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
benellim4       6/1/2009 10:37:59 AM
The numbers are 2919 ships sunk versus 684 boats sunk.
 
4.26 ships sunk per U-boat killed in combat?
 
Towards the end, the life expectancy of a U-boat was two patrols or about 90 days
 
-Not arguing with the numbers. Of course, those numbers are skewed by the shallacking the U-boats were taking at the end of the war. Dornitz said he would need 300 U-boats. He started with only 57 and got to 300 far too late in the war. Mainly because Hitler was obsessed with having a surface fleet. Still a U-boat lost was a lot less expensive in lives and treasure than a battlecruiser.
 
In WWI, the 5th top scoring U-boat sunk 84 ships in 16 patrols. The top scoring U-boat of that war sunk 224 ships in 17 patrols.
 
In WWII,  the 10th top scoring U-boat sunk 31 ships in 10 patrols. The top scoring U-Boat of that war sunk 52 ships in 12 patrols.
 
The 10th top scoring U-boat sank more ships than the top Emden, the best of the lot presented to us from Agg.
 
Quote    Reply

Tancred    being Vryptic is not an argument   6/1/2009 2:25:26 PM
 
 
The very good article in the link states my case clearly.
 
As Wegener said the North Sea is a strategic dead end, his solution is to invade the Shetlands and threaten British trade in the north of Scotland, not that there is any but there you go. The objections - (mostly from Raeder but also contained in Wegener) were that this was pointless and did not solve the prolem of breaking the British blockade. And in any case th solution is not posed until the 1920s. During WW1 his argument was that the Risk Fleet poicy had failed and not a lot else . Raeder's solution was plan Z. I assume from your cryptic comments that you envisage a pre 1914 plan Z based on lone commerce raiders backed up with strong squadrons dispersing the RN and both interdicting trade and occaisionally seeking a battle at advantage.
 
Its a plan but it is dependent on being able to outbuild the RN (because if he RN has enough ships to ensure that even dispersed they have local superiority enough of the time to attrit the support squadrons it fails) which Germany never could do. The German problem is that it not sufficiently superior to have an Army able to fight France and Russia simultaeneously AND have a navy bigger than the RN. Britain and Germany are not that far apart in terms of economic clout and Britain would always prioritise the Navy and end up 40% stronger than Germany's best effort - thats what happened. The numbers only change if you can come out with reason why the German ARMY allows for a priority to the Navy purely in order to defeat Britain - and accepts that it will stand on the defensive in a war - which they believed they would lose without a quick win over one or the other - with France and Russia. Or that Germany can provoke a war only with Britain and revanchist France or expansionist Russia wil stand aside - perfect time to liberate the oppressed slavs with a weak Germany unable to defend Austria.
 
As to the 1898 start point I presume you mean the first naval bill. Which creates a force comparable with Russia and/or France, well fine. Thats not the departure point for the Naval race as at that point German policy was for an alliance with Britain first bill does not preclude that. Its the second and third laws and the crises in the early part of the 1900's that cause the race and ruin any chance of a British alliance, not that the Kaiser realised that until about 1910.The real departure point is either 1887 and lapsing the Reinsurance Treaty although in the actual circumstances of WW1 - a German attack on France  is the exclusion from the treaty as is the putative Russian attack on AH which prompted German mobilisation. Or possibly 1871 and the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine which causes permanent French hostility and their determination to ensure that Germany would fight a war on two fronts or even 1848 and the failure of the then King of Prussia to accept the leadership of the Liberal Empire.
 
As to strategic imports - well tungsten only becomes a problem if you want to use it in antitank shells and chuck it away, for machine tools (and dentistry) the Austrian mines are adequate and in 1914 (but not into the 20's on) Germany is basically self sufficient in iron ore and you still have not shown how France could interdict supplies from Sweden when France, Britain and Russia combined could not.
 
And to the others.
 
The reason the U-boats abandoned cruiser rules was the Q ship - small disguised merchie with a hidden armamanet, U Boat surfaces and the Q ship starts firing back, tends to encourage the use of the torpedo
 
There were blockade runners in WW2 going into Spain and the west coast of France - which would work for small quantities of tungsten for instance but Germany needed massive quantities of foodstuffs in particular animal feed.
 
Quoting ships sunk is irrelevant of itself - a considerable number of the 2000 sunk were fishing boats and smallcraft what is important is tonnage, and tonnage compared to total necessary for survival. The numbers quoted don't say anything about that and any crisis in British imports was alleviated by convoying - which could and should have happened much earlier in WW1 and relieved the problem.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Tancred       6/1/2009 2:51:50 PM
Posting a link to the cruises of 9  WW2 merchant raiders (all sunk) and I guess the exploits of Bismark(sunk) Graf Spee (sunk) Scharnhorst (sunk) and Geniesenau (did nothing of note) and Tirpitz - sat in a fjord until sunk are a either a guide to the destruction of the Royal Navy command of the seas in WW1 or some sort of deep insight into naval strategy?
 
Moving the HSF north ensures total destruction of the HSF. It has no base infrastructure, no wharfage, no bunkerage, no wharehousing. This is a fleet that houses its crews in barracks because there no accommodation on ship, no kitchens, no water except your tanks. There are no machine yards for wear and tear. There are no minefields or netting to protect a Fleet from attack by submarine or being penned in by mining. You have no surveyed anchorage, you are at the end of Fjord guaranteeing a non tactical deployment. Not that it matters as about a day after you arrive you get a nice a hello from the Grand Fleet while you are steam down on a few hours notice and you have nowhere to run to and no maneuvering.
 
Landlubber
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Being cryptic os not an Answer, but Mahan is.   6/1/2009 4:30:45 PM

 

 

The very good article in the link states my case clearly.

 

As Wegener said the North Sea is a strategic dead end, his solution is to invade the Shetlands and threaten British trade in the north of Scotland, not that there is any but there you go. The objections - (mostly from Raeder but also contained in Wegener) were that this was pointless and did not solve the problem of breaking the British blockade. And in any case th solution is not posed until the 1920s. During WW1 his argument was that the Risk Fleet policy had failed and not a lot else . Raeder's solution was plan Z. I assume from your cryptic comments that you envisage a pre 1914 plan Z based on lone commerce raiders backed up with strong squadrons dispersing the RN and both interdicting trade and occasionally seeking a battle at advantage.

 The problem is that Tirpitz, Raeder, Doenitz, and Wegener were not process theoreticians, Mahan at first glance wasn't either, but when you read these guys, you see a crucial difference between Mahan and them. OTIOSPIH goes into great detail about war on the trade lanes and how to do that thing. It takes France and Britain as the concrete example, and discusses everything from technology of the day to the weapon platforms choices used and shows how in the end THE BATTLESPACE  and the physics that determined its boundaries  was the driver that drove HOW English naval wars were fought.
 
Wegener was the best of the German admirals to finally glimpse that. At the time he wanted to get the HSF into a position where it could arc over Britain across the Shetlands, and get at that Western Approaches shipping (collier and tanker support-refuel at sea). The fleet he had was still too short ranged for that purpose but at least he understood that if he could cut down the lead time the British Grand Fleet had to intercept and if he could expand the possible the vector fan area the Grand fleet had to cover he could open up the North Sea bottleneck and get the U-boats and surface raiders out onto the trade lanes EN MASSE.
 
Sims, that GREAT American admiral (who thought that the British and German Admiralties were a bunch of bloody amateurs unfit to command rowboats) was a Mahan student. CORK the HELGOLAND Bight and put in an ASW mine barrage he said.  The first thing he told the British after he told them to CONVOY in 1917, was to mine the North Sea. Then the USN went out and DID IT after the RN couldn't.  It didn't matter if you had battleships. It didn't even matter if the mine barrage was only partially effective. CONTROL THE BATTLESPACE.  If you look at what Sims first did, as soon as he had de facto control of the USN in 1916? The first thing he did was tell Navy Secretary, Josephus Daniels, to go to hell. Then he halted the cruiser raider program, and started building destroyers like sausages. That was in 1916.  Two years of U-boats in the Atlantic was ENOUGH for him. He was going to fight a trade war the right way-through convoy.
 
Its a plan but it is dependent on being able to outbuild the RN (because if he RN has enough ships to ensure that even dispersed they have local superiority enough of the time to attrit the support squadrons it fails) which Germany never could do. The German problem is that it not sufficiently superior to have an Army able to fight France and Russia simultaeneously AND have a navy bigger than the RN. Britain and Germany are not that far apart in terms of economic clout and Britain would always prioritise the Navy and end up 40% stronger than Germany's best effort - thats what happened. The numbers only change if you can come out with reason why the German ARMY allows for a priority to the Navy purely in order to defeat Britain - and accepts that it will stand on the defensive in a war - which they believed they would lose without a quick win over one or the other - with France and Russia. Or that Germany can provoke a war only with Britain and revanchist France or expansionist Russia wil stand aside - perfect time to liberate the oppressed slavs with a weak Germany unable to defend Austria.

The nimbers change when you change the geography. Germany stuck south of Jutland can only pit 30 WWI Uboats in the Atlantic. Put the HSF up around Stavanger and get the U-boats sortieing  from Trondheim?
 
http://www.geoexpro.com/sfiles/78/29/1/picture/hotspot464.jpg" width="464" height="510" />. 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Being cryptic is not an Answer, but Mahan is.   6/1/2009 4:36:02 PM

Posting a link to the cruises of 9  WW2 merchant raiders (all sunk) and I guess the exploits of Bismark(sunk) Graf Spee (sunk) Scharnhorst (sunk) and Geniesenau (did nothing of note) and Tirpitz - sat in a fjord until sunk are a either a guide to the destruction of the Royal Navy command of the seas in WW1 or some sort of deep insight into naval strategy?

 

Moving the HSF north ensures total destruction of the HSF. It has no base infrastructure, no wharfage, no bunkerage, no wharehousing. This is a fleet that houses its crews in barracks because there no accommodation on ship, no kitchens, no water except your tanks. There are no machine yards for wear and tear. There are no minefields or netting to protect a Fleet from attack by submarine or being penned in by mining. You have no surveyed anchorage, you are at the end of Fjord guaranteeing a non tactical deployment. Not that it matters as about a day after you arrive you get a nice a hello from the Grand Fleet while you are steam down on a few hours notice and you have nowhere to run to and no maneuvering.

 

Landlubber

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pearl Harbor.
Charleston
Scapa Flow.
Rosyth
 
Are you saying that the US and Britain were capable under WW I emergency conditions of what Germany was not?

 
 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Herald   6/1/2009 5:58:51 PM
He's saying that the HSF and the RN and the USN were DIFFERENT navies...the HSF didn't have on-board accommodation...it was short-range cruising fleet, the others were designed to keep their crews alive and in some comfort for extended periods!   Is that not obvious?
 
Secondly, the Norwegian bases would have been extemporized, whereas Pearl, and Scapa were PLANNED and to some extent surveyed, and PREPEARED to be Fleet anchorages and bases...and that Rosyth and Charleston are connected to the industrial heartlands...whereas Oksfjord would have been NONE of those things...and that resupply of the HSF would have been in the face of the British Grand Fleet and submarine forces.  It would have been disastrous for the HSF....
 
Supplying the Tirpitz is NOT supplying the HSF battle squadrons, plus where would the troops have come from?  The Kaiser's butt?  Germany was hard-pressed East and West, and so they would have been able to create, prepare, mount and sustain an overseas campaign?  Mind you this is before the Luftwaffe and Fallschirmjager existed to act as force multipliers.  The HSF would have come out, to face the Grand Fleet, as cover for an invasion.  There would have been NO Luftwaffe available to pummel the RN, and no Fallschirmjager to surprise the Norwegians.
 
It would have been Jutland, early...only the HSF would not have been able to escape, UNLESS they were willing to leave the invasion convoy in the lurch!
 
Bottom-Line: Your proposal makes the HSF sortie, ties it to a large slow convoy exposes it to defeat a la Trafalgar and then leaves the HSF in Norwegian Fjords, without nets, or guns...without an adequate anchorage and shore support infrastructure (something the HSF needed more than its British or US counter-parts), in fact, separates the the HSF from its bases and allows the Grand Fleet to interdict its supply lines...and you propose this as a BETTER alternative?  Given the technology of the time, yours is a bad proposal.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    JFKY reply.   6/1/2009 8:43:09 PM
If you only knew your history...............
 
 
THAT is where you get the strength and resources you need.

 
 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY       6/1/2009 9:06:25 PM

If you only knew your history...............

 


 

THAT is where you get the strength and resources you need.



 

 

 

So you're "solution" is that neutral Sweden will support Germany after it invades NEUTRAL Norway?
I see...pardon me if I don't believe this is a real solution.  All which begs the question of how the Germans get to Scandinavia in the first place...without suffering a nasty defeat at the hands of the Grand Fleet.

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Swedejn was not all that neutral   6/1/2009 9:09:09 PM
Why do you think the UK clamped a blockade down on her in 1915?
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Herald   6/1/2009 9:51:11 PM
and yet:
1) Sweden didn't side with Germany (BTW, the Brit's imposed a Blockade on ALL of Europe, ask the Dutch or the Swiss, not just Sweden.  It was in contravention of the 1854 Convention of the Sea, but necessary to prevent third party trade with the Kaiser  So the blockade was not simply based on Swedish sympathy to the German Cause.) suggesting that Sweden was not likely to react favourably to the occupation of Norway by Germany, in order to secure more advantageous naval positions.;
2) You STILL ignore the naval campaign to get to Norway;
3) The lack of German troops for  campaign; and
4) Confuse Iron ORE with Steel....the fact that Sweden had natural resources that would support a German Fleet, doesn't mean Sweden COULD support the fleet.  The INDUSTRY, necessary to convert all that lovely ore was IN GERMANY!  And Sweden couldn't support the German Fleet, ergo the fleet is still on the wrong side of the Baltic. With the British forces, cruisers, submarines, backed by the Grand Fleet in between the HSF and the Ruhr, I guess technically Kiel and Wilhemshaven.
 
Germany "succeeded" in 1940 because of the Luftwaffe....which didn't exist in 1914....and even though the Norwegian Campaign was a triumph for Germany, even then the Tirpitz and the Luftwaffe and the U-bootes did not win the Battle of the Atlantic.
 
Bottom-line: It's still not a good idea.  Germany would have been better off with the Emden and a Far Eastern colonial fleet and some colonial marine units for it's small and worthless Overseas Empire and built a powerful coast defense navy, relying on submarines, mines, coast defense guns, and a few monitors rather than building the High Seas Fleet.  Germany's overseas trade was not vital enough that its loss crippled Germany's ability to wage war, in the short run.  Hence its trade and its protection was not worth the diplomatic and military cost (opportunity coast) of its construction.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics