WI German navy destroys British navy in Jutland.

cpip

Gone Fishin'
I think if there'd been a second closer engagement after the first one then it could have been a bit more bloody - but yes.
The only way to get a wholesale wipe-out would be if (using the side with faster ships here) the Brits were losing ships from the pursuit to motive damage slower than the Germans were losing them to outright disablement. Basically you need to have a situation where the RN keeps pressing the engagement and the KM can't get away - and that's really dang hard since the KM can use their light forces to gain time!

One would think that even someone as foolhardy and bloodthirsty as Beatty would, after losing enough ships to motive damage, be persuaded to break off the pursuit if the British are bleeding ships from the pursuit force, even if there's major losses being inflicted on the Germans.

Still, an even-more-prolonged running battle could make for an interesting story, at least...
 
Aside from magazine explosions very few post-Dreadnaught Capital Ships were unambiguously lost to gunfire alone.

All but one (Audacious lost to a mine) of the British combat losses during WW1 were due to magazine explosions. Ditto Hood during WW2. Other losses during WW2 were all due to air or submarine torpedo attack.

SMS Blücher was sunk by gunfire... but her status as a capital ship in the post-Dreadnought world is ambiguous (only 8.2in guns...). SMS Lützow was certainly crippled by gunfire, but was ultimately scuttled by a torpedo. Next time round Bismarck was pounded into a floating wreck by gunfire but required torpedoes and possible scuttling charges to finish off. Scharnhorst likewise was crippled by gunfire but still required torpedo hits to put her under.

All the US losses during WW2 were due to air attack.

French? Bretagne was lost to a magazine explosion. Provence... badly battered by gunfire and settled onto the harbour floor in shallow water... probably would have sunk if she was at sea. No other combat losses during WW2. No Dreadnaughts lost during WW1.

Italy? No combat losses to gunfire.

Japan? Kirishima was unambiguously destroyed by gunfire. Hiei was heavily damaged by gunfire but ultimately sunk by air attack. Remaining losses due to air attack surface torpedo attack or submarines.

All in all, that's three Capital Ships unambiguously sunk by the cumulative effects of gunfire, including one it's dubious to call a capital ship and one early generation vessel in harbour and grossly outmatched; four ships crippled by gunfire but finished off by other means and five ships destroyed by magazine explosions resulting from gunfire (four of those Battlecruisers, including two first generation Battlecruisers, and one a first generation Dreadnought caught in harbour and outmatched).

So, in summary, it's hard to sink a Battleship from gunfire alone.
 
What were the Germans risking at Jutland - some loss of prestige? Didn't they have everything to gain and very little to lose? What if the German fleet had been mostly destroyed or put out of action for a few weeks/months? Wouldn't it just be business as usual - Germany blockaded, no attempt at amphibious attacks on the continent other than Zeebrugge?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
It was also hard to sink a ship-of-the-line with gunfire alone. It's just that boarding was no longer a feasible way to take a damaged ship out of the fight entirely - at Trafalgar most ships were captured not sunk.
 
May as well put this one in ASB. No chance that the RN would be destroyed. I can think a e few scenarios to weaken it but that is all.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
*AHEM*

Webcomic_xkcd_-_Wikipedian_protester.png

German 12"/50 had a max possible penetration of 13.6 inches of armor (dead perpendicular to the plate) at 10,000M. The RN QE & Revenge class ships had 13" armor belts. Most of the rest of the RN heavies ran 12" belts. Except for a perfect hit, obtained in rolling seas, by ships making 18-20 knots the British Super Dreads were invulnerable. Deck armor is not an issue since none of the ships, on either side, could elevate sufficiently to make plunging fire possible. Conversely the 15"/42 on the QE & Revenge had sufficient over penetration to defeat the belt armor on every ship the HSF brought into action, and the 13.5"/45 was marginally more capable of defeating the HSF heavies belt, although far from certain to be successful.

There is a tendency to forget the remarkable protection of the RN battleships because their BC were so remarkably fragile (Invincible's belt was only 6" with Lion & Tiger class running 9", by comparison the Derfflingers carried belts of up to 11.2", nearly equal to the HSF heavies). This is very much an error. The BC should never have been used in the battle line, that was not their role, and they were ill-suited for that sort of slugging. They were designed to kill armored/protected cruisers and act as a force that could find, fix and defeat opposition scouting forces. Results demonstrated very nicely that the strategy was fatally flawed, in no small part due to officers seeing guns as big as on a BB and attempting to use them as such. The same sort of error cost the USN two CLAA off Guadalcanal when they were used in the role of cruiser, something that they were utterly ill-suited to perform.

There is also the not insignificant matter of light forces, here the GF had such an overwhelming advantage (better than 2-1 in CL and the GF had a 15% numerical advantage, as well as a qualitative advantage, in DD).

Lastly, there is the reality that history has demonstrated that actually sinking a battleship with gunfire is nearly impossible. They can be battered, turned into scrap, and left unable to defend themselves in any meaningful manner (as demonstrated in WW II on several occasions), but actually putting one on the bottom is another story. They can be killed, but the big guns won't be enough. You need to pound them flat and then kill them with torpedoes. Given all the factors noted above, there is no reasonable manner to get the entire GF into the condition necessary for that sort of coup de gras.

Wiping out the Royal Navy heavies is simply not going to happen without Skippy the ASB putting in an appearance.
 
Last edited:
As Japanese proved in Tsushima, overwhelming advantage can be counteracted by superior leadership;.

This what if boils down to what if the British fleet is caught off the coast and the Germans cross the T on the british fleet.

We shouldn't forget the British had many, many other naval resources to draw on, so the Germans wouldn't take the seas, but this owould lead to a breakout from the North Sea and harassment that would make Germany not blockaded. After Russia's collapse, they wouldn't need to retaliate with submarine warfare as much, not bringing in the USA. Then, they would fight to a bitter stalemate on the Western front while Austria and Turkey collapsed. British doctrinal improvements would still win the day, but Germany would escape with an honorable peace, and Austria would still control Cisleithania north of Slovenia. Italy would get its way in the peace, and Hungary would control Transleithania. Bulgaria would be status quo ante, and Turkey restricted to modern day borders, plus Kurdistan. Hungary (the real power in former A-H), Germany, and Turkey would be able to defend their puppets in the former Russian Empire, to an extent. The british and French might strike an unholy bargain with the Bolsheviks and undermine the Central Powers, or stupidly back the White Russians. If they do the former, parts like Ukraine, Georgia, and Belarus are definitely lost for the Central Powers. Latter, then the central powers lose nothing since the whites would lose the war and Bolsheviks wouldn't dare the whole time to attack Germany.

Long term? Ottomans survive probably under Kemalist condominium and fascism starts in Hungary.

So long story short they would still "lose" the war, but without a total collapse and German revolution. Even after the revolution, they thought the armistice was peace with honor, and their psyche wouldn't be damaged by a Versailles.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
AFAICT only two Russian battleships were lost by gunfire at Tsushima - one was a magazine explosion via the belt and one was progressive flooding from shell holes at the waterline.

Neither really applies to the BBs of Grand Fleet. Indeed, that the Warspite took several minutes of fire from the entire High Seas Fleet and still sailed home quite nicely demonstrates how much shell-fire it takes to kill one 12" armoured BB.
 
AFAICT only two Russian battleships were lost by gunfire at Tsushima - one was a magazine explosion via the belt and one was progressive flooding from shell holes at the waterline.

Neither really applies to the BBs of Grand Fleet. Indeed, that the Warspite took several minutes of fire from the entire High Seas Fleet and still sailed home quite nicely demonstrates how much shell-fire it takes to kill one 12" armoured BB.

Naval victories with armored ships before carriers didn't usually involve heavy losses anyway. The bigger strategic implication of Jutland wasn't "will the RN be destroyed" but "will the KM make it to the North Sea and the ocean?"
 
http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/index.php/H.M.S._Warspite_at_the_Battle_of_Jutland

This shows the damage sustained by the Warspite at Jutland. Although none of the damage was critical, the German shells were in most cases penetrating the British armour plating.

Yet none of the shells penetrated the main belt, the belt ends are less armoured, the British would subsequently conclude that such armour schemes were a waste of weight something the Americans had already worked out by careful thought. That is why all or nothing makes sense, so long as the machinery and magazine spaces, the turrets and barbettes remain operational then the enemy can happily poke a lot of holes in a battleship without killing it.

