What if the HSF had challenged the GF in early 1915???

Tom Hunter

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
Location
Marblehead, Massachusetts
Country
llUnited States
A couple of other points about the Jellicoe reference from Blutarski.

First, that was October 1914, the subject here was 1915. Maybe I'm being pedantic, but I was answering that question. I agree the October 1914 numbers were very adverse for the Brits. If they had been forced to fight it would have been bad for them.

But October 1914 is not 1915.

However I think Jellicoe's attitude in the writing is very telling. The fact that he was concerned about 88 German DDs is interesting, it also adds some insight into his taking the Grand Fleet to the far side of Scotland.
 

Coypus

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
393
Reaction score
1
Location
Belfast
Country
ll
However I think Jellicoe's attitude in the writing is very telling. The fact that he was concerned about 88 German DDs is interesting, it also adds some insight into his taking the Grand Fleet to the far side of Scotland.
Threats tend to be magnified and commander in chiefs tend to work to an agenda ie no matter how many ships you give them the enemy always seems to have a larger number. They always want more strength. Then when recounting the past events one has to justify action or inaction as the case may be. Jutland is one of the most partisan arguements in history and that is only between the British :D

Then because of the level of debate British records are there for everyone to see wheras German records are just not so accesible the RN comes under the microscope. Dont put any weight on 88 destroyers whatsoever like I said the true figure will be under the 61 involved in Jutland ready for action.
 
Last edited:

JebUSMC

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
223
Reaction score
1
Location
Las Vegas, NV
Country
llUnited States
Also keep in mind that most of the German 'destroyers' were large torpedo boats in reality. Even the Germans called them torpedo boats. Real destroyers didn't start entering service with the German navy until 1915 and even then it was in relatively small numbers. Jellicoe really didn't know a lot about the performance of German 'destroyers' so he thought of them like his own DDs.
 

rgreat

Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2007
Messages
1,003
Reaction score
0
Location
Moscow
Country
llRussia
In Jutland German destroyers are definitely better, though. ;)
 

Bullethead

Storm Eagle Studios
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
3,890
Reaction score
3
Location
Wakefield, LA
Country
llUnited States
I'm with Coypus on this, on the subject of DDs especially.
IMHO neither side had much in the way of effective 1st-line DDs in 1915. Regardless of how many hulls they had afloat at the time, the majority of DDs then in serivce on both sides were too small to be of any use in moderately rough weather, and didn't have enough margin of speed over the capital ships to alter their screening deployments in anything like a timely manner. A fair number on both sides still had 45cm/18" torps with rather short range, too.

Destroyers are rather high-maintenance ships, and are worked hard on lots of small-scale but important missions outside of major fleet operations. These factors always limit the number available to rather below their total numbers. So you combine not having that many to start with, only the most recent few of which were really adequate for fleet work, and a fair number of all of them in the shop or on detached duty, and you can see why Jellicoe never thought he had enough destroyers.

The GF was always screaming for more destroyers, and resisted convoying merchants well into 1917 on the grounds it didn't have enough already so couldn't spare the number needed for escorts. And the Admiralty listened. Thus, the RN commissioned an ungodly number of destroyers in the 2nd 1/2 of the war, mostly ordered in the 1st 1/2 when the need for more of them was being so forcefully argued.

The ironic thing is that Scheer felt the same way. Early in the war, he was a very strong advocate of putting scads of DDs in Zeebrugge in an attempt to cut cross-Channel shipping. He was in complete agreement with the German naval commander in Flanders, and had in fact helped get MKF set up. But every request for more DDs for Flanders were turned down on the grounds that the HSF didn't have enough. Then Scheer took over the HSF, and greatly disappointed his buddy in Flanders. With the change of perspective and greater responsibilities, he also claimed the HSF didn't have enough good DDs to send any to Flanders.

Bullethead, I understand your point about flash, I should have made myself clearer, or gone back and re-read Campbell. The Germans made changes in response to the turret fire on Seydlitz, as Campbell said, by reducing the number of charges available to fuel a fire. Net, after Dogger Bank they did things to make their ships safer. Reading Campbell closely we might infer that in 1915 many German ships would have too much cordite in the turrets. Maybe true maybe not, but we can be certain that a change is unlikely to occur until after a problem is identified.
Well, the Germans didn't have cordite, they had their own forumation which was rather different :). But even the regulation amount of exposed propellant was still enough to burn out a turret, so really, nothing the Germans did after Dogger Bank made any difference at the bottom line. And the fact that Derfflinger disregarded the new regulations at Jutland makes the whole issue seem rather moot.
 

Blutarski

Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
184
Reaction score
2
Location
Cape Cod
A couple of other points about the Jellicoe reference from Blutarski.

First, that was October 1914, the subject here was 1915. Maybe I'm being pedantic, but I was answering that question. I agree the October 1914 numbers were very adverse for the Brits. If they had been forced to fight it would have been bad for them.

But October 1914 is not 1915.

..... Guilty as charged, but I'm not sure what the fuss is about.
 

Blutarski

Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
184
Reaction score
2
Location
Cape Cod
Also keep in mind that most of the German 'destroyers' were large torpedo boats in reality. Even the Germans called them torpedo boats. Real destroyers didn't start entering service with the German navy until 1915 and even then it was in relatively small numbers. Jellicoe really didn't know a lot about the performance of German 'destroyers' so he thought of them like his own DDs.

..... Perusal of the contemporary literature covering naval affairs suggests that everyone had a pretty good idea of the broad capabilities of the other fellows' ships.

Going through the German torpedo boats and British destroyers in commission or completed as of 1914, we get the following (L and T approx):

GERMANY (per Groener and Dittmar & Colledge)
Large Torpedo Boats (all good ocean going designs as per Groener)
S138 Class: 1907-11 / 240 ft / 700-900t / 30-33 kts
V1 Class : 1911-13 / 230 ft / 700-900t / 30-34 kts
V25 Class : 1913-14 / 260 ft / 900-1100t / 33-36 kts

GREAT BRITAIN (per Edgar March)
H Class: 1909-10 / 246 ft / 800t / 27-28 kts
I Class: 1910-11 / 246 ft / 800t / 27-30 kts
K Class: 1911-12 / 265 ft / 900-1000t / 29-30 kts
L Class: 1912-13 / 269 ft / 1000t / 29-30 kts
M Class: 1913-14 / 272 ft / 1000t / 35 kts


Not much to choose between, except for the well known differences in design emphasis [Germans high smooth water speed, heavy torpedo armament, light gun armament; British heavy gun armament]

Both nations had about 90+ such boats in commission as of the end of 1914. The difference was that the British boats were scattered from Scapa to Harwich and burdened with all sorts of tactical and operational responsibilities that made it difficult to concentrate them at any given random moment to support a GF sortie, while the German boats were all concentrated in one easy to defend location with much less in the way of conflicting obligations.

That's fundamentally why Jellicoe was always worried about a destroyer inferiority. It's not just about simple numbers.
 

Bullethead

Storm Eagle Studios
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
3,890
Reaction score
3
Location
Wakefield, LA
Country
llUnited States
That's fundamentally why Jellicoe was always worried about a destroyer inferiority. It's not just about simple numbers.
It was pretty similar from the German POV. They had to keep a fair number of DDs in the Baltic, considered the V1-type too small for true blue-water work with the fleet (they called them "Admiral Lans' cripples"), and regarded many of their older DDs as too weakly armed for contemporary use. So you can see why successive HSF commanders were reluctant to send many DDs to Flanders, even after Jutland and new DDs joining the fleet. Of course, in 1917, German emphasis shifted to the Eastern Front, so that meant more DDs had to go to the Baltic.
 

Seleucus24

Recruit
Joined
Oct 30, 2008
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Location
Bethlehem
Oh and given the political climate of the day, where Troubridge was under court-martial for failure to engage Goeben, it seems rather likely Jellicoe would seem forced to respond to a HSF sortie. It would seem implausible for Jellicoe to ignore orders from the admiralty to engage the HSF. And with room 40 those orders would surely come.


Basically what we are talking about here is what if the Germans had tried a Jutland style operation a year earlier. It is possible a large duke it out fleet action could have occurred as the HSF would not be outnumbered as badly, and the GF would feel compelled to give battle due to the need for another Trafalgar.


To predict the actual results is impossible of course. One just needs to look at how strange a battle Jutland turned out to see that. But of course one can theorize what might have happened had an early 1915 fleet action developed where the Germans do not start out in a terrible tactical situation, as had occurred at Jutland.
 

saddletank

Forum Conscript
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
3
Location
UK
Country
ll
One way to find out guys... Jim? Norm? BH? Can we have a 1914-1915 North Sea British and German ship pack please? :D
 

Blutarski

Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
184
Reaction score
2
Location
Cape Cod
It was pretty similar from the German POV. They had to keep a fair number of DDs in the Baltic, considered the V1-type too small for true blue-water work with the fleet (they called them "Admiral Lans' cripples"), and regarded many of their older DDs as too weakly armed for contemporary use. So you can see why successive HSF commanders were reluctant to send many DDs to Flanders, even after Jutland and new DDs joining the fleet. Of course, in 1917, German emphasis shifted to the Eastern Front, so that meant more DDs had to go to the Baltic.


..... From what I've been able to find, as of the outbreak of war in August 1914, there were eight flotillas [Flotillas I-VIII] of ocean-going torpedo boats in the North Sea and one in the Baltic.

I'm guessing that Jellicoe's figure of 88 boats comes from the eight flotillas x the standard German organization of 11 boats per flotilla.


B
 

TBR

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
978
Reaction score
4
Location
Germany
Country
llGermany
One way to find out guys... Jim? Norm? BH? Can we have a 1914-1915 North Sea British and German ship pack please? :D
But include long and a short 1914 and 1915 campaigns with "Goeben" and "Spee" special campaigns.

Now THAT would be an expansion pack...
 

TBR

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
978
Reaction score
4
Location
Germany
Country
llGermany
..... From what I've been able to find, as of the outbreak of war in August 1914, there were eight flotillas [Flotillas I-VIII] of ocean-going torpedo boats in the North Sea and one in the Baltic.

I'm guessing that Jellicoe's figure of 88 boats comes from the eight flotillas x the standard German organization of 11 boats per flotilla.


B
OK, next MDV 352 to digitalise is Nr.1 "Die Entwicklung der Operationen in der Nordsee bis zur Schlacht vor dem Skagerrak" by (then Kapitän zur See) Vizeadmiral Dr.phil.h.c. Otto Groos, he places his ideal date for "Der Tag" in late October/early November 1914.

Meanwhile, to tide you over here is how the Germans thought on Room 40 in the retrospective:

MDV 352-13
"Der Einfluss der Funkaufklärung auf die Seekriegsführung in der Nordsee 1914-1918"
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=85ZGPF0a
 

saddletank

Forum Conscript
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
3
Location
UK
Country
ll
But include long and a short 1914 and 1915 campaigns with "Goeben" and "Spee" special campaigns.

Now THAT would be an expansion pack...
Haha, you don't ask for much do you? ;)

But I agree that would be simply *fantastic* and would make me very happy. I would be willing to pay as much again as the original game for such a new set of ships and maps and campaigns.
 

Coypus

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
393
Reaction score
1
Location
Belfast
Country
ll
..... Perusal of the contemporary literature covering naval affairs suggests that everyone had a pretty good idea of the broad capabilities of the other fellows' ships.

Going through the German torpedo boats and British destroyers in commission or completed as of 1914, we get the following (L and T approx):

GERMANY (per Groener and Dittmar & Colledge)
Large Torpedo Boats (all good ocean going designs as per Groener)
S138 Class: 1907-11 / 240 ft / 700-900t / 30-33 kts
V1 Class : 1911-13 / 230 ft / 700-900t / 30-34 kts
V25 Class : 1913-14 / 260 ft / 900-1100t / 33-36 kts

GREAT BRITAIN (per Edgar March)
H Class: 1909-10 / 246 ft / 800t / 27-28 kts
I Class: 1910-11 / 246 ft / 800t / 27-30 kts
K Class: 1911-12 / 265 ft / 900-1000t / 29-30 kts
L Class: 1912-13 / 269 ft / 1000t / 29-30 kts
M Class: 1913-14 / 272 ft / 1000t / 35 kts


Not much to choose between, except for the well known differences in design emphasis [Germans high smooth water speed, heavy torpedo armament, light gun armament; British heavy gun armament]

Both nations had about 90+ such boats in commission as of the end of 1914. The difference was that the British boats were scattered from Scapa to Harwich and burdened with all sorts of tactical and operational responsibilities that made it difficult to concentrate them at any given random moment to support a GF sortie, while the German boats were all concentrated in one easy to defend location with much less in the way of conflicting obligations.

That's fundamentally why Jellicoe was always worried about a destroyer inferiority. It's not just about simple numbers.
Conways has completely different figures by the way

S138 type 533-660 tons (691-777 tons deep load) with most of the earlier one having triple expansion engines all coal fired

V1 type 569-573 tons (@719 tons deep load) turbines all coal fired

V25 type 812 tons (975 tons deep load) turbines coal fired

So the HSF has 90 torpedo boats all of which are coal fired <edit> apart from 13 which are oil fired @ 20 have triple expansion engines

The RN has 128 destroyers with turbines over 750 tons of which @ 20 are coal fired and the rest are oil fired. I think putting your faith in torpedo boats is a bit optimistic
 
Last edited:

Blutarski

Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
184
Reaction score
2
Location
Cape Cod
Conways has completely different figures by the way

S138 type 533-660 tons (691-777 tons deep load) with most of the earlier one having triple expansion engines all coal fired

V1 type 569-573 tons (@719 tons deep load) turbines all coal fired

V25 type 812 tons (975 tons deep load) turbines coal fired

So the HSF has 90 torpedo boats all of which are coal fired @ 20 have triple expansion engines

The RN has 128 destroyers with turbines over 750 tons of which @ 20 are coal fired and the rest are oil fired. I think putting your faith in torpedo boats is a bit optimistic


..... Let me try this again: I'm simply quoting from Jellicoe and trying to understand how he derived his assessment. He was the gentleman worried about 88 German torpedo boats able to accompany the HSF to sea. He was the fellow who derived the number of only 42 destroyers available to the GF.

I'm terribly sorry if you have difficulty accepting Jellicoe's calculus. I am unable to help you on that point.

This has absolutely nothing to do with my personal optimism or opinion or predeliction, one way or the other. Neither the Cross of St George nor the imperial German eagle hands above my bed. I have no agenda.

I do hope I have finally made myself clear on the point.
 

Coypus

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
393
Reaction score
1
Location
Belfast
Country
ll
..... Let me try this again: I'm simply quoting from Jellicoe and trying to understand how he derived his assessment. He was the gentleman worried about 88 German torpedo boats able to accompany the HSF to sea. He was the fellow who derived the number of only 42 destroyers available to the GF. .

As BH states (Amazing me and BH agree :D;)) Scheer was worried the way things looked his side of the bay, his assesment probably was the GF have 80 boats and I have 60

..... I'm terribly sorry if you have difficulty accepting Jellicoe's calculus. I am unable to help you on that point..
n
I have no difficulty understanding Jellicoes calculus. I have difficulty people accepting Jellicoes calculus as an accurate balance between forces considering the HSF never once deployed 88 TB's or destroyers.

..... This has absolutely nothing to do with my personal optimism or opinion or predeliction, one way or the other. Neither the Cross of St George nor the imperial German eagle hands above my bed. I have no agenda...
My agenda is only the facts or as close one can get to them

..... I do hope I have finally made myself clear on the point.
You always make yourself clear
 
Last edited:

Tom Hunter

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
Location
Marblehead, Massachusetts
Country
llUnited States
Jellicoe's concerns aside I think it is more likely that the Germans and British would have fewer DDs than the 78 and 61 they had in 1915.

I don't see any convincing evidence that the Germans would be able to get 88 DDs to the Grand Fleets 42.

I still don't buy Bulletheads assertion that the Germans changed nothing after what happened at Dogger bank. Lots of extra propellant is more dangerous that a little extra propellant so I am inclined to think that could matter.

I don't have my reference books handy, so I'm not sure which of the German and British BBs would not be available.

Also would the Germans bring York and Roon? They did sortie them earlier in the war. Would Pohl come out, or is someone else in charge, or would you have to put a more aggressive admiral in charge of the Germans to get them to come out?

What about CLs, the British had 26 at Jutland, how many were available a year before?
 

Coypus

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
393
Reaction score
1
Location
Belfast
Country
ll
Jellicoe's concerns aside I think it is more likely that the Germans and British would have fewer DDs than the 78 and 61 they had in 1915.

I don't see any convincing evidence that the Germans would be able to get 88 DDs to the Grand Fleets 42.

I still don't buy Bulletheads assertion that the Germans changed nothing after what happened at Dogger bank. Lots of extra propellant is more dangerous that a little extra propellant so I am inclined to think that could matter.

I don't have my reference books handy, so I'm not sure which of the German and British BBs would not be available.

Also would the Germans bring York and Roon? They did sortie them earlier in the war. Would Pohl come out, or is someone else in charge, or would you have to put a more aggressive admiral in charge of the Germans to get them to come out?

What about CLs, the British had 26 at Jutland, how many were available a year before?

I think you make pretty good points. Navies had to be mobilized just like armies so having every ship crewed and effective a few months into war is always difficult.

I totally agree with you on Doggerbank after Flash the second biggest danger to a critical magazine explosion is fire. No matter what people believe on this forum it did not respect nationality. The Germans after Dogger learnt this lesson.

British Battleships suffered more from more usage wheras the German machinery was more prone to breakdown during the stress of operations

I dont think it is beyond possibility that Yorck and Roon would be brought out, they brought Blucher to Dogger and they brought those PD's to Jutland. Speed and distance from home being the determining factor (though the Blucher will probably hydroplane in the 1915 expansion pack :D)

The RN had @ 30 modern CL's the HSF had @ 10 of very mixed quality. For TB's and Destroyers in WWI the need for CL attachment is vital for signaling.

Ie nobody is going to see a signal from a 650 ton torpedo boat going at 32 knots through the sea

I have debated with BH, I think the most limiting factor in HSF operations was not just the lack of LC's but the lack of suitable ones.
 

Bullethead

Storm Eagle Studios
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
3,890
Reaction score
3
Location
Wakefield, LA
Country
llUnited States
I still don't buy Bulletheads assertion that the Germans changed nothing after what happened at Dogger bank. Lots of extra propellant is more dangerous that a little extra propellant so I am inclined to think that could matter.
Well, they didn't add any flash protection hardware to existing units, not even to Seydlitz, after Dogger Bank, and just put minor items that don't seem to have mattered much on new construction like Lutzow. Seydlitz apparently followed the new guidelines on exposed charges at Jutland, but still had a turret burn out, and apparently so did Lutzow. Derfflinger didn't follow the new rules, and had turrets burn out, too. So whatever the Germans did or didn't do, it doesn't seem to have mattered at the bottom line. Their turrets burned out either way.

And Coypus, to show that flash WAS a respecter of nationalities, because different nations used different chemicals that had vastly different properties, how many long-duration propellant fires in turrets did the Brits have at Jutland? :smoke:

Also would the Germans bring York and Roon? They did sortie them earlier in the war.
Hmmm. Yorck was in fact lost on German mines returning from an HSF sortie. Roon, however, never seems to have left the Baltic. Prinz Heinrich was west of Kiel until April 1915, so might have gone out, too, but after that she went to the Baltic

What about CLs, the British had 26 at Jutland, how many were available a year before?
Counting the older "scout" cruisers, which were actually weak PCs, I think a good number for early 1915 would be about 14-18 total, depending on when you look. Most of the non-Australian Chathams and Birminghams, most of the Weymouths, most of the Arethusas, and the 1st few of the C-cruisers, plus a Bristol or 2. Apart from the Australian CLs, there hadn't been many new CLs chasing von Spee, due to the concentration against the HSF.

There were some even older "2nd Class" and "3rd Class" PCs still in service in the UK area very briefly into 1915. However, most of these weren't with the GF or BCF but blockading, with a few converted to minelayers. But within a couple months, these had almost all been laid up, due to being replaced by AMCs or running out of mines. The few remaining were harbor guardships.
 
Top