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       5/29/2009 5:05:39 PM
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?
- Not something I would want to take the time to do as a raiding ship. As you point out, they have radios. They can radio their position and mine before they abandon ship. It worked in the 19th century because no one could radio for help. And even if they weren't able to get help from combatants, they could still warn away other merchants, which makes my job harder.
In the North Atlantic, especially in winter, a lifeboat can still be a death sentence.
 
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
-You're assuming that the merchant would be compliant. Some might be, but as Somali pirates found out recently, merchants have their own ideas. If you gun down the merchants you create a condition you're trying to avoid.
Not to mention that gunnery is not very efficient at sinking the vessel, unless it is carrying a bunch of explosives.
 
The best use for the German surface fleet was as a fleet in being. The threat of it sorting created problems for the Brits, mainly by keeping their warships out of convoy duty hunting down the true commerce raiders, the u-boats.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       5/29/2009 10:05:14 PM








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?

- Not something I would want to take the time to do as a raiding ship. As you point out, they have radios. They can radio their position and mine before they abandon ship. It worked in the 19th century because no one could radio for help. And even if they weren't able to get help from combatants, they could still warn away other merchants, which makes my job harder.


In the North Atlantic, especially in winter, a lifeboat can still be a death sentence.








 






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







-You're assuming that the merchant would be compliant. Some might be, but as Somali pirates found out recently, merchants have their own ideas. If you gun down the merchants you create a condition you're trying to avoid.


Not to mention that gunnery is not very efficient at sinking the vessel, unless it is carrying a bunch of explosives.















 


Not something I would want to take the time to do as a raiding ship. As you point out, they have radios. They can radio their position and mine before they abandon ship. It worked in the 19th century because no one could radio for help. And even if they weren't able to get help from combatants, they could still warn away other merchants, which makes my job harder.

In the North Atlantic, especially in winter, a lifeboat can still be a death sentence.
 
Well I've got history on my side because that is what many raiders did do effectively during WW1 and WW2.
 
 
You're assuming that the merchant would be compliant. Some might be, but as Somali pirates found out recently, merchants have their own ideas. If you gun down the merchants you create a condition you're trying to avoid.

Not to mention that gunnery is not very efficient at sinking the vessel, unless it is carrying a bunch of explosives.
 
Again that is what happenned in the
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       5/30/2009 4:17:50 AM

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. 
Agreed, the German's had everything to win and the British had everything to lose if the Germans had displayed more balls. I reckon that once the Germans had worn the British fleet down to half their former strength it would have been withdrawn to the reletive safety of escorting merchantment. The Brits were always brave but they wouldn't ahve accepted loosing the key to their national security for France and Belgium.

 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       5/30/2009 6:22:13 AM
Surface raiders were not effective in WWI and WWII, period. The platform that was the most effective was the submarine. One only has to look at the numbers. 
 
The most effective use of Tripitz, for instance, was not using it. It kept the RN worried and ate up a lot of resources that had to be devoted to the contingency of it leaving port.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Sweden and China.   5/30/2009 8:45:28 AM
From China, Germany received Wofram. (tungsten)
From Sweden, Germany received IRON.
 
Move North and you place the short-ranged HSF into a better position to threaten the British SLOCs. From Norway in WW II German surface raiders (effective) were able to enter the North Atlantic through the GIUK gap.     

 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       5/30/2009 10:11:23 AM

Surface raiders were not effective in WWI and WWII, period. The platform that was the most effective was the submarine. One only has to look at the numbers. 
 
The most effective use of Tripitz, for instance, was not using it. It kept the RN worried and ate up a lot of resources that had to be devoted to the contingency of it leaving port.

You need to look at the tonnages sunk for ships like the Emden, the Scheer, the Graf Spee, the Kormoran and compare that to the actual tonnage of the ship themselves. You might also like to look at the resources deployed to protect from them. Once you've done that if you still think they were ineffective then get back to me.
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       5/31/2009 4:17:01 AM

Surface raiders were not effective in WWI and WWII, period. The platform that was the most effective was the submarine. One only has to look at the numbers. 

The most effective use of Tripitz, for instance, was not using it. It kept the RN worried and ate up a lot of resources that had to be devoted to the contingency of it leaving port.

Sounds to me like the Tirpitz was very effective at bottling up a large chunk of the British fleet, though not at sinking merchant vessels.  Success and failure depend on your criteria.
 
While the use of actual warships for surface raiders did not sink many vessels relative to their tonnage, the merchant raiders seem to have been effective, particularly in WWI.  Two of the most successful WWI German merchant raiders were the SMS Seeadler (Sea Eagle) a 3 masted windjammer, and the SMS Wolf, a converted coal hauler with a top speed of 11 knots but an unrefueled range of 32,000 miles at 8 knots.  The SMS Wolf is probably the most successful merchant raider of the 20th century.  It was also the first to carry a reconnaissance aircraft.
 
From this it might be inferred that long range and concealment are more important for a surface raider than speed and firepower.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Warnerd & Aussiegunner   5/31/2009 9:25:55 AM
You are confusing two levels of discussion, the individual and the SYSTEM level...at an INDIVIDUAL level, Emden or Kormoran may have been quite effective...at a SYSTEM level, they were not.  Surface raiders sank a small percentage of total tonnage lost in both World Wars.  The rule still stands, Surface Raiders were ineffective.
 
It's the difference between you winning at the casino and whether or not the casino makes money that night.  YOU might be "successful" however that does not make gambling a career choice for most, because the VAST MAJORITY of gamblers do NOT make money.  Hence YOUR winnings or the success of the Emden say NOTHING about the overall success level of gamblers or surface raiders.
 
Guerre de Course, has NEVER beaten Britain...it has INCONVENIENCED Britain, cost Briton's money, from lost shipping, insurance, and taxation, but it has never beaten Britain.  That would be pretty much from the 1680's on.  In fact one, revisionist discussion, suggests that even in 1917 Britain was not "defeated" by the U-boote.  Britain was down to 42 days of food, yes, but not 0 days....rations were not cut, and the horses at Derby were fed, fully...in short Britain FACED defeat but was not near defeat...it was such a NON-ISSUE that horse racing animals (luxury animals) were bred and fed continually.   I don't believe that occurred to any great extent in the Alliance Powers.  Meaning that for all their vaunted success the U-bootes failed to starve Britain...in fact, I don't believe there can be suggestion that Britain modified it's ground war in Europe on the basis of losses at sea or the inability to supply the BEF with men, munitions or other supplies.  And this was the First World War, the most successful of the campaigns...in the Second World War more ships were lost, BUT it involved a far larger commitment of German resources to achieve that result.
 
Bottom-line: the High Seas Fleet made Britain an enemy...it didn't defeat the Grand Fleet wresting control of the Narrow Seas from Britain and ensuring a German victory, the surface raiders were, as a group, ineffective, and the U-boote force, though spectacular, did not starve out Britain, and only brought the US into the war, ensuring Germany's defeat.  German Naval Strategy was a bust...I contend the best German strategy would to have NOT HAD A NAVY.
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       5/31/2009 12:35:38 PM
Warnerd and JFKY basically made my next point for me. The Tripitz was effective as a "fleet in being" and the surface raiders were very cost ineffective.

Lets look at SMS Emden (the first one).  She managed to sink 30 merchants in a span of about 3 months.  She also was hunted down, drawn into battle, scuttled, and managed to get 130 of her crew killed. That was the end of her commerce raiding career. Three months of action, and she only managed to get her licks in early because she was at sea at the time she heard WWI had started.
 
Scheer managed 18 merchant kills. Eighteen ships in a five year war. Not quite four a year.
 
Graf Spee, if I'm counting correctly, got 9 merchants in a short, ~3 month, career. She, like the Emden, was drawn into battle and then scuttled.
 
Kormoran managed to get 12 ships, including a light cruiser, but was sunk. She did manage to last a year, of course, she wasn't a typical cruiser. She had the advantage of looking like a merchant.
 
Those are successes? The average life expectancy for these ships was about a year and a half (the average being thrown off by Scheers long and uneventful career). They were expensive to build, expensive to man. The U-boat offered far more bang for the buck.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Math: How many ships did the average U-boat sink?   6/1/2009 8:38:16 AM

Warnerd and JFKY basically made my next point for me. The Tripitz was effective as a "fleet in being" and the surface raiders were very cost ineffective.



Lets look at SMS Emden (the first one).  She managed to sink 30 merchants in a span of about 3 months.  She also was hunted down, drawn into battle, scuttled, and managed to get 130 of her crew killed. That was the end of her commerce raiding career. Three months of action, and she only managed to get her licks in early because she was at sea at the time she heard WWI had started.

 

Scheer managed 18 merchant kills. Eighteen ships in a five year war. Not quite four a year.


 

Graf Spee, if I'm counting correctly, got 9 merchants in a short, ~3 month, career. She, like the Emden, was drawn into battle and then scuttled.


 

Kormoran managed to get 12 ships, including a light cruiser, but was sunk. She did manage to last a year, of course, she wasn't a typical cruiser. She had the advantage of looking like a merchant.


 

Those are successes? The average life expectancy for these ships was about a year and a half (the average being thrown off by Scheers long and uneventful career). They were expensive to build, expensive to man. The U-boat offered far more bang for the buck.


 

 

 
 
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. 
 
 
Herald
 

 
 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics