Why didnt allies try to get into Baltic in WW1?

[Detlef]

As the tittle says, I read of the blockade etc.. But why didnt the superiorly numerous allies try to bypass Belgium and break into Baltic and try to land troops there. What stopped them and was such an action ever considered?

Ah thank you. So problem was neutral Denmark.
How hard or easy would it be to go slowly and remove German mines with minesweepers covered by Royal navy and French navy..

Several things I imagine:

1. As others have already mentioned both Denmark and Sweden had declared neutrality. And said that they would defend the entrance to the Baltic Sea against all attackers.
   It wouldn´t look good if Britain which entered the war because of poor little Belgium would now attack a neutral country too?
2. Look at a map.
   You essentially have three narrow "ways" from the Kattegat into the Baltic Sea. Easy to mine, easy to defend with coastal artillery. Add in small torpedo boats and submarines and breaking through would look very costly indeed.
   (The Little Belt is 50 km long, the Great Belt 60 km and the Oresund looks like 40-50 km too.)
   (A coastal gun barrel can be raised to a higher elevation than a gun in a ship turret, meaning more range and plunging fire.)
3. What percentage of the Royal Navy do you want to send there?
   If you only send a small part then the German High Sea Fleet might surprise and defeat them. If you send a large part then you have more targets for submarines and less ships are available elsewhere.
4. Damaged ships will have to return to Britain for repairs.
   If I were a German admiral I´d place submarines and Zeppelins close to the Skagerrak to take a shot at damaged ships.
5. Without a harbor all ships have to return to Britain for refueling and resupply. Which means that lots of ships will be in action almost all of the time. Less rest for crews and less time for maintenance.
6. And even if despite all this you break through you still have to face the German fleet with their bases close by while the next Entente bases are either back in Britain or Russian St. Petersburg. Plus you´ll first need an army to occupy Denmark to secure the water lanes so that you can resupply your landed troops in Germany.
   Meaning that you need two armies if you even want to think abut landing one in Germany. Those soldiers have to come from somewhere?

The risks are really pretty high.
If the British lose several dreadnoughts the German fleet might become more adventurous too.

And if Baltic was off the limits, why not try to go for North coast of Germany on the other side, where Hamburg and Wilhelmshaven are at?

Once again look at a map.
First of all at the start of the war Germany declared the whole German Bight a war zone with mine fields. Roughly in a quarter circle from Borkum / Emden at the Dutch-German border to above the island of Sylt at the Danish-German border.
Inside that zone you have the island of Heligoland, a´naval fortress with 12 inch guns in armored cupolas.
Plus most of the islands close to the coast had been fortified too. IIRC Wangerooge, Langeoog, Norderney and Borkum all had coastal batteries with 11 or 12 inch guns.
And the final defenses (additional coastal artillery) were at the river entrances and the entrance to the Jadebusen (Wilhelmshaven).

Also, zoom in and look at the light green color between the islands and the coast. That´s the tidal flats. Above water at low tide (except for some channels) and below water at high tide.
Pretty difficult to plan an amphibious operation here especially if you have to deal also with German small craft hiding in the channels only known to them.
You could invade an island sure (with only a small fishing harbor.
But then how to get your soldiers and equipment from that island to the mainland? Incredibly risky and time consuming. Almost certain to fail.

And Hamburg and Wilhelmshaven?
Well look at Hamburg. It´s quite a long way upriver the river Elbe to reach Hamburg. With quite a few coastal artillery batteries stationed along the way. Starting around Cuxhaven.
And Wilhelmshaven?
There´s only a narrow darker green channel (deeper water level) starting at the island of Wangerooge and then going on for 50 or 60 km till you reach Wilhelmshaven. And also coastal artillery on both sides.
It´s the same for Bremerhaven and Bremen.

You try that and the Royal Navy will lose a lot of ships.
And probably not much to show for it.

There is a reason why the Entente in WW1 didn´t try both options.
The same reason why the Allies in WW2 didn´t try an invasion of the German North Sea coast.

 

[Reene]

Several things I imagine:

1. As others have already mentioned both Denmark and Sweden had declared neutrality. And said that they would defend the entrance to the Baltic Sea against all attackers.
   It wouldn´t look good if Britain which entered the war because of poor little Belgium would now attack a neutral country too?
2. Look at a map.
   You essentially have three narrow "ways" from the Kattegat into the Baltic Sea. Easy to mine, easy to defend with coastal artillery. Add in small torpedo boats and submarines and breaking through would look very costly indeed.
   (The Little Belt is 50 km long, the Great Belt 60 km and the Oresund looks like 40-50 km too.)
   (A coastal gun barrel can be raised to a higher elevation than a gun in a ship turret, meaning more range and plunging fire.)
3. What percentage of the Royal Navy do you want to send there?
   If you only send a small part then the German High Sea Fleet might surprise and defeat them. If you send a large part then you have more targets for submarines and less ships are available elsewhere.
4. Damaged ships will have to return to Britain for repairs.
   If I were a German admiral I´d place submarines and Zeppelins close to the Skagerrak to take a shot at damaged ships.
5. Without a harbor all ships have to return to Britain for refueling and resupply. Which means that lots of ships will be in action almost all of the time. Less rest for crews and less time for maintenance.
6. And even if despite all this you break through you still have to face the German fleet with their bases close by while the next Entente bases are either back in Britain or Russian St. Petersburg. Plus you´ll first need an army to occupy Denmark to secure the water lanes so that you can resupply your landed troops in Germany.
   Meaning that you need two armies if you even want to think abut landing one in Germany. Those soldiers have to come from somewhere?

The risks are really pretty high.
If the British lose several dreadnoughts the German fleet might become more adventurous too.



Once again look at a map.
First of all at the start of the war Germany declared the whole German Bight a war zone with mine fields. Roughly in a quarter circle from Borkum / Emden at the Dutch-German border to above the island of Sylt at the Danish-German border.
Inside that zone you have the island of Heligoland, a´naval fortress with 12 inch guns in armored cupolas.
Plus most of the islands close to the coast had been fortified too. IIRC Wangerooge, Langeoog, Norderney and Borkum all had coastal batteries with 11 or 12 inch guns.
And the final defenses (additional coastal artillery) were at the river entrances and the entrance to the Jadebusen (Wilhelmshaven).

Also, zoom in and look at the light green color between the islands and the coast. That´s the tidal flats. Above water at low tide (except for some channels) and below water at high tide.
Pretty difficult to plan an amphibious operation here especially if you have to deal also with German small craft hiding in the channels only known to them.
You could invade an island sure (with only a small fishing harbor.
But then how to get your soldiers and equipment from that island to the mainland? Incredibly risky and time consuming. Almost certain to fail.

And Hamburg and Wilhelmshaven?
Well look at Hamburg. It´s quite a long way upriver the river Elbe to reach Hamburg. With quite a few coastal artillery batteries stationed along the way. Starting around Cuxhaven.
And Wilhelmshaven?
There´s only a narrow darker green channel (deeper water level) starting at the island of Wangerooge and then going on for 50 or 60 km till you reach Wilhelmshaven. And also coastal artillery on both sides.
It´s the same for Bremerhaven and Bremen.

You try that and the Royal Navy will lose a lot of ships.
And probably not much to show for it.

There is a reason why the Entente in WW1 didn´t try both options.
The same reason why the Allies in WW2 didn´t try an invasion of the German North Sea coast.

First I would like to thank you for a great long response. I loved reading it.

1. In the past day I looked up Denmark at the time. It seems that if attack was to happen it could have justifiably be done when Denmark mined the straits under German preassure. Also Danes havent defended Juttland at all. They deened it futile and instead focused on Copenhagen and nearby islands. It would also seem that the minefields started only near the island group next tocopenhagen and a bit forward of that.

Is it then possie for brittish to land infantry onto Juttland and get them to push as far as possible and dig in while using mining pf straits by Denmark as a pretext.
If they did do that what effect wpuld it have on German war plans and actions.

It would have to be a large force. Otherwise the GermN high fleet will rally and destroy allied force piecemeal.
Say it is succesful for purpose of argument. The risks weere high but what about rewards? If it was succesful and allies clear baltics of German pressence forcing their fleets i to port while joining with Russian baltic fleet, how much of a benefit would be reaped

 

[Dalekiller]

First I would like to thank you for a great long response. I loved reading it.

1. In the past day I looked up Denmark at the time. It seems that if attack was to happen it could have justifiably be done when Denmark mined the straits under German preassure. Also Danes havent defended Juttland at all. They deened it futile and instead focused on Copenhagen and nearby islands. It would also seem that the minefields started only near the island group next tocopenhagen and a bit forward of that.

Is it then possie for brittish to land infantry onto Juttland and get them to push as far as possible and dig in while using mining pf straits by Denmark as a pretext.
If they did do that what effect wpuld it have on German war plans and actions.

