WW I Blockade of Germany - Why Not Break It?

[Rensslaer]

If this has been discussed before, I'd be glad to be directed there.

But I've been listening to an audiobook of the history of WW I (A World Torn Asunder, I think), and I can't fathom why the German Navy wasn't employed more effectively to battle the blockade that was starving Germany.

Fleet actions with battlecruisers have their limitations, naturally, but it seems like the High Seas Fleet would have at least have posed a temporary threat to the ships maintaining the blockade.

And it sounds like there were quite a few U-Boats ready by 1916 -- instead of using them to sink merchants (which drew the US in), why not use them to attack the blockade? Sink a few dreadnoughts and the British might reconsider the cost of maintaining the blockade, or even continuing the war.

Why not? What am I not seeing? I understand that it's impossible to completely break the blockade, but it need not be broken to have an impact on the course of the war, or at least gain negotiating power, or lessen the will of foreign governments to continue at great cost.

Rensslaer

 

[ConjurerDragon]

When you are interested in battleships in that period I suggest "Castles of Steel" by Robert Massie as an interesting read.

Essentially the german fleet was at a disadvantage because there are only 2 exits from the North Sea into the open Atlantic, both of which were patrolled by the english fleet.

Attacking the blockade with the entire fleet, far away from the german coast, would have been the english admirals wet dream, because the english fleet had roughly 3 times the numbers of the germans and - close to the english coast could quickly reinforce their blockade with superior numbers once attacked.

Tirpitz was aware of that and his intention was to to lure only a part of the english ships close to german waters or at least into the german bight to whittle them down with U-Boat attacks and losses in minefields before actually attacking them on more equal terms.

And even if the blockade could have been temporarily weakened - merchant ships of the time were generally far slower than warships and the British Empire had not only Battle Ships and Battle Cruisers to block in the german fleet, but many smaller ships too that could have stopped a merchant vessel sooner or later as they had to stop frequently to replenish their coal and would have given away their position once they enter any neutral port of which there were only few - just look at a map of the time and with Britain and France in the Allies half the worlds ports were closed to the shipping of the Middlepowers.

Austria-Hungary had the same problem in the Adriatic Sea and there too the blockade could only be temporarily lifted before it was closed again by superior numbers.

That the U-Boats were not used more aggressively against the british fleet (and they did sink some english warships) is due to their limitations, e.g. speed. U-Boats of WW1 even above the water were far slower than the other warships and were even slower submerged. So they had to move into position before attacking or hope for a lucky coincidence of an enemy moving past them closely.

 

[Rensslaer]

Thank you, ConjurerDragon - I've actually read Castles of Steel, and concur on it being an excellent book!

I know there was little chance of getting merchant traffic through the blockade, no matter how much actual damage could be made. And little chance of a repeat of Jutland coming off as well even as Jutland did.

But I'm a fighter! I just can't let something like a blockade go. I don't know if you ever saw my AARs or strategy guides, but if I'm blocked four ways, I find a fifth. I just find it hard to imagine they let the High Seas Fleet sit idle and/or didn't find some way to bring their U-Boats to bear upon the blockade.

I mean, Jutland was by no means a British victory. The Germans gave as good as they got, at the very least, and the score favored Germany. As you note, the High Seas Fleet wasn't meaning to go after the whole Royal Navy -- they meant only to draw some lighter units in and destroy them with regional superiority in firepower. It was a good plan, and it could have worked again, perhaps better (if in smaller scale) than it did that day.

I don't know that much about whether it was a close blockade or at some distance. I appreciate the unwieldy nature of WWI U-Boats, but I have to think they would be able to get in position occasionally to hit a picket ship, or perhaps even a cruiser. Seems like they got 3 British dreadnoughts or battleships during the course of the war.

Plus, if you're not getting traffic into your ports anyway, would it be possible to place mines to take out British blockade vessels? I know there are drawbacks to this and perhaps it wouldn't work.

I just have a hard time fathoming how passive the Germans seemed with their resources in the face of a starvation blockade. Thoughts?

Rensslaer

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

I don't know that much about whether it was a close blockade or at some distance.

It was a distant blockade, working in the Channel and far out in the North Sea between Scotland and Norway. The blockade vessels themselves (old cruisers and armed civilian ships) were of essentially zero value in fleet battle, going purely after them is not going to shift the balance of war as long as British have command of the sea.

As far as I see your proposal essentially amounts to Scheer's historical strategy, except with German navy being drawn further away from their bases and British closer to theirs.

 

[JodelDiplom]

Thank you, ConjurerDragon - I've actually read Castles of Steel, and concur on it being an excellent book!

I know there was little chance of getting merchant traffic through the blockade, no matter how much actual damage could be made. And little chance of a repeat of Jutland coming off as well even as Jutland did.

But I'm a fighter! I just can't let something like a blockade go. I don't know if you ever saw my AARs or strategy guides, but if I'm blocked four ways, I find a fifth. I just find it hard to imagine they let the High Seas Fleet sit idle and/or didn't find some way to bring their U-Boats to bear upon the blockade.

I mean, Jutland was by no means a British victory. The Germans gave as good as they got, at the very least, and the score favored Germany. As you note, the High Seas Fleet wasn't meaning to go after the whole Royal Navy -- they meant only to draw some lighter units in and destroy them with regional superiority in firepower. It was a good plan, and it could have worked again, perhaps better (if in smaller scale) than it did that day.

I don't know that much about whether it was a close blockade or at some distance. I appreciate the unwieldy nature of WWI U-Boats, but I have to think they would be able to get in position occasionally to hit a picket ship, or perhaps even a cruiser. Seems like they got 3 British dreadnoughts or battleships during the course of the war.

Plus, if you're not getting traffic into your ports anyway, would it be possible to place mines to take out British blockade vessels? I know there are drawbacks to this and perhaps it wouldn't work.

I just have a hard time fathoming how passive the Germans seemed with their resources in the face of a starvation blockade. Thoughts?

Rensslaer

Life isn't a computer game though. There are battles that you cannot win, battles that no smart person chooses to fight outside a computer game.

The term "fleet in being" was invented for just such a situation, where a fleet faces unfavorable odds of they set out to fight but still presents enough of a threat to the enemy that it ties down enemy resources just by existing. It's a kind of stalemate where both sides still want to defeat the other but the actual risks involved in actively seeking battle far outweigh the potential gains. The German high seas fleet of WW1 was in just such a situation. For them and their part in the war, the only winning move was not to play.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

I mean, Jutland was by no means a British victory. The Germans gave as good as they got, at the very least, and the score favored Germany. As you note, the High Seas Fleet wasn't meaning to go after the whole Royal Navy -- they meant only to draw some lighter units in and destroy them with regional superiority in firepower. It was a good plan, and it could have worked again, perhaps better (if in smaller scale) than it did that day.

While the Grman fleet perforemd admirably and they sunk more than they lost if was still a British victory. The blockade was still intact and the balance of power did not change significantly.

 

[bz249]

Life isn't a computer game though. There are battles that you cannot win, battles that no smart person chooses to fight outside a computer game.

The term "fleet in being" was invented for just such a situation, where a fleet faces unfavorable odds of they set out to fight but still presents enough of a threat to the enemy that it ties down enemy resources just by existing. It's a kind of stalemate where both sides still want to defeat the other but the actual risks involved in actively seeking battle far outweigh the potential gains. The German high seas fleet of WW1 was in just such a situation. For them and their part in the war, the only winning move was not to play.

I am not sure that the HSF qualifies as a fleet in being... the Kriegsmarine&Regia Marina in WW2 did that kind of job by preventing the Brits to send their fleet to the Pacific, but in WW1 there was no Pacific Ally for Germany so the HSF accomplished exactly nothing. The Royal Navy was at anchor in Scapa, but where else they might have been (ok they could have sent the Warspite to the Dardanelles just for fun, but would it really help there?)

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Yes, having no fleet at all(within reason)would have been favorable for Germany in hindsight since the British still had to pour considerable resources in theirs.

 

[bz249]

Yes, having no fleet at all(within reason)would have been favorable for Germany in hindsight since the British still had to pour considerable resources in theirs.

Or do the fleet building seriously and challenge the British honestly with a battlecruiser based fleet. Now that could bring some joy.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Also the idea behind it was a strategic one called the Risk Theory and not the more operational fleet in being doctrine.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Or do the fleet building seriously and challenge the British honestly with a battlecruiser based fleet. Now that could bring some joy.

 

[holoween]

While the Grman fleet perforemd admirably and they sunk more than they lost if was still a British victory. The blockade was still intact and the balance of power did not change significantly.

i dont really see a british victory in the battle of jutland.
the situation was exactly the same before and after the battle so in my books this counts as a draw.

what does somewhat surprise me is that there was no real attempt at placing submarines at the approach routes of the british navy to attempt to intercept them on their waay to the battle and back

 

[DarthJF]

I just have a hard time fathoming how passive the Germans seemed with their resources in the face of a starvation blockade. Thoughts?

In war you have to take into account the risk of failure. If Germans had used their fleet trying to aggressively break the blockade and lost it would have been a disaster and the situation would have become much worse than it was while doing nothing.

 

[JodelDiplom]

Also the idea behind it was a strategic one called the Risk Theory and not the more operational fleet in being doctrine.

Yes of course a fleet in being is a situation, not a strategy.

What do you mean by risk theory? Got any links for me to read about it in that context?

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Yes of course a fleet in being is a situation, not a strategy.

What do you mean by risk theory? Got any links for me to read about it in that context?

Ah just google Tirpitz, it was the idea behind the whole programme to prevent the British to meddle with Germany.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

i dont really see a british victory in the battle of jutland.
the situation was exactly the same before and after the battle so in my books this counts as a draw.

what does somewhat surprise me is that there was no real attempt at placing submarines at the approach routes of the british navy to attempt to intercept them on their waay to the battle and back

If you sit in your castle under siege from me and try to breakout and I prevent it nothing changed but I still won.

Germany wanted to break or weaken the blockade with this operation and failed. Tactical successes make a good reading in this story but are irrelevant considering the strategic situation.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

Yes of course a fleet in being is a situation, not a strategy.

What do you mean by risk theory? Got any links for me to read about it in that context?

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risikotheorie_(Militär)

 

[ConjurerDragon]

i dont really see a british victory in the battle of jutland.
the situation was exactly the same before and after the battle so in my books this counts as a draw.

what does somewhat surprise me is that there was no real attempt at placing submarines at the approach routes of the british navy to attempt to intercept them on their waay to the battle and back

This was before the age of satelite GPS, radar, or even radio on every ship. The surface ships had already a hard time detecting the enemy ships despite them being as high as a house and often it was not planned but random that enemy ships sighted each other. The slower U-Boats would have no chance to either get there in time (due to their lower speed compared to surface ships), find them (due to their lower decks and reduced sight) and "there" - simply travelling to some random point in the middle of the large North Sea and hoping that the faster enemy surface ships would decide to pass the U-Boats location would reduce it to a lottery chance.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

...
I don't know that much about whether it was a close blockade or at some distance. I appreciate the unwieldy nature of WWI U-Boats, but I have to think they would be able to get in position occasionally to hit a picket ship, or perhaps even a cruiser. Seems like they got 3 British dreadnoughts or battleships during the course of the war.

U-Boats were a seen as nothing but nice toys for coastal defence (e.g. when you know where the enemy will go and you have not to travel far from your homeport) before WW1 but in WW1 there were some very lucky U-Boats who did sink enemy warships, e.g. U-9 and it’s famous action
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_of_22_September_1914
But due to their low speed (both surfaced and even lower submerged), low battery power (limiting the duration the boat could stay submerged) and low supply of torpedoes carried such actions were just lucky and not regular events.

Plus, if you're not getting traffic into your ports anyway, would it be possible to place mines to take out British blockade vessels? I know there are drawbacks to this and perhaps it wouldn't work.
...

Mines were used extensively in WW1. Near the british coast even by submarine to avoid spotting by the british navy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-boat_Campaign_(World_War_I)#Submarine_minelayers

The losses of big warships from mines sometimes look silly compared to their low cost when looking e.g. at the Dardanelles Campaign
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_Campaign#18_March_1915

 

[gagenater]

If this has been discussed before, I'd be glad to be directed there.

But I've been listening to an audiobook of the history of WW I (A World Torn Asunder, I think), and I can't fathom why the German Navy wasn't employed more effectively to battle the blockade that was starving Germany.

Fleet actions with battlecruisers have their limitations, naturally, but it seems like the High Seas Fleet would have at least have posed a temporary threat to the ships maintaining the blockade.[/QUOTE]

They could, but then they get smashed by steaming directly into the guns of the vastly more powerful grand fleet, and Germany's situation moves from 'under distant blockade' to 'fighting off landings at Hamburg while every town and village of Germany within 20 km of the coast is shelled 24/7 for the remainder of the war'

And it sounds like there were quite a few U-Boats ready by 1916 -- instead of using them to sink merchants (which drew the US in), why not use them to attack the blockade? Sink a few dreadnoughts and the British might reconsider the cost of maintaining the blockade, or even continuing the war.

@ConjurerDragon did a great job explaining why not. U boats in WWI managed to sink major capital ships under 3 conditions:

• In harbors at the start of the war
• In confined waters at the start of the war
• Unescorted at the start of the war

After the beginning of the war (roughly sometime in spring of 1915), navies realized the potential dangers of U boats to naval ships and took effective countermeasures to prevent U boats from being a realistic risk to major combatants. Nets and patrols around harbors, escorts in open water, torpedo bulges to reduce the damage caused by torpedoes, and a realization that major capital ships were too risky to put in confined waters due to mines, u boats,small craft and shore batteries all combined to make U boats more of a nuisance to major surface vessels.

Another very major issue is that WW1 era German torpedoes traveled quite slowly with a speed of 27 knots. Certainly fast enough to easily nail merchant ships travelling at 5 knots, but try hitting naval targets moving 15-25 knots and suddenly it becomes nearly impossible. If the target can move at a significant fraction of the speed of the torpedo, then it can easily steer out of the way of the torpedo, steam out of range, or simply outrun it. WW1 era German torpedoes could travel roughly 5-6 km at maximum range before running out of fuel, and this takes roughly 8 minutes at their top speed. https://uboat.net/history/wwi/part7.htm Thats an incredibly long time for a potential target to notice ,and do something about it, so clearly the subs would have to get very close to have a reasonable chance of hitting, but that also takes a lot of time, and incredible luck since the U boats themselves move much much more slowly than naval vessel targets.

Why not? What am I not seeing? I understand that it's impossible to completely break the blockade, but it need not be broken to have an impact on the course of the war, or at least gain negotiating power, or lessen the will of foreign governments to continue at great cost.

Rensslaer

You aren't seeing the potential consequences of failure. If the German north sea fleet is decisively defeated, the allies are free to start amphibious landings in Western Germany, or maybe send troops through the Danish straights to aid the Russians, or make landings in eastern Germany, and harass the entire coast of Germany with heavy and accurate naval gunfire. Guns sized 5" (destroyers and small cruisers up to 12" (older battleships) can hit targets 20-25 km from the shore, and the larger 14" and 15" guns of more modern battleships have a reach of up to 30-35 km from shore. This covers a LOT of ground in Germany - for example the entire Jutland Peninsula down to Hamburg and Lubeck is within easy range, and can be expected to take direct hits on targets down to the size of individual buildings if desired given that they are stationary ships firing at stationary targets. These areas are extraordinarily easy for Germany to defend from naval invasion, but only if they have a fleet of some sort preventing it. No credible fleet at all and they are screwed.

Yes, having no fleet at all(within reason)would have been favorable for Germany in hindsight since the British still had to pour considerable resources in theirs.

This is 'obvious' in hindsight, because we know that WWI took place, and who the Germans wound up fighting. In the real life run up to WWI, everyone knew that some sort of major war was likely to happen soon, but nobody knew for sure who would be on what sides of it, or how committed they might be. In some other war scenario, it's entirely possible that the German navy would have been more useful than it actually was.