Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: German naval strategy in WW1
Aussiegunneragain    5/24/2009 6:36:08 AM
I'm interested in exploring the pro's, con's and possibilities of an alternative German Naval Strategy in WW1. To me it seems that the strategy that the German High Command adopted was an integral part of why they couldn't break the British blockade, bought the American's into the war and consequently lost. As I'm sure most people here know the High Seas Fleet was much smaller than the British Grand Fleet and the German high command were retiscient about engaging the Royal Navy directly. Instead they tried to lure parts of the Grand Fleet out of Scapa Flow through hit and run shore bombardment raids with Battle Cruisers on English Coastal towns and destroy them, wearing down the British Fleet bit by bit. The problem with this as I see it was that there was in reality very little strategic value in the shore bombardment missions themselves, the battles that resulted like Jutland were inconclusive and killing civilians just enraged the British public and international opinion. While their later resort to unrestricted submarine warfare had a strategic impact on the British war effort, the killing of civilians by submariners including neutrals played a big part in bringing the US into the war and ultimately losing it for Germany. What I a wondering is if an alternative strategy concentrating on the use of the 5 battle cruisers in a surface raiding role might have allowed the Germans to impact more on shipping to and from Britain, without killing civilians and bringing the US into the War? None of the Battle Cruisers were less than a knot slower than their RN equivelents so it is reasonable to assume that they would have been able to make the dash out through the North Sea and to the Atlantic. There they would have been able to conduct hit and run attacks on convoy's, with minimal chances of being caught by the 9 RN equivilents. To my way of thinking it would have forced the RN to deploy all of its battle cruisers into the Atlantic to hunt for the German ships and a fair number of the RN battleships in the convoy escort role to protect against the battlecruisers. They could have still used submarines against the convoy's, but instead of hitting the merchantmen they could have concentrated on sinking the escorting battleships and reporting the position of the convey to nearby battle cruisers waiting to pounce. The net effect of this is that shipping to and from Britain would have been interdicted without killing civilians and bringing the US into the war, and the British fleet would have been worn down to the point where the High Seas Fleet's battleships could sortie against the remainder with a higher degree of confidence of winning and breaking the blockade. Finally I'd suggest that had the German's emphasised further battle cruiser rather than submarine production before and once the war commenced, then the strategy would have had an even greater chance of success. Thoughts? (positive, critical, alternative all welcome?)
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT
JFKY    The Problem with BC's   5/27/2009 9:46:09 AM
as commerce raiders, it seems to me, is not so much their range as their target array and the cost-benefit analysis.  A BC is a large, expensive high-value platform.  And until 1917/18 British merchant vessels sailed as singletons.  Meaning that a multi-million pound vessel is hunting for SINGLE, low value targets!  Hardly worth the risk of loss, wouldn't you say?
 
What IF SMS Blucher sank a freighter or two, but then hit a mine, ran into a British Submarine, or was intercepted off the Bight (coming or going) by several British BC's, or a flotilla of destroyers?  Would the loss equal the return?
 
A German merchant raider had to be a U-boot OR had to be a small, simple, self-sustaining vessel, a la the Emden, to operate and survive.  The U-boot could submerge and avoid British patrols, both coming and going...most surface vessels could not, so a German surface raider had to leave port and operate INDEPENDENTLY for months, or at least weeks, at a time...hence small, with a Small supply requirement, and simple, in order to operate away from maintenance.  It needed only a few guns, 15cm or smaller, because its prey was virtually unarmed.  A German BC is the exact OPPOSITE of the requirement, or so it seems to me.  But your mileage may vary, and I welcome the counter-attacks.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Mission.   5/27/2009 12:27:24 PM
For once I agree with JFKY. The mission drives design. Tirpitz wanted a risk fleet that would deter the RN, so he built one.

The result was that he did not have a general purpose navy that could threaten battle under conditions of his own choosing.

The type of fleet he needed was submarines and sortie cruisers that could raid in the North Atlantic. Raid radius means cruusing radius at least 8000 nautical miles (they have to come back from the North Atlantic).
 
Herald 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    To me...   5/27/2009 1:21:53 PM
The BEST German Naval Strategy, leading up to WWI, is to NOT HAVE A NAVY.  From 1890 on the British viewed the Germans as "the Enemy" because of their fleet build up.  Now Britain was ALWAYS going to oppose any Continental Power becoming supreme, be it France OR Germany.  So yes, Germany and Britain would have clashed, but the Germans by developing the Emden, and a few colonial cruisers, mines, U-bootes, coastal guns, and monitors, along with some colonial marine battalions MIGHT have forestalled the close Anglo-French Entente of 1904. 
 
Germany could defeat France OR Russia, possibly France AND Russia, but never France, Russia AND Britain.  It was the German Naval buildup that cemented the Triple Entente and ensured Germany would not win the series of short campaigns necessary to stave off defeat-I assume the BEF did SOMETHING to slow the Germans down, a something that might have prevented a German victory in August 1914.
 
Plus the German Navy, as constituted, managed to bring the US into the war, ensuring a German DEFEAT.  So I'd say the German Navy that the Kaiser had was counter-productive to German National Security Interests and that a German Fleet that had IGNORED Tirpitz would have served Germany far better.
 
In the JFKY-verse the Emden and very few other light vessels, plus a coast defense navy would have served Germany far better than the Riskflotte of Dreadnoughts and Battle cruisers did.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       5/28/2009 3:26:29 AM

The BEST German Naval Strategy, leading up to WWI, is to NOT HAVE A NAVY.  From 1890 on the British viewed the Germans as "the Enemy" because of their fleet build up.  Now Britain was ALWAYS going to oppose any Continental Power becoming supreme, be it France OR Germany.  So yes, Germany and Britain would have clashed, but the Germans by developing the Emden, and a few colonial cruisers, mines, U-bootes, coastal guns, and monitors, along with some colonial marine battalions MIGHT have forestalled the close Anglo-French Entente of 1904. 

 Germany was an importer exporter  They HAD to have a navy to defend trade from France and Russia.

Germany could defeat France OR Russia, possibly France AND Russia, but never France, Russia AND Britain.  It was the German Naval buildup that cemented the Triple Entente and ensured Germany would not win the series of short campaigns necessary to stave off defeat-I assume the BEF did SOMETHING to slow the Germans down, a something that might have prevented a German victory in August 1914.

Germany of 1917 was well on her way to beating all three. Russia was done in 1916. France was done in 1917. Their manpower cojorts were used up. Only Britain was left and she would use up her manpower about the end of 1918. The IS was necessary to fill in the warm bodies. Germany' would riun out about the sdame tome as Britain. The tipper was two million fresh carcasses. WW I meatgrinder logic.

Plus the German Navy, as constituted, managed to bring the US into the war, ensuring a German DEFEAT.  So I'd say the German Navy that the Kaiser had was counter-productive to German National Security Interests and that a German Fleet that had IGNORED Tirpitz would have served Germany far better.

A trade war would bring the US in, navy or no navy. It just depended  on who interfered with our trade.

In the JFKY-verse the Emden and very few other light vessels, plus a coast defense navy would have served Germany far better than the Riskflotte of Dreadnoughts and Battle cruisers did.

Submarines and armored cruisers-with a core of battlecruisers for the surface forces (coast defense and sovereign presence.).

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Herald   5/28/2009 8:56:09 AM
Germany was an importer exporter  They HAD to have a navy to defend trade from France and Russia.

But the Kaiser Marine DIDN'T focus on France or Russia, did it?  Instead it focused on Britain, making an enemy earlier than it needed to.  Further any fleet that was big enough to "protect" it's trade was going to be too large to allow the necessary Army.  Finally, as I'm not a Mahanian, how much of Germany's trade was OVERSEAS trade and how much was rail-delivered, and how much war production cold have been supported by a Continental Strategy of taking Romanian Wheat, French Coal, and Iron Ore?  I'm saying the fact that Germany was a net importer doesn't mean it needed a fleet....or that in a short wart that Germany couldn't have overcome the bottlenecks produced by loss of overseas trade, assuming France and Russia could have significantly disrupted that trade.
 
Germany of 1917 was well on her way to beating all three. Russia was done in 1916. France was done in 1917. Their manpower cohorts were used up. Only Britain was left and she would use up her manpower about the end of 1918. The IS was necessary to fill in the warm bodies. Germany' would riun out about the sdame tome as Britain. The tipper was two million fresh carcasses. WW I meatgrinder logic.
I agree, but I don't see how this obviates my contention....After two years of war Gremany had ALMOST won...and even in 1917 the Army was beginning to "stagger" and the Bundesrat was discussing "peace feelers."  Germany was only RELATIVELY better off than her opponents...I assume "IS" is a typo for "US" and I would agree, the US ensured the Allied victory.  But if the war had ended in 1915, not dragged on until 1917 the US would NOT have been there to make the margin of victory.
 
A trade war would bring the US in, navy or no navy. It just depended  on who interfered with our trade.
As you say CREF above...a war concluded in 1915 does NOT interfere with US trade.  Of course Britain is going to react very negatively to a German victory in 1915, just as it opposed Louis XIV or Napoleon. 
 
Britain was not going to willingly acquiesce to a single Continental Power dominating the Europe and controlling the Low Countries, allowing predatory attacks on British Trade and Invasion of Dear Old Blighty!  But my point is, that if the Germans had not gone out of their way to antagonize the British the  FIRST War might have ended in 1915, before Britain could bring to bear any meaningul power on the Continent.  Which is not to say that the SECOND War or the Russo-German War of 1914-17 wouldn't have involved British troops and Naval Power. 
 
But to go further out on the limb, in THAT case, a rough replay of the Napoleonic Wars-only with Kaiser Bill as "Nappy", the US might have sided with Kaiser!  As it might well have been BRITAIN interfering with Neutral Rights" and "Free Trade", just as it was in the era 1804 to 1814.
 
Bottom-line: A German Fleet, Riskflotte or General Purpose Battle, simply detracts from Germany's needed long suit, the Kaiser Heere, and brings Germany into the cross hairs of Britain sooner than necessary...not that Germany could escape those cross hairs, in the long run, UNLESS Germany was to ally with Britain or in some way demonstrate a non-hegemonic frame of mind, in regards to Continental Policy.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Missed the point, JFKY.   5/28/2009 9:57:06 AM
You argued that the Germans didn't need a powerful ocean going navy.
 
All I had to do was prove you wrong. France and Russia.
 
Done and done.
 
Herald.
 
Quote    Reply

Tancred       5/28/2009 1:01:35 PM

Actually Herald you haven?t.

 

The best defence against the French navy is marching troops down the Champs Elysee.

 

As the German army was planning on a defeat of France in 6 weeks preventing the French Navy from blockading is not a major strategic consideration. How the Russians are supposed to blockade the north sea coast of Germany is something I would like to hear your views on.

 

Even if the war goes on longer you have not shown how the French and Russian Navies would have prevented imports to Germany in the event of UK neutrality. For the UK to abide by it (and the US ) they would have had to maintain an effective blockade.

 

The defence against that would be a coast defence force not a large seagoing battlefleet, or more Army Corps to ensure a defeat of the French and Russian Armies before a blockade could bite. Historically it did bite by eo 1916 but arguably could have very early in the war ? I am assuming an ahistorical situation where a nitrate crisis did happen and Germany has to import from Chile.

 

The presence of a large seagoing battlefleet was a strategic decision to deter British intervention ? it had the opposite effect ergo it was a bad decision not only because it tended to ensure British belligerence but also because it sucked considerable manpower and industrial capacity out of the German Army.

 

And actually Germany in 17 was not well on the way to beating all three. It was ? according to amongst others Ludendorff, Falkenhayn, Hindenburg, Groener and the German Official History of WW1 well on the way to losing, which it proceeded to do.

 

While prospect of massive US involvement had a considerable morale impact it had little to no impact on German operations in 1918. The largest concentration of US troops in battle was 10 divisions (26 September) of the 160 then in the line on the Western Front, prior to that no larger than corps sized forces had been engaged and then only intermittently. Admittedly US divisions were twice the size of anyone elses, but also admittedly they had very little of their own (US) support much of the artillery (and its an artillery war) being provided by the French

 

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       5/28/2009 2:02:25 PM

Actually Herald you haven?t.

How so?
 
The best defence against the French navy is marching troops down the Champs Elysee.

Worked real well in WW II didn't it?

As the German army was planning on a defeat of France in 6 weeks preventing the French Navy from blockading is not a major strategic consideration. How the Russians are supposed to blockade the north sea coast of Germany is something I would like to hear your views on.
 
The way I would. MINES. 

Even if the war goes on longer you have not shown how the French and Russian Navies would have prevented imports to Germany in the event of UK neutrality. For the UK to abide by it (and the US ) they would have had to maintain an effective blockade.
 
The French were not going to do anything stupid? Who had the world's largest submarine fleet and in addition strong  raiding cruiser squadrons in 1912 again? Who was planning on carrying the fight into the North Sea before the Entente was signed? Who was planning a Baltic War in conjunction before the British joined the fun?
 
DATA  on France
 

The defence against that would be a coast defence force not a large seagoing battlefleet, or more Army Corps to ensure a defeat of the French and Russian Armies before a blockade could bite. Historically it did bite by eo 1916 but arguably could have very early in the war ? I am assuming an ahistorical situation where a nitrate crisis did happen and Germany has to import from Chile.

Raise chickens. Seriously; raise chickens.
I'm more worried about Sweden and the Far East in that era.. Just because you assume that Britain sits on the sidelines guarantees German trade in a French German short war is incorrect, because you forget something.......... 
 
http://www.helsinki.fi/hum/renvall/aps/teaching/imperialism1914.map.jpg" width="800" height="690" /> 
and
 
http://www.hemisphericinstitute.org/cuaderno/politicalperformance2004/colonialism/colonialism/images/Colonialism%281914%29_jpg.jpg" width="572" height="595" /> 

The presence of a large seagoing battlefleet was a strategic decision to deter British intervention ? it had the opposite effect ergo it was a bad decision not only because it tended to ensure British belligerence but also because it sucked considerable manpower and industrial capacity out of the German Army.

The need for a global navy to defend German interests was a part of the COLONIALISM that was the hallmark of the age. It is a hallmark of seapower (Mahan) that you have presence down to the present in those areas where you have vital interests.
 
There is also the German history with CHINA. Long before there were PRC bamdits there were the Manchus
 
 
 
Why does modern Germany need to chase pirates in the Gulf of Aden again?


And actually Germany in 17 was not well on the way to beating all three. It was ? according to amongst others Ludendorff, Falkenhayn, Hindenburg, Groener and the German Official History of WW1 well on the way to losing, which it proceeded to do.

 
Russia was done for. They shpould have sued for peace right then. 

While prospect of massive US involvement had a considerable morale impact it had little to no impact on German operations in 1918. The largest concentration of US troops in battle was 10 divisions (26 September) of the 160 then in the line

 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Tancred's Right   5/28/2009 5:35:07 PM
You're WRONG...the Germany neeeds to march down the Champs Elysee, as it did in 1870 and 1940, had it done so in 1915 it woudn't have needed a fleet.  Didn't ahve one in 1870 and didn't ahve one in 1940, did it?
 
German colonies, colonies in general, were a waste of time, TRADe not colonies made Britain rich....and Germany had NO vital interests overseas.
 
Hence NO NEED FOR A FLEET....
 
Done & Done.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Mainchance versus minimax.   5/28/2009 5:52:30 PM
Mainchance always LOSES.
 
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics