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    Herald   5/29/2009 12:06:36 AM
In IR "Game Theory" is pointless and worthless, sorry.  Because IR deals with MORE THAN TWO ACTORS, and Game Theory only deals with Two Actors.
 
And Game Theory still doesn't answer, 1870 and 1940 Germany had no world class fleet...it beat France...in 1914 it did...and it did NOT defeat France.  Germany could have had colonies, and a colonial fleet, but the end result wouldn't be an antagonized Britain.
 
Quote    Reply

Tancred    cluck cluck   5/29/2009 7:27:40 AM

Actually Herald you haven?t.

How so?

 

The best defence against the French navy is marching troops down the Champs Elysee always has been always will be

Worked real well in WW II didn't it?

As I recall it ended up with a puppet regime in France and the French fleet (most of it) in North Africa being regarded as so pro German it was sunk by other German enemies and subsequently invaded by same.

 

The way I would. MINES. 

 

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?

 

Mines are a possibility but the situation you describe is one that a coast defence force is the defence not an oceangoing battle fleet ? the war is over in 6 weeks and even if the German?s are wrong on that it takes 2 years of total blockade to start hurting Germany. A pure mine campaign only works if you can stop sweeping which means you have to have covering forces or if the neutrals accept that random mining is both acceptable as a blockade and as a means of warfare. Probably not in both cases over 2 years. A submarine campaign is dependent on your ability to stop neutral ships probably trading with a neutral country (Holland, Norway, Denmark, Italy, Greece, Turkey) with the key cargo being basic foodstuffs are 80 odd ww1 subs going to be able to do that ? especially as the intercept zone is either mid Atlantic or the northern part of the north sea just about everywhere else being navigable inside a neutral?s territorial waters. The main Neutral having a fairly large merchant marine and navy.

 

Could the French have done something stupid ? yes. They could have started unrestricted submarine warfare against neutrals in a declared war zone and we know where that ends up.

 

As to Russia planning a Baltic campaign ? yes once they had rebuilt their fleet which took until about 1975 what with one thing or another.

 

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.......... 

 

On grain from the south Swedish prairie presumably. What exactly did Germany import from Sweden Quote    Reply


Aussiegunneragain       5/29/2009 9:03:14 AM
Thanks for the posts everybody, very informative. I'm not going to respond to them all individually because there are too many, so I'll summarise my thinking.
 
On the issue of whether or not the German's should have attempted to challenge the British in a naval arms race, I agree that it was stupid. If they were hell bent on having a big empire they should have just invaded France again and taken theirs as the settlement, as well as their fleet to defend it. Trying to take on the dominant world power and driving it together with two of its old enemies when the British and German monarch's were related and were previously on good terms was just stupid. It showed that their pre-war strategy had more to do with aristocratics wanting to beat their cousins in a pissing contest, rather than any coherant plan to advance their nation. I tend to think they needed enough battleships to put up a credible defence against any French attempts to blockade Germany (Maybe 8? The French only had 4 dreadnaughts at the outbreak of the war, though they had a lot of older ships) and to control the Baltic if they had to fight the Russians. That combined with enough cruisers to protect the colonies, subs and torpedo boats for coastal defence and whatever destroyers they needed would have been more than adequate.
 
However, I raised the scenario more to talk about how the German's might have made better use of their fleet once they decided to take on the Brits. People have made good points about the unitibility of battlecruisers for the commerce raiding task, but given that this is what they had when they started the war I'm still of the opinion that they may as well have used the bloody things rather than leaving them in port. Some of you have convinced me that they needed to build something more suitable for commerce raiding than battlecruisers. However, I still think that any ship used would had to be able to outgun anything other than a capital ship, or the British could have just put their many heavy cruisers in as escorts and the strategy wouldn't work. Basically I'm thinking something along the lines of an early version of the pocket battleship, with a few big guns capable of beating an enemy heavy cruisers They were excellent commerce raiders for the German's in WW2 and additionally tied up a disproportionate number of British ships to hunt them. Combine that with a more aggressive use of the battleships in the High Seas fleet against the Grand Fleet and they might have inflicted enough damage to lift the blockade.
 
Remember that keeping the Grand Fleet reasonably intact wasn't just a matter of winning the war for the British. It was a matter of national survival as they needed to keep their sea lanes to the colonies open so that they could eat. They couldn't afford to lose too many ships, even if it meant lifting the blockade and adversely affecting the defence of France and Belgium. In contrast the Germans had less to lose so they should have sought to inflict as much damage as possible on the Grand Fleet, with the view of forcing the British to withdraw their ships into an escort role and opening trade to the US. I think that had the Germans done that rather than conducting unlimited submarine warfare the US would have stayed out of the war, as it had strong isolationist tendancies at the time.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Tancred       5/29/2009 11:59:30 AM

The raider you are looking for is the panzershiffe concept of the 1920?s that never got much beyond budget debate, that begat the Graf Spee and Dunkerque?s (I think that the Dunkerque?s were a response the 1920?s idea) so the alternative capital ship raider would probably have looked like a 1910s version of Graf Spee, uprated Gneisenau (WW1).

 

Unless they are already based overseas in places that are far away from British bases (which also makes them far away from trade lanes) raiders are ineffective. The East Asia Squadron Cruise is a case in point. Did not much in the middle of nowhere but as soon as it got into shipping lanes it got seen, reported and hunted down. Same with the Graf Spee in ww2, and Kormoran and Emden and Bismark. May take a longer or shorter while but in order to starve Britain out you have interrupt trade for months or years not days and the only way you can do that is if you can beat any ship sent against you AND have a safe base in a threatening position (North Norway in WW2, or Brest)

 

The problem with beating the hunter in ww1 is the British battle cruisers which at least to Fishers mind were raider killers not fleet scouts. Whatever the doctrine the problem is that the Brits start with lots of 6? and 8? cruisers who can swamp AMC or 6? raiders (AMC=Armed Merchant cruisers)  for the german 8? (Gneisenau) was the Invincibles, for an 11? raider the Lions (13.5) for a 13 inch raider a Repulse and so forth so you end up in a gun/armour/range race with Germany in an inferior location and a worse economic position (they have to maintain a first class army to fight France and Russia and Britain) also if you add in range then the germans start to lose a lot of the design advantages they built in because they assumed short cruises only. And unless you are out in the world anyway you have to sneak or fight out of the North Sea with a superior battlecruiser squadron chasing you.

 

As to the use of the actual high seas fleet. Put most of it into mothballs and make a couple of infantry corps seems like the best idea to me.

 

The Problem for the Germans is how can you force a battle on other than RN terms as the RN has no reason to fight except when the RN believes it can win easily. Disrupting the blockade for a day or two is meaningless unless you can magic up a massive convoy able to sail in or out with the escort (see the Dutch wars where they did this).

 

The HSF was quite creative in trying to force an engagement with detatchments of the Grand Fleet and failed because the Grand Fleet in the end could wait, and avoid major action unless it felt it had the advantage.

 

The alternative would be to accept a battle with the Grand Fleet on terms that the Grand Fleet believes it can win and accept the probable destruction of the HSF (and a lot of the Grand Fleet) in order to achieve some sort of verylongimpressivesoundingGermanwordthatmeansnotmuchatall victory. Oh and means that after the war the Brits don?t start with a 2:1 superiority over whoever has the second largest navy but won?t be Germany.

The opposite argument is that the fleet in being prevented the RN from bombarding german ports, landing large forces in North Germany and therefore avoided the need to place large garrisons along the North Sea and Baltic coasts. Which sounds like B%£%$cks to me but does have a smidgin of reason.