It would have to be a large force. Otherwise the GermN high fleet will rally and destroy allied force piecemeal.
Say it is succesful for purpose of argument. The risks weere high but what about rewards? If it was succesful and allies clear baltics of German pressence forcing their fleets i to port while joining with Russian baltic fleet, how much of a benefit would be reaped

Now you sound like Admiral Fisher, the demented little gnome thought his ships were invincible, then Jutland showed the world why the British hadnt gone for Trafalgar, their ships had less survivability (and horrible shells).

This makes the invasion possible in one way, the British get all ships replaced by WW2 tech and know how to use it

 

[Reene]

Now you sound like Admiral Fisher, the demented little gnome thought his ships were invincible, then Jutland showed the world why the British hadnt gone for Trafalgar, their ships had less survivability (and horrible shells).

This makes the invasion possible in one way, the British get all ships replaced by WW2 tech and know how to use it

Oh I understand now that it was impossible. I was just interested since its alterbate history, what if it happenes and was succesful

 

[TFSmith121]

A British landing in Denmark in responsse to a German

1. In the past day I looked up Denmark at the time. It seems that if attack was to happen it could have justifiably be done when Denmark mined the straits under German preassure. Also Danes havent defended Juttland at all. They deened it futile and instead focused on Copenhagen and nearby islands. It would also seem that the minefields started only near the island group next tocopenhagen and a bit forward of that.

Is it then possie for brittish to land infantry onto Juttland and get them to push as far as possible and dig in while using mining pf straits by Denmark as a pretext. If they did do that what effect wpuld it have on German war plans and actions.

It would have to be a large force. Otherwise the GermN high fleet will rally and destroy allied force piecemeal.
Say it is succesful for purpose of argument. The risks weere high but what about rewards? If it was succesful and allies clear baltics of German pressence forcing their fleets i to port while joining with Russian baltic fleet, how much of a benefit would be reaped

A British landing in Denmark in response to a German overland offensive is doomed to failure, as British war planners going back to Palmerston acknowledged in 1864:

"...I am sure every Englishman who has a heart in his breast and a feeling of justice in his mind, sympathizes with those unfortunate Danes (cheers), and wishes that this country could have been able to draw the sword successfully in their defence (continued cheers); but I am satisfied that those who reflect on the season of the year when that war broke out, on the means which this country could have applied for deciding in one sense that issue, I am satisfied that those who make these reflections will think that we acted wisely in not embarking in that dispute. (Cheers.) To have sent a fleet in midwinter to the Baltic every sailor would tell you was an impossibility, but if it could have gone it would have been attended by no effectual result. Ships sailing on the sea cannot stop armies on land, and to have attempted to stop the progress of an army by sending a fleet to the Baltic would have been attempting to do that which it was not possible to accomplish. (Hear, hear.) If England could have sent an army, and although we all know how admirable that army is on the peace establishment, we must acknowledge that we have no means of sending out a force at all equal to cope with the 300,000 or 400,000 men whom the 30,000,000 or 40,000,000 of Germany could have pitted against us, and that such an attempt would only have insured a disgraceful discomfiture—not to the army, indeed, but to the Government which sent out an inferior force and expected it to cope successfully with a force so vastly superior. (Cheers.) ... we did not think that the Danish cause would be considered as sufficiently British, and as sufficiently bearing on the interests and the security and the honour of England, as to make it justifiable to ask the country to make those exertions which such a war would render necessary."

Essentially, even if the British managed to hold on to an enclave in northern Jutland, the RN and Merchant Marine is suffering severe losses (operational and simply in terms of opportunity costs) to keep the ground forces supplied; it becomes a self-policed POW camp, not unlike Salonika or the Dardanelles were in reality.

The RN could prevent a Continental invasion; the RN could mount a (at times) leaky blockade of the Continent (depending on events); and the RN could (usually) maintain control of the sea lanes in the Western Approaches and around the British Isles.

That's about it; the RN could never deploy and sustain an expeditionary force worth the name on the Continent, absent significant Continental allies - which Denmark could never be.

Best,

 

[Dalekiller]

Oh I understand now that it was impossible. I was just interested since its alterbate history, what if it happenes and was succesful

Everyone with a brain scratches their head, the Royal Navy wonders how try succeeded and the French want to know why it didn't happen earlier

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

I really enjoy reading your responses. If you wouldnt mind I would ask you a few more questions.


2. Is there any chance of Japanese, Australian and NZ navy leaving the Pacific to join Brittish in the Atlantic to help out with the aforementioned operation?

Just to back up some other posts: -

The Royal Australian Navy (officially formed by a royal decree in July 1911) consisted of one battlecruiser Australia, four light crusiers and a handful of destroyers. Australia eventually joined the Grand Fleet (missing Jutland after an antipodean collision with New Zealand). Certainly at least one of the CLs follwed IIRC Melbourne was one of the ships that led the surrendered HSF to the Forth.

There was no Royal New Zealand Navy at that time; there was a New Zealand Naval Force that basically consisted of one ship, a Pearl class light cruiser Philomel. The battlecruiser New Zealand was a Royal Navy vessel crewed by the usual mix of British Empire salts; the dominion had paid for her but never "owned" her, and she spent most of the war with the Grand Fleet.

Interestingly the two Indefatigable-class battlecruisers paid for by Australia & NZ were laid down after the 13.5" gunned Lion, a far better designed ship (even if it did have its own faults). You would have thought the RN would have suggested buying the more advanced design, but perhaps the Admiralty thought the dominions would baulk at paying the extra, and preferred to keep two certainties instead of hoping for more Lions.

 

[Glenn239]

As the tittle says, I read of the blockade etc.. But why didnt the superiorly numerous allies try to bypass Belgium and break into Baltic and try to land troops there. What stoped them and was such an action ever considered?

They'd have needed Denmark to declare war on Germany at some point.

 

[Tsargrad_or_Bust]

Slightly off topic, but wasn't there a plan for something like this in WWII?

 

[avernite]

Slightly off topic, but wasn't there a plan for something like this in WWII?

I have no idea, but it was probably even more obviously bonkers (the Germans directly controlled Denmark, airplanes existed, and the U-Boats were vastly more capable. Also the German army can redeploy to the Baltic coast faster than the Allies can reinforce it from Britain, but that hasn't changed).

 

[BlondieBC]

As the tittle says, I read of the blockade etc.. But why didnt the superiorly numerous allies try to bypass Belgium and break into Baltic and try to land troops there. What stoped them and was such an action ever considered?

Basically, it is a one way trip that will accomplish nothing beside allow Germany to win the war.

 

[BlondieBC]

The Royal Navy steams into the Baltic, and is summarily ripped apart by a mixture of mines, U-Boats, and the High Seas Fleet. After fleeing with its head in the sand, the High Seas Fleet sails out and stomps the Royal Navy a second time, now in open waters, and secures naval dominance for the Central Powers.

Hos is that not worse?

It is actually worse than the scenario you give. While the entry to the Baltic would involve losses, perhaps heavy losses, the real problem is that it is a one way trip. Once crossed, the straights near Denmark would inevitably be remined. So you now have situation where the choices will involved assaulting heavily fortified German naval bases (suicidal), running out of fuel and scuttling the ships, or basing in St. Petersburg. Each scenario effectively takes the ships in the operation out of the war.

 

[BlondieBC]

First I would like to thank you for a great long response. I loved reading it.

1. In the past day I looked up Denmark at the time. It seems that if attack was to happen it could have justifiably be done when Denmark mined the straits under German preassure. Also Danes havent defended Juttland at all. They deened it futile and instead focused on Copenhagen and nearby islands. It would also seem that the minefields started only near the island group next tocopenhagen and a bit forward of that.

Is it then possie for brittish to land infantry onto Juttland and get them to push as far as possible and dig in while using mining pf straits by Denmark as a pretext.
If they did do that what effect wpuld it have on German war plans and actions.

It would have to be a large force. Otherwise the GermN high fleet will rally and destroy allied force piecemeal.
Say it is succesful for purpose of argument. The risks weere high but what about rewards? If it was succesful and allies clear baltics of German pressence forcing their fleets i to port while joining with Russian baltic fleet, how much of a benefit would be reaped

Yes, the UK could have landed infantry. And it is a much more logical way to do the operation. After taking northern Jutland, it is a much easier operation navally, but as a person who wrote a TL for WW1, let me assure you the UK did not have spare troops sitting around doing nothing. So if you say move 2-3 corps (an army) to Jutland, you have to take them from somewhere. I am not so clear on exactly when you want the attack to occur, but you will end up cancelling operations in other theaters that help you more (unless you cancel Gallipoli). So you tend to push the war to a German win.