Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Sventex

"Could have lost the war in an afternoon"

18 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,665
[REVY]
Members
6,738 posts
5,685 battles

While Churchill is known for criticizing nearly everything Admiral Jellicoe did at Jutland, he did remark that he was “the only man who could have lost the war in an afternoon.”  

Now this got me wondering since the opening phase of the Battle of Jutland had given the Germans more than they could ever have dreamed of, a chance to cut down Beatty's 1st and 2nd Battlecruiser Squadron and to confront the 5th Battle Squadron with the full force of the High Seas Fleet.  Despite this, the German gains were relatively minor, just 2 Battlecruisers sunk.  Given that those capital ships only had about an hour worth of munitions on board and the opening skirmish had fairly lengthy artillery exchanges, would it even be physically possible for Admiral Jellicoe to have lost the war in an afternoon by the time the Grand Fleet got involved?  Would the Germans even have enough shells onboard to even change the balance of power even if Jellicoe had truly screwed up?

And even if the blockade is broken, does that truly mean that Germany wins WWI?

Edited by Sventex
grammer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
293
[DISST]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
1,031 posts

Thr Brits are a naval nation and at the time despite the ideas of ( ....I forget his name a brit that argued keeping the sea open was more important than large battles ) Britain as a whole was still very much in the mahan mindset which distilled says you fight a climatic battle and then use the sea to influence events ashore... it seemed to have been backed up by trafalgar and more recently Tsushima ....so it's possible that the importance of a single action was given too much weight. Subs were not as effective in WWI and even then sonar was not in general use ...so they represented a dice roll for both sides rather than a guarantee.  Jutland was pre US entry so the statement was probably more accurate before 1917. US represented a influx of fresh troops and materials into a conflict that had more or less exhausted both sides. It's kind of like arguing the CSA could have won the Civil War at Gettysburg.... it invites debate ... but most data is weighted against it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,263
[WOLF5]
Supertester
4,127 posts
4,088 battles
7 minutes ago, flyingtaco said:

Thr Brits are a naval nation and at the time despite the ideas of ( ....I forget his name a brit that argued keeping the sea open was more important than large battles ) Britain as a whole was still very much in the mahan mindset which distilled says you fight a climatic battle and then use the sea to influence events ashore... it seemed to have been backed up by trafalgar and more recently Tsushima ....so it's possible that the importance of a single action was given too much weight. Subs were not as effective in WWI and even then sonar was not in general use ...so they represented a dice roll for both sides rather than a guarantee.  Jutland was pre US entry so the statement was probably more accurate before 1917. US represented a influx of fresh troops and materials into a conflict that had more or less exhausted both sides. It's kind of like arguing the CSA could have won the Civil War at Gettysburg.... it invites debate ... but most data is weighted against it. 

This is pretty much right on. The British were still very much in the 18th century mindset that any defeat, no matter how small, was unacceptable. They were very used to being the absolute rulers of the sea, and the modern ideas were a bit slow to catch on. Remember that the RN tended to be the last people to implement new ideas, because they were the best at whatever technology, and moving on would mean they were no longer the best. They also liked to come up with bizarre methods to do new things to keep being traditional. They developed an 18" gun very early on, and then made themselves a joke because they insisted on having a turret mounted 18" gun be muzzle loaded. You can imagine how well loading an 18" projectile from the muzzle worked out.

So when the Home Fleet out, the Brits fully expected them to trash anyone they encountered, as if it was the days of Nelson. When that didn't happen, even though it wasn't a loss, it wasn't the expected win, so the Brits acted like it was a defeat. Were the Germans going to break Britain's naval superiority in one afternoon? No. But they had shown that they were equal to the Brits in naval power, and the Brits didn't exactly like that idea. Also, Churchill is kind of known for over the top statements.

US had to learn the same lesson in the Atlantic in 1942. King kept ignoring the sub threat, until the Germans nearly shut the Atlantic and the British sent a couple people over the straighten the USN out. Once the US got its craptogether, they were able to shut the U-boats down, but 1942 wasn't a good time for the US. No one likes change, large government agencies least of all, so it's not surprising militaries often have to learn the hard way that times are changing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,920
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
14,116 posts
19,208 battles
3 hours ago, Sventex said:

And even if the blockade is broken, does that truly mean that Germany wins WWI?

I personally feel there are too many other issues upon which winning, or losing, the war depended for this one change to be a certainty either way. What this would do, in my opinion, is extend the war past the 1918 collapse, and making the American contribution, or lack of same, much more important to the Allies. But WW1 was a VERY complicated war and no one issue really swung it one way or the other, though this one certainly qualifies as an important one.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,906
Supertester, Members, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
11,426 posts
1,963 battles
On 11/12/2019 at 4:15 AM, AJTP89 said:

They were very used to being the absolute rulers of the sea, and the modern ideas were a bit slow to catch on. Remember that the RN tended to be the last people to implement new ideas, because they were the best at whatever technology, and moving on would mean they were no longer the best.

This is a fallacy.   

The only two cases where it is remotely true is with regards to breech loading guns and higher pressure/temperature machinery. In both cases they were tried, quite early on, but did not work as well as hoped for, meaning that the older way endured for longer. Even so, muzzle loaders were phased out of new construction in the 1880s, and the Admiralty Three Drum Boiler was uprated in the mid 1930s to give better performance, whilst still retaining its thoroughly pleasant characteristics. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
224
[STAR]
SuperTest Coordinator
373 posts
11,024 battles

Germany sealed its fate by disrespecting Belgian sovereignty and prompting the UK into the continental war the British were unwilling to throw themselves into. The UK would have stayed out of the conflict in that fateful summer 1914 while Germany would have to bear the two-front war *with its ports still free and with decent influx of raw materials and colonial products for the war effort*. Only by 1916, with the odds clearly swinging to the Central Powers, the UK would have interfered. And the Battle of Jutland would perhaps happened close to the same point in time with the same result, but with a too shallow of a result to counterweight German advances in France and Eastern Europe (assuming that the Central Powers actually made that advance into France and Russia).

Not that victory of the Central Powers would be 100% guaranteed in such scenario, but it would at least have put less stress on German war effort for having their ports blockaded almost 2 years later than it actually happened.

Interesting enough, there can be some nice speculation around the naval experience German, French and Russians would draw from this early phase of the conflict.

The German China Station would have made its way back to Germany (no Battle of Coronel or Falklands), adding a pair of heavy CAs to the Imperial Marine. No conflict against modern dreadnought battlecruisers either. No fall of Tsingtao and no Japanese interference in the war (at least until 1916).

Question would be if France would try to evacuate all capital ships in the Atlantic ports to the Mediterranean early in the war or would they sit and rust in the safety of their naval bases? How effective would be German blockade of French ports? Would Germany dispatch CAs and modern BCs to colonial waters to hunt down French merchant raiders or would counter them just with usual protected/scout cruisers? Would the German China Station bottle up the Russian Pacific Squadron in Vladivostok, or would they leave the Pacific theatre anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,665
[REVY]
Members
6,738 posts
5,685 battles
5 hours ago, Brooklin82 said:

Germany sealed its fate by disrespecting Belgian sovereignty and prompting the UK into the continental war the British were unwilling to throw themselves into. The UK would have stayed out of the conflict in that fateful summer 1914 while Germany would have to bear the two-front war *with its ports still free and with decent influx of raw materials and colonial products for the war effort*. Only by 1916, with the odds clearly swinging to the Central Powers, the UK would have interfered. And the Battle of Jutland would perhaps happened close to the same point in time with the same result, but with a too shallow of a result to counterweight German advances in France and Eastern Europe (assuming that the Central Powers actually made that advance into France and Russia).

Not that victory of the Central Powers would be 100% guaranteed in such scenario, but it would at least have put less stress on German war effort for having their ports blockaded almost 2 years later than it actually happened.

Interesting enough, there can be some nice speculation around the naval experience German, French and Russians would draw from this early phase of the conflict.

The German China Station would have made its way back to Germany (no Battle of Coronel or Falklands), adding a pair of heavy CAs to the Imperial Marine. No conflict against modern dreadnought battlecruisers either. No fall of Tsingtao and no Japanese interference in the war (at least until 1916).

Question would be if France would try to evacuate all capital ships in the Atlantic ports to the Mediterranean early in the war or would they sit and rust in the safety of their naval bases? How effective would be German blockade of French ports? Would Germany dispatch CAs and modern BCs to colonial waters to hunt down French merchant raiders or would counter them just with usual protected/scout cruisers? Would the German China Station bottle up the Russian Pacific Squadron in Vladivostok, or would they leave the Pacific theatre anyway?

Given Britain's willingness to violate the sovereignty of neutral nations in both World Wars, I wouldn't read too deeply into the fact that Britain choose Belgium's neutrality specifically to go to war over.  Belgium neutrality or no, Britain had cause to mobilize and they'd as soon as violate Belgium's neutrality in a blockade to prevent goods from reaching Germany.

 

"Britain's reasons for declaring war were complex. The ostensible reason given was that Britain was required to safeguard Belgium's neutrality under the Treaty of London (1839). The German invasion of Belgium was therefore the casus belli and importantly legitimised and galvanised popular support for the war. The strategic risk posed by German control of the Belgian and ultimately French coast was considered unacceptable. German guarantees of postwar behavior were cast into doubt by her blasé treatment of Belgian neutrality. However, the Treaty of London had not committed Britain on her own to safeguard Belgium's neutrality. Moreover, naval war planning demonstrated that Britain would have violated Belgian neutrality by blockading her ports (to prevent imported goods passing to Germany) in the event of war with Germany.

Rather Britain's relationship with her Entente partners, both France and Russia, were equally significant factors. Edward Grey argued that the secret naval agreements with France although they had not been approved by the Cabinet created a moral obligation between Britain and France. If Britain abandoned its Entente friends, it was feared also that whether Germany won the war or the Entente won without British support, Britain would be left without any friends. This would have left both Britain and her Empire vulnerable to attack.

"Should the war come, and England stand aside, one of two things must happen. (a) Either Germany and Austria win, crush France and humiliate Russia. What will be the position of a friendless England? (b) Or France and Russia win. What would be their attitude towards England? What about India and the Mediterranean?" 

Domestically, the Liberal Cabinet was split and in the event that war was not declared the Government would fall as Prime Minister Asquith, Edward Grey and Winston Churchill made it clear they would resign. In that event, the existing Liberal Cabinet would lose their jobs. Since it was likely the prowar Conservatives would come to power, that would still lead to a British entry into the war, only slightly later. Wavering Cabinet ministers were also likely motivated by the desire to avoid senselessly splitting their party and sacrificing their jobs." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_I#Britain_declares_war_on_Germany,_4_August_1914

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
772
[REVY]
Members
2,287 posts
12,285 battles
On 11/11/2019 at 9:47 PM, Sventex said:

While Churchill is known for criticizing nearly everything Admiral Jellicoe did at Jutland, he did remark that he was “the only man who could have lost the war in an afternoon.”  

Now this got me wondering since the opening phase of the Battle of Jutland had given the Germans more than they could ever have dreamed of, a chance to cut down Beatty's 1st and 2nd Battlecruiser Squadron and to confront the 5th Battle Squadron with the full force of the High Seas Fleet.  Despite this, the German gains were relatively minor, just 2 Battlecruisers sunk.  Given that those capital ships only had about an hour worth of munitions on board and the opening skirmish had fairly lengthy artillery exchanges, would it even be physically possible for Admiral Jellicoe to have lost the war in an afternoon by the time the Grand Fleet got involved?  Would the Germans even have enough shells onboard to even change the balance of power even if Jellicoe had truly screwed up?

And even if the blockade is broken, does that truly mean that Germany wins WWI?

Really the only way Jellicoe could have 'lost the war in an afternoon' is if he did something monumentally stupid that would render the Grand Fleet ineffective as a fighting force. There were some questionable practices in the Grand Fleet that may have led to ships being lost, but otherwise the British still held a numerical ship superiority vs the German Fleet.

I suppose you could have a storm whip up like the Spanish Armada faced while the Grand Fleet was at sea, but while smaller ships like Destroyers might have issues, the BBs probably wouldn't be affected much.

 

As for the blockade being broken, even if it was, I doubt Germany would have been able to win the war. WW1 was a meat grinder and several generations of men were lost on both sides. While the blockade may allow you to get needed food, and raw material, manpower will eventually become an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,497
[RKLES]
Members
12,551 posts
14,267 battles

Losing the war in an afternoon would really have depended on if the British had lost all their Dreadnought Battleships and Battlecruisers that were stationed in European area of Atlantic and if the Germans had managed to have at least some of their BBs and BCs survive the battle. After all international trade back then pretty much depended on the seas unless rail or roads could be used and even then only limited quantities of goods could be shipped. And for that matter even today we still depend on cargo ships heavily. 

So keeping trade going really fell down to dreadnoughts and battlecruisers as they could sink each other, they could sink the CAs. Which made the dreadnoughts  essentially the aircraft carriers and nuclear arsenals of the day back before the later weapons were created.

So if the RN ships had been sunk it could in the very least given the Germans favorable grounds for Armistice as at least in theory their Merchant ships could once again trade freely as a blockade would not have been as good without the larger capital ships.

Now trying to force Great Britain to surrender to German rule would have been a different and more complicated matter as you would have needed to invade England and possibly the rest of the UK. Which honestly in the scenario where Royal Navy lost its Dreadnaughts and Battlecruisers could have been a more feasible idea in WWI than as we have debated before about the little to no chances of succeeding in invading Britain in WWII. Of course even without RAF, good tanks, good transport vehicles, and some of those sort of WWII assets, if the British had some good coastal defense emplacements those might have been a problem.  One of the main advantages Germans would have had would have been heavy naval artillery to support land invasions, which heavy costal guns might have been a threat.

 

Edited by Admiral_Thrawn_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,665
[REVY]
Members
6,738 posts
5,685 battles
10 hours ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

Losing the war in an afternoon would really have depended on if the British had lost all their Dreadnought Battleships and Battlecruisers that were stationed in European area of Atlantic and if the Germans had managed to have at least some of their BBs and BCs survive the battle.

 

But would that even be physically possible?  The opening half of Jutland is the 1st Scouting Group and High Seas Fleet wailing on the 5th Battle Squadron and 1st/2nd Battlecruiser Squadrons and all they had to show for it was 2 Battlecruisers sunk and Warspite nearly sunk.  With the Germans already using up much of their ammunition in the opening part of Jutland and with the High Seas Fleet having smaller guns, would it even have physically been possible to defeat The Grand Fleet?

 

Sinking Super-Dreadnoughts seemed to be a very hard thing to do.

Edited by Sventex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,497
[RKLES]
Members
12,551 posts
14,267 battles
26 minutes ago, Sventex said:

But would that even be physically possible?  The opening half of Jutland is the 1st Scouting Group and High Seas Fleet wailing on the 5th Battle Squadron and 1st/2nd Battlecruiser Squadrons and all they had to show for it was 2 Battlecruisers sunk and Warspite nearly sunk.  With the Germans already using up much of their ammunition in the opening part of Jutland and with the High Seas Fleet having smaller guns, would it even have physically been possible to defeat The Grand Fleet?

Well with British horrifically bad ammo handling practices at the time as well as using more volatile type of explosives, I would say it could have been possible considering some of their BCs were detonated from their being hit causing chain reactions all the way down to the maim ammo storage magazines. And I have heard stories of flash fires traveling down the turret shafts and crew members courageously sealing hatches and were later found with their bodies incinerated, but their actions remembered for saving the rest of their shipmates and their ships. So RN came close to losing more capital ships than they already did on Jutland.

Although German’s may have required the ability to resupply ammo some how, but their crews might have been willing to continue if more Royal Navy ships had gone up in spectacular explosions displaying evidence of German successes. Laying some additional mines might have worked against the British as I have heard of severe damage / loss of at least 1 or 2 RN capital ships being lost in major explosions due to mines and the explosives carried in their ships.

And also of note is the Jutland battle was already seen as a loss in the eyes of the British public based in terms of ships lost and lives lost on the British side vs what Germans lost. Just imagine if any more of their capital ships had gone down just what kind of trouble the public outrage could have escalated up to. You might have gotten their ships capital ships restricted to port even if the Germans had not managed to sunk all the dreadnoughts. And all the Germans really needed was to not be blockaded in order to help their war efforts in mainland Europe. And as crazy as it might sound, public opinion can be a powerful thing if inflamed far enough with enough evidence of wrong doing or at least possible wrong doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,665
[REVY]
Members
6,738 posts
5,685 battles
2 hours ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

 So RN came close to losing more capital ships than they already did on Jutland.

But would it really make a difference if the Germans sunk 6 or even 9 RN Battlecruisers at Jutland instead of 3?  They would still be heavily outnumbered in capital ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,497
[RKLES]
Members
12,551 posts
14,267 battles
9 hours ago, Sventex said:

But would it really make a difference if the Germans sunk 6 or even 9 RN Battlecruisers at Jutland instead of 3?  They would still be heavily outnumbered in capital ships.

Very true, but then you have to factor in British Public Options, if you had a Navy that was said to be near invincible as the Royal Navy had sort of become over the years, a loss or set back can raise a few questions but in the end be smoothed over, but imagine 6-9 BCs all hands lost, in addition to other ships coming in with damage. RN based in UK might have been confined to port pending a full and through  investigation as the loss of 10,000+ men in a single battle would have enraged the people of Britain even more than they already were with results of Jutland.

And as I pointed out all the Germans needed was to have the blockage broken to ship greater amounts of supplies in for their war in France. But this outcome would have depended on the luck of the Germans being better and for the fast thinking of some of those RN sailors to have not have happened. Of course a lot more men and ships could have been saved if they had simply followed proper ammo handling procedures and not have stored so much ammo / propellant in turrets, not have opened all the blast doors for men  to simply walk that were meant to be sealed during battles. I have seen video footage of the wrecks were you had ammo transfer points, but instead had nearby hatches open for men to of been walking though, all the way from turrets down to magazines. Well on the ships that had intact sections to observe this, some of the ships had large sections that were vaporized. Nothing like essentially having nice long fuses that lead all the way to large stockpiles of highly volatile explosives.

Makes Jutland an interesting battle as it could have gone far worse for the Royal Navy with the mistakes they were commonly making back then. And yet should have been able to go far better than it did if those ammo handling mistakes were not being made. So while I think Germans had some kind of chances in the battle, I really think if RN had done things better there would have been no question as to who had the advantage, and the following results when British returned would have been more pleasant as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,900
Alpha Tester
6,440 posts
3,250 battles
On 11/11/2019 at 9:47 PM, Sventex said:

And even if the blockade is broken, does that truly mean that Germany wins WWI?

Not likely. Even if the High Seas Fleet had broken the blockade, Austro-Hungary would have still been beaten by Italy and T.E. Lawrence's Arab revolt would have still toppled the Ottomans. Germany would have been invaded on its southern front and its supplies would have been drained just like what happened IRL. It would have taken longer, but the conclusion would still have been the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,900
Alpha Tester
6,440 posts
3,250 battles
On 11/15/2019 at 11:34 AM, Lord_Slayer said:

Really the only way Jellicoe could have 'lost the war in an afternoon' is if he did something monumentally stupid that would render the Grand Fleet ineffective as a fighting force.

Given the legendary levels of idiocy displayed by British officers on both land and sea in WWI, something 'monumentally stupid' is entirely within the realm of possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
762
[TOG]
Members
4,158 posts
24,131 battles

The RN was looking for a replay of the Battle of Tsushima, with the RN being the role of the victor. The KM was going for small scale ambushes. Both require that the combatants stand and fight, not run the moment the odds are against them.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
157
[PRMUS]
Members
943 posts
2,312 battles
On 11/11/2019 at 9:47 PM, Sventex said:

While Churchill is known for criticizing nearly everything Admiral Jellicoe did at Jutland, he did remark that he was “the only man who could have lost the war in an afternoon.”  

Now this got me wondering since the opening phase of the Battle of Jutland had given the Germans more than they could ever have dreamed of, a chance to cut down Beatty's 1st and 2nd Battlecruiser Squadron and to confront the 5th Battle Squadron with the full force of the High Seas Fleet.  Despite this, the German gains were relatively minor, just 2 Battlecruisers sunk.  Given that those capital ships only had about an hour worth of munitions on board and the opening skirmish had fairly lengthy artillery exchanges, would it even be physically possible for Admiral Jellicoe to have lost the war in an afternoon by the time the Grand Fleet got involved?  Would the Germans even have enough shells onboard to even change the balance of power even if Jellicoe had truly screwed up?

And even if the blockade is broken, does that truly mean that Germany wins WWI?

No. Churchill is overstating the signifigance of what the worst case scenario for the RN at Jutland would have meant. Germany had almost no chance of beating the RN and breaking the blockade. The gap between Germany and the UK was even larger in new construction and in the ships that weren't at Jutland than the ones that were. Almost every single one of Germany's useful ships were at Jutland while the UK fleet would still be gigantic even if a freak accident destroyed the fleet at Jutland. The new construction included the almost finished Revenges and Renowns which would more than replace any losses from this scenario and whom would have a decent chance of destroying the German fleet themselves. 

While the 5th battle squadron had 4 of the UK's 5 strongest ships(QE wasn't present) losing it wouldn't change the fact the Grand Fleet's 13.5 inch guns outranged and outnumbered his own(hence why the RN battleships outside of the 5th battle squadron barely got touched were barely touched during what remained of the battle while the Germans took some serious damage) . Speer would still be forced to retreat once he encountered the grand fleet. While German fleet certainly underachieved to only take down 3 battlecruisers(Lion was very very lucky to survive in particular) to say they'd have destroyed the rest of the battlecruisers and/or the whole 5th battle squadron who was covering for them would be overachieving.  In terms of the 5th battle squadron being destroyed more realistic to say 1 or 2 get sunk but doubtful all 4 sink, remember these ships do outrange the whole High Seas fleet and are faster than all but the German battlecruisers who at this point are in no condition to go chasing them, they are mainly just there covering for the damaged battlecruisers. Also while Germany underachieved in terms of sinking ships they overachieved in terms of survival, more German battlecruisers and/or dreadnoughts also could have sank and Seydlitz falls into the same boat as Lion. 

So let's say the UK loses 4 battlecruisers and 3 of the Queen Elizabeths instead of just 3 battlecruisers? Well it certainly takes some ambiguity out of the battle and makes it a German victory and a PR disaster for the UK. But strategically this would only be the first step of the German plan of narrowing the gap with the Royal Navy and would need to be repeated a bunch of times. The Germans being outgunned also makes beating the Royal Navy more difficult than simply closing the numbers gap  as aside from the first 10 dreadnoughts and 4 battlecruisers(almost all of which would soon be in reserves or sunk)every British capital ship outguns and ranges every German capital ship pre Bayerns and Mackensens and by a lot. This is why there wasn't really a strategic impact of sinking 12 inch battlecruisers wasn't felt or was even taking 1 step forward, 2 steps back as they were sinking the most vulnerable RN units which were then replaced with stronger less vulnerable units . While the sunken QE's would be some of the only ships in the Royal Navy with 15 inch guns, they'd be shortly replaced with the Revenge class(whose inferiority to the QE's in WW2 isn't really relevant to fighting the Germans). 

Finally there's the battlecruiser issue. Battlecruisers were necessary to initiate more of these favorable encounters with the RN the Germans would need to have several of in order to win. Battlecruisers are basically the fleets legs when BB's are as slow as they are in WW1 the outgunned and slow Germany battleships had no hope without them. Both IRL and in this scenario Germany's battlecruiser squadron already small at 5 ships was crippled after Jutland and meant they couldn't follow up on Jutland. Lutzow was gone, and the other ships were all damaged and out for a long stretch. They'd all be operational by the end of 1916 but the bigger issue is a successful German strategy would continued to put them in Jutland like situations were even if successful they'd be damaged and the fleet grounded again. And while the German battlecruisers had fought great at Jutland the Renowns and even the Courageous's coming into service for the UK meant the odds of them repeating their performance were low. 

Now to play devils advocate for reasons the Germans could have repeated the victory at Jutland. First Renown and the Courageous class conceived before Jutland did have the horrid belt armor of the I classes that made them so explodable leaving them vulnerable in the future. On the other hand they also had 15 inch guns and that's twice as heavy as even the 12 inch shells of the Derflinggers never mind the 11 inch shells of the older German ships. The Germany battlecruiser group including two Mackensens if finished quicker because of the bigger victory/changed priorities would stack up particularly well. Likewise the Bayerns were apparently superior to the QE's according to those who examined the Baden so I'm going to say they stack up even better if they are completed against the Revenge's. While Germany's future naval construction had closed the gap with the UK what they had in 1916-1918 was naval construction from a decade earlier where the opposite was usually the case save for the battlecruisers with no armor. But that doesn't matter in 1916-1918 the wars being fought with construction with ships from the latter.

But let's say there's another battle in 1917 or 1918 and the German battlecruisers destroy a bunch of new RN battlecruisers and maybe even another Invincible if they're still put around? How does that change the Germans still have to retreat if the RN battleships show up? 

Also if the US joins the war the situation becomes that much more impossible. The US would likely beat Germany in a 1v1 fleet action at this point though that'd be very up in the air.

Edited by Aristotle83

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,639
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,664 posts
14,760 battles
2 hours ago, Aristotle83 said:

While the 5th battle squadron had 4 of the UK's 5 strongest ships(QE wasn't present) losing it wouldn't change the fact the Grand Fleet's 13.5 inch guns outranged and outnumbered his own(hence why the RN battleships outside of the 5th battle squadron barely got touched were barely touched during what remained of the battle while the Germans took some serious damage) 

The British battleships were barely touched in the 'crossing the T' phase because they had a huge visual condition advantage, and they were crossing the T which was a huge tactical advantage. The HSF took some big slaps and turned away to disengage.

The range at the time was about 12km, well inside that of either the German 11in or 12in guns, which could range out to 20km or so at least.

nmn1owf8mxk51.jpg

Range had nothing to do with it.

Edited by mofton
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×