WI German navy destroys British navy in Jutland.

If I have understood correctly making night flotilla action to cause damage is much harder than Jellicoe making a few more mistakes and Scheer a little less meaning heavier damage to both Jellicoe and Beatty. Correct me if I am wrong. And what would be plausible losses for British in any of these scenarios?

If you want a sort of scenario that cpip put forward then one or two battleships will do for a real psychological shock to the professionals as well as the civilians. But the problem for the longer term is that to be realistic you are going to want a reversion to mean and we know quite well how the rest of the German attritional warfare efforts worked and the answer is not remotely well enough.

The war on land might do though to demoralise the Entente to the point where supposing the Germans (the rest of the CP don't count they'll try to do what the Germans tell them or cave in eventually anyway) have a surge of oxygen to the brain and agree to a sensible compromise peace they might pull it off.

The problem is that the kind of compromise peace Germany can get tends to look like rather cheap gains for the massive cost the leadership has inflicted on the German people. Germany will survive but the Kaiserreich is in trouble and during the war those are the people calling the shots. Still trouble is not doomed.

For Jutland though one or two British battleships hitting the bottom would have been quite the shock. It might have emboldened the Germans long enough to hold off on desperate strategies like unrestricted submarine warfare.
 

cpip

Gone Fishin'
The problem is that the kind of compromise peace Germany can get tends to look like rather cheap gains for the massive cost the leadership has inflicted on the German people. Germany will survive but the Kaiserreich is in trouble and during the war those are the people calling the shots. Still trouble is not doomed.

For Jutland though one or two British battleships hitting the bottom would have been quite the shock. It might have emboldened the Germans long enough to hold off on desperate strategies like unrestricted submarine warfare.

And if that's held off, and the Yanks aren't coming Over There, then it's possible that the Russians are less willing to push the war, and even if we lurch to the February Revolution, there's the beginnings of peace talks there -- and if Russia folds early and there's no Americans, then Clemenceau may be viewed as the mad warmonger and France seeks that separate peace -- and if France and Russia both are departing, then Italy folds, and it seems unlikely that Britain will stand alone in 1917 if a reasonable peace offer is made. However, this being the Imperial German Foreign Ministry, it's possible they start with an unreasonable offer -- but it must be remembered that before Brest-Litovsk, the German peace offer to Russia was not nearly so harsh...

Again, the idea that Jutland ends with an overwhelming British defeat seems unlikely; but enough of a defeat to harm morale is certainly believable.
 
...

For Jutland though one or two British battleships hitting the bottom would have been quite the shock. It might have emboldened the Germans long enough to hold off on desperate strategies like unrestricted submarine warfare.

But only if it breaks the blockade. Without that, Germany is still looking at starvation if the war drags on, which on land it looks like doing in 1916 where thousands upon thousands are dying a month in Verdun and (shortly after) on the Somme without any meaningful gain.

A one-off sinking of even a British capital ships wouldn't be enough for the HSF; they'd need to be able to come out at will and force the cruiser screen that was enforcing the blockade to pack up. And Jellicoe was very conscious of the need to keep his fleet in being to prevent that possibility. Certainly there'd be political ramifications were Jutland an outright defeat - quite possibly leading to Asquith losing his job - but would there be consequences for grand strategy? Not from the loss of a two or three battleships. To force a real change at sea Germany has to win so decisively that she can command the North Sea and that, as pointed out frequently in this thread, is nigh-on unachievable.

What a victory might do is encourage more sailings of the HSF and further engagements but it's difficult to believe that they'd all end the same way and Germany had fewer ships to start with (and would still have fewer ships even after a victory). Having been surprised by encountering the Grand Fleet en mass, the chances of a successful strategy of finding and overwhelming detached units must have seemed so unlikely - why would the British send out unsupported detached units of the Grand Fleet? - as to render a strategy based on that premise meaningless.

But then it all comes back to the question of what the HSF was for in the first place. Either it was to challenge British supremacy or it was nothing. Perhaps, given that logic, it would have sailed more often - German opinion might well have demanded it. Chances are, a second battle would not have gone so well.
 
Exactly. It should be similar to OTL: a minor German victory with morale effects, but one that has better butterfly effects. Fully active Hochseeflotte could with some luck damage Grand Fleet again, and disrupt the blockade. Actually, breaking the blockade is the best Germans could wish for, but I am struggling to make a non-ASB way to break it. My ideas right now are either continued minor German victories causing British to panic and concentrate on guarding the island, or a daring covert operation in Scapa Flow targeting blockading ships (which is not too plausible). Though, the war could be won without breaking the blockade, as long as USA keeps out.
 

Tyr Anazasi

Banned
The German strategy was to isolate a British squadron and then destroy it. It nearly worked with Beatty.

So if a German torpedo boat flottilla could have launched her eels in the night and sink up to four battleships the strategy would have succeeded even more. That having said would have consequences.

1. The German navy would have sought to destroy the enemy in similar actions. They did this indeed, but now they would enforce this. USW would not come so fast.

2. The RN had problems.

a) Not only they had lost several BCs, but also BBs. And if someone thinks of outproducing Germany, one has to know that during the war no British BB was laid down as everything went to lighter forces. So the only ships coming are the two Renown class BCs. And not much more.

b) Jellicoe would have been blamed for the defeat and had to retire. Beatty would take over the fleet. Ironically he would now be forced to fight the German fleet again. Sitting in Scapa Flow is no longer possible. Thus a second Jutland may happen.

c) Even if not such a victory might force the British to keep ground forces ready to fight a possible German invasion, troops missing in France.

3. It remains to be seen, what butterflies might appear. Rumania may not declare war, USA might stop their deliveries once cash is out in 1917, the French mutiny may be more successful. Anyway, IF the USA do not declare war, ww1 would be over in early 1918 at least.
 
Why do people insist on tarring the GF with the same brush as the BC's

Yes the BC's had signalling problems
Yes the BC's had Beatty (but remember, he still managed to lead the HSF under the guns of the GF)
Yes the BC's had turret penetrations
Yes the BC's had accuracy issues

The GF had none of these problems

Shell problems i'll give you that - but even non-penetrating hits are gonna wreck the upperworks and with the numbers involved will soft-kill the HSF
 

Saphroneth

Banned
So if a German torpedo boat flottilla could have launched her eels in the night and sink up to four battleships the strategy would have succeeded even more.

As RR has pointed out, that would make it a more successful torpedo attack than the most successful torpedo attack in history against battleships... and THAT one was against ships under peacetime conditions in harbour!
So it's possible, but really very unlikely indeed.
 
The German strategy was to isolate a British squadron and then destroy it. It nearly worked with Beatty.

So if a German torpedo boat flottilla could have launched her eels in the night and sink up to four battleships the strategy would have succeeded even more. That having said would have consequences.

1. The German navy would have sought to destroy the enemy in similar actions. They did this indeed, but now they would enforce this. USW would not come so fast.

2. The RN had problems.

a) Not only they had lost several BCs, but also BBs. And if someone thinks of outproducing Germany, one has to know that during the war no British BB was laid down as everything went to lighter forces. So the only ships coming are the two Renown class BCs. And not much more.

b) Jellicoe would have been blamed for the defeat and had to retire. Beatty would take over the fleet. Ironically he would now be forced to fight the German fleet again. Sitting in Scapa Flow is no longer possible. Thus a second Jutland may happen.

c) Even if not such a victory might force the British to keep ground forces ready to fight a possible German invasion, troops missing in France.

3. It remains to be seen, what butterflies might appear. Rumania may not declare war, USA might stop their deliveries once cash is out in 1917, the French mutiny may be more successful. Anyway, IF the USA do not declare war, ww1 would be over in early 1918 at least.

This in some ways an insightful analysis but there are flaws. The Germans did indeed want to isolate a small detachment either the Battlecruiser Force or a battlesquadron, that meant they were looking for maybe nine or ten battlecruisers or eight battleships to fall into their trap. Even then they probably did not expect to get all of them and even then they expected to need the extra 24 high calibre guns of the II Battle Squadron in order to get enough hits to make the ambush count. Further they did not expect the GF to come bearing down on them.

2) a)The British might have had problems had they lost a battleship or two and four would have been nasty but four is, as has been examined above, mind bendingly unlikely. Further there are 2 R class arriving shortly after the battle in addition to the two Renowns and further still the British laid down four Hoods, they only built one as the lessons of Jutland superseded the design and they did not need to rush build but they could have fielded all four and while the Hood might have been obsolete in 1941 in 1918/19 she would have been a fast battleship of extraordinary power. Also remember if there is no unrestricted submarine warfare to pressure to concentrate production on escorts is reduced.

b) Jellicoe would likely carry the can but while somewhat given to recklessness Beatty was not incompetent. A second Jutland is exactly what the British would (and did) want and exactly what the HSF did not (and didn't want) you don't expect to get supremely lucky twice and as sports fans will tell you the reversion to mean hurts

c) Not really the troops being trained for the front mean there is more than enough force available to deal with any likely landing and the Germans are still vastly short of the kind of overwhelming superiority needed to launch such an operation.

That said the loss of RN battleships might trigger a confidence boost in the German leadership...you might see more aggressive action by the HSF (as per point 1) but both Scheer and Hipper are likely to known they need to run away from the GF. If the Germans avoid unrestricted submarine warfare they actually have a better chance of enduring than they did OTL, winning outright is hard but a compromise peace was always a possibility.

3) Romania staying out of the war is actually better for the Entente than the CP, the Germans need that loot. The USA is not going to stop deliveries to the Entente, Wilson might have wanted to but there are two key constitutionalities you don't piss off in politics farmers and bankers and both of these not to mention a lot of other businesses had a vested interest in the Entente. Not only that but cash is not going to run out for a long time, things are unlikely to get as short for the Entente as for Germany. For one thing both the British and French Empires included literal gold mines.

Yet while I think 3 is the weakest reality wise all of the points 1,2 and 3 might have played a part in German perceptions and that could have led to them being both more confident and more sensible.
 
Germans couldn't actually threaten Britain, but a couple of raids to coastal villages is enough for propaganda purposes. Royal Navy, maybe now commanded by reckless Beatty, would be looking for payback, giving Scheer, well, the initial conditions for setting up another trap, but this time probably for the whole fleet, if British learned their lesson at Jutland. Baiting a couple of dreadnoughts into mines/U-boats will even out the odds even more, but it still won't give Germany naval superiority. However, HSF would try and try again, and I don't think it is too impossible for this to lead to much weaker British blockade, or even broken blockade at some point, Britain more willing to make peace later in the war and no USA in war.
 
Returning to the original question

The real question that should be asked is 'Can a resounding German success at Jutland allow the German navy to -
(a) protect merchant shipping coming through the N.W. Atlantic Ocean and then either the North Sea or the English Channel to trade with Germany - thus breaking the British Blockade,
and/or
(b) intercept and turn back American and other neutral ships trading with Britain using surface warships operating in the N.W. Atlantic Ocean'.

Only the achievement of either objective would change Germany's desire (need?) to initiate unrestricted submarine warfare, and thus bring America into the war.


Or you could ask - 'If Germany held back from submarine warfare in 1917 would France collapse before the increased trade coming into France and Britain enable them to win the war without needing American troops.'

Basically Jutland and the HSF are irrelevant to the results of WW1.

Ending the British blockade would be relevant but ASB, keeping America out is definately relevant.
 

JAG88

Banned
No he did not, he was reduced to throwing random abuse as his argument collapsed.

No my friend, it was not abuse, it was fair amusement at how misinformed you are and how little regard for historical accuracy you had.

Any forum member can check the relevant conversation and see how I had to constantly correct you using sources and logic. You simply were jot telling the truth.

But let us look again at the night scenario.

Scheer supposedly has superiority at night. Yet in OTL he is running away...why? The point is the supposed "superior night training" does not seem to have actually existed.

This is a false argument, you are implying that a better night training MUST force Scheer to seek a night engagement with the GF... against his orders that were to avoid risking his ships and specially to avoid battle with the whole GF.

The light forces of both sides have to successfully to achieve four difficult things just to get into the situation where they have the chance to do difficult.

1: they have to successfully detach by flotillas from their main body, the British forces assigned to patrolling the route that the HSF actually took achieved this. The German light forces in the case of the flotilla assigned to the key sector even failed to detach. JAG88 excuses this by making mention of the difficult situation involved in crossing the wake of the larger ships but even at the very beginning we see him making excuses for the Germans

False again, there was no patrolling, the GF sent its light units to the back in order to avoid fratricide, they were then run over by the HSF BBs.

Navigating in WW1 is hard, ALL position reports were inaccurate and were several miles off, and that was in daylight, it is funny to see people expect accurate navigation at night and when it wasnt even likely in full daylight.

If anyone has any doubt, just pick any book on the period, navigation was just inaccurate, errors were the norm and to be expected. Dont be fooled.

2: The light forces must find their assigned patrol sectors. The British did this, the German V Flotilla failed utterly and another Flotilla was forced to alter course away from its assigned patrol path by the threat of being fired upon by its own heavy ships. JAG88 uses this to claim German brilliance...

Again, if you have any doubts people just pick a book, you will be able to confirm the point rather easily, if you have any doubts about why the guy i so obsessed with me just take a look at earlier pages, it is clear hes pissed about being called on his "mistakes".

3: The light forces must locate the heavy units of the enemy. The British did this the Germans failed.

The RN DDs found the KM the same way Miami ran into hurricane Andrew. :D

4: The light units must launch an attack on the enemy. The British did this, they lost four destroyers but sank a destroyer,three light cruisers and a pre-dreadnought battleship. So less than five thousand tons of warships versus over twenty thousand tons of warship and yet JAG88 describes this attack as a failure for the good and valid reason that no dreadnoughts were sunk

Again guys, be very careful, some people like to just make things up and mislead people, in this case by adding a CL to the total that was actually scuttled by the Germans after being rammed by one of its own BBs as it tried to cross the line, moreover, Rostock, the only CL actually hit by RN DD torpedoes was being towed to port and was scuttled due to the proximity of RN CLs, finally, the elderly Frauenlob was sunk by a CL torpedo, not DDs.

So, guys, be very careful with the statements of people that try to misrepresent facts...

So all in all on the night the British score 4 points for basic manoeuvres but non of the 16 points on offer for dreadnought sinkings...4/20

The Germans might get 1 iffy point for manoeuvres and again no points for dreadnoughts 1 point is the lot for them and that is contentious under the circumstances. A passing mark would likely be at least 12/ a possible 30 or so.

Nice points system... for war.

As to the idea of the High Seas Fleet battle line beating the GF at night well Scheer did not believe it. Worse but any engagement would have taken place at literally zero elevation point blank range at which both sides could be confident of armour penetration but the British could afford to take more damage than the Germans. Recall Jellicoe was open to this possibility it was Scheer who was not.

Nice strawman, Scheer didnt intend to fight the GF at all, even the plan to lure a part of it by raiding Sunderland was dropped when several element failed to come into play, so he went to the Skagerrak to chase RN patrols, attack shipping, but mainly to keep the HSF active.

Jellicoe didnt want anything to do with a night action, neither did his captains, which is why they didnt even open fire when given the chance.

Night fighting is the great equalizer, but it is also random, confused and very, very dangerous. The RN could easily lost most of the GF that way, and so could the HSF, and both sides were under orders not to.

As to the other scenario posited of the daylight meeting engagement being reversed not only does this require not one but two PODs with Scheer having to recognise matters first and steer to put his ships ahead of the GF but the reaction of the GF would be very different from the HSF. The GF wanted to fight and are in three columns not one line of battle. They can shake out into line abreast and would then attempt to steer once formed into line abreast along a parallel course to the HSF (turning their formation into line of battle) while the HSF looks to break away.

Again and again within the constraints of signalling, weapons and sensor systems of the day we find everything tipping to a British victory which the Germans did well to avoid.

The HSF relied a lot more on wireless and did very well, the RN kept making signalling mistakes, had an encounter in conditions favorable to the Germans taken place, history could have well been rewritten.
 
Last edited:

JAG88

Banned
As RR has pointed out, that would make it a more successful torpedo attack than the most successful torpedo attack in history against battleships... and THAT one was against ships under peacetime conditions in harbour!
So it's possible, but really very unlikely indeed.

Those USN CAs were as long as a WW1 BB, and they took a beating from farther distances than those that would have been required here, and the HSF had a lot more ships availble.

If the Germans can close unobserved and launch as their doctrine intended they would have gotten hit on ship with dubious underwater protection.
 

JAG88

Banned
Exactly. It should be similar to OTL: a minor German victory with morale effects, but one that has better butterfly effects. Fully active Hochseeflotte could with some luck damage Grand Fleet again, and disrupt the blockade. Actually, breaking the blockade is the best Germans could wish for, but I am struggling to make a non-ASB way to break it. My ideas right now are either continued minor German victories causing British to panic and concentrate on guarding the island, or a daring covert operation in Scapa Flow targeting blockading ships (which is not too plausible). Though, the war could be won without breaking the blockade, as long as USA keeps out.

As I showed you can easily sink 10+ RN ships with very minor changes, that is more than a third of the GFs strength and a sensible loss. To put in perspective, the overblown Trafalgar represented a far less relevant loss for Napoleon than this enhanced Jutland would.