 

No HSF and the RN may have been able to launch a deliberate attack on Helgoland island essentially besiege it without risk to the Grand Fleet except from attrition from light units (but with no HSF in background to exploit that). Capture that and there is a much more significant problem from RN raiders along the coast and if someone could summon up a workable 1916 amphibious doctrine maybe a northern front.

 

The German Naval programme up to ww1 was by any rational calculation stupid, provocative and self destructive- but the Yorcks do look cool.

 

 

 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Thr Grand Fleet and Geography   5/29/2009 12:06:33 PM
The Grand Fleet, in tact, WAS critical to the success of Britain.  As long as the fleet was in tact, it meant that the Germans could NOT close the SLOC's, at least with the High Seas Fleet.  And the High Seas Fleet was the Grand Fleets enemy....
 
Geography favours Britain...to get to the SLOC's you HAD to pass the Grand Fleet and the innumerable airship, aeroplane and cruiser patrol lines established.  It would have been very difficult for the Germans to have put a large number of any vessels into the Atlantic, because of that.
 
I don't think the Germans profited from the High Seas Fleet.  But having said that, if I ran their navy we'd have gone to sea quarterly, from 1915 on, and offered the Grand Fleet battle.  Heck you MIGHT win and end the war for the Kaiser...even if you lose what have you lost, a wasting asset.  For me, being not an admiral, or German, and 90 years removed from it all, I ask "What is the point of the fleet if not to fight?  Why have it if we aren't going to use it?"  You've got 20-plus dreadnoughts, go out and offer combat, you might wear the Brit's down, you MIGHT even inflict a nasty defeat on them...though I wouldn't have shelled Hartlespool and the like, what's a few dead civilians...sure it was supposed to bait the British, but I guarantee if you sortie the High Seas Fleet, the Brit's will come out, and over your U-bootes and into your minefields. 
 
Like I say, you offer the Brit's a battle, they'll take the opportunity, both sides have a good chance of badly hurting or defeating the other...the Germans had good ships, good optics, good guns, better than their English counter-parts, ton-for-ton, they had the better fleet...it's just that the British had more tons than the Germans.  Offer battle, if the odds look bad, run for home, got about equal numbers, slug it out, 7 out of 10 times the High Seas Fleet comes off better, having better INDIVIDUAL tonnages.  Happily for the British and sadly for the Germans, the Kaiser, apparently, loved the Fleet a little too much.
 
Bottom-line: Supposedly before Cape Matapan (1941) the British commander said, "Gentlemen, it takes 3 years to build a ship.  It takes 300 years to build a TRADITION."  The Brit's understood the POINT of a fleet.  The Kaiser didn't.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       5/29/2009 12:59:04 PM

In IR "Game Theory" is pointless and worthless, sorry.  Because IR deals with MORE THAN TWO ACTORS, and Game Theory only deals with Two Actors.

 

And Game Theory still doesn't answer, 1870 and 1940 Germany had no world class fleet...it beat France...in 1914 it did...and it did NOT defeat France.  Germany could have had colonies, and a colonial fleet, but the end result wouldn't be an antagonized Britain.

Game theory deals with multiple actors and is used to determine outcomes in possible war as a tool.

The problem Tancred and you have is a lack of imagination. (Much like the Imperial German general staff) You both think like landlubber generals. You should try to think like admirals. It isn't necessary to create a two front war condition like the Germans did TWICE.
 
There was and is another way given the 1898 start conditions..
 
 
The numbers are against you both.
 
 

 
 
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       5/29/2009 4:06:34 PM
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.
 -As you note, the British Grand Fleet was larger. The Germans could not take them on head to head. Their only hope of a victory at sea was to chew up the Grand Fleet piecemeal. The only way you can do that is to goad them into battle. Sinking ships at sea is less likely to force the Grand Fleet out of port and into battle than is a direct attack on their homeland. It creates one heck of a political situation for the Brits, either allow their homeland to be bombarded or address the threat.
 