Further but even in its damaged condition the Warspite was still able to dodge three torpedoes from a U-boat suggesting that the hopes of sinking the GF with torpedoes alone happens to be on the wishful side of optimistic.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Naval victories with armored ships before carriers didn't usually involve heavy losses anyway. The bigger strategic implication of Jutland wasn't "will the RN be destroyed" but "will the KM make it to the North Sea and the ocean?"

The KM being slower and less well armed/armoured than the Grand Fleet... kinda needed to get rid of at least the DNs of GF. That way they can use their own BBs to punch through the RN light screen and release their light ships into the ocean... or do whatever else they needed to do.
 
The KM being slower and less well armed/armoured than the Grand Fleet... kinda needed to get rid of at least the DNs of GF. That way they can use their own BBs to punch through the RN light screen and release their light ships into the ocean... or do whatever else they needed to do.

True but even the few ships that did get into the ocean did some damage. KM in the ocean would eventually subside as a thret but totally nullify the possibility of keeping England unraided while managing a blockade of Germany, freeing up that potential
 
Looking at a copy of the admralty sketch illustrating the location of hits on Warspite at Jutland, I can count no less than 19 hits on the port side alone, none of these pirced the main belt. There being about 9 hits to starboard none on the belt. Though Damaged Warspite was still capable of fighting and within a few hours was able to steam at 21knots so could have kept up with the fleet if required. I think this is elequent testomony when taken with the damage that Malaya indured to the inate toughness and soundeness of these ships. The four Queen Elizebeths alone would have (and did) cause suficent damage to their opposition in the HSF that it is in the realms of BS to think that either fleet could deliver a knock out blow to the other without themselves taking critical losses.
 
Actually have the Battle of Heigoland Bight go wrong, terribly wrong, like whole British destroyer squadrons destroyed, relieving battlecruiser sunk by British submarine torpedoes.

The weakening there would do a lot.
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
It is accepted that the battlecruiser had no place in the line of battle up against Dreadnought battleships, but all three of Beatty's losses came when they were up against German battlecruisers - and the Lion was crippled at Dogger Bank, again against German BC's alone.

Fending off the enemy's heavy First Scouting Group was the Battlecruiser Force / Fleet's job. Beatty managed that at Jutland through the intervention of the 5th Battle Squadron. If you swap the QE's for 3rd BCS (three first generation BC's) would anyone be confident that Beatty would be able to defeat Hipper, either in terms of losses or in shielding the Grand Fleet & allow it to ambush Scheer.

I suggest the following was more true:-
1. The first six RN BC's (sometimes referred to as "I" class) could handle enemy armoured & light cruisers but were not fit to stand up to Germany's BC force;
2. The Mighty Cats stood a good chance against Hipper & possibly the early German DN's;
3. German BC's could stand up against RN DN's (possible exception of the QE's) but could not really hurt Super-Dreadnoughts.

Comments?

Edit - Can't really put the loss of the Invincible down to Beatty, but it was still at the hands of two of Hipper's squadron.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
It is accepted that the battlecruiser had no place in the line of battle up against Dreadnought battleships, but all three of Beatty's losses came when they were up against German battlecruisers - and the Lion was crippled at Dogger Bank, again against German BC's alone.

Fending off the enemy's heavy First Scouting Group was the Battlecruiser Force / Fleet's job. Beatty managed that at Jutland through the intervention of the 5th Battle Squadron. If you swap the QE's for 3rd BCS (three first generation BC's) would anyone be confident that Beatty would be able to defeat Hipper, either in terms of losses or in shielding the Grand Fleet & allow it to ambush Scheer.

I suggest the following was more true:-
1. The first six RN BC's (sometimes referred to as "I" class) could handle enemy armoured & light cruisers but were not fit to stand up to Germany's BC force;
2. The Mighty Cats stood a good chance against Hipper & possibly the early German DN's;
3. German BC's could stand up against RN DN's (possible exception of the QE's) but could not really hurt Super-Dreadnoughts.

Comments?

Edit - Can't really put the loss of the Invincible down to Beatty, but it was still at the hands of two of Hipper's squadron.

Close, except all the GF BB could defeat the best of the HSF battle cruiser's armor and none of the HSF guns were capable of killing any of the actual RN battleships short of a golden BB hit.
 

JAG88

Banned
Perhaps "Invincible" is a better term - not killable.
It's certainly true that Warspite took one heck of a beating from the entire HSF and yet toddled home quite happily.

Lol, no, at most 7 ships fired at it, and for a very short period of time at that.

And it took just a dozen hits on not vital places, its armour simply wasnt tested... other than a hit on the waterline (not protected by the narrow belt since the QEs were horribly overweight) that reduced it speed to 16kts...

The good thing when many ships are shooting at you, none of them can correct their aim.
 

JAG88

Banned
German 12"/50 had a max possible penetration of 13.6 inches of armor (dead perpendicular to the plate) at 10,000M. The RN QE & Revenge class ships had 13" armor belts. Most of the rest of the RN heavies ran 12" belts. Except for a perfect hit, obtained in rolling seas, by ships making 18-20 knots the British Super Dreads were invulnerable. Deck armor is not an issue since none of the ships, on either side, could elevate sufficiently to make plunging fire possible.

Turret faces would be vulnerable, as would the roofs as shown by the battle, most RN barbettes were 9-10 inches thick, and the issue with the RN is that you just need a hot fragment of something (shell, spalling armour) to ignite a charge and cause a lethal chain reaction.

Conversely the 15"/42 on the QE & Revenge had sufficient over penetration to defeat the belt armor on every ship the HSF brought into action, and the 13.5"/45 was marginally more capable of defeating the HSF heavies belt, although far from certain to be successful.

No they werent, crappy RN shells took care of that, plus since the Kaisers onwards KM belt armour was 35cm thick, unbeatable at most ranges for the RN gun.

The 343mm wasnt anything special, even with the improved Greenboy shells the 305mm Russian guns were their match, and the German ones werent far behind, and remember these were made due to the RN failure to make a decent high velocity 305mm gun.

There is a tendency to forget the remarkable protection of the RN battleships because their BC were so remarkably fragile (Invincible's belt was only 6" with Lion & Tiger class running 9", by comparison the Derfflingers carried belts of up to 11.2", nearly equal to the HSF heavies).

Save for the Rs, RN armour wasnt that remarkable, QEs belt is very narrow, AND they were overweight so they ended up submerged and unable to protect the waterline.

This is very much an error. The BC should never have been used in the battle line, that was not their role, and they were ill-suited for that sort of slugging. They were designed to kill armored/protected cruisers and act as a force that could find, fix and defeat opposition scouting forces. Results demonstrated very nicely that the strategy was fatally flawed, in no small part due to officers seeing guns as big as on a BB and attempting to use them as such. The same sort of error cost the USN two CLAA off Guadalcanal when they were used in the role of cruiser, something that they were utterly ill-suited to perform.

They werent used in the battleline, they got pummeled by their German counterparts that WERE designed to take part in the battleline, as the Japanese had done at Tsushima.

There is also the not insignificant matter of light forces, here the GF had such an overwhelming advantage (better than 2-1 in CL and the GF had a 15% numerical advantage, as well as a qualitative advantage, in DD).

True, but from the first to the last KM dread they had director-aimed 15cm secondary battery that was quite useful against DDs and CLs as proven by the battle.

Lastly, there is the reality that history has demonstrated that actually sinking a battleship with gunfire is nearly impossible. They can be battered, turned into scrap, and left unable to defend themselves in any meaningful manner (as demonstrated in WW II on several occasions), but actually putting one on the bottom is another story. They can be killed, but the big guns won't be enough. You need to pound them flat and then kill them with torpedoes. Given all the factors noted above, there is no reasonable manner to get the entire GF into the condition necessary for that sort of coup de gras.

...uuuuunless they blow up, which the RN ships had a disturbing tendency to do. All you need is to ignite that first propellant charge and is goodbye limey.

Wiping out the Royal Navy heavies is simply not going to happen without Skippy the ASB putting in an appearance.

All of them? Impossible, but a utter thrashing sinking half of them.... maybe.
 
Last edited:

JAG88

Banned
Germans get a bunch of lucky shots that hit the magazines of most of the ships.

AFAIK not a single Battlecruiser was lost to magazine hits.

The most popular hypothesis is that turret or barbette penetrations set up a propellant chain reaction that got to the magazine and blew up the ships.
 
Top