If you want to go beyond that you can easily make the DD attack deadlier and take a heavier toll on the GF, after all, a few starshells over the GFs night formation would broadcast their position to the other KM DDs more effectively than any radio message would ever do, from then on is open season on the RN capital ships.

Worst of all, the losses would take out some of the best RN ships, affecting the power equations beyond the mere numerical relation.

Even with conservative losses the RN would be down to 5 BCs and 26 BBs vs 5 GKs and 19 BBs for the KM, they still have superiority but it is nowhere near the prior difference, and there would be significant backlash in Britain and a likely fall of the government, not to mention demands to garrison the islands against a German landing, strengthening coastal defenses, etc. All of which would take men, guns and resources form the WF, and that is I think the greatest effect an enhanced Jutland would have, a shortened and weaker Somme.

If you are willing to take the RN losses further you can easily put the Germans within fighting odds and have them start seeking a decisive battle and see where that takes you.
 
As I showed you can easily sink 10+ RN ships with very minor changes, that is more than a third of the GFs strength and a sensible loss. To put in perspective, the overblown Trafalgar represented a far less relevant loss for Napoleon than this enhanced Jutland would.

If you want to go beyond that you can easily make the DD attack deadlier and take a heavier toll on the GF, after all, a few starshells over the GFs night formation would broadcast their position to the other KM DDs more effectively than any radio message would ever do, from then on is open season on the RN capital ships.

Worst of all, the losses would take out some of the best RN ships, affecting the power equations beyond the mere numerical relation.

Even with conservative losses the RN would be down to 5 BCs and 26 BBs vs 5 GKs and 19 BBs for the KM, they still have superiority but it is nowhere near the prior difference, and there would be significant backlash in Britain and a likely fall of the government, not to mention demands to garrison the islands against a German landing, strengthening coastal defenses, etc. All of which would take men, guns and resources form the WF, and that is I think the greatest effect an enhanced Jutland would have, a shortened and weaker Somme.

If you are willing to take the RN losses further you can easily put the Germans within fighting odds and have them start seeking a decisive battle and see where that takes you.

blah blah blah - makes you wonder how the uber-Germans managed to lose this war

if they were so great at night-fighting why did'nt they use their superior skills to do what they always wanted - isolate a portion of the GF and sink it
 

JAG88

Banned
blah blah blah - makes you wonder how the uber-Germans managed to lose this war

if they were so great at night-fighting why did'nt they use their superior skills to do what they always wanted - isolate a portion of the GF and sink it

Funny guy, not uber, just better at certain things, in this case night fighting.

Catching a part of the GF requires the Brits to be stupid, they were once, but as usual Willy being afraid of losing his toys had demanded that the HSF take no risks...

I think a moron called Churchill was responsible for that one IIRC.
 
Better Hochseeflotte Leadership

I think that Germans could have a better victory of the Battle Of Jutland is: one) more courageous, wiser, and crafty flag admirals and captains(who are not hampered by conservative naval bureaucrats and politicians) ruling the battle and harassing RN Grand Fleet(within reasons) throughout the whole week during and after the battle, and two) a German naval architect who's a greater genius than Fisher dictating German Naval production line(no pre-dreadnought production after 1898 and 1st dreadnought in December 1906[construction started in late 1905]):p
 

Saphroneth

Banned
...German naval architect who's a greater genius than Fisher dictating German Naval production line(no pre-dreadnought production after 1898 and 1st dreadnought in December 1906[construction started in late 1905]):p

I actually don't think anyone in the world except the British could have pulled off the build speed of HMS Dreadnought. It's a combination of experience, good in-place procurement systems, quick turret production and sheer enthusiasm.
 
I actually don't think anyone in the world except the British could have pulled off the build speed of HMS Dreadnought. It's a combination of experience, good in-place procurement systems, quick turret production and sheer enthusiasm.

That's odd. From reading this thread I got the impression the Brits were a bunch of clueless wankers who relied on blind luck.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
That's odd. From reading this thread I got the impression the Brits were a bunch of clueless wankers who relied on blind luck.

Heh.

Actually...


This is a bit of a tangent, but I wondered if it would be possible to list "the most powerful warship in the world" and how long each warship that *did* have that title held it.

I know the 1875 HMS Devastation basically held the title for over a decade, say...
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Incidentally, with regard to night fighting, it occurs to me that the IJN were good at night fighting because they'd been well trained and taught by the RN.

Not sure how that works with this.
 
Top