What if the HSF suffered devastating losses at the Battle of Dogger Bank (Jan 1915)?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
What if this battle resulted in devastating losses to the German surface battle fleet in January 1915, what would have been the consequences?

Would the Germans have switched their emphasis to the submarine campaign, and unrestricted submarine warfare significantly earlier, and persisted in it continuously at all costs if they saw their surface fleet arm as crippled at this point?
 

Riain

Banned
They might load up Flanders with destroyers, light cruisers and coast defence battleships and do some real damage.
 

ArtosStark

Riain said:
They might load up Flanders with destroyers, light cruisers and coast defence battleships and do some real damage.
Click to expand...
The Coastal Defense Battleships, and at least some of the cruisers are needed to watch the Russian Baltic Fleet. They could have made more use of Flanders in OTL but AIUI naval politics mostly prevented it. ITTL, the HSF losses could reduce their relative pull and allow more assets to fall into Flanders, or it could make it seem more imperative that the HSF have every surface ship possible to keep the Entente from landing on German soil.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
FFS, pick one or the other, You posted two damned near identical threads in half an hour.

STOP.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Riain said:
They might load up Flanders with destroyers, light cruisers and coast defence battleships and do some real damage.
Click to expand...

Why so in this particular case? I know you're a fan or forward basing of their naval assets during this war in general. I know you see it as a wiser than OTL course. Is there something about a bigger early setback like this that also makes it more likely to happen?
 

Riain

Banned
Nothing really, but after OTL Dogger Bank Ingenhol was replaced in command by von Pohl so a worse result might result in a more sweeping change to command arrangements. Perhaps, depending on how that plays out, the Germans might fluke a command structure that is useful. I think the forward basing argument is pretty obvious so a decent command structure would likely make better decisions than OTL.
 

Riain

Banned
Peg Leg Pom said:
Where would they put them, the Belgian coast isn't exactly well set up for supporting a large naval force?
Click to expand...

For about 9 months from mid 1916 some 23 full sized destroyers were based in Belgium. The canal from Zeebrugge to Bruges was big enough for a small cruiser to use.

In December 1914 von Schroeder requested 2 coast defence battleships of the Odin class without success, so these must have been able to be accommodated somehow.
 
Last edited:

naraic

raharris1973 said:
What if this battle resulted in devastating losses to the German surface battle fleet in January 1915, what would have been the consequences?

Would the Germans have switched their emphasis to the submarine campaign, and unrestricted submarine warfare significantly earlier, and persisted in it continuously at all costs if they saw their surface fleet arm as crippled at this point?
Click to expand...
No matter the POD the Germans won't want unrestricted submarine warfare if it starts pissing off major neutrals like the USA. They will back off until they are desperate on land to try and finish the war. They may invest more in their submarines though.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
naraic said:
They will back off until they are desperate on land to try and finish the war.
Click to expand...

The desperation of their situation on land is rather subjective though. Arguably, their military position on the continent was worse in the winter of 1914-15 than in winter of 1916-1917. The war was in overtime for all belligerents by Christmas 1914 considering their prewar expectations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top