty sure Taiwan would be using them to, I don't know, launch fighters to blow the living hell out of a bunch of cargo planes lumbering across the straight.
 
I imagine bomb the living hell out of the island and then land from converted civilian liners as well as military transports.
That's all well and good but realistically means that your invasion force is now made up entirely of light infantry with not much in the way of supplies. Aside from the problems of finding viable runways and anti-air defences that ChaosNDiscord mentioned the minute your light infantry army runs up against prepared defences, heavy units like armoured or mechanised forces, or even just light air power they're going to get completely run over. Until you can absolutely guarantee that China will have air supremacy, not just superiority but supremacy, it's not going to work and even then would be incredibly dicey in my opinion.
 
Kinda read most of the topic, and I find it surprising that nobody has mentioned the following:

After Jutland/WWI, Admiral Scheer remarked that he was amazed to see the British shells break up on impact with his ships. The RN hit the HSF a heck of a lot, but due to defective shell design, they failed to inflict large amounts of damage. German shells were better in design, and therefore inflicted a more approprate level of damage.

Anywho, after the war, Admiral Scheer remarked that had the RN had and deployed her 1918 designed 'Greenboy' shells at Jutland, then he (Scheer) would have lost his fleet.

This to me indicates that the RN did a superb job in Jutland (The only potentially-decisive naval battle of the war) - After all, they deceived the HSF (Who were unaware that the entire Grand Fleet was at sea), intercepted and engaged them with overwhelming firepower, but were let down by bad technology in the form of poor shell designs.
 
For both World Wars the Royal navy was on paper the best in the world.

Yet in both despite the massive resources it had it barely met it's obligations.

My question to those who know about naval matters why was the Royal Navy so ineffective in both world wars given the inferiority of it's opponents?

Obviously the First World War is the most obvious as there was fleet battles that the Royal Navy was built to fight yet did not win decisively.

Define its obligations - 1) defend the coast 2) defend trade 3) keep the enemy off the high seas.

In the First World War it carried these out very effectively. Now, if you want to say that there is a 4) destroy the enemy and 5) carry the war to the enemy, this is an extension of its primary objective into a more hopeful territory.

Regarding fleet battles, there WAS only Jutland, all other engagements would count as divisional battles. Looking at the latter - Heligoland Bight, the Germans were more or less chased into harbour with bad losses; The Falklands, the Germans were annihilated as a fighting force; Dogger Bank, the two forces were pretty well matched but the Germans were the ones who lost a ship.

Looking at Jutland, one cannot forget that the first 3 objectives defined above were the ones primarily in the head of Jellicoe, if not of Beatty. Destroying the enemy was definitely subordinate to defending the coast, defending trade, and driving the enemy back into harbour. Sure, Jellicoe would have taken a Trafalgar-style victory, but that is to under-estimate the German materiele and leadership - Scheer and Hipper were not going to play into British hands, and their skill at disengaging is what saved the HSF.

Later in the war, there were plans to go for objective 5), carrying the war to the enemy with the planned 1919 air raids against Emden and Wilhelmshaven, but the end of the war curtailed those.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

sharlin

Banned
And lets not forget that although the RN lost more ships, the HSF ran away. Twice. When it encountered the Grand Fleets gunline, Scheer had to withdraw, even with unreliable shells and adequate gunnery the British held the advantage when it counted, twice.
 
I agree that the RN didn't do a bad job during WW1, it fulfilled it's objectives perfectly well but it was the Heavyweight Champion of the World beating a smaller, weaker, less experienced opponent. It was par for the course and it rightly shouldn't get that much extra credit. While in WW2 it was no longer Heavyweight Champion of the World in fact it was past it's prime and had a dodgy knee and a damaged shoulder, but despite that it stayed in the ring, slugged it out and won against an opposition who was comparatively much tougher. When it comes to performing above or below expectations the WW2 RN did much better than the WW1 version.
 
So derailing this a bit, what would teh RN be today assuming the world wars didnt happen? Guesstimate the development of the empire and the economy would be tricky to say the least but I would be interested to hear what people think about it.
 
It sinteresting how different people see Jutland.

wethe rit was a tactical/strategic/deciding/minor victory of Germany/the UK...

Its all true - partly...

I tend to think it was a draw.

Neuither the HSF nor the RN achieved the goal they started with.

Both went away roughly the same power ratio they had before (UK had more in the beginning and lost more too)

Both learned from the experience (regarding BCs and shells, gunfire)

But it was a boost to the Kaisers (and Germanys) confidence...

Jutland was never a battle the UK couldend the war with (Germany was too strong on land), but as someone remarked ;) it could have cost the UK the war... - if the HSF had prevailed.

One might say that the RN did not manage to destroy the HSF, insofar the Brits failed, but the HSFstayed in harbor from then on - insofar the RN suceeded.

THE HSF did retreat (insofar they "lost") but they did dish out a lot of pain to the RN insofar they "won"...

IMHO Jutland did show one thing early - battlewagons were on the decline - an afternoon and you lose 1.000s of men and millions of Pounds - often to only a few shots. But even if you "suceed" the war is not won..
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
So in other words the Royal Navy did nothing between Navarino and Jutland?


Well, no major power chose to go to war with Britain (we declared war on Russia in the Crimean War). France tried challenging British naval supremacy in Napoleon III's time but gave it up; Germany tried and ended up making an enemy of the Empire. The RN was basically deployed to protect trade, beat down piracy, and maintain the safety of the Empire's interests. In which it was supremely successful; the Empire's expansion in the late 19th Century would not have been possible without it.

Example: the Boer War. Despite earning the oppobrium of almost all of Europe, there was never any question of foreign intervention. The British forces in South Africa were reinforced without any problems, the RN forming a flying squadron that would have taken on any other nation's fleet on at worst even terms, with a couple of battle fleets to spare.

Jusr because there were no great clashes of battleships doesn't mean nothing was being done.
 
Well, no major power chose to go to war with Britain (we declared war on Russia in the Crimean War). France tried challenging British naval supremacy in Napoleon III's time but gave it up; Germany tried and ended up making an enemy of the Empire. The RN was basically deployed to protect trade, beat down piracy, and maintain the safety of the Empire's interests. In which it was supremely successful; the Empire's expansion in the late 19th Century would not have been possible without it.

Example: the Boer War. Despite earning the oppobrium of almost all of Europe, there was never any question of foreign intervention. The British forces in South Africa were reinforced without any problems, the RN forming a flying squadron that would have taken on any other nation's fleet on at worst even terms, with a couple of battle fleets to spare.

Jusr because there were no great clashes of battleships doesn't mean nothing was being done.

Oh I completely agree but that was in response to someone saying that navies are only for fleet battles, as you correctly point out the RN during that period and the USN today are so strong that no one is stupid enough to engage them in a fleet battle.
 
An american newspaper reporter summed up Jutland with a simple but oh so accurate phrase


The HSF has assaulted it's jailer, but it is still in jail!
 
Top