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.
 -I think in both wars the Germans were fighting a war against time. They needed to "starve" out the Brits before sufficient resupplies/reinforcements arrived. In neither war were they able to do so, mainly because in both wars they started off with the wrong fleet.
 

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.
-How were the German BCs going to attack shipping without killing more civilians? Is your idea to sink the merchants, rescue the crew and then move on? If so, just how many people do you think each battlecruiser could hold before it would have to return to port to offload the prisoners?

Here's another problem with BCs, and surface ships in general, as a commerce raider.s Once the BC is spotted the merchant can turn and run. Not very fast, granted, but every mile the BC has to run down a merchant is fuel the BC needs to range out and back.

Then there is the problem of getting out into open ocean. They have to run around the British Isles. Every mile they travel is a chance at being detected.  If I were the Brits, I might even allow them to make it into the Atlantic, with the intent of bushwhacking them when they try to return. That way they are low on fuel, and less able to run or maneuver.
 

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.
 The RN wouldn't have to do that. You know where they will be, just sit there and wait. Yeah, they'll sink some merchants at first, then they'll be sitting ducks.
 
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
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       5/29/2009 4:27:21 PM
How were the German BCs going to attack shipping without killing more civilians? Is your idea to sink the merchants, rescue the crew and then move on? If so, just how many people do you think each battlecruiser could hold before it would have to return to port to offload the prisoners?
They would put them into life rafts and radio their position to somebody to rescue them, just like every other surface raider has historically done?

Here's another problem with BCs, and surface ships in general, as a commerce raider.s Once the BC is spotted the merchant can turn and run. Not very fast, granted, but every mile the BC has to run down a merchant is fuel the BC needs to range out and back.

With 11 inch guns a BC could put one across the bow at extreme range. The merchant vessel would stop.
The other points I have already addressed in various posts.




 






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.


 The RN wouldn't have to do that. You know where they will be, just sit there and wait. Yeah, they'll sink some merchants at first, then they'll be sitting ducks.

 

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.


 Let's say that you're right, and that the RN would be forced to convoy up sooner. Then you have just made your most effective commerce raider, the submarine, less useful. The bane of a submarine is a convoy, because ASW is a group sport. So even if things went your way, which I don't think it would, you're cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

The BCs going up against BBs is problematic at best. The BBs have better armor, and the BC have to come to the BBs in order to be effective negating the BC's only advantage over the BB, speed.


 

Finally, unless you're sticking around to pick up survivors, you're still killing civilians.


 


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.


I think the BC was a flawed concept. The best commerce raiding surface ship is a fast ship with torpedoes and a lot of cruising range. That way it can go in, sink the merchants quickly, escape and return home.

 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       5/29/2009 4:28:20 PM

 
How were the German BCs going to attack shipping without killing more civilians? Is your idea to sink the merchants, rescue the crew and then move on? If so, just how many people do you think each battlecruiser could hold before it would have to return to port to offload the prisoners?
They would put them into life rafts and radio their position to somebody to rescue them, just like every other surface raider has historically done?

Here's another problem with BCs, and surface ships in general, as a commerce raider.s Once the BC is spotted the merchant can turn and run. Not very fast, granted, but every mile the BC has to run down a merchant is fuel the BC needs to range out and back.

With 11 inch guns a BC could put one across the bow at extreme range. The merchant vessel would stop.
The other points I have already addressed in various posts
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Other questions   5/29/2009 4:32:44 PM
Is anybody aware of the Germans using blockade runners like the Confederates in WW1 and if not, why not? Also, the British Baltic Flotilla of submarines used the tactic of popping up beside iron ore ships, putting one across the bow with their gun to bring them to a halt, boarding and putting the crew in lifeboats and then sinking the vessel with explosve charges. Is there any reason why the German's couldn't have done the same with their U-Boats, at least for the smaller Atlantic merchant vessels that didn't have their own guns?
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics