Would Germany have won WW1?

[privatehudson]

The Germans however succeeded in their original plan by the damages they did on the British ships, especially the battlecruiser. The status quo ante was achieved after the battle. But it was no consequence of the battle that the British had the better position.

Wrong. Elements of the German HSF had to spend 3-4 months repairing the damage inflicted on them in the battle, the GF still had pleanty in reserve left to continue operations at the same scale straight away. Jutland did not inflict enough damage on the GF to make either breaking the blockade possible or significantly reducing the numerical advantage the RN enjoyed. Given these were two principle ideals of the HSF it seems rather pointless to suggest that the Germans achieved anything from Jutland strategically.

Also as I mentioned, the only type of ship the Germans actually came close to superiority of numbers in was the Battlecruiser. Given that the BC was coming to be seen as a flawed design for most operations, and given that the GF still outnumbered the HSF in every single other aspect, the losses at Jutland fade into insignificance.

Given that and the facts the Brits abandoned their questionable plan to invade Pommerania in the Baltic with the poor Large Light Cruiser and the nearly total decrease of British war ship action in the North Sea out of the British waters, making Jutland a strategic draw with very slightly German advantages.

Interestingly enough it's unlikely any of this had any significant affect on the war when compared to the problems the germans suffered for not being able to break the stranglehold the RN had on her simply by still existing as a fleet. I'd suggest therefore that these issues represent nothing more than clutching at straws in order to avoid the fact that the Germans did not achieve anything concrete at Jutland that they could use to alter the naval problems they had.

 

[Case]

Wrong. Elements of the German HSF had to spend 3-4 months repairing the damage inflicted on them in the battle, the GF still had pleanty in reserve left to continue operations at the same scale straight away.

And, even more importantly, the Kaiser seems to have been shocked by the belated realisation that his beloved battleships could be sunk if sent into harms way. The result of this was that he all but banned the High Seas Fleet from putting to sea (the conditions he set were so severe that they could only rarely be met). The upshot of this was that the High Seas Fleet spent very little time training, much less challanging the British dominance of the North Sea, and it became nothing but a waste of resources as a result.

No Case, there were light covering forces met and hit but in all cases the British fleet saw a hint of the appeareance of the HSF they retreated.

What's your source for this? Everything I've read has stated that the RN was, if anything, even more keen to fight the Germans after Jutland then it was before the battle. While the Grand Fleet was often miss-handled, it always sought to bring the HSF to battle on the rare occasions the HSF entered the North Sea. Massie's book is but the most recent (and readable) work on the RN in WW1.

 

[Verbose]

Would anybody here with a nautical persuasion like to comment on the relative vulnerability of WWI battleships?

I've always liked the little speech Churchill made in parliament re. this question during WWI. He thought most MPs' had the notion that battleships were huge, steel clad behemoths, plowing the waves and invulnerable to just about anything.

In actual fact, according to Churchill, the relationship between armour and the power of the guns made the situation more like one of a contest between eggs armed with hammers.

Considering Jutland, was he overstating this?

 

[privatehudson]

Well no weapon is invulnerable of course, but the main british losses in the battle came to rather lightly armoured battlecruisers, and in them mostly due to dodgy practices used on the ships rather than any significant vulnerability problems as such. I wouldn't like to comment much outside of that as WW1 naval ships aren't something I'm to well read on.

They certainly weren't invincable though as time would prove of course.

 

[Case]

Would anybody here with a nautical persuasion like to comment on the relative vulnerability of WWI battleships?

On balance, about even. If the British had kept the doors between the turrets and magazines closed they wouldn't have suffered most of their losses at Jutland (this practice was belatedly introduced after Jutland).

While the German BBs were made of better quality steel than the British ships, this was balanced by the British distributing the armour across their BBs in a more efficent and effective manner. The British ships' mechanical spaces were also somewhat better protected than the German ships. These were habitual failings of German battleship designers, and lead to the loss of the Bismarck in WW2 (the Bismarck's armour scheme was obselete and inferior to that used by all other battleships built in the 1930s and 40s).

The beating the Warspite survived at Jutland and in WW2 strongly indicates that the British knew how to build tough battleships. British losses in ship-vs-ship BB actions were almost exclusively due to poor procedures and the failings of the battlecruiser concept.

Incidently, this thread has been completly thread-jacked and should probably be split into a seperate thread on naval warfare in WW1 (*hint*, *hint* mods )

 

[privatehudson]

Wasn't the Bismarck's scheme based on one of the WW1 dreadnoughts? I thought I remembered reading that somewhere or something like it

 

[Case]

Wasn't the Bismarck's scheme based on one of the WW1 dreadnoughts?

Yeah, Bismarck's armour scheme was pretty much the same as those used by German BBs built before Jutland - ie, lots of armour near the waterline, but not much above it. When combined with the German practice of extensive compartmentalistion (dividing the ship into lots of water-tight compartments) this made the German BBs hard to sink but easy to cripple (as was demonstrated by Bismarck, Tirpitz and Sharnhorst all being crippled well before they actually sank).

In contrast to the Germans, everyone else learnt from Jutland that protection against plunging fire was more important than protection against low angle fire, and all the other post-Jutland BBs had heavy deck armour. This proved effective, and may have saved the Prince of Wales in the Battle of the Denmark Strait. As a bonus, it also made the ships somewhat less vunerable to bombing attacks from aircraft.

 

[Verbose]

On balance, about even. If the British had kept the doors between the turrets and magazines closed they wouldn't have suffered most of their losses at Jutland (this practice was belatedly introduced after Jutland).

I had the impression this was partly a question of design? The Germans had systems where magazines would be automatically flood if a fire broke out (due to a hit). The British design meant that this had to be done manually.

Some dying sailor in a turret having the presence of mind to flood the magazine before expiring is supposed to have saved Beatty himself and the BC he was on. Or so I've heard.

 

[Adler17]

Verbose, you´re right. If this Major of the Royal Marines did not flood the magazine Beatty would be lost with his ship.
Nevertheless Case you are saying that the whole HSF, at least the BBs, were spending the time in the harbour. That is not correct: http://www.german-navy.de/hochseeflotte/ships/battleships/friedrichdergrosse/operations.html
The HSF tried it 3 further times in 1916, 19.08., 19.10. and 23.11., also in 23.04.1918. In all times the British fleet did not enge the Germans but retreated. IIRC also there were no offensive actions by the RN into the North Sea after Jutland. That the Kaiser stopped all operations is pure propaganda. This site is also backuping my infos from books, Janusz Piekalkiwicz, Der Erste Weltkrieg, and Hildebrand/ Röhr/ Steinmetz, Die deutschen Kriegsschiffe and some other sources. The German fleet was never so inactive as most here seem to believe.
Also the German ships were all ready for combat for the next operation in August 1916 except Seydlitz and Derfflinger. Therefore the new SMS Bayern super- BB was given to Hipper, just as Evan- Thomas BB squadron was given to Beatty at Jutland. Also except the SMS Ostfriesland all BBs were still operational in the German line, while HMS Warspite and HMS Marlborough were badly damaged as well as some other of Evan- Thomas´ships.
A last remark to the ww2 ship Bismarck: Without starting here another discussion of the Bismarck some facts: Prince of Wales was hit 8 times by Bismarck and put out of action, although it is to admit she was never fully operational in the battle. Bismarck was hit in her final battle for 2 hours from all distances. And only one hit pernetrated the armour belt. At last she was scuttled. She might be armoured after so called obsolete plans, but she could take much more damage than any other ship of the RN. So all in all the Bismarck might be armoured by obsolete plans, but her armour was outstanding. I do not think that a British BB would be able to withstand such a concentrated fire for two hours.
A last word to the BC. It was thought to use them as fast scout ships for the fleet, able to beat any enemy cruiser due to battleship armament but inferior but faster to BBs. The British BC had a construction error the Germans recognized after Doggerbank so they lost so many ships. Also Beatty made many mistakes in the battle and was never doing his job being Jellicoe´s eyes. That´s why the BC of the British side had a so bad result, while the Germans under Hipper did their job much better. In fact Hipper is the only leading admiral of the two fleets who did not make any mistake. Oh, the HMS Hood, which was sunk by Bismarck, was lost to the same error like HMS Invincible, HMS Queen Mary and HMS Indefatigable.

Adler

 

[privatehudson]

The HSF tried it 3 further times in 1916, 19.08., 19.10. and 23.11., also in 23.04.1918. In all times the British fleet did not enge the Germans but retreated

It would help your case (no pun intended) if you pointed out the circumstances in all of these. One seems to be against Denmark, which appears a little distant for the GF to come out and catch the HSF. Nevertheless the point remains that the British had no need to engage the German fleet in order to achieve it's aims. Why throw away your strategy by playing into the enemy hands?

Also the German ships were all ready for combat for the next operation in August 1916 except Seydlitz and Derfflinger. Therefore the new SMS Bayern super- BB was given to Hipper, just as Evan- Thomas BB squadron was given to Beatty at Jutland. Also except the SMS Ostfriesland all BBs were still operational in the German line, while HMS Warspite and HMS Marlborough were badly damaged as well as some other of Evan- Thomas´ships.

Seydlitz and Derflinger were important elements of the HSF though, without which challenging the GF was even more impractical and the strategy of baiting the GF's squadrons less likely. On the other hand the RN loosing two of her 30 odd battleships for a period did nothing to dent her numerical superiority, remove the blockade or help the Germans in another engagement. PPut simply the Germans couldn't afford ships in harbour for 3-4 months, the British could.

Without starting here another discussion of the Bismarck some facts: Prince of Wales was hit 8 times by Bismarck and put out of action, although it is to admit she was never fully operational in the battle

That merely shows his point. POW was still capable of manouvering and escaping after 8 hits during the engagement, and was still engaging and hitting the enemy for most of that period. Bismarck, though able to stand the fire for 2 hours was crippled by probably a similar number of hits making her ineffective and unable to retain an ability to return the damage. The same could be said for a comparison with Scharnhorst.

I do not think that a British BB would be able to withstand such a concentrated fire for two hours.

I think Case's point was that being able to stand up to gunfire is pointless if you are very vulnerable to bombs, torpedoes and shells which cripple your ability to make a contribution very quickly. Warspite (the example he suggests) frequently was pounded and badly damaged during two wars but stood up to them all just as well, so that rather makes the point moot.

he British BC had a construction error the Germans recognized after Doggerbank so they lost so many ships

As far as I can determine this is innacurate. The problem came from the practice the ships followed of storing excess shells and cordite in the turret to increase the rate of fire. The British cordite was less stable though. Beatty's ships had very poor gunnery results due to lack of ability to test them, so went in for more shots instead.

Oh, the HMS Hood, which was sunk by Bismarck, was lost to the same error like HMS Invincible, HMS Queen Mary and HMS Indefatigable.

That sounds suspect, perhaps Case can provide us with some info on it. Hood's design may have been similar, but I doubt it was due to the exact same practices and cordite which had been updated.

 

[Case]

Nevertheless Case you are saying that the whole HSF, at least the BBs, were spending the time in the harbour.

No I didn't. I said that they only rarely put to sea due to the restrictions imposed by the Kaiser. Four sorties in just under two years during a major war isn't the hallmark of an active naval force

In all times the British fleet did not enge the Germans but retreated.

I'm sorry, but that simply isn't true and I'm not going to waste time discussing it further. Claiming that the RN sought to avoid battle with the HSF on the rare occasions it left port after Jutland is like claiming that black is actually white.

IIRC also there were no offensive actions by the RN into the North Sea after Jutland.

True, but the RN didn't try any offensive operations in the North Sea before Jutland either. Britain's naval strategy was based around bottling the German fleet up by maintaining a distant blockade of the Northern North Sea and Channel. Large offensive operations against the German coast were never attempted, much to the disapointment and confusion of the Germans, whose entire naval war strategy was based around the expectation that the RN would attempt a close blockade of Germany's North Sea ports (the RN correctly anticpated that while such a strategy would be in tune with its agressive traditions, it would be pointless to risk the bedrock of British power by unessesarily taking the Grand Fleet into waters which were mined and crawling with submarines).

Bismarck was hit in her final battle for 2 hours from all distances. And only one hit pernetrated the armour belt. At last she was scuttled. She might be armoured after so called obsolete plans, but she could take much more damage than any other ship of the RN.

While she could certainly stay afloat for a much longer period, she could hardly take more damage - hits to her upper structure and turrets put her out of action early in the battle. It's also arguable that the damage to her fuel tanks caused by plunging fire in the Battle of the Denmark Strait sealed her fate.

So all in all the Bismarck might be armoured by obsolete plans, but her armour was outstanding.

Sure, but it was in the wrong places. Less armour more intelligently placed would have made Bismarck cheaper and more effective.

Oh, the HMS Hood, which was sunk by Bismarck, was lost to the same error like HMS Invincible, HMS Queen Mary and HMS Indefatigable.

Not exactly - the British BCs at Jutland were lost due to sparks from relatively minor hits entering their magazines. The Hood was lost due to plunging fire actually hitting one of her magazines. It's notable that the Hood was a pre-Jutland design (she was under construction at the time of the battle). And, of course, the battlecruiser concept was a bad idea. Even the best ever battlecruisers (the German Sharnhorsts) were a waste of resources.

 

[Adler17]

First of all Bismarck was crippled by a torpedo into the rudder. Scharnhorst was crippled by also a torpedo which set the speed down that the other ships could shoot. Nevertheless in the ships there was nearly everything functional. Bismarck was heavilied damaged in the superstructure but in the ship inside everything was okay except the one hit I mentioned. And Scharnhorst sunk with going propellers, a sign that the engine room was still working. Also the first hit on the Bismarck destroyed the rangefinder making her much less dangerous.
Torpedoes are a danger for all ships and a lucky hit can happen on any ship. Both Bismarck and Scharnhorst would have been able to escape if the torpedoes hit them not at the point they did.
Warspite was an excellent design indeed. But she was only in range of the HSF for a few minutes and not 2 hours. So even if we reduce the time it doesn´t reflect the fight of the Bismarck. It is like equalizing apples with oranges.
Scharnhorst was a real battleship and no battlecruiser. Due to some reasons it got only 11" guns making her underarmed. This should later corrected by the use of the 15" guns. This didn´t happen.
I think we are now too far away from the topic and either close the discussion or making up a new thread.

Adler

 

[privatehudson]

First of all Bismarck was crippled by a torpedo into the rudder

I believe Case was saying it's arguable that it's mission was compromised by a plunging hit from POW, a ship that should not have been able to do such a thing to her.

Scharnhorst was crippled by also a torpedo which set the speed down that the other ships could shoot. Nevertheless in the ships there was nearly everything functional.

Not the full story. She was slowed down by a hit from the DOY which damaged her so badly her speed was reduced to just 10 knots. That and only that enabled the destroyers to close the range and fire into her 4 torpedoes. It's to be noted that even before that the German ship was reduced to just one working turret. I'm guessing that crippled as referred to here includes "being unable to return fire effectively" which was certainly the case for Scharnhorst who's guns were put out of action quite quickly (and proved innefective other than at short ranges anyway). That would mean that not everything and indeed arguably a very important thing was not functional.

And Scharnhorst sunk with going propellers, a sign that the engine room was still working

Still working but unable to provide enough power for the ship to get up more than 3 knots...

Both Bismarck and Scharnhorst would have been able to escape if the torpedoes hit them not at the point they did.

Possibly, but surely the point is that the vulnerability of the ships and the effects of enemy fire had made it possible for the torpedos to strike home? That would certainly be the case with Scharnhorst.

Warspite was an excellent design indeed. But she was only in range of the HSF for a few minutes and not 2 hours. So even if we reduce the time it doesn´t reflect the fight of the Bismarck

In the interests of fairness, it should be mentioned that Warspite was being shelled by many more capital ships than the Bismarck was under fire from and retained the ability to operate under her own power and return fire. It didn't need 2 hours to stop the Bismarck from being a threat either.

Scharnhorst was a real battleship and no battlecruiser. Due to some reasons it got only 11" guns making her underarmed

It was also underarmoured in places too when compared to other battleships as shown by it's vulnerability to the fire of the DOY when compared directly to Bismarck say when fired on by the POW. The Scharnhorst class is somewhere between BC and BB type IMO.

 

[YNCS]

As late as September 15, 1918, Erich Ludendorf, the First Quartermaster General (Chief of Staff) of the German Army, considered that Germany's suffering throughout the war had been such that no other country would refuse her right to occupy Belgium upon such a basis as to give Germany full control of the Flemish coast. He believed that the King of Belgium would see the necessity for the city and fortress of Liège becoming an inalienable German possession.

 

[Hunter]

I think a possible victory would have been to abandon the plan to attack through Belgium thus giving the British little excuse to go to war. Britain would no doubt seek a reason to enter but if the Germans simply dug in and didn’t advance to far, they really would not have a reason. The Germans potentially could have worn down the French forces and once the Russian civil war began (I believe it was unavoidable). They could have signed a treaty that would have gained them lands and deeply wounded the French. The British could have been kept out of the war with concessions and without British involvement the US would not have entered the war.

Of course the best way to have beat the French was to have gone to war in 1911. But that is another thread.

 

[Adler17]

Hunter, the Brits only waited for a casus belli. If the German fleet would have interrupted the trade with France, as they were outnumbering the French fleet by far, they would have gone for war then. Britain was cought in an alliance as Germany was. War was inevitable when Russia declared war on Austria.

Adler

 

[Case]

Nevertheless in the ships there was nearly everything functional.

Warships which can have their armament quickly put out of action are nothing more than target practice for the opposing force. While the Bismark's bouyancy was certainly remarkable, it didn't do her much good - the British were considering towing her home as a trophy at the time she was scuttled!

Both Bismarck and Scharnhorst would have been able to escape if the torpedoes hit them not at the point they did.

That reminds me of General Grant's comments on the battle of Shiloh that "There is little doubt that we would have been disgracefully beaten if all the shells and bullets fired by us had passed harmlessly over the enemy and if all of theirs had taken effect."

Warspite was an excellent design indeed. But she was only in range of the HSF for a few minutes and not 2 hours. So even if we reduce the time it doesn´t reflect the fight of the Bismarck. It is like equalizing apples with oranges.

Not really - in WW2 the elderly Warspite survived repeated bombings and shellings, hit a mine and, most impressively, survived a hit from one of the devestatingly powerful German guided anti-shipping bombs (the same kind of bombs that sent the Italian battleship Roma to the bottom after a single hit). Over her long and impressive career the Warspite earned the dubious distinction of being the most damaged ship in the histroy of the Royal Navy! After being hit by the guided bomb she was judged no longer worth repairing (as sufficent KGVs were available, not that it was technically infeasible), and she was literally towed up and down the Channel supporting the Allied armies (in the course of which she survived further mine strikes and artillery hits!).

Scharnhorst was a real battleship and no battlecruiser.

The Scharnhorsts are normally classed as battlecruisers. Whatever you want to class them as, they were disappointing ships. They were either relatively excelent battlecruisers or appaling battleships.

Due to some reasons it got only 11" guns making her underarmed.

That was due to the treaties Germany was obeying at the time of their construction. When war broke out the German Navy chose not to re-arm the ships with more powerful weapons (a sensible decision, as doing so would have put them out of action for months and would have made them even more dangerously top-heavy).

 

[~Corsair#01~]

I think a possible victory would have been to abandon the plan to attack through Belgium thus giving the British little excuse to go to war. Britain would no doubt seek a reason to enter but if the Germans simply dug in and didn’t advance to far, they really would not have a reason. The Germans potentially could have worn down the French forces and once the Russian civil war began (I believe it was unavoidable). They could have signed a treaty that would have gained them lands and deeply wounded the French. The British could have been kept out of the war with concessions and without British involvement the US would not have entered the war.

Sorry, but it really wasn't unavoidable. The February Revolution may have been very likely to happen, but the Civil War (and thus the emergence of a pro-peace leadership) was quite an unlikely event.

 

[garfio55]

I have to say, I know that in Russia the climate was very heavy, but the revolution could have been controlled if Germany didn´t provide the transports for all the political leaders, including Lenin himself living in different parts of the Reich. Without Lenin, I don´t think that the russian revolution would have the same results. Germany´s influence was decidive in weakening the rival. (Very clever, I have to say)

 

[Hunter]

But would it not be reasonable to say that Germany would have done the same as in real life for the Russian revolution in my scenario? (But obviously my knowledge of Russian civil matters is limited at best )

In reality I don’t believe that the Germans with their pattern of saber rattling would play it soft in any case.

German defeat was set in motion IMHO the day they signed an alliance with Austria.