A better High Seas Fleet for WW1

[I want to learn]

When has such an encirclement occurred in the relevant time period, with the communication and navigation problems of the time?

Arguably at the historical Jutland. It took me a long time to grasp how well Jellicoe handled the hand that was dealt to him. Jellicoe crossed Scheer's T twice and ultimately interposed his forces between the High Seas Fleet and its bases. Every option he left Scheer with at nightfall May 31st was a nightmare scenario for any early 20th century fleet. The ~50 British destroyers that intercepted the High Seas Fleet did far less than expected of them, something so painfully obvious the Royal Navy began training much more intensely for night actions. Moltke and Seydlitz should have been sunk when they blundered into the Grand Fleet too, and Royal Navy submarines were ideally positioned to sink retreating German units off Horn Reef at dawn - if they had been told to try.

Beatty might well escape any trap, no matter well laid, and if he does so, Jellicoe will piece it together afterwards, realize the danger, and never again would the HSF have the same opportunity . So the stakes would be high, one shot. Still, proposal is a plan intended to transform the situation to Germany's favor, so it's worth considering.

The basic plan as I picture it would be for the HSF to deploy in a diamond shaped formation with the wedge sailing towards the BC base at Rosyth. The spacing between the groups has to be enough that the British BC force could pass by in pursuit heading south without its scouting line detecting the flanking force, so we're talking at least 40nm and maybe even 60nm between the lead group and the flanking forces, depending on visibility conditions. The trailing force, sailing north, will have a closing rate with Hipper of up to 44kt, (18kt for the battleships, 26kt for the battlecruisers). So the distance between the trailing force and Hipper is at least 100nm, maybe 120nm. That is to say, Hipper has to be subject to pursuit for long enough and far enough that the flanking forces moving inwards at 21kt can close the trap from their initial positions. Hipper therefore must use his superior speed to the 5th BS to stay out of range of the 5th BS, but not break contact with it either, so that Beatty will continue to charge with his BC's, and 5th BS trailing.

Disposition assuming the Jutland OOB I picture something as follows:

Scouting Group (Hipper, 5 BC, 2 CL, 20% of TB)
Flank Group West (Scheer, 4 x Konig, 2 x Helgoland, 4 CL, 35% of TB)
Flank Group East (Schmidt, (4 x Kaiser, 2 x Helgoland, 4CL, 35% of TB)
Trailing Force (Mauve, 4 x Nassau, 5 x Deutchland, 5 x Braunschweig, 1CL, 10% of TB)
Zeppelin Force: 9 ships.

Six Zeppelins are in a line, maintaining station maybe about 70nm in front of Hipper, spaced about 40nm apart, so a scouting sweep of about 280nm.
One Zeppelin is on station ahead of Flanking Group West, within flag signal range of the flagship.
One Zeppelin is on station 10nm ahead of Flanking Group East, within flag signal range of the flaghip
One Zeppelin is on station 10nm ahead of Hipper's Scouting Group, also within flag signal range of the flagship.

Tasks -
Zeppelin Scouting Line: Make contact with Beatty's force. Then, track it with two Zeppelins while the other four move north of the British BC's seeking the Grand Fleet, never getting more than 100nm from Hipper. (The Germans do not care where the Grand Fleet is beyond 100nm of the German BC's or either flanking force).
Hipper - make contact with Beatty using the accompanying Zeppelin and the scouting line, then draw him at 25kt towards Mauve's trailing force.
Schmidt and Scheer - Allow Beatty to pass between moving southeast such that there is no contact, then after Beatty has passed south, sail inwards and towards Mauve at 20/21kt. The accompanying Zeppelins are tasked to coordinate. Commit the torpedo boats to mass attacks on the BC force only after Beatty has contacted Mauve and is attempting to fleet north.
Mauve: Sail northwest at 18kt to reinforce Hipper. Prevent Beatty from breaking through to escape south.

I'm not saying it would work, but it's a plan....



If the Germans have battlecruisers and the British do not, the situation should allow for not only the German battlecruisers, but also their most modern Konigs, Kaisers and Bayerns, to become a bit more adventurous in their operations, including raids into the Western Approaches. Jellicoe would presumably have to alter his overall strategic plan for the Grand Fleet away from a North Sea blockade to convoy escorts in the Western approaches. The Germans should also be able to gain political leverage in Norway as the naval balance of power changes, allowing for more imports from that quarter, in particular more fish, (which historically the British worked successfully to prevent the Norwegians selling to the Germans).

I wonder what the past century of wargames have said about Scheer's options.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I guess I'll take the low hanging fruit.

Have a German firm invent turbines around 1900.

Patent it.

Pay Parsons 46 million less gold marks in the run up to ww1. Use this to fund more ships.

Get the British to pay 80 million (edit to add 140 million) gold marks to a German firm making it harder for them to maintain their advantage.

Build all German dreadnoughts with turbines.

Have a minimum dreadnought speed of 21 knots.

Part One - Battleships

The problem with most improvements to the quality and quantity of the Kaiserliche Marine is that they would provoke an equal and opposite reaction from the Royal Navy, which has the ability to do anything the KM can do better and in greater numbers. Although the price of doing so may have been that there was less money for the British Army.

That being written I like the idea of Germany inventing turbines independently circa 1900 and developing them rapidly enough for all the KM's dreadnoughts to have them. That's in part because it's a good thing in itself and because of the money it would save, which I would use to build better ships rather than more ships.

I'd start by building Hannover, Pommern, Schlesien & Schleiswig-Holstein as turbine powered dreadnoughts which would be called the Pommern class. They were built under the 1904-05 & 1905-06 building programmes (making them contemporaries of the Lord Nelson & Dreadnought classes) but weren't completed until 1907-08 which was after Dreadnoght was completed. I'd prefer that they had their armament arranged on the same pattern as the König class with all the battleships that followed being improvements of that design.

IIRC from reading "The Kaiser's Battlefleet" (the last time we had a better Hight Seas Fleet thread) Tirpitz & Co wanted to introduce turbines, increase the calibre of the main armaments (to 12in and 15in) and introduce the "König" turret arrangement earlier than they did IOTL. What stopped them doing it was a lack of money. ITTL we have turbines sooner by default and the money saved from not paying royalties to Parsons may be enough for all the ships from the TTL Pommern to Kaiser classes to be built as proto-Königs and the TTL-König class being a proto-Bayern class. That is instead of 4 pre-dreadnoughts & 4 dreadnoughts with 11in guns and 13 with 12in guns (total 21 ships) there would be 17 proto-Königs armed with ten 12in guns and four proto-Bayern's with 15in guns.

I'd also build the capital ship that was deleted from the 1912-13 Programme IOTL because the British who had promised to delete one capital ship form their 1912-13 Programme reinstated it after the Federated Malay States offered to pay for a capital ship which became HMS Malaya.

The British Response

In terms of the quality of the ships.

• The British can't respond to Germany's earlier adoption of turbines by introducing them earlier too, because all Germany is doing is introducing them at the same time as Britain.
• However, building the ALT-Hannover & ALT-Nassau classes as proto-Königs may lead to some of the ten 12in gunned British dreadnoughts of OTL being built as proto-Orions ITTL.
• Building the Helgoland & Kaiser classes as proto-Königs won't produce a qualitative improvement in British ships as they were already building super-dreadnoughts armed with ten 13.5" guns.
• Building the Königs as proto-Bayerns with eight 15in guns instead of their OTL armament of ten 12" guns won't affect the Queen Elisabeth class which were being built at about the same time because they were armed with eight 15in guns and were faster. However, it may mean that the five ships built under the 1913-14 Programme were Queen Elisabeth class Mk 2 instead of the Revenge class and the ships ordered under the original 1914-15 Programme would all be Queen Elisabeth Mk 3 instead of 3 Revenge class & Agincourt or the ships in the original 1914-15 Programme (and possibly the 1913-14 Programme too) would be armed with a new 16.5in gun to maintain the RN's qualitative superiority over the KM.

In terms of Quantity.

ITTL Germany builds the same number of capital ships (21) under their 1904-05 to 1911-12 Programmes, but instead of 4 pre-dreadnoughts and 17 dreadnoughts they build 21 dreadnoughts. Whether, Britain builds more dreadnoughts to counter them (and how many more and when they were built) depends upon when the British Government discovers what has happened.

Under the contemporary "Selbourne Programme" the plan had been to build 3 battleships and 4 armoured cruisers a year. E.g. 3 Lord Nelson & 4 Minotaur class would have been built under 1904-05 Programme, but it was reduced to 2 and 3 ships of those classes because the 2 ships purchased from Chile took the place of the 3rd Lord Nelson and the 4th Minotaur. However, the this was cut to one battleships (Dreadnought) and 3 armoured cruisers (the Invincible class) for financial reasons and because the Russian Navy had lost so many capital ships in the recent war with Japan. The next plan was the Cawdor Programme which was to build 4 capital ships (dreadnoughts and/or battle cruisers) per year. However, only 3 were built under the 1906-07 Programme, 3 under the 1907-08 Programme & 2 under the 1908-09 Programme to be followed by 8 in 1909-10 for the RN ("We want eight! We won't wait!") and 2 by the Dominions (Australia & New Zealand) and 5 in each of the 3 building programmes 1910-11 & 1911-12. Therefore, the total built under the 1904-05 to 1911-12 programmes was 39 ships consisting of 22 dreadnoughts, 4 pre-dreadnoughts, 10 battle cruisers and 3 armoured cruisers.

I think the British will build at least 4 extra dreadnoughts in the 1900s. They'll be spread amongst the 1905-06 to 1908-09 Programmes. Or if they discover the design of the ships early enough for Lord Nelson & Agamemnon to be cancelled and re-ordered as dreadnoughts, they will. This may be in addition to the extra ships built under the 1905-06 to 1908-09 programmes or two fewer ships would have been build under those programmes.

IIRC, by the 1910s Britain was working on a formula of either the number the Germans were building plus two or the number the Germans were building plus 60%. (I'll be corrected if I'm wrong.) Germany built one battleship and one battle cruiser under their OTL 1912-13 Programme while the British built 5 battleships (the Queen Elisabeth class) which is the number Germany built plus 3 and the number that Germany built plus 150%. If Germany built a second battleship under their 1912-13 Programme as I've proposed the British wouldn't have built more capital ships in reply as the 5 built IOTL mean that they've built what Germany built plus 2 and the number that Germany built plus 67%.

 

[edgeworthy]

Arguably at the historical Jutland. It took me a long time to grasp how well Jellicoe handled the hand that was dealt to him. Jellicoe crossed Scheer's T twice and ultimately interposed his forces between the High Seas Fleet and its bases. Every option he left Scheer with at nightfall May 31st was a nightmare scenario for any early 20th century fleet. The ~50 British destroyers that intercepted the High Seas Fleet did far less than expected of them, something so painfully obvious the Royal Navy began training much more intensely for night actions. Moltke and Seydlitz should have been sunk when they blundered into the Grand Fleet too, and Royal Navy submarines were ideally positioned to sink retreating German units off Horn Reef at dawn - if they had been told to try.



I wonder what the past century of wargames have said about Scheer's options.

If you were to wargame Jutland today it would probably have nothing good to say about Scheer's options. So many things went wrong for the Royal Navy, and so many went right for the High Seas Fleet, that the whole thing seems like an AH.

How could shell handling, and accuracy, be so bad in the Battlecruiser Force?
Surely someone should have recognised the failings in RN shell quality. Its not as if no actions had been fought before then.
The astonishing failing of signals, especially by Beatty's Flag Lieutenant, seem more like a bad novel than actual history.
And as you said the baffling ineffectiveness of the Grand Fleet's Destroyers.

That any of the 1st Scouting Group made it back to Harbour is remarkable.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I guess I'll take the low hanging fruit.

Have a German firm invent turbines around 1900.

Patent it.

Pay Parsons 46 million less gold marks in the run up to ww1. Use this to fund more ships.

Get the British to pay 80 million (edit to add 140 million) gold marks to a German firm making it harder for them to maintain their advantage.

Build all German dreadnoughts with turbines.

Have a minimum dreadnought speed of 21 knots.

Part Two - Battle Cruisers

Assuming that the POD's 1st January 1900 I'd like to build Friedrich Carl, Prinz Aldabert, Roon & York to the Scharnhorst design. That won't provoke the British into building more armoured cruisers because it's still 4 ships, the British are still trying to match France & Russia and they're building umpteen armoured cruisers anyway. I think they wouldn't improve the design of the ships built ITTL as they're building ships to match the France & Russia at this time rather than Germany plus if they do

Others have suggested building Blücher as a battle cruiser with turbine engines. I want to go not one, but two better than that by building Gneisenau & Scharnhorst as battle cruisers with turbine engines too. They were built under the German 1904-05 & 1905-06 Building Programmes which were the programmes that the last four German pre-dreadnoughts (Hannover, Pommern, Schlesien & Schleswig-Holstein) were built under IOTL and the first four dreadnoughts were built ITTL (which were also named Hannover, Pommern, Schlesien & Schleswig-Holstein).

I want the ALT-Pommern class of TTL to be a proto-König class. Therefore, the ALT-Gneisenau & ALT-Scharnhorst to be proto-Derfflinger class, with ALT-Blücher to ALT-Seydlitz being improved versions of the proto-Derfflinger design and Derfflinger to Hindenburg to be built to the Mackensen or Ersatz Yorck designs. However, if that isn't possible for financial and technical reasons I want ALT-Gneisenau to ALT-Von der Tann to be built to the Moltke or Seydlitz designs of OTL, Moltke to Seydlitz to be built to the Derfflinger design and Derfflinger to Hindenburg to be built to the Mackensen or Ersatz Yorck designs. One of the reasons why I want to build better rather than more is that AIUI (and in common with battleships) the Germans stuck to their OTL designs and gun calibres for their battle cruisers for as long as they did for financial reasons. Therefore, ITTL I want to build battle cruisers with heavier gun calibres and better turret arrangements by as much as the money saved by @naraic's suggestion that Germany invents turbines independently will allow.

That means Germany completed 10 battle cruisers ITTL instead of the 3 armoured cruisers and 7 battle cruisers completed ITTL. Britain will build more battle cruisers in the 1900s to match the 3 extra German battle cruisers. In common with the extra dreadnoughts built ITTL, when they were built depends upon when the British discover what has happened. Therefore, the extra ships were built under the 1905-06 to 1908-09 Programmes like the extra dreadnoughts. Or if they discover the design of the ships early enough for 3 Minotaur class armoured cruisers to be cancelled and re-ordered as battle cruisers, they will. This may be in addition to the extra ships built under the 1905-06 to 1908-09 programmes or no extra ships would be built under those programmes.

I think the OTL Invincible class would be built to the same design ITTL and the reordered Minotaur class (if built) would also be built to the OTL Invincible design. However, ITTL Australia, Indefatigable & New Zealand would have been built as Lion class ships and the Lion class itself might have been built as Tiger class.

Summary.

• IOTL Germany 5 battle cruisers (including one nearing completion) and 3 armoured cruisers v British Empire 10 battle cruisers (including one nearing completion) and 3 armoured cruisers in August 1914.
• ITTL Germany 8 battle cruisers (including one nearing completion) and no armoured cruisers v British Empire 13+ battle cruisers (including one nearing completion) and no armoured cruisers in August 1914.
  • It's 13+ because it's the 10 OTL ships and the 3 ships built instead of the Minotaur class = 13.
  • Plus any extra ships built under the 1905-06 to 1908-09 Programmes.
• Both navies have improvements to the designs of the battle cruisers, but the improvements to the German ships were better than the improvements to the British ships.

At August 1914 Goeben was still in the Mediterranean, but Scharnhorst & Gneisenau were in the High Seas Fleet because they'd swapped places with Roon & Yorck.

 

[YYJ]

I wonder what the past century of wargames have said about Scheer's options.

Zeppelin Scouting Line: Make contact with Beatty's force. Then, track it with two Zeppelins while the other four move north of the British BC's seeking the Grand Fleet, never getting more than 100nm from Hipper.

Game Referee: "OK, make your dice roll for weather." <sound of rolling dice> "Ouch."

 

[Two fingers awry]

I thought there was some evidence that the damage the 18" did to Furious was embellished. And I'm still not sure what problems occurred on Yamato/Musashi.

What do you mean by that? How is Scheer supposed to get battleships on the flanks of Beatty without knowing exactly where Beatty was? Scheer didn't even expect to find Royal Navy on May 31st, IIRC the idea was to stir up trouble off the coast of Norway and attack any reaction force that sortied later. Besides, historically Scheer came really close to outflanking and trapping Beatty. If the light cruisers hadn't tried investigating the Danish NJ Fjord steamer, Beatty would have ended up to the east of the High Seas Fleet. I have a hard time imagining a superior configuration to Scheer's historically chosen one that doesn't incur much higher risks of a German force being the one cut off and destroyed.


If the Germans ever achieved superiority in battlecruisers it would have been a disaster for Britain. They might not have been perfectly optimized for raiding but they could and did make trans-Atlantic trips. If they could not be countered by Royal Navy battlecruisers, Britain has lost control of the high seas and things unravel from there.

About blast damage on yamato class you need to look at ship in entirety not just as 9 18.1 inch guns . You will notice that all secondary and tertiary armament was turreted, soon after launch, this is to protect gun crews from blast. For anyone thinking you dont use main armament against aircraft the Japanese built special shells . The point being you do not wasr
Te tonnage on light AA turrets unless they are needed to keep the crews alive , the tonnage adds to top weight and could be better used elsewhere.

 

[mack8]

Part One - Battleships

The problem with most improvements to the quality and quantity of the Kaiserliche Marine is that they would provoke an equal and opposite reaction from the Royal Navy, which has the ability to do anything the KM can do better and in greater numbers. Although the price of doing so may have been that there was less money for the British Army.

That being written I like the idea of Germany inventing turbines independently circa 1900 and developing them rapidly enough for all the KM's dreadnoughts to have them. That's in part because it's a good thing in itself and because of the money it would save, which I would use to build better ships rather than more ships.

I'd start by building Hannover, Pommern, Schleisen & Schleiswig-Holstein as turbine powered dreadnoughts which would be called the Pommern class. They were built under the 1904-05 & 1905-06 building programmes (making them contemporaries of the Lord Nelson & Dreadnought classes) but weren't completed until 1907-08 which was after Dreadnoght was completed. I'd prefer that they had their armament arranged on the same pattern as the König class with all the battleships that followed being improvements of that design.

IIRC from reading "The Kaiser's Battlefleet" (the last time we had a better Hight Seas Fleet thread) Tirpitz & Co wanted to introduce turbines, increase the calibre of the main armaments (to 12in and 15in) and introduce the "König" turret arrangement earlier than they did IOTL. What stopped them doing it was a lack of money. ITTL we have turbines sooner by default and the money saved from not paying royalties to Parsons may be enough for all the ships from the TTL Pommern to Kaiser classes to be built as proto-Königs and the TTL-König class being a proto-Bayern class. That is instead of 4 pre-dreadnoughts & 4 dreadnoughts with 11in guns and 13 with 12in guns (total 21 ships) there would be 17 proto-Königs armed with ten 12in guns and four proto-Bayern's with 15in guns.

I'd also build the capital ship that was deleted from the 1912-13 Programme IOTL because the British who had promised to delete one capital ship form their 1912-13 Programme reinstated it after the Federated Malay States offered to pay for a capital ship which became HMS Malaya.

The British Response

In terms of the quality of the ships.

• The British can't respond to Germany's earlier adoption of turbines by introducing them earlier too, because all Germany is doing is introducing them at the same time as Britain.
• However, building the ALT-Hannover & ALT-Nassau classes as proto-Königs may lead to some of the ten 12in gunned British dreadnoughts of OTL being built as proto-Orions ITTL.
• Building the Helgoland & Kaiser classes as proto-Königs won't produce a qualitative improvement in British ships as they were already building super-dreadnoughts armed with ten 13.5" guns.
• Building the Königs as proto-Bayerns with eight 15in guns instead of their OTL armament of ten 12" guns won't affect the Queen Elisabeth class which were being built at about the same time because they were armed with eight 15in guns and were faster. However, it may mean that the five ships built under the 1913-14 Programme were Queen Elisabeth class Mk 2 instead of the Revenge class and the ships ordered under the original 1914-15 Programme would all be Queen Elisabeth Mk 3 instead of 3 Revenge class & Agincourt or the ships in the original 1914-15 Programme (and possibly the 1913-14 Programme too) would be armed with a new 16.5in gun to maintain the RN's qualitative superiority over the KM.

In terms of Quantity.

ITTL Germany builds the same number of capital ships (21) under their 1904-05 to 1911-12 Programmes, but instead of 4 pre-dreadnoughts and 17 dreadnoughts they build 21 dreadnoughts. Whether, Britain builds more dreadnoughts to counter them (and how many more and when they were built) depends upon when the British Government discovers what has happened.

Under the contemporary "Selbourne Programme" the plan had been to build 3 battleships and 4 armoured cruisers a year. E.g. 3 Lord Nelson & 4 Minotaur class would have been built under 1904-05 Programme, but it was reduced to 2 and 3 ships of those classes because the 2 ships purchased from Chile took the place of the 3rd Lord Nelson and the 4th Minotaur. However, the this was cut to one battleships (Dreadnought) and 3 armoured cruisers (the Invincible class) for financial reasons and because the Russian Navy had lost so many capital ships in the recent war with Japan. The next plan was the Cawdor Programme which was to build 4 capital ships (dreadnoughts and/or battle cruisers) per year. However, only 3 were built under the 1906-07 Programme, 3 under the 1907-08 Programme & 2 under the 1908-09 Programme to be followed by 8 in 1909-10 for the RN ("We want eight! We won't wait!") and 2 by the Dominions (Australia & New Zealand) and 5 in each of the 3 building programmes 1910-11 & 1911-12. Therefore, the total built under the 1904-05 to 1911-12 programmes was 39 ships consisting of 22 dreadnoughts, 4 pre-dreadnoughts, 10 battle cruisers and 3 armoured cruisers.

I think the British will build at least 4 extra dreadnoughts in the 1900s. They'll be spread amongst the 1905-06 to 1908-09 Programmes. Or if they discover the design of the ships early enough for Lord Nelson & Agamemnon to be cancelled and re-ordered as dreadnoughts, they will. This may be in addition to the extra ships built under the 1905-06 to 1908-09 programmes or two fewer ships would have been build under those programmes.

IIRC, by the 1910s Britain was working on a formula of either the number the Germans were building plus two or the number the Germans were building plus 60%. (I'll be corrected if I'm wrong.) Germany built one battleship and one battle cruiser under their OTL 1912-13 Programme while the British built 5 battleships (the Queen Elisabeth class) which is the number Germany built plus 3 and the number that Germany built plus 150%. If Germany built a second battleship under their 1912-13 Programme as I've proposed the British wouldn't have built more capital ships in reply as the 5 built IOTL mean that they've built what Germany built plus 2 and the number that Germany built plus 67%.

NOMI you are just the man i was looking forward to read from here.

So the best the germans can do is maintain 3 ships a year programs for 1912, 1913 and 1914, without triggering an additional british reaction?The building ratio being 5 to 3 in those years, which is still a german improvement. I was trying to figure out if the germans could have continued with a 4 ship year program in 1912, 13 and 14 but this seems would have triggered additional british ships.

Also, would it have been possible under the german naval laws and replacement regulations to keep building 4 ships a year after 1912? Aiui a battleship or coastal ship like the Siegfrieds could be replaced after 20 years from apropriation (so a 1890 ship was due in 1910), but it seems some of the later Siegfrieds were replaced slightly before that time (eg Odin/Aegir would be due in 1911-1912 but their replacements were apropriated in 1910) or i am counting wrong, and the Siegfrieds were counted under cruiser rules at 15 years? The Brandenburgs were due 1909-1910 but Baden was only ordered in 1912, so they were actually late, which means they could have ordered all the Badens under 1912, 1913 and 1914 programs and still comply with all the german naval law and replacement "rules"?

Apparently there is an Annex to the 1908 naval law that contains the intended replacement/building schedule between 1908-1917, have you seen that document by any chance? That would be extremely interesting.

 

[mack8]

Part Two - Battle Cruisers

Assuming that the POD's 1st January 1900 I'd like to build Friedrich Carl, Prinz Aldabert, Roon & York to the Scharnhorst design. That won't provoke the British into building more armoured cruisers because it's still 4 ships, the British are still trying to match France & Russia and they're building umpteen armoured cruisers anyway. I think they wouldn't improve the design of the ships built ITTL as they're building ships to match the France & Russia at this time rather than Germany plus if they do

Others have suggested building Blücher as a battle cruiser with turbine engines. I want to go not one, but two better than that by building Gneisenau & Scharnhorst as battle cruisers with turbine engines too. They were built under the German 1904-05 & 1905-06 Building Programmes which were the programmes that the last four German pre-dreadnoughts (Hannover, Pommern, Schleisen & Schleiswig-Holstein) were built under IOTL and the first four dreadnoughts were built ITTL (which were also named Hannover, Pommern, Schleisen & Schleiswig-Holstein).

I want the ALT-Pommern class of TTL to be a proto-König class. Therefore, the ALT-Gneisenau & ALT-Scharnhorst to be proto-Derfflinger class, with ALT-Blücher to ALT-Seydlitz being improved versions of the proto-Derfflinger design and Derfflinger to Hindenburg to be built to the Mackensen or Ersatz Yorck designs. However, if that isn't possible for financial and technical reasons I want ALT-Gneisenau to ALT-Von der Tann to be built to the Moltke or Seydlitz designs of OTL, Moltke to Seydlitz to be built to the Derfflinger design and Derfflinger to Hindenburg to be built to the Mackensen or Ersatz Yorck designs. One of the reasons why I want to build better rather than more is that AIUI (and in common with battleships) the Germans stuck to their OTL designs and gun calibres for their battle cruisers for as long as they did for financial reasons. Therefore, ITTL I want to build battle cruisers with heavier gun calibres and better turret arrangements by as much as the money saved by @naraic's suggestion that Germany invents turbines independently will allow.

That means Germany completed 10 battle cruisers ITTL instead of the 3 armoured cruisers and 7 battle cruisers completed ITTL. Britain will build more battle cruisers in the 1900s to match the 3 extra German battle cruisers. In common with the extra dreadnoughts built ITTL, when they were built depends upon when the British discover what has happened. Therefore, the extra ships were built under the 1905-06 to 1908-09 Programmes like the extra dreadnoughts. Or if they discover the design of the ships early enough for 3 Minotaur class armoured cruisers to be cancelled and re-ordered as battle cruisers, they will. This may be in addition to the extra ships built under the 1905-06 to 1908-09 programmes or no extra ships would be built under those programmes.

I think the OTL Invincible class would be built to the same design ITTL and the reordered Minotaur class (if built) would also be built to the OTL Invincible design. However, ITTL Australia, Indefatigable & New Zealand would have been built as Lion class ships and the Lion class itself might have been built as Tiger class.

Summary.

• IOTL Germany 5 battle cruisers (including one nearing completion) and 3 armoured cruisers v British Empire 10 battle cruisers (including one nearing completion) and 3 armoured cruisers in August 1914.
• ITTL Germany 8 battle cruisers (including one nearing completion) and no armoured cruisers v British Empire 13+ battle cruisers (including one nearing completion) and no armoured cruisers in August 1914.
  • It's 13+ because it's the 10 OTL ships and the 3 ships built instead of the Minotaur class = 13.
  • Plus any extra ships built under the 1905-06 to 1908-09 Programmes.
• Both navies have improvements to the designs of the battle cruisers, but the improvements to the German ships were better than the improvements to the British ships.

At August 1914 Goeben was still in the Mediterranean, but Scharnhorst & Gneisenau were in the High Seas Fleet because they'd swapped places with Roon & Yorck.

I will touch again on the replacement laws, which is 15 years for cruisers. Am i correct in saying that BCs from Lutzow forward were late and could have been ordered earlier but only if they would keep to a 3 or 4 ship a year program, and build more than one BC per year? So that means Hindenburg could have been ordered in 1912 and the first Mackensens in 1913 and actually all 4 could have been ordered in the 1913 and 1914 programs? That at least means that Hindenburg and possibly even 1 or 2 Mackensens would have been ready for Jutland which would have been quite interesting.

I have clumsily looked at yard availability (by literally scribling on a piece of paper), and it seems slipways COULD have been available in this period at Howaldswerke, Kiel and Weser to lay as many of the Badens and Mackensens as possible under the proposed ITTL 3 or 4 ship a year programs. That leaves of course the issue of money.

Regarding ship designs, my TL is not so drastic partly so the british are not spooked, so on the germans BCs i would have Roons as Scharnhorsts, the Scharnhorsts as Bluchers, Blucher itself like a Von der Tann, and Tann itself like a Moltke etc. So the germans do not really get ahead of the british, but still have better ships that OTL.

 

[mack8]

Part One - Battleships

The problem with most improvements to the quality and quantity of the Kaiserliche Marine is that they would provoke an equal and opposite reaction from the Royal Navy, which has the ability to do anything the KM can do better and in greater numbers. Although the price of doing so may have been that there was less money for the British Army.

That being written I like the idea of Germany inventing turbines independently circa 1900 and developing them rapidly enough for all the KM's dreadnoughts to have them. That's in part because it's a good thing in itself and because of the money it would save, which I would use to build better ships rather than more ships.

I'd start by building Hannover, Pommern, Schleisen & Schleiswig-Holstein as turbine powered dreadnoughts which would be called the Pommern class. They were built under the 1904-05 & 1905-06 building programmes (making them contemporaries of the Lord Nelson & Dreadnought classes) but weren't completed until 1907-08 which was after Dreadnoght was completed. I'd prefer that they had their armament arranged on the same pattern as the König class with all the battleships that followed being improvements of that design.

IIRC from reading "The Kaiser's Battlefleet" (the last time we had a better Hight Seas Fleet thread) Tirpitz & Co wanted to introduce turbines, increase the calibre of the main armaments (to 12in and 15in) and introduce the "König" turret arrangement earlier than they did IOTL. What stopped them doing it was a lack of money. ITTL we have turbines sooner by default and the money saved from not paying royalties to Parsons may be enough for all the ships from the TTL Pommern to Kaiser classes to be built as proto-Königs and the TTL-König class being a proto-Bayern class. That is instead of 4 pre-dreadnoughts & 4 dreadnoughts with 11in guns and 13 with 12in guns (total 21 ships) there would be 17 proto-Königs armed with ten 12in guns and four proto-Bayern's with 15in guns.

I'd also build the capital ship that was deleted from the 1912-13 Programme IOTL because the British who had promised to delete one capital ship form their 1912-13 Programme reinstated it after the Federated Malay States offered to pay for a capital ship which became HMS Malaya.

In term on design, my TL is not as drastic as the germans actually building the first dreadnoughts, but still have them build better ships in a slightly more timely manner.
So starting from the ships that got to do something in WW1:
Branschweigs slightly improved, 4x28cm and 18x 17cm, and if technically possible i want the 28cm guns to be L/45 from here onwards.
Deutschlands 4x 28cm L/45 and 12 or even 14-16 x 21 cm as proposed for the very early Nassau designs (so it's not outlandish in terms of the design practices of the day)
Nassau with turbines, at least 20 knots preferably 21, 12x 28cm L/50 guns with a broadside of at least 10, arranged similar in configuration to Dreadnought except superfiring turrets forward (again so it's not outlandish in terms of the design practices of the day).
Helgolands, roughly idem configuration, preferably 21 knots, 12 x 30,5cm with 2 wing echeloned turrets and superfiring pairs fore and aft.
Kaisers roughly like OTL Konigs except 12x 30,5cm on the enterline.
Konigs, all centerline with perhaps 10 or even 12x 32 cm.
Bayerns with 10x 35cm.

The increased number of guns on the latter classes being to help offset HSF numerical inferiority by having more barrels per ship, even if a bit smaller than on the GF ships.

Finally, on the issue of more timely shipbuilding, it would be helpful if designs are ready to be laid down soon after the start of the respective financial year which starts in April if i'm correct. For example the first 2 Nassaus were FY 1906 ships but were only started in mid-1907. So more timely design work means they could/should have been stated before the end of 1906 and even earlier. So less time wasted, ships getting ready a few months earlier which affects the future ships being a bit earlier as well etc. Sometimes it happened that ships were started slightly before April of the financial year they were ordered under, most famously the Oldenburg at the centre of the 1909 naval scare, but apparently it happened earlier too, Schlessien a 1905 FY ship was actually started in late 1904. But in general the ships should be laid down as early in the given FY as possible.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

NOMI you are just the man I was looking forward to read from here.

Thank you.

So the best the Germans can do is maintain 3 ships a year programs for 1912, 1913 and 1914, without triggering an additional British reaction? The building ratio being 5 to 3 in those years, which is still a German improvement. I was trying to figure out if the Germans could have continued with a 4 ship year program in 1912, 13 and 14 but this seems would have triggered additional British ships.

The short answer is no. The British will out-build Germany on the Germany-Plus-Two or Germany- Plus-60% formulae regardless of how many ships Germany builds per annum.

What happened in 1912 is that Germany ordered 3 capital ships so the British ordered 5. Then they agreed to sacrifice one ship each reducing the numbers to 2 German & 4 British, but then the Federated Malay States offered to pay for a capital ship Britain deleted from its 1912 Building Programme was reinstated and was built as HMS Malaya.

Also, would it have been possible under the German naval laws and replacement regulations to keep building 4 ships a year after 1912?

As long as you can find the money, yes, you can. As someone might have said, "It's the German economy stupid!"

AIUI a battleship or coastal ship like the Siegfrieds could be replaced after 20 years from appropriation (so a 1890 ship was due in 1910), but it seems some of the later Siegfrieds were replaced slightly before that time (eg Odin/Aegir would be due in 1911-1912 but their replacements were appropriated in 1910) or I am counting wrong, and the Siegfrieds were counted under cruiser rules at 15 years? The Brandenburgs were due 1909-1910 but Baden was only ordered in 1912, so they were actually late, which means they could have ordered all the Badens under 1912, 1913 and 1914 programs and still comply with all the German naval law and replacement "rules"?

The short answer is no. It looks like what they did was build the replacements of some a bit early and the replacements of others a bit late so there was an even building rate.

Apparently there is an Annex to the 1908 naval law that contains the intended replacement/building schedule between 1908-1917, have you seen that document by any chance? That would be extremely interesting.

I might, however, I'm in spreadsheet hell at present, updating my German U-boats of World War One spreadsheet.

I downloaded a book called "German Sea-Power, It's Rise, Progress and Economic Basis", by Archibald Hurd on the internet. I found a PDF of it when doing research for an earlier KM thread. It includes translations of all the German Navy Laws, a summary of Britain & Germany naval building programmes to 1912 and a chapter on Germany's shipbuilding industry. I also recommend that you download the PDF of Jane's 1914 that's on Internet Archive because of the information that has on Germany's shipbuilding industry.

 

[matzeskatze]

Interesting speculations going on here.
My thinking for this would be that a restructurinig of the HSF command structure would be one of the "low hanging fruit" that could change things up from OTL. As that was a mess.
Other things that Imo would not overly influence the British would be upgunning the HSF light cruisers and maybe better destroyers. For the first, tbh, I do not know how involved that would have been. But for the later... maybe take a look at the Russian Novik class. That thing was developed in Germany after all.

Those two or three things would Imo better the chances of the HSF. At least it would balance the lighter forces more.

Another thing for the HSF to do would be, to have a plan for the war. Maybe include it into the restructureing of the command.

Also maybe take a look at the disposition of RN forces at the beginning of the war in 1914. I seem to remember that a number of Dreadnoughts were moving about without escorts. So that could be "easy meat" if they are cought by the HSF.

Lastly, a bit more esoteric would be the whole communication branch. Let the Germans get an idea that their codes are broken in some way. And / or that the British may be able to triangulate the position of ships by use of radio...

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I will touch again on the replacement laws, which is 15 years for cruisers. Am I correct in saying that BCs from Lutzow forward were late and could have been ordered earlier but only if they would keep to a 3 or 4 ship a year program, and build more than one BC per year? So that means Hindenburg could have been ordered in 1912 and the first Mackensens in 1913 and actually all 4 could have been ordered in the 1913 and 1914 programs? That at least means that Hindenburg and possibly even 1 or 2 Mackensens would have been ready for Jutland which would have been quite interesting.

Off the top of my head it was always 20 years for large cruisers (i.e. armoured and battle cruisers) and initially 15 years for small cruisers (i.e. light cruisers) which was increased to 20 years in the 1900 Navy Law.

I have clumsily looked at yard availability (by literally scribbling on a piece of paper), and it seems slipways COULD have been available in this period at Howaldswerke, Kiel and Weser to lay as many of the Badens and Mackensens as possible under the proposed ITTL 3 or 4 ship a year programs. That leaves of course the issue of money.

I don't know. I suggest that you look at the books suggested by me in my last reply.

Regarding ship designs, my TL is not so drastic partly so the British are not spooked, so on the Germans BCs I would have Roons as Scharnhorsts, the Scharnhorsts as Bluchers, Blucher itself like a Von der Tann, and Tann itself like a Moltke etc. So the Germans do not really get ahead of the British, but still have better ships that OTL.

Shuffling the designs "one class to the left" is what I usually do.

However, if you do have Germany invent turbines as early as suggested by @naraic it allows you to build all battleships from the 1904-45 Programme onwards with ten guns in five twin turrets on the centreline in "A", "B", "Q", "X" & "Y" positions with "B" & "X" super-firing "A" and "Y" and all large cruisers from the same date onwards with eight guns in four twin turrets on the centreline in "A", "B", "X" & "Y" positions with "B" & "X" super-firing "A" and "Y". The improvement in quality is too good to be ignored even if it does spook the British.

In this thread I think Germany has to go big (or as big as the available technology and finance will allow) or go home.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

In term on design, my TL is not as drastic as the Germans actually building the first dreadnoughts, but still have them build better ships in a slightly more timely manner.
So starting from the ships that got to do something in WW1:
Branschweigs slightly improved, 4x28cm and 18x 17cm, and if technically possible i want the 28cm guns to be L/45 from here onwards.
Deutschlands 4x 28cm L/45 and 12 or even 14-16 x 21 cm as proposed for the very early Nassau designs (so it's not outlandish in terms of the design practices of the day)
Nassau with turbines, at least 20 knots preferably 21, 12x 28cm L/50 guns with a broadside of at least 10, arranged similar in configuration to Dreadnought except superfiring turrets forward (again so it's not outlandish in terms of the design practices of the day).
Helgolands, roughly idem configuration, preferably 21 knots, 12 x 30,5cm with 2 wing echeloned turrets and superfiring pairs fore and aft.
Kaisers roughly like OTL Konigs except 12x 30,5cm on the centreline.
Konigs, all centreline with perhaps 10 or even 12x 32 cm.
Bayerns with 10x 35cm.

The increased number of guns on the latter classes being to help offset HSF numerical inferiority by having more barrels per ship, even if a bit smaller than on the GF ships.

Finally, on the issue of more timely shipbuilding, it would be helpful if designs are ready to be laid down soon after the start of the respective financial year which starts in April if i'm correct. For example the first 2 Nassaus were FY 1906 ships but were only started in mid-1907. So more timely design work means they could/should have been stated before the end of 1906 and even earlier. So less time wasted, ships getting ready a few months earlier which affects the future ships being a bit earlier as well etc. Sometimes it happened that ships were started slightly before April of the financial year they were ordered under, most famously the Oldenburg at the centre of the 1909 naval scare, but apparently it happened earlier too, Schlesien a 1905 FY ship was actually started in late 1904. But in general the ships should be laid down as early in the given FY as possible.

In addition to the books I’ve already suggested I recommend “The Kaiser's Battlefleet: German Capital Ships, 1871–1918” and “The Kaiser's Cruisers, 1871–1918” both of which were written by Aidan Dodson and both of which are on Everand (formerly Scribd).

FWIW I think there's no point in improving the last four pre-dreadnoughts unless you build them as dreadnoughts otherwise they will only be more expensive death traps and possibly with larger crews to be killed on them.

And I think there's no point in improving the earlier pre-dreadnoughts either. Which is unashamedly with hindsight as I know that they won't do battle with British pre-dreadnoughts and they'd still be death traps if they fought dreadnoughts, which IOTL all but two didn't. I don't know where the extra money would come from ITTL as it's before they're able to substitute reciprocating engines for turbines and if more money was available in the early 1900s I'd spend it on more and better cruisers (large and small) with priority given to small cruisers.

IIRC from reading those books some of the OTL battleships and large cruisers were laid down late because of changes in design, because they were reacting to improvements that the British were making. If they build all large ships from the 1904-05 Programme as dreadnoughts & battle cruisers then Germany has the initiative in large warship design, so it's Germany building its ships on schedule and the British shipbuilding programme that may be interrupted.

Finally, AIUI German warships took longer to build than British warships and cost more per ton. Which, if true is probably due to the British building ships in greater numbers so they have a larger naval armaments industry which can build ships faster and cheaper due to economies of scale. I haven't done an analysis of building times for each nation or who had the lowest cost per ton. And if it is true, there's no way that I can see Germany building its ships as fast or as cheaply as the British without asking for the assistance of Alien Space Bats. However, someone else may know better.

 

[weasel_airlift]

If we focus on having bigger 'Jutland' with the same result: British strategic victory, it really would not matter what else we equip the HSF with.

I'd argue that, whatever happens it's a strategic British victory. Even if the Grand Fleet is eliminated, the RN still controls the seas. The Germans have to go home, the RN is still swimming in cruisers, AMCs and pre-dreadnoughts, the blockade stays in place. Sure, things have to be pulled back if the Germans sortie again, but whenever the German fleet isn't out, the RN still rules the waves.

 

[Glenn239]

Game Referee: "OK, make your dice roll for weather." <sound of rolling dice> "Ouch."

You will notice that submarines were completely omitted from the operation I outlined. That's because (a) the operational pressures in timing trying to keep them on station were not worth the payoff they would give to the outcome and (b) their attacks might actually prevent Beatty from entering the trap. Without the submarines, Scheer can stay day after day in a state of readiness until the weather conditions were correct. The Germans would get one shot for the reasons given.. They'd have to be pretty thick to take it on a day where the weather was poor.

 

[matzeskatze]

I'd argue that, whatever happens it's a strategic British victory. Even if the Grand Fleet is eliminated, the RN still controls the seas.

I have to strongly disagree here. If the Grand Fleet is sunk or decimated, it spells the end for the biggest stick the Empire had in keeping the neutrals... well neutral. As in keeping quite and accept the British actions that were on shaky legal ground.
Another point would be that lenders see the massive loss of naval power and conclude that the British may be forced to seek terms.

So in short perception matters. And for a maritime power like the Empire to loose significantly could spell disaster.

 

[Glenn239]

So what constitutes a strong Battle ship force on both flanks (parking the almost improbability of managing to pull off such a maneuver for now) <snip>

6 battleships on each flank, each with 35% of the TB force.

And they are slower than Beatty's force so the British force could simply choose which force to engage - and 4 of his ships are QEs

Charging battlecruisers at battleships, and charging into massed torpedo boat attacks, this was generally frowned upon.

There was a total of 11 CLs and 61 Torpedo boats (light destroyers) in the entire German OOB 5 CL and 20 of those Torpedo boats where with the 'Scouting force'.

I said 20% of the TB force with Hipper, not '20', a total of 12. 35% of 61 is 21 torpedo boats, plus 4 light cruisers. In fact, I did not specify TB totals because I think that if the Germans had done more preparations they could have boosted TB totals by pulling flotillas in from the Baltic or Belgium, to more like 80, which would be 16 with Hipper, 28 with each flanking force, and 8 with Mauve. Also, remember, the rate of advance of the battleships on the flanking forces is 21kt. That is not the rate of advance of the TB squadrons. These advance at 21kt to maintain position with the battleships for a time, but a bit before Beatty makes contact with Mauve, the CL and TB forces will accelerate to more like 25kt, the TB's as much as 32kt. The intention is to hit Beatty on three sides with TB attacks, not just from one direction.

The BCF alone had 14 CLs and 27 Destroyers

The BCF has 4 BC's by the time it reaches Mauve. It's CL force is operating ahead of Beatty on both flanks and will be in a poor position to get to the northwest or northeast towards a sudden flanking threat. You are now charging the remaining 4 BC's and 4 QE's straight at 4 Konigs and 2 Heloglands, with Hipper's 5 BC's also engaged, and up to 28 torpedo boats and 4 CL's making a massed torpedo attack. The closing rate between Beatty, charging directly at Scheer, and the German TB force is about 60 knots, and the size of the torpedo attack is somewhere between 100-160 torpedoes. Any British ship, including the QE's, which is hit by a torpedo is doomed because it will be destroyed in the pursuit.

Also if these forces are on the flank what's to stop Beatty ignoring them and continuing to chase after Hippers Scouting force?

Mauve and Hipper with the four Nassaus, five battlecruisers, and ten pre-dreadnoughts should be able to hold their own against Beatty. Assuming no losses on the Run to the South, Beatty has 88 guns, Hipper has 44, Mauve has 88, for a German total of 132 to 88 against the British, (of which 116 German guns can be brought to bear). If Beatty tries to break through Mauve, he's exchanging his BC's and QE's sunk for Nassaus and pre-dreadnoughts. Which is the entire point of the battle for the Germans, to sink the British fast units while preserving the German BC's.

Not that it could happen anyway as it would be almost impossible to carry out such a co-ordinated deployment with the fog of war that existed on the day.

The Zeppelins are why the Germans can hope to coordinate to the level needed. Because the scouting line of 6 units is only 70 miles ahead of Hipper, and extends to a search width of about 280nm, Hipper can hope to contact Beatty 'right on the nose'. The other German formations are mimicking Hipper's anticipated movements to maintain their proper position. The reason why each of Hipper, Scheer and Schmidt have their own zeppelin attached is because each Zeppelin has a search range of about 30 miles against a fleet, and assuming they can communicate by flag with the flagship at 10nm from it, this gives each of these forces a search range of 40nm. This is the type of search range necessary for the flanking forces to make the types of movements they would need to make in order to pocket Beatty. Beatty, for his part, would see Zeppelins on both of his flanks, and would pay them no attention because, if the flanking forces are undetected, he would have no reason to presume there were battleship forces on his flanks.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Link to the Opening Post.

What's the POD for this? As this is the Post 1900 form the earliest that we're allowed to start is 1st January 1900. However, as this is a better High Seas Fleet thread we should be allowed to start at 1898 with the First Navy Law.

For one thing that gives us two vital extra years for the independent invention & development of steam turbines in Germany.

Link to Post 8.

In the above @naraic suggests having a German firm invent the steam turbine to save Germany from paying royalties to Parsons and having British firm paying royalties to Germany instead of vice versa. While we're at it he rest of the world should be buying German steam turbines instead of British ones. That's more money business for German industry and more revenue & a better balance of payments for the German equivalent of HM Treasury. It wouldn't just be the steam turbines for marine propulsion, it would also be steam turbines for the generation of electricity. What would the earlier availability of them do for the German economy?

Is discovering the oil in Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire ASAP allowed? That to allow the navies of those nations to be well on the way to converting from coal to oil in August 1914.

 

[naraic]

In the above @naraic suggests having a German firm invent the steam turbine to save Germany from paying royalties to Parsons and having British firm paying royalties to Germany instead of vice versa. While we're at it he rest of the world should be buying German steam turbines instead of British ones. That's more money business for German industry and more revenue & a better balance of payments for the German equivalent of HM Treasury. It wouldn't just be the steam turbines for marine propulsion, it would also be steam turbines for the generation of electricity. What would the earlier availability of them do for the German economy?

I believe that naval application of steam turbines was patented almost 2 decades later than electrical applications.

I'm not sure why this was. Perhaps proof on concept was needed.

The cost for turbine licenses in post 8 comes from 1 million goldmark per turbine for capital ship turbines, that can be attributed to amoung other sources Garry Staff German battleships 1914 -1918.

I can't find a cost for turbines for smaller ships but I assume it would have added up to be significant in addition to capital ship turbines.

 

[weasel_airlift]

I have to strongly disagree here. If the Grand Fleet is sunk or decimated, it spells the end for the biggest stick the Empire had in keeping the neutrals... well neutral. As in keeping quite and accept the British actions that were on shaky legal ground.
Another point would be that lenders see the massive loss of naval power and conclude that the British may be forced to seek terms.

So in short perception matters. And for a maritime power like the Empire to loose significantly could spell disaster.

Okay, so perhaps not a complete destruction. My point was more that almost anything that happens still leaves the RN in command of the trade routes, and that cannot be easily taken away. Most neutrals can still be adequately bullied with the numerous pre-dreadnoughts. Italy can be bullied economically, and the US just can't be bullied like that.