Why the dreadnoughts barely fought in WW1
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 янв 2023
- Both the German and British fleets at the start of the First World War had over a dozen dreadnought battleships each. The world was about to see the two largest navies in the world go head to head. But the dreadnoughts only saw action in a major battle once during World War One - at the Battle of Jutland, two years into the war. So what happened to the great naval battles of the First World War? How was it that the merchant ships came to play the pivotal role?
Explore and licence the archive films used in this video on the IWM Film website: film.iwmcollections.org.uk/my...
CREDITS:
First and second battleship squadrons and small cruisers of the German Navy, in Kiel Harbor, Germany, circa 1911-14 © National Archives at College Park
"...because neither side could afford to lose it's formidable, yet very expensive dreadnaughts." The reason there were no major actions before Jutland was because the IGN did not put to sea before Jutland. The German High Seas Fleet stood little chance of winning a head-to-head battle, so they just didn't try. In 1916 von Pohl was replaced by Scheer, who believed that the fleet had been too defensive and after two years of inaction and stalemate, wanted to go on the offensive. When they came out, the British immediately sortied _without fear of losing it's formidable, yet very expensive dreadnaughts._
So, basically... the only reason the British weren't throwing about dreadnoughts is because all the active ships used by the Germans were too fast for the dreadnoughts to catch. That, and the Uboat threat.
Even at Jutland the German goal was to get the British battlecruisers and then escape back to port before the Grand Fleet showed up, without any intent to break the blockade in one massive engagement as often argued to have been the case. They never wanted a decisive battle against the main battleline, but opted for a more gradual attritional strategy focused on a series of much smaller engagements to break the British blockade much further down the line-a strategy that failed because Britain didn’t give them a number of small engagements, either declining battle or trying to force a decisive battle depending on the operation.
Possessive its has no apostrophe.
@@DZ-1987 Sending Dreadnoughts to combat merchant raiders is overkill when you have fleets of cruisers that are ideal.
The Royal Navy was constantly trying to bait the German High Seas Fleet out of the ports, to force a battle.
As far as the battle fleets went, the Germans had slower and better armored ships while the British went for speed.
@@MartinWillett I fixed it. Thanks. This is how we learn.
6:14 The British naval expression, "super-dreadnought", was translated into Japanese as "chō-dokyuu" (超弩級) at the time of the First World War, when Japan fought on the British side. The central _kanji_ part 弩 has since been simplified somewhat and changed into _katakana_ ド as in 超ド級, but the expression "chō-dokyuu" is still used today to show the sheer enormity of something to the level of a hyperbole. Sadly, not many Japanese know the origin of this expression.
Doesn't that kanji mean crossbow?
@@cariopuppetmaster
Yeah, exactly. Perfect guess.
@xapaga1 pretty random choice though.
Some good stuff, but it's disingenous to say that a comparison of Hyderabad and Dreadnought shows how naval strategy had changed. Rather than the one dedicated Q-ship built, why not compare HMS Dreadnought with the Super-Dreadnoughts that were already practically streaming down British slipways. And, among those, several of the Queen Elizabeths and Revenges in particular would go on to have notable careers in WWII. Q-ships would remain a side-show while dedicated ASW vessels were developed to take on the U-Boats and the big boys would continue to counter the threat from surface raiders, until extinction from the threat of naval aviation.
Well the U-boats didn't win Germany either the first or the second world war so your comment is perfectly valid.
@@DidMyGrandfatherMakeThis Germans did some calculations and found out they have not enough uboots to win against Britain or enough fuel to conquer russia before it fully mobilises but went for it anyway.
You are right Tim. Only one battleship in history ever sunk a submarine, and it was a battleship that never took part in the Battle of Jutland as it was being refitted at the time. Yes, it was HMS Dreadnought! She rammed and sank SM U-29, with all hands on the submarine lost. That included Otto Wediggen, who had been captain of the infamous SM U-9, which sank four British warships under his command, and went on to sink 13 merchant ships and an auxillary warship by the end of 1915.
Not disingenuous at all.
Not a single British dreadnought.. superdreadnought or otherwise.. was laid down during WWI. The later QEs and Revenges were only launched and finished during WWI because they were already under construction.. and the last ships of each class were cancelled during the war.
In WWII they were only used because they were there. The Revenge class in particular were slow and most were in terrible condition so they were but a deterrent for convoy duties.. because the Kriegsmarine forbade any surface engagements with convoys protected by capital ships.
The QEs were mainly used for shore bombardment and far flung theatres where they had good air cover. Even Warspite had her greatest successes against German destroyers in Norway and only really managed a draw against the Regia Marina in the Mediterranean.
She was under heavy air cover in the South Pacific and almost
all Axis air and seaborne resistance had been eliminated by the time she came back to the Mediterranean and North Atlantic.
@@gaufrid1956 HMS warspite (battleship) didn't directly sink a Uboat, but the uboat U-64 was bombed and sunk by a Swordfish launched from the battleship
The first-generation Dreadnoughts were obsolete by 1914.
A bit like state-of-the-art biplanes from 1936 being obsolete by 1940.
Like the Fairey Swordfish, perhaps? Think again.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 The Swordfish is a brilliant example of the exception to the rule.
I can't think of another1930s biplane which wasn't past its sell-by date by the 40s.
Yes I know the Italians were still using biplanes, but they came a cropper when put up against Spitfires and Hurricanes in the autumn of 1940. Yes, I know Gloster Gladiators were still serving during the Battle of Britain, but in the far north west of the UK and they didn't see any combat. Yes, I know about the Maltese Gladiators. Yes, I know about the Luftwaffe's Henschel biplanes on the eastern front.
Some "super-dreadnoughts" as they were termed still served in places like the South Atlantic, but they performed poorly against state-of-the-art warships.
@@raypurchase801 Define 'superdreadnought' and define 'state of the art warships.'
@@dovetonsturdee7033 I recommend the book "Dreadnought" by Robert K. Massie.
Find it yourself.
@@raypurchase801 Bought it and read it more than 20 years ago, but thank you for the suggestion.
Pre-WW1 ship doctrine had two goals: 1) projecting power to control your colonies. (What were a tribe of Zulu going to do against an armored cruiser?) and 2) having enough big ships to form a gun line in case one of the other European powers tried to start something.
The dreadnought class was the ultimate expression of the gunline ships. But the reason they didn’t see much action was because the opposition went asymmetrical and featured U-boats rather than a gunline.
Then Germany tried the same strategy in WW2.
What could the Zulu do against an armored cruiser? Like... go inland and see how well it does in guerilla?
I love this information
Yes, in some ways as a battleship fan, I was always dispapointed by the number of battleship to battleship battles.
But of course that would meant that many sailors would have died
Like my uncle on the Hood in WW2
My Great Uncle also died on HMS Hood.
4:09 They say that in 1914 Britain had 29 dreadnought to Germany's 17 but that is way off. Britain had 22 at the start of the war then lost Audacious and gained Erin and Agincourt for a new total of 23, not sure where they got 29 from.
Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-German_naval_arms_race#Arms_race_ends_(1912%E2%80%931914)
28 british dreadnoughts at Jutland
@@princedetenebres Just want to add I omitted Canada as while she was purchased in 1914 she didn't finish fitting out till September 1915 so I don't feel she should be included with the ships of 1914.
Love your work 👍
Terrific video!
World War I at sea: If you're on top, you don't have to fight artillery duels at sea against the #2 fleet.
Jutland had the potential to be the Nelsonian style decisive battle. In an age before radar, contact opportunities were missed by both sides. Some have said Sir John Jellicoe was over cautious, though in reality his concerns about loitering enemy submarines and mines were both real and justified. The IGN never put to sea in significant force after Jutland, so from a strategic point of view the battle can be considered a win for the RN. What stands out is the proficiency of the German long range gunnery at Jutland, which was superb and devastating.
German range finding equipment was clearly superior, but they were also helped by their position relative to the fading light at Jutland. The British large ships were designed for long distance cruising, whilst the German ones were only designed for short journeys in the North Sea, hence they had high levels of compartmentalisation, but little concern for habitability. There was the well known issue of the dangerous ammunition handling practices of the RN Battlecruisers in an attempt to increase the rate of fire, plus issues with poor quality of British shells, which became a scandal after it became known that many shells had broken up on impact, rather than penetrating the German ships.
@ Original KK
The British were similarly disadvantaged at the Battle of Dogger Bank (into the rising sun) yet managed to straddle the Germans within the first few salvos.
The German gunnery was superior because of their methods of firing (I can’t remember the details but it was very different in how the RN did it) which made it less confusing to spot falling shot and faster to adjust for distance.
In addition to the Germans not having to sail as far they also emphasized protection over speed and armament where the British were the reverse. Early German dreadnoughts only had 11 inch guns and their “super” dreadnoughts had 12 inch. Only with the Bayern class did they finally catch up. But even their battle cruisers were well protected with Seydlitz surviving an insane amount of damage and Lutzow (the only capital ship the Germans lost aside from the ancient pre-dreadnought Pommern) sinking very reluctantly.
@@calvinnickel9995 - German doctrine was to fire three quick initial salvoes: one on range, one long, and one short. One of the three often hit.
Wonder what could have happened if the British would communicated and said German ships here? And if Beatty would have made shore he didn't outrun his battlecruisers and had them in line when he first engaged Sheer's scouts.
Actually the first ship lost by Germany was the SS Pfalz when the Australians fired on it, in Victoria from a coastal gun. The skipper of the Pfalz was so terrified by the passing shell that he immediately surrendered his ship.
🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺
So the ship wasn't lost like "sank" lost.
Technically, yes. Logically, yes. In fairness, the Pfalz was a shipping cargo ship and (as far as I am aware) had no deck guns or offensive capabilities.
So it was hardly a ship of war which I think is the intended point they're speaking to.
At the end of the day though, you are right. It's almost as if clarity of details, scope (exclusions/inclusions, etc) and context matters when making statements.... especially with history topics on the internet!!
@@annnee6818 Captured by the enemy is surely even worse
It's not "SS Pfalz" but "SMS Pfalz". SMS is equal to HMS (Seiner Majestäts Schiff)
Hello,
Love the post and footage!
Question: do you have any footage from Dogger Bank? Or Jutland?
Thanks!
When it comes to the Royal Navy I think it's safe to say that one of the reasons that they didn't use their battle fleet as much as they could have is because Germany was really worried about risking their ships in an open confrontation with the Grand Fleet, so they mostly stayed in harbor so Instead of battlelines, most of the conflict consisted of escorts
Exactly. And apart from Jutland, there was the Battle of Dogger Bank; the battlecruisers could be understood as "dreadnought light" concept. Now that I think of it, battlecruisers fought also in Battle of Falkland Islands. And there was some german dreadnought action in the Baltic (which crippled the Russian pre-dreadnought Slava).
Pre-dreadnaught Battleships, Armored cruisers and gunboats had the biggest effect on the war in terms of armed combat vessels. Allied and Central powers pre-dreadnaught warships were involved in every major naval battle, especially on the Mediterranean, eastern, African and Pacific fronts and suffered the highest casualties of any ship class of the war. 75% of all capital ships lost in WW1 were pre-dreadnaught wars, mostly from 1880's to 1900's.
Because they were expendable, and even more vulnerable to mines and torpedoes.
Two of my great great uncles served on british dreadnoughts. My mum has a number of photos they took while on world tours with their fleets. No idea what kind of camera they had or how they had it but there you go.
Actually, the British could afford to lose quite a few, as we did at Jutland. Our Lan was to continue the blockade rather than an all out battle with the Germans. We had an empire to protect, the Germans didn't. we couldn't concentrate all our ships as we were fighting on many fronts.
No dreadnought's were lost at Jutland on either side. We lost three battlecruisers. The Indefatigable, Queen Mary and Invincible. Battlecruisers are not dreadnoughts. Germany did have an empire. They lost it in WWI.
@@Poliss95 I'm pretty sure the "Germans didn't have an empire to protect" refers to the fact that they barely had any overseas territories
I think this video would have deserved a mention of the Fleet-in-being concept. Intended or not ... for Britain, that worked out pretty fine with the German navy staying in port for basically the whole war. Had there been no British dreadnoughts or a lot less of them, submarine warfare would not have become that important
When you say “ one of the most powerful fleets at the time” surely you mean the most powerful fleet ? That’s a fact.
Maybe on Earth.
The Grand Fleet was the most powerful fleet of all time up to that point.
long story short, the Royal Navy didn't need a battle to keep Germany contained, while the kriegsmarine couldn't afford to lose a fight with the Royal Navy.
Both sides spent such huge sums building up these impressive fleets they became too afraid of losing them. So they never really used the things when the war actually started and so all the dreadnoughts were just resource sinks.
What ultimately broke Germany was the blockade.
Either side of the war hopes to avoid the loss of expensive dreadnoughts and the tech at that time didn't allow a similar assult like Battle of Taranto to happen, which makes the lesser powerful side(High seas fleet) took a "fleet in being" doctrine to avoid battle until favourable conditions appears. That's why dreadnoughts seldom engage in naval battle in WWI, while cheaper submarine or armored cruisers became the main force in commerce raiding.
Königin Luise (probably misspelled) is the ship my Italian ancestors came to the US aboard, my paternal great-great-grandfather in 1905 and his wife a year later.
For trivia fans in the movie African Queen the German ship sunk at the end of the film was called Königin Luise. It was pronounced Louisa in the film.
Battleships were the dominant naval platform in the North Sea during both world wars. Be careful not to confuse ends (sea control) with means (slugfests).The battleships had two jobs during this time: protect blockades and protect convoys. The first they did by keeping enough battleships ready to go that, if the Germans sortied (like happened at Jutland) they could repel them (like happened at Jutland). The second they did by escorting convoys - Surface raiders that tried to tangle with a battleship would have a bad time. As a result of one side being in control of the seas and the other not, one battle line contributed to the war by mostly doing nothing the other failed to contribute by doing mostly nothing.
Might have mentioned that HMS Dreadnought was absent during her one chance to shine: battle of Jutland.
she was obsolete
She was no longer regarded as fit for service with the Grand Fleet. She was refitting at Portsmouth at the time of Jutland, and then, from July, 1916, became flagsahip of the 3rd Battle Squadron, based at Sheerness. The rest of the squadron were pre-dreadnoughts.
She did return to the Grand Fleet briefly from March, 1918.
@@Luke_Sandy_High_Ground and by a lot, she suffered from what made her a novelty 10 years before Jutland
Unopposed under crimson skies
Immortalized, over time their legend will rise
And their foes can’t believe their eyes, believe their size, as they fall
And the Dreadnoughts dread nothing at all
Dreadnaughts were essentially the “nukes” of the day. Like a super weapon unlock in a strategy game. In practice however it wasn’t the case.
It is the kind of late game super weapon that no one uses outside of meme builds because cheap economy harass units are just so much better.
Oddly, the first Allied shots fired in both WW1 and WW2 were from the Point Nepean guns at the entrance to Port Phillip, near Melbourne, Australia. No ships were sunk; the targetted ships hove to.
The pace of technological devlopment was so fast. that by 1914 HMS Dreadnaught was at best a second line battleship. no longer fit to face the newer battleships.
Handleskreig? I belive it should be Handelskrieg 😉Cheers.
Autocorretcoin ;)
My Grandfather was in the Royal Navy Reserve at the tail end of WW1. I find these videos interesting.
@2:37 -- when you say doctrine means 'equal in number' you need to specify the vector part. Is this ... draft-weight-displacement? Is this ... gun-weapons-duisplacement? What number .... what type of number -- is meant?
@3:03 -- again, equal in what sense. Are we talking displacement of hulls? Number of hulls? Number of guns upon hulls? The scalar value without knowing the vector it is intended to mean, makes it hard to understand to future people.
Unopposed under crimson skies!
Inmortalized over time their legend will rise
And their foes can't believe their eyes
Believe their size as they fall...
*AND THE DREADNOUGHTS DREAD NOTHING AT ALL!!!*
A hull of steel and all big guns to serve the fleet
Unrivalled firepower riding the waves to war
A devastating blow will send their foes down below
Fearless armada now bombarding the shore
@@unbeatablesniper16
Displace the the water in it's path
Reveal the cannons
ALIGN THEIR GUNS, UNLEASH THEIR WRATH
Really during the Battleships time, there were few battleship on battleship action al together.
An important factor not brought up here is that by 1914 the German Navy and government had quietly given up the dreadnaught arms race, knowing that they could not out build Britain. Had the First World War not occurred, its likely that the arms race would have petered out well before the end of the decade, as well Germany and Britain had both been considering the possibility of naval treaties similar to those of the inter war era by around 1914.
You didn't mention the Battle Cruisers.
I guess that they are best forgotten given how vulnerable they turned out to be in both wars.
Nothing much has changed. Ingenuity and resilience can overcome might.
8:12 that was a bit of never reported history. The U-boats tried to avoid killing sailors so surfaced, but got rammed!
Perhaps you haven't heard of 'Unrestricted Submarine Warfare?'
Interestingly the "Koenigin Louis" was the name of the German raider in the movie African Queen, I wonder if that was intentional?
For a country once noted for its massive sea power it's remarkable that Britain has not preserved a single battleship from 1914-1945 to use as a museum. HMS Belfast doesn't count, it's a cruiser.
Most were scrapped during post ww2 for material
Dreadnought actions.
You seem to have forgotten the Battle of Dogger Bank which happened before Jutland!
Although no dreadnoughts were involved in that battle. The big ships there were battlecruisers.
The term "dreadnought" has been misused in this video.
@@Poliss95 I would class Lion as a dreadnought being 8000 tons heavier than HMS Dreadnought although officially a battlecruiser
battlecruisers
Yes only battlecruisers, but the idea of Admiral Scheer was to draw out part of the Grand Fleet so that it could be destroyed
No mention of the Battle of Dogger Bank ?
It's kinda funny to first complain that the German subs don't give the crews of the merchant ships a chance first, only to then convert some of these ships into dedicated u-boat traps with fake surrendering and hidden weapons.
If you do that sort of thing (which today would be considered a war crime, just as attacking civilians would be), you had it coming.
You said it yourself - "only to then". They did it in retaliation of them breaking the naval merchant treaty, they aren't fighting on fair ground if only the other obeys the rules.
Dreadnought-building consumed vast resources in the early 20th century.
"What's the point in blowing millions on a massive fleet if you're not going to use it!?"
Kaiser Willy: "......I didn't want to scratch the paint"
The German High Seas Fleet had fewer ships than the British Grand Fleet and could only win by luring out only part of the British fleet. This almost happened at Jutland were due to bad leadership, poor signaling and leaving anti-flash doors open, Beatty's Battlecruiser Squadron was hit hard loosing 2 Battlecruisers. But when the Grand Fleet arrived the Germans fled for home after the initial contact. The German High Seas Fleet wanted to instigate another battle in 1918, but the sailors mutinied and the fleet later surrendered.
picture shows The North German Lloyd Konigin Kuise of 1896 not the1913 hapag Konigin Luise
It's "Handelskrieg", not "Handleskreig" - you might want to correct this, to make this video even better.
I'm surprised, that this channel is claiming, that Germany & Britain didn't wanted to risk to lose the Dreadnoughts because they were expensive. That was directly said in this video in one sentence.
This is reinforcing the wrong information of the Oversimplified channel in their very often watched WW1 video, that both nations simply didn't wanted to risk a battle because the ships were expensive.
Wasn't the reason both nations didn't risk to lose those ships in big confrontations, because Britain needed to maintain the Sea Blockade of Germany with those ships and needed to protect their coasts against hit and run raids and invasion attempts?
Germany needed those ships for the protection of the own coasts for the same reasons. They simply couldn't afford to lose this Dreadnought-protection against sea-invasion attempts of the Britain and the allies.
Again: I'm very surprised, that this video is claiming the same like the Oversimplified channel. In a manner, as if some big boys didn't wanted to damage their expensive playthings, like the Oversimplified channel presented it in its very often watched WWI video...what couldn't be further from the truth in my opinion.
Too bad, because I thought at first, I would be able to use this video as a reference, to correct under reaction videos the wrong claims of the Oversimplified channel when it comes to Dreadnoughts and the reason why they avoided big battles after Jutland.
But here the same claim is repeated. I'm really baffled about that.
Memo to video producers: the person rescued in the life-belt at 1:37 seems to have escaped from the video. Please send somebody to bring him back as he is an essential part of the narrative.
Sheesh, I don't know what we pay you editors *for*, you go missing all the important points.
Aboukir, Crecy and Hogue were known as the "Live bait squadron". Make your own deduction.
HMS Celendine, James Donald Cameron.
W channel
Ok then interesting stuff
The German Navy Command wanted to use their warships in the later stages of the war. The Kaiser however was hesitant to lose his navy that his country had built.
When Hipper did try to send the High Seas Fleet out in October, 1918, the crews mutinied.
Both sides were unwilling to engage in a Dreadnought slugfest unless they had significant advantage, and the pre-Jutland naval history of the North Sea in WWI was a litany of each side trying to catch an enemy detachment with an overwhelming force of one's own Dreadnoughts. The RN was aided in this by the fact that the Russian Navy had managed to retrieve the naval codebooks from a German light cruiser that they had sunk and passed copies to the RN--and the Germans thought the books had been destroyed and therefore didn't change their codes.
The Battle of Dogger Bank in January 1915 occurred because the Royal Navy read and decoded the IGN operational order which sent the German First Scouting Group to attack the British fishing fleet, knew exactly where, when, and how many ships the Germans were sending, and decided to send five British BC plus light forces to put paid to the four BC plus light forces that the Germans had out. Bad luck and horrible signalling mistakes allowed the IGN force to escape with the loss of only one heavy ship, but both sides tried, with no effect, to trap a small enemy force with a larger force over the next 17 months. The Battle of Jutland was an attempt by the RN to catch the German battlecruiser force with the entire Grand Fleet while the IGN was, in turn, trying to catch the RN's Battlecruiser Fleet with the entire High Seas Fleet.
No-one wants to risk their Expensive toy
I know it was a generation latter but tell that to Wild Bill Halsey in 1942.
Handelskrieg (not Handleskrieg)
Can’t afford to lose them. Can’t afford to use them.
Anyone else that came here after listening to Sabaton - Dreadnought?
You don't need a dreadnaught for embargo or commerce raiding.
5:12
3:39
Another really well thought out documentary from IWM 🙂👍
After skiming through the selection of the usual comments, from knowledgeable folk, who obviously know more about the subject, than say, the IWM, I wondered why don't they the critics just make their own videos and be done with it?
Know-alls scrutinising every frame and comment, so their immense store of facts can be shown off, much to I'm sure the IWM researchers utter amazement.
Bite sized quotes from Wikipedia for all to see 👌😉
Simple answer, why waste your best ships? Germanys isn't going to risk its ships so the British can't risk theirs, the older fleet of the pre-dreadnought era are disposable ships that can be used easily.
The simple truth is you didn't have two fleet who wanted to head and engage each other in the same way. It was only through misinformation that we even got the battle of Jutland.
The submarine made the Dreadnaught obsolete.
Debatable. Subs of this period were very slow and had limited range and endurance. They were a threat but not as big of a threat as other battleships or destroyers and torpedo boats. What really killed battle ships were more powerful aircraft that could carry heavy bombs or torpedoes.
Misleading title. Dreadnaughts did not disappear. They held each other in check. Neither side could afford to lose them.
If Germany was scared to fight, maybe they should have spent the money on other war stocks. I think they look cool, wish I was rich and could get one and upgrade it as a yacht.
punch excision for both my acne scars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Handelskrieg instead of Handelskreig.
Not "handleskreig", but handelskreig.
I'm 70 and been following naval war since I was 15 and I can't remember hearing that term
You learn something every day
@@Digmen1 And on very good days we learn two or three things!
How did the "Dreadnoughts" get their name....???
5:22 hAnDlEsKrEiG
What about the Kirov Airships?😏
Did not know about the purpose-built Q-Ship. Makes sense since the Germans had them. Wonder if something like that was built by the Allies in WWII? It does seem that all the money spent building Dreadnoughts was for naught! Money that could have been better spent. Who knows.
There’s far more of a case against building new battleships shortly before/during WWII than against building battleships prior to that point. At least in WWI battleships were decent deterrents and thus viable strategic units, whereas in WWII aviation largely rendered them obsolete in their intended role outside of niche circumstances (like North Cape) and thus forced them into supporting roles where they were just too expensive to strategically justify.
Lots of British Q-ships were used by the Royal Navy to counter U-boats. After the war, their service records were assessed and it was discovered that the small number of successful encounters didn't justify the effort and expense involved. The term "dreadnought" is misused in this video. The true dreadnoughts were the first-generation vessels, but all of them were obsolete by 1914.
The reason there wasn't a Deadnought battle apart from Jutland is that the Royal Navy met their target and maintained their lead in numbers and tonnage over the German High Seas Fleet, more than doubling them in absolute tonnage and personnel. In other words, the British Naval doctrine *worked*. Jutland was an attempt by the High Seas Fleet to lure in the Royal Navy and defeat them in detail, which *failed*. While Germany came out ahead in terms of men lost and tonnage sunk, the British cemented their control of the high seas, and their enemies would spend the rest of the war bottled up in port.
Without the Royal Navy containing the High Seas Fleet, there would have been no impetus for Germany to resort to unrestricted submarine warfare, attacking neutral shipping, and ultimately drawing the Americans into the war. They could have prevented the re-supply of troops on the continent, disrupting the supply of arms, food, and other supplies for the BEF and le Poilu.
A typical german submarine had a displacement of 770 tonnes, where a typical battleship of the era had displacement of 28,000 tonnes, putting the size ratio of the ships at about 35:1, making the 1917 u-boat fleet the rough equivalent of four dreadnoughts, not nearly enough to overtake the vast naval superiority of the British fleet.
The size of the vessel doesn't matter. A submarine can sink a battleship, but a battleship has only sunk one single solitary submarine in history!
For instance, the 31,130 long ton Royal Oak was sunk by the 843 long ton U-47 in 1939. Royal Oak never even knew there was a submarine in the area.
@@Poliss95 It *absolutely* matters. Yes, battleships aren't well-suited to countering submarines, but they're devastating to the surface ships which actually *are* good at sub-hunting. Submarines are not what heralded the demise of the battleship, aircraft carriers were. And, prior to the advent of guided missile technology, carrier groups were still escorted by by heavy gunships.
As for the Royal Oak, it was entirely obsolete by the time of its sinking, capable of a speed of only 20 knots, and badly damaged from sailing through rough seas, such that her smaller caliber guns were inoperable due to flooding.
No ship, no matter how well-engineered, is going to withstand a sustained barrage of torpedoes while completely still at anchor. It may as well have been towed out for target practice. A prior incident at Scapa Flow, back in 1917, when the HMS Vanguard exploded for reasons which have never yet been fully explained. The prevailing theory seems to be that an increase of temperature on the ship caused a spontaneous ignition of cordite in the ship's magazine.
@@Poliss95 Submarines cant command dominance of the oceans.
@@Luke_Sandy_High_Ground Today they can. In 1914-1918 not so well. At that time they had limited range and endurance. Even on the surface they were not fast. They were vulnerable to destroyers killing them or at least driving them off. Submarines were better in WWII, but were generally better used against softer high value targets such as merchant ships. Sinking Royal Oak while a morale blow to the British and boost to the Germans was probably a wasted attack that might have been better directed against ships bringing food, fuel, and munitions into Britain.
Another piece I'm not seeing anyone mention is that the naval race really took place preceding the war. The British out built the Germans and save for a brief period at the start of the war where they cranked out destroyers before continuing to build capital ships at a pace Germany couldn't match. Keep in mind the British were building capital ships before the start of WWI for several other countries as well as themselves and keeping ahead of Germany in number of ships and guns and size of guns. The British had another bit of luck in they had cleaner burning coal. This prevented fouling of the fireboxes for the boilers as often requiring less cleaning, maintaining speed/endurance better.
Ultimately the war was won by the Navy...it was the naval blockade of Germany that ultimately lead to the mutinies of the German armed forces in 1918 which in turn lead to their capitulation.
too big, too expensive, too much national pride invested in them to risk being lost.
Except that the control of the North Sea which the Grand Fleet held throughout the war ensured that the High Seas Fleet remained virtually inactive after Jutland. The British Northern Patrol was able to maintain the blockade which successfully reduced Germany to the edge of mass starvation, ending in revolution, mutiny, and defeat.
Not unlike WW2, where aircraft carriers took center stage and the only major role played by battleships was for shore bombardment.
Not correct. You should look beyond the war in the Pacific.
In the Atlantic? Outside of hunting down the Bismarck and the Scharnhorst, did battleships ever engage there?
@@Ralphieboy yes, in the mediterranean too
Wrecking the French Fleet at Oran and chasing the remains of the italian fleet back to harbor.
@@Ralphieboy there were big fleet battles in the med
Dreadnoughts were already out of date by 1914.
Nonsense.
Only compared to Revenge and Queen Elizabeth classes.
WWI: people reached a conclusion that a war cannot be win by a single major naval battle
the Japanese with their Kantai kaisen doctrine: Imma pretend I didn't see that
the Battle of Jutland would have never been a Trafalgar style "decisive" battle,
because even Trafalgar was not a "decisive" battle.
In 1805, when Trafalgar happened, there were still ten more years of Napoleon.
As for there being only one sortie by dreadnoughts, I would point to the
German raids on the east coast, and the battle of Dogger Bank.
The former was an effort to lure out a *small* section of the British fleet with the hope
of destroying that small section and nibble down the balance of big ships
more in Germany's favour.
The latter was more of the same.
Neither worked.
Jutland was supposed to work in much the same way.
It didn't.
yes but it doomed Napoleons chances of defeating britain (and winning the war) which meant britain could throw cash at european powers for years and there was nothing boney could do about it.
In terms of performance per dollar, Battleships were a huge waste of money in the 20th century. I thought it was really absurd in the 2nd World War, where Britain apparently learned none of the lessons of WW2. While Germany wisely put money in UBoats, and America wisely bought Aircraft Carriers, Britain still largely wasted money on Battleships. Battleships were just too expensive and too easy to sink to use.
The German and Japanese battleships built in WW2 era was white elephants and a waste of resources in short supply. The US and UK ones was sensible investments and useful assets. Although it can be argued that HMS Vanguard, the last battleship built and that was finished after the war, was a waste of steel and manpower.
That’s what happens when the high command is a bunch of HooRay Henries.
Actrually, construction was dictated by the limitations of the Washington Naval Treaties.
On 3 September, 1939, the RN had seven carriers, with six under construction, and fifteen battleships and battlecruisers, with five under construction.
The US Navy had six carriers, with one under construction, and fifteen battleships, with four under construction.
At the same time, Germany had 57 U-Boats. The Royal Navy had 63. U-Boat construction was a desperate wartime measure, brought about by the demands of a situation for which the Kriegsmarine had not planned.
I thought the Royal Navy was a bigger adopter of aircraft carriers at the start of WW2 and only overtaken by the US due to their massive investments.
at the start of WW2, battleships were still the main capital ships of a fleet and carriers were nothign more than a nice toy
I thought it was because they wouldn't fit in the trenches.
These word, in my opinion, really epitomizes the dreadnoughts:
"Unopposed under crimson skies,
Immortalized, over time their legend will rise.
And their foes can't believe their eyes, believe their size, as they fall,
And the dreadnoughts dread nothing at all!"
This is the chorus of Sabaton's song, "Dreadnoughts".
The German navy never came out of port again after Jutland. A win for the Royal Navy.
Except they did numerous times.
@@ErichZornerzfun Twice later in 1916, before returning to port immediately upon receiving reports of the approaching Grand Fleet, and once in 1917 into the Baltic.
That does not equate to 'numerous times.'
@@dovetonsturdee7033 there were more that those. And in the case of the 1916 sorties the germans accomplished the mission in both cases and returned to base. Whereas the British refused to sortie against one raid and returned to base early in the other for fear of submarines.
@@ErichZornerzfun No, there weren't. On 18 August, 1916, a force of 2 battlecruisers (all that were operational after the damage the others had received) and 17 battleships sailed. At 2119 the British intercepted a signal that the fleet had sailed at 2100, and at 2256 the Grand Fleet sortied. At 0500 on 19 August, the British submarine E23 torpedoed SMS Westfalen, which returned to port. At 1233 the Admiralty informed Jellicoe that the HSF was about 60 miles away, and Jellicoe prepared for action.
However, Scheer had received warnings from both U boats and Zeppelins of the approach of Jellicoe's fleet, which he believed to be around 110 miles north west of his position. Upon receiving an updated report from U53 that the Grand Fleet was 65 miles away, and heading towards the HSF, Scheer abandoned his sortice and returned to the Jade. What did the Germans achieve by this mission, as you claim? The sinking of two light cruisers? Is that it?
On 18 October, 1916, the HSF sailed, but within a few hours the cruiser Munchen was torpedoed by HMS E38, and Scheer returned to the safety of the Jade. The Grand Fleet was brought to short notice, but didn't sail as the German sortie ended almost before it had begun. What did this German mission achieve?
If there were more sorties than these two damp squibs, tell me when.
In general terms, what did the HSF achieve post-Jutland?
Did it challenge the Northern Blockade, which was starving Germany into collapse? I refer you to the Turnip Winter. No, it didn't.
Did it challenge the constant movement of men and equipment between Britain & France? No, it didn't.
Did it try to send a fast raiding force into the Atlantic, using battlecruisers and light cruisers, perhaps? No, it didn't.
Did it even seek to bring Trywhitt's Harwich Force of light cruisers and destroyers to battle? No. it didn't.
What it did do was to swing peacefully on anchor chains and cables in the Jade, whilst crewmen heard of the suffering of their families. No wonder they mutinied, was it?
No wonder, also, that Hindenburg & Ludendorff fell for Scheer's and von Holtzendorff's assurances that unrestricted submarine warfare could bring Britain to her knees, forcing Kaiser Bill to accept that his cherished surface fleet was a broken reed, and there was no alternative. Of course, the minor by-product of this desperate decision was to bring the United States into the war on the allied side. Was that the mission that the post Jutland German fleet actually accomplished?
"...krieg", not "...kreig".
こここここここここここけけけ
And then in WW2, battleships where rendered useless by aircraft carriers lol
Not in the west, they weren't. Naval warfare in WW2 involved far more than simply carriers in the Pacific.
This is a weak analysis and conclusion. Only because of having formidable naval power was there even a question of the relevance of merchant shipping. The Royal Navy did its most important job: acting as an effective deterrent against German naval agression - they sortied just once. I don’t know much about this topic but I think I know enough to identify an implausible conclusion such as ‘merchant ships were more important than naval ones’.
Yeah the British protected their convoys for the most part and kept the Germans bottled up and blockaded. The British had another important factor in their favor shipyards. They outproduced the Germans. They produced enough destroyers and other sub hunters to drive them off or kill them.
Imperialists be imperializing.
How about two ship that being seized after the Turks buy those ships?
Are you referring to _Goeben_ and _Breslau_ ?
@@mbryson2899 those were German ships given over to the Ottomans. What Hilmi is referring to are two dreadnoughts ordered and paid for by the Ottomans - one was complete at the start of WW1 (renamed as HMS Erin) with an Ottoman crew ready to take over the ship. Understandably the British Government decided to keep the ship for themselves (Winston Churchill being in charge of the Admiralty at the time) along with another dreadnought built for Brazil, renamed HMS Agincourt. The second Ottoman dreadnought was incomplete at the start of the war and was never finished. I have never read anything saying whether compensation was paid for the seized (or incomplete) ships.
Ff
I think that the sentiment of both wars could be said with two letters... 《 F~U 》
Brilliant!
The Germans were to stupid to realize that the Grand Fleet was to big to swallow. They should have put everything into their U-Boats from the very start. How much did a battleship like the SMS Kaiser with its cost of 44,997,000 mark compared to SM U-23 with a cost of 2,808,000. With no radar let alone sonar a submarine was almost invincible.
The Germans would have had to make that decision in 1916-1910. Capital ships are long lead times to build and get worked up. If the British saw Germany was making submarines instead of capital ships they might have cut down some of their production of battleships and made more cruisers and destroyers and worked harder on developing ASDIC. Subs prior to the start of WWI were an unknown quantity. Also without the High Seas fleet the British Grand Fleet might well have sailed up to German ports and bombarded the ports, dock, and shipyards devastating a large number of u-boats in port.
First!
You're third buddy 👍
@@Sh_rib awww
First what?🤨
Numpty alert!
@@seankellygaller6902 sorry to be the bringer of bad news
Jutland is pronounced “Yootland”