I recently completed posting an Alternate Battle of Jutland thread from WW1. The AU basically removed the pre-dreadnaughts from the HSF order of Battle leaving Scheer operating under severe operational restrictions from the Kaiser to preserve the HSF at all costs. In that thread the battle involved around just the screening forces (battlecruisers) but given the tactical situation it could equally have led to no confrontation at all. It raised to me an interesting AH possibility for speculation, as to what would the postwar environment make of the situation where neither fleet was actually employed in a major action? IRL even with pre-dreadnaughts, the entire North Sea campaign produced only a single major battle IOTL (Jutland), and many pundits of the time later queried the effectiveness of the employment of the Grand Fleet. I think it raises an interesting specter of what would the result be in the fervid 'no more war' atmosphere after the armistice with no such battle? In societies traumatized by the cost both social and economic, how would the vast amounts of national treasure invested in navies be defended postwar? How would the traditionalist bodies like the RN justify their future, and what would the impact be on iconic naval logic such as Mahan's 'Fleet-in-being' concept and its intrinsic costs to the national purse survive? Undoubtedly the WNT would in some form go ahead, but the question leads to some wildly interesting alternatives for naval evolution in the 1920s and 30s. I'd be interested to see what ideas people come up with. T.
What if there was no major fleet action between the Grand Fleet and High Seas Fleet in WW1?
- Thread starter Tangles2
- Start date
Yeah, but I mean what would the nuts and bolts be/ The WNT trashed the G3 designs, The USN lost funding in congress. What kind of austerity measures would the peace lobby have forced on the various governments. I was thinking no 16-inch or 8-inch development for the RN, or would the Rodney's be canned and what hulls would they get to keep. That kind of speculation. Instead of the counties could the RN ended up with Turreted Hawkins?
Garrison
Donor
I honestly don't think it would have made much difference for the RN. The absence of a major engagement is unlikely to make the pacifist/ disarmament stronger than OTL.
I somewhat agree with Garrison on this. However, it does leave the RN more exposed to those that claim that the days of the battleship are over. The likes of Percy Scott are certainly not pacifists, but they do want a different RN from OTL. You might see a RN with far less battleships and battlecruisers, and more aircraft carriers, submarines and land based aircraft. In turn, this does open up some avenues for budget cutting.
Coulsdon Eagle
Monthly Donor
The AHL forums will be full of ATL battles between dreadnoughts that never happened with the following results: -
- Beatty is not regarded by some as over-promoted egotists with no idea regarding strategy;
- Threads with RN battlecruisers blowing up "for no good reason" would be decried;
- German battlecruisers will not earn their (well-deserved) status as the first fast battleships;
- (Assuming the Entente / Allies win) Jellicoe is regarded as the Man Who Won the War;
- Hipper's reputation does not match his OTL;
- Ingenohl not sacked, so what happens to Scheer?
- British shells do not burst when striking armour - they burst through & with their larger bursting charges wreak havoc on the HSF.
Last edited:
The money spent on the Grand Fleet's battleships would be seen as totally justified on the grounds that it had been so strong the Germans were afraid to send their battleships to sea and even attempt to break the blockade.
Garrison
Donor
It could well be that in the absence of all the wrangling over Jutland the Royal Navy is better off.
The drivers are really no different. Gun caliber keeps increasing meaning bigger, more complex capital ships and a corresponding reduction in number. Battle cruisers are still the only thing preventing raids, so they remain popular and as engine technology improves and you hit hard hydrodynamic limits, you get fast battleships. Aircraft remain poor for anything but recon for the next decade until you get the engines, navigation equipment, and weapons to find and hurt someone on anything but a clear day. Subs still suck. They are a solved problem. There is a reason why they never had WWI style success again. Besides, they are of marginal use for the U outside of certain theatres. They have to have them, but they can't be the backbone of the fleet.
Honestly I would have to pick battle cruisers as the big winner. Their strategic mobility was shown to be valuable again and again. If they remained a desirable platform after Jutland OTL, just imagine if they never gained their explosive reputation.
Arguably he did. The blockade was never seriously threatened and was crucial in winning the war.
They were already having their hands tied with the Austro Hungarian fleet.
Not much changes short term or long.
The RN had two main missions in WW1 protect the merchant fleet mostly from raiders/subs but from Capital ships if the sortie. and blockade Germany.
Its secondary function was to Fight the German fleet if it comes out.
If Germany never sails then the RN still has its main two jobs to do. And going into WW2 those jobs still remain. So not having the Big navel battle does nothing to change the RNs main jobs. Anything no big battle probably means more capital ships as the flaws that showed up at Jutland will not be see and thus they wont have to be addressed.
The RN had two main missions in WW1 protect the merchant fleet mostly from raiders/subs but from Capital ships if the sortie. and blockade Germany.
Its secondary function was to Fight the German fleet if it comes out.
If Germany never sails then the RN still has its main two jobs to do. And going into WW2 those jobs still remain. So not having the Big navel battle does nothing to change the RNs main jobs. Anything no big battle probably means more capital ships as the flaws that showed up at Jutland will not be see and thus they wont have to be addressed.
Any impact will also be governed by circumstances. As an example, if both fleets sortie but never meet, might this be viewed post-war as due to a failure to locate the enemy and lead to programmes for light "scout" aircraft carriers?
It also comes down to the perception of the service by the British public. For so long it was an iconic emblem of the British Empire. The situation in a traumatized post war Britain were there was no Jutland as IRL, raises the question would the impact be worse here? The WNT as an arms limitation treaty was a result of OTL where at least Jutland could be held up as an example that the value of the national treasure spent on the Grand Fleet had proved it's worth. Would there by a even more disproportionate backlash when this example did not occur ITTL? Would domestic liberal and labor political agenda's use this fact to mitigate the huge financial debt the country still labored under in the 20s?
Well depends on how the major fleet battle is avoided, if its both fleets sailing past each other then maybe but if its the case that the HSF never comes out to fight then its easy to say the GF was so mighty and powerful that Germany would rather hide in port than face them.
Can't blame a fleet for not sinking a fleet thats safely hiding